ANNUAL REPORTS, OMBUDSMAN, 1989-90 AND 1990-91
CONTENTS
Wednesday 18 December 1991
Committee budget
Annual reports, Ombudsman, 1989-90 and 1990-91
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Vice-Chair: Haeck, Christel (St. Catharines-Brock NDP)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North L)
Henderson, D. James (Etobicoke-Humber L)
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview NDP)
Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)
Scott, Ian G. (St George-St David L)
Ward, Margery (Don Mills NDP)
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP)
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC)
Clerk: Carrozza, Franco
Staff: Murray, Paul, Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1024 in room 151.
COMMITTEE BUDGET
The Chair: The first item on our agenda this morning is the review of the 1991-92 budget. Do we all have copies of the budget? Are there any comments or questions over the budget?
Mr Curling: Where is the budget?
The Chair: You have the budget in front of you, Mr Curling. It is the long one. At this time I would ask the clerk to itemize the budget.
Clerk of the Committee: The budget is for our meetings in the spring and is set for one week of meetings. It contains the travelling per diems and meal allowances and also the transportation for the members to come to Toronto. One of the largest items is the printing of the report. The committee prepares its annual report for the Legislature and this is the cost of the printing. The other items are Xeroxing of exhibits, purchasing of publications, books -- that is the Ombudsman Act -- and the catering is for the coffee, postage stamps and the like for the committee. It is very small.
The Chair: Are there any comments or questions on the budget as now presented by the clerk?
Ms Haeck: Just to quickly refresh my memory -- I think my Alzheimer's is taking over -- the week we have slated -- I assume it is intersession we are talking about -- is specifically for report writing?
The Chair: Yes, it is.
Ms Haeck: Very good.
The Chair: Any further comments or questions? Can I please have a motion to adopt the budget?
Mr Wessenger: I move we adopt the budget.
Motion agreed to.
ANNUAL REPORTS, OMBUDSMAN, 1989-90 AND 1990-91
The Chair: We now move to the second item on the agenda. I would like to welcome back Roberta Jamieson, the Ombudsman of Ontario. We will now open the floor for questions.
Mr Wessenger: Ms Jamieson, I do not expect you to elaborate today except in general terms. You were given areas of jurisdiction to deal with. What I would be interested in hearing from you is whether you would be interested in any change in that jurisdiction. I particularly ask you, bearing in mind the question of change in jurisdiction, what effect that change of jurisdiction would have on your workload, taking into account that it is realistic in today's economic situation, without a change in budget, that sort of context. I would like a general sort of comment from you. I wonder if you would be prepared at some time to put your suggestions in writing to the committee.
Ms Jamieson: I would just like to say good morning to you all, sago in my language, bonjour. I am delighted to be back with you this morning.
I agree with you that I would like an opportunity to reflect on that question. I have not sought expansion of the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. I have spent my first two years trying to get a handle on what we are doing and trying to improve the way we do it. It has been suggested to me by individuals, both inside and outside, that the Ombudsman's office think about whether it would be appropriate to deal with municipalities. That suggestion has been put to me, just to let you know some of the things that have been raised with me, Mr Wessenger.
At this stage I am not speaking for or against that idea. I know a number of municipalities are actively considering the idea of providing Ombudsman-like services, a place where the public can go to complain about dealings with the administration. You may know that my predecessor sought an expansion in the area of children's aid societies and also so that the Ombudsman's office could deal with complaints about hospitals. Those are some ingredients I will attempt to deal with when I respond to your question. I would like to take a little time. I would like to give it some thought.
Mr Wessenger: I realize that. It is more of a request, asking you to take a look at that, because it seems to me that it is not only in direct government areas that we have abuses of power; it is also in some of our government-funded agencies: for instance, as you say, municipalities, which are creatures of the province; hospitals which are closed, private corporations at this stage and do not have very much accountability, and of course children's aid societies are another type of agency. I think that would be of concern. I certainly would be interested in hearing your views on that.
1030
Ms Jamieson: I would be very interested in hearing the views of any members of the committee on that subject as well.
Ms Haeck: Let me expand on my views, because in the short time I have been in office, and also as a result of 16 years of being a public servant in the public library system dealing with the public coming to receive information and referral, I have encountered some strong concern around municipalities and agencies which people see as arms of the government. Obviously in the case of hospitals a large portion of their funding comes through the provincial government; likewise the school boards and other institutions.
While maybe not all individuals are as sophisticated in their understanding of the financial relationships and the description of arm's-length relationships, they feel their tax dollars are going to support those agencies, and when they encounter extraordinary obstacles in getting their complaints addressed, you create an awful lot of frustration among the public. It is not an easy situation, even for someone who is an elected member of Parliament, to try to address some of these situations, because there are obviously hurdles that we cannot easily overcome either.
I would like to address another issue that has been giving me some concern across government in general and actually follows up on some of the things Mr McLean has addressed in his earlier discussions with you. That is the issue of delay. In your dealings with the ministries, and that is obviously probably an area that you can speak to a lot more concretely than dealing with agencies like municipalities, when you are looking at complaints that take three or four years or longer to come to any kind of resolution, or even sometimes the limbo that complainants find themselves in, what do you see as the means to deal with this? Definitely this issue of having a case floating within the government for 14 years says there is something wrong with the system. Are there any suggestions on your part on how to address extraordinary delay?
Ms Jamieson: You are quite right. Delay is number two in what I have called the top 12 areas of complaint from the public, second only to wrong or unreasonable interpretation of information. Last year we looked at delay in a variety of areas. The annual report gives a couple of case studies to give you the flavour of the kinds of things we are dealing with. One had to do with a complaint about the Ontario Human Rights Commission, where after some considerable time an agreement was reached on a complaint, a settlement agreement was reached, a cheque was sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission --
Ms Haeck: Yes, I remember that case.
Ms Jamieson: -- but was not delivered until four months later.
Ms Haeck: That is right.
Ms Jamieson: At that time it was returned for insufficient funds.
Ms Haeck: Correct.
Ms Jamieson: The employer had gone into receivership in the interim. After reviewing it, I felt the governmental organization that was in possession of the cheque and had carriage of it should be held responsible. In the end they did issue a cheque for the amount of the settlement plus interest. That is one example.
There is another example, dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board, which had made a decision and some 18 months later had not implemented the decision. The amount of assistance that was supposed to go out to the worker had not gone out. We are talking about some $16,000 in benefits and accrued interest.
There are other examples, but those are two.
There are a number of things that I think contribute to delay. I am going to speak quite generally now. Some of it has to do with lack of communication. The proverbial left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Often when we call government officials we will find that a file just has not made its way from one side of the organization to another. Often we recommend procedural changes to streamline the way government agencies deal with issues. Maybe the system is overly complex. Maybe there is a good reason for the number of steps that issues have to go through and maybe there is not. We try to make recommendations for streamlining where we see that as a problem. Some of it simply is not following up. I try to point that out as well.
Ms Haeck: Can I just ask a quick supplementary on what you are addressing there? Do you find in your dealings with these ministries -- there are obviously various levels you encounter -- that what they have set up as a system really at times makes no sense at all?
Ms Jamieson: I do not know about no sense at all.
Ms Haeck: I should not phrase it that way possibly; someone is going to have a heart attack out there. But the amount of paper at times, as well as the various steps there are to go through, seem to be horrendous.
Ms Jamieson: At times it is overly complex. At times, as I say, there may be a good reason for it; at other times there may not. In those cases we try to draw it to their attention and suggest how they can improve it. There are also cases where, for example, we will have seen a promise of service and the level of service is not being delivered. We will also draw that to their attention.
There are quite a number of examples in the annual report of cases like that where we have recommended improvement. If I can, I will try to draw one out before we conclude this morning. I will ask if we can look for it. I will come back to that if I may.
Ms Haeck: Certainly.
Ms Jamieson: We found that was more widespread, but you are right that some of the systems do not make as much sense. I hate to paint government with a very broad brush, because there are some areas where government is doing a very good job. There are areas where dramatic improvements are required. We try to pinpoint those. I would like to give you some more examples to give you a flavour of the kinds of things we are finding. One of the things the office has not historically done which I think we ought to do -- we are trying to develop a system to do it -- is to take complaints as they come and see what kind of picture they paint together, as opposed to dealing with the complaints always on an individual basis.
Ms Haeck: So it is more systemic.
Ms Jamieson: More systemic, much more. If I see something happening in North Bay that is also happening in Windsor, Ottawa, Sudbury and Toronto, we have a problem that is throughout a department or an organization. I think we should be drawing those linkages and making recommendations that will affect the service at large. We are attempting to do that. We have not been set up to collect and interpret data in that fashion. It is proving to be a bigger job than I thought it was going to be, but we are getting there.
One example we have now found is a complaint dealing with the support and custody enforcement office. It is on page 37 of the report. Here we had a series of complaints that members of the public felt they were not getting the service they ought to receive from the support and custody enforcement office. This was a complaint brought forward by a member of the Legislature on behalf of a number of constituents. This is an example.
1040
We had complaints about the amount of time they were on a call-in queue, the fact that they were not getting timely service, were not getting information, and just felt they were encountering incredible obstacles in having the simplest of questions and inquiries answered. It was resulting in quite a frustrated group of members of the public and they came to us.
We looked at quite a number of the practices throughout an office, and at a number of offices. We recommended quite wide-ranging change and it was implemented. I am not saying that SCOE now has a clean bill of health and is perfect, but there is one example where a group of individuals came via their member of the Legislature and we did a broader investigation and recommended procedural change which improved the level of service.
One thing that is also happening that I am aware of is that the expectations of the public are very high and are on the increase. I tried to touch on this in the opening of the annual report. What I am seeing with the public that comes to us is more questioning and a higher level of expectation of what it expects to receive from provincial government administrators. I know we are in a time of economic recession. I know there are fiscal strains and fiscal policy issues that have to be dealt with. There is an economic climate out there. I know the public service is limited, but I also know the public feels very strongly that there is quite a gap in what it is expecting and what it is receiving.
One of the things our opinion polls that we did last spring shows is that the public does not feel well protected against unfairness by the provincial government administration generally. The more vulnerable the person is and the less educated the person is, the more he feels that way. They are coming to us in increasing numbers. I feel my responsibility is to come up with the best recommendations I can on the basis of the complaints I get so that the government administration has a chance to improve, even to prevent problems, so I can do my part to lessen that gap.
Mr Curling: One of the main reasons, Ms Jamieson, that we have you before the standing committee on the Ombudsman is that it is an opportunity for us all to understand the role of the Ombudsman of Ontario. It gives us the opportunity to ask questions. I will be one of the first to say that I do not understand fully the role of the Ombudsman or the role of the committee. In other words, as we work together, I would like us to come to a full understanding of your role.
Maybe I could ask you this just to begin: Do you have a clear picture of your role as the Ombudsman of Ontario and the role played by the Legislature and the responsibility you have towards the Legislature? Would you say you have a precise and clear picture, and also that the committee has a clear picture of your relationship, with the one and the other, both of us, meaning the committee and yourself, working together?
Ms Jamieson: First of all, I would not presume to speak for the committee's view. I would like to say though that, yes, I feel I have a clear picture of my role. The Legislature has been very clear, because in the case of my office, the office that receives complaints from the public about the public's dealings with the provincial government administration and investigates them, it has given me a piece of legislation, the Ombudsman Act, that sets out very clearly what my job is, what the restrictions are, the confidentiality requirements, when I am to report and to whom I am to report. It is at least annually, through the Speaker, and that report is referred normally to this committee.
You will recall last April we had quite a discussion on our role, both in committee sessions and in another orientation session informally. I will try not to be too long-winded and I will just recap how I see that role. I will let you know at the outset that I am very much guided by the act in this.
My job, first and foremost, is to receive complaints, investigate them and arrive at some findings. My findings may be that, yes, there is a supportable complaint here. Something happened to this individual or group of individuals that was unfair or unjust and they were treated rudely or improperly discriminated against or whatever in their dealings with government administrators. If I find the complaint is not supportable, I put those findings clearly in writing and let the member of the public know why I have reached that finding. If there is something there I feel was unfair and unreasonable, I also commit that to writing and tell the governmental organization involved how I see the facts and the recommendations and what it should do to correct the problem. I encourage them to adopt my recommendations; if they do not, I hear again from them. They may have some suggestions for modifying them.
I can proceed through government right up through a deputy minister, a minister through to the Premier, always trying to get a resolution to the individual's complaint, not as an advocate for the individual, but as an advocate for fairness, somewhere in between government and the individual trying to find a solution. If I cannot achieve it even by advancing and persuading the minister, the deputy or the Premier, I then have the option of pursuing the matter with the Legislature. It is at that stage that I am obliged to come before this committee and present my case, after a great deal of work, deliberate care and consideration.
My objective will be very clear. I will be looking for the Legislature to support this in getting the recommendation implemented by government. I know it will be my responsibility to demonstrate to you that I have fully complied with my mandate in my findings and my recommendations. I know you are going to want to confirm that. I know you will want to assure yourselves that I have done all the things I have said I am going to do. I know you will want to confirm that I have reviewed the facts, reviewed the ministry's response, and if you are satisfied I have done all these things, of course my hope is that you will support my recommendations.
It is of course the option of the committee to take the action it sees fit. I do not think it is my responsibility to second-guess the committee, but at that stage it is really the potential of the ultimate public scrutiny by the Legislature that provides the Ombudsman with her strongest weapon in encouraging government to make appropriate settlements with its citizens every day. The fact that the public eye -- it is often called by ombudsmen "the lamp of scrutiny" -- can be brought to bear on government unfairness is the most powerful weapon the Legislature has seen fit to give to the Ombudsman.
1050
That is one part of the relationship. Another part is that I know the committee also has, in the act, an opportunity to set regulations. They do and have set regulations in the past to guide the Ombudsman in the exercise of her mandate. There is one set of regulations now. I know that in arriving at that the committee will want, from receiving complaint letters from members of the public, or however, to inform itself so that it can talk to me about procedures and assist me in improving my procedures so I provide the highest service to the public.
Mr Curling: The reality is that this is a political arena, and even here the setting is a political committee, balanced in a way that the government has a majority of members sitting here, and also the second party and the third party have their representatives. That is a political arena itself. The ultimate part of all this is that the Legislature has that supreme -- if you want to call it supreme -- power itself.
My job, as a member of this committee is, first, to understand the role of the committee and to understand the role of the Ombudsman and its reporting procedure. I see us as the arm of the Legislature. As a matter of fact, we are the Speaker's representatives. As you report to the Speaker, and you just had your annual report, then the Speaker deals with it by sending it to his group of spokespeople to deal with. I just want to have that understanding.
The people should know that too. If there are procedures we feel are not followed, or as one member has raised that the time to deal with these things is an extended length of time, I think it is almost vulgar to know that a case can take 14 years. I cannot see what complexity -- I am not putting the blame on you -- there could be that it could not be settled in a much shorter time. People would feel, as you said, that justice could not be done if it is delayed that long.
A tremendous number of people out there have come to me in my constituency office and stated, "I have this problem," and then I would tell them the avenue in which they could go. If the problem is of a human rights nature or if it is the Workers' Compensation Board or if it is the Ombudsman, most responses -- I hear it quite often -- would be: "I don't want to go there. I don't think they will deal with me" -- they said, "fairly" sometimes, but mostly they say, "It takes such a long time."
I think as a committee we have to almost make sure we know what is wrong. There is something wrong in the process that we have set up bureaucracy upon bureaucracy upon bureaucracy to solve a problem. By the time that individual, who has no access to highly paid lawyers or to get it into the courts, has gone through all this, he has lost everything he would have had.
One of my main reasons expressly for this exercise, we want to call it that, that we go through, which I so appreciate, is our getting together to understand the Ombudsman's role. I would like to leave this session with a full understanding. I think there is a lot of improvement that can be done with regard to that. Having said all that, one of the things you said was that you extended wanting to have a closer relationship with members of Parliament and their staff. In your report you stated that you have met with members of Parliament. I remember meeting with you once, officially, some time ago when a group called at your office. I do not know how many members here have met like that, but is this a regular program, or did I not respond to some request and did not come because I did not meet with the Ombudsman group? I asked my staff if they had met with the Ombudsman. They said no, they have not met with the Ombudsman. Could you tell me how many members of Parliament you have met?
Ms Jamieson: You have raised quite a number of issues. One is the need for improvement in government's dealing with complaints. I am not sure what the 14 years refers to. I do not have any complaints that old. As you might expect, I generally check these things on an ongoing basis, but in particular when I am coming to speak with this committee.
We have developed internally some fairly stringent standards and we are developing more for dealing on a timely basis with complaints that we get. You are quite right that by the time people come to us, we are the place of last resort. They are often -- and I would be too -- frustrated, tired of going sometimes from pillar to post, going to this government office and that government office. By the time they get to me, they have exhausted all their avenues and they want some action and they want it now.
We try to set fairly stringent time limits for dealing with complaints. You are absolutely right, as well, that we can improve. I have a director of investigations and legal services who has been in the post for less than a year. I can be very blunt. One of her targets is to get the process for us dealing with complaints as streamlined as possible, at the same time ensuring fairness in our dealings with complaints.
Sometimes complainants will ask for two or three months to provide additional information. Sometimes government will do the same. That draws out the process. That being said, sometimes we take too long. I am looking for ways to improve on that.
If you have any suggestions I would be happy to hear them, because it troubles me. If some of the reaction you are getting from your constituents is that they do not feel their complaint will be dealt with fairly or quickly by my office, I would like to hear about those, as and when you hear them.
Mr Curling: I am sorry. I am not saying your office. I am just saying in general that they feel their complaint will not be dealt with in time with any of the bureaucracy.
Ms Jamieson: With anyone. I see. Yes, when people come to me, that is a commonly held view.
On the second question on meetings with members, You are right: I very much value the relationship my office has with members of the Legislature. I will just run through some of the things I have done, in the last year especially, to enhance that relationship.
Members of the public will know that they can come to me directly or through their member of the Legislature to raise complaints. I have written to all members personally. I have met with and appeared at every one of the caucuses, very early on. I have offered meetings with constituency assistants and MPPs throughout the province. I have conducted two district workshops with constituency assistants, where the two senior members of my staff who have been designated to act as liaison with the members of the Legislature appeared and conducted the sessions. They are here today and I will introduce them to you. LaVerne Monette is the director of investigations and legal services and Fiona Crean is the director of community access and intake. They are two senior members of my staff who are assigned, as part of their responsibilities, to deal with enhancing the relationship between my office and members of the Legislature.
Mr Curling: My question is, though, have they met with any -- let's take a sample -- of the members here at all?
1100
Ms Jamieson: I have certainly met with each of the caucuses. I do not know if you were in attendance. I cannot remember that. You would remember that better than I would. There were quite a few faces. As I met with all the caucuses, there were indeed some new faces, as you might expect. If it would be helpful to you, I can give you a list of --
Mr Curling: No, I just wondered if I was missing something.
Ms Jamieson: Perhaps.
Mr Curling: If there are times set up for that, it is extremely important that if these meetings are with the Ombudsman and members of Parliament, which I saw in your report, and if I am missing -- if something is happening here, technology is so fast with all this E-mail that maybe it is glossed over.
Ms Jamieson: If you or your staff would like at any time, I can -- as a matter of fact, after today, since you voiced this, I will have one of my directors follow this up with your staff.
Mr Curling: No, I do not want it to look like an individual complaint. I wanted to see if there was an overall, general meeting for members of Parliament.
Ms Jamieson: Yes, there has been.
Mr Curling: It is fine that people are meeting, but I have a couple of questions too. I know you may not have completed that part of your answer to my question, but I want to move on to the French-language area, to French-language services. What progress have you made in that respect? Are there any changes? What are some of the problems you see in the area of French-language services? What improvements do you see that should be done and how is the public responding to the services we are now offering?
Ms Jamieson: Last day I spoke to the reports that have been sent out. You know we make the annual reports available, the ones we are dealing with today, 1989-90 and 1990-91, in both English and French. You asked me last day about the distribution of reports in French. I am able to report to you that 779 reports in all were mailed to provincial members, federal MPs, federal organizations, provincial cabinet ministers, constituency offices, deputy ministers of provincial ministries, francophone community groups and francophone media. We have quite a call for them, primarily in the northern offices. I will not go into the numbers of English reports.
The other part of your question is French-language services. I am not sure if you are inquiring about staffing and that kind of thing. I would be happy to speak to that, if that is what you are inquiring about, and the availability of bilingual services.
Mr Curling: Yes. What services are being increased? What services have been expanded?
Ms Jamieson: You may know that we have a toll-free line throughout the province. Services are available both in English and in French. I have nine district offices throughout the province. So far only Windsor, London and Kenora do not have bilingual capacity, which means that North Bay, Ottawa, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Timmins have bilingual staff on site. The other offices would have the services available through our Toronto office.
I have two bilingual people on my intake staff, one dealing with non-jurisdictional inquiries and one dealing with jurisdictional inquiries. Each of my investigative teams has a designated bilingual position. Two teams are currently without, and we will be recruiting for that. One of my legal counsel is designated. I also have recently designated one of my supervisors in the newly created community access and intake department as a bilingual position. You may know from the reports that I place quite an emphasis on providing genuine access, and we are making some improvements in that area. Again, I am sure we have more to do.
Mr Curling: Are you doing anything with regard to illiteracy? There is a high rate of functional illiteracy in the French community. Is there any outreach program to get information to them?
Ms Jamieson: You may know that in the past we have done speaking engagements and so on. I would say we have not done them in as strategic a fashion as we might, and that is one of the parts of our work plan right now. My district offices are finalizing outreach strategies for each of the districts in the province. Before we did that, we had a very hard look at the makeup of the province so that we would know in which districts we have a concentration of francophone public, in which districts we have a disabled community as a concentration, in which areas we have an aboriginal population, to target our outreach activities specifically to the district. We are preparing those as I speak. They should be done in, I believe, mid-February so that we will do not only outreach as we have done in the past but in a more strategic way.
You have hit one of the challenges for us there, illiteracy. How do you deal with that? One of the things we are doing is trying to revamp our materials. The other is to make more and more available as we can. This is the first year we have tried to make our report available on audio tape. I have that information for you actually.
Yes, those are the challenges, and they cost money, frankly. We are trying to look at what we can do strategically and within the resources we have available to meet the very clear needs, not only of the public who speak French but also members of the public who may speak Cree, Oji-Cree and so on. They are all important parts of the public who do not know and do not access my services as much as they could.
Mr Curling: Could you elaborate a little bit more on the native outreach program you have?
Ms Jamieson: Yes. I will be specific. This is one area where I have some specific plans in mind. Before I share them with you, I would like to say this, though. There are a number of ways of making sure my office is accessible to all the public. I think the most successful way we can do it is by looking at it on a number of fronts. The public is not going to access me if they do not know I exist, so that is one way, and with public education and the outreach activities we are trying to make sure they do.
One of the specific initiatives we have planned in the very near future involves a trip by me to the north. In the first week of February I will be going up the James Bay coast, accompanied by my district officer and director, and we will be going into the communities of Moose Factory, Fort Albany, Kashechewan, Attawapiskat and Peawanuck. That will be a first trip. That will not be the only one. As follow-up to that -- because I do not think it is enough just to go in and say, "Here we are," and go back to your office and wait for the complaints -- there will be towards the end of 1992 another visit by the district officer, and twice yearly thereafter for the next two years, to make sure my services are known and accessible.
The other thing we have done and will be doing more of is that we have, for example, gone to the friendship centre in Sault Ste Marie with respect to aboriginal complaints. We have not sat in our office and waited for people to come to us. We have gone to the friendship centre and set up an intake clinic. I hope to do more of that elsewhere, including in Toronto, for example.
1110
We have an office in Toronto, but I think our obligation is to get out there and do more, to go to the people as well. That is one way, to do the public education, the outreach, and to do it strategically with good materials in a number of languages, to have a telecommunications device for the deaf and to do things like print business cards in Braille, which we are doing for the first time.
The other thing we need to do is internal. I need to make sure that when people access us we know how to receive their complaints, that we are sensitive, that we are knowledgeable, that they see, themselves, that my office represents the Ontario public. We have done a few things in that regard too and they are all part of how you make an office like this responsive to Ontario as a whole, including the aboriginal community.
There is cultural sensitivity training -- we are just on the third part of that, which is very much about employment equity -- proactive recruitment and bias re interviewing training we have done with managers inside my office. All of my staff, not two or three alone, are responsible for dealing with the people coming in the door. I think I will stop there.
Mr Curling: I know I might lose my turn, and I am not even looking at the Chairman, because I think he is going to cut me off soon, but let me ask you a question outside the native aspect and outside the French aspect too. You spoke about the response time of ministers. I think it would be extremely helpful if the committee could be kept informed of all those ministers who exceed the response time to submit their report to you or respond to you on any kind of inquiry you have.
The reason I am saying that is that it would be helpful for the committee to know which ministries are not co-operating or are having difficulties -- maybe it is not a deliberate situation -- because we have the ultimate responsibility to the electorate out there to see that these things function. Of course, we have the Ombudsman who is making sure he or she can identify these discrepancies, but do you think it would be helpful for us to have have those ministries that are not co-operating, those cases where you have to go beyond the ministries to the Premier in order to get a response, because then we will know who we are dealing with?
Ms Jamieson: We touched on this a bit on the first or the second day we met. With respect to response times, as I mentioned, I was hoping to do two lists in this annual report, the one we are talking about today, one the gold star list and the other what I call the "words of encouragement required" list. I tried very hard to come up with those lists in a fair way. I am still trying, and as I mentioned before -- and some of the ministries out there listening might want to listen real hard -- I am going to be commenting on things like response time, how long it takes them to answer a complaint I have put forward from the public, and whether they need words of encouragement or whether they need recognition.
The difficulty I have so far in doing this is that it is easy to say, "It took ministry X 15 days to answer, ministry Y 65 days to answer and ministry M 100 days to answer." In and of itself that does not tell you a whole lot, because you then say: "Was the complaint that went to the ministry that answered in seven days an easily defined complaint? Did it have to do with lateness in receiving a social assistance cheque? Did the complaint that took 100 days to respond to provide a series of allegations that required extensive investigation within the ministry to give me the information with which to make a decision?"
The difficulty I am having is in interpreting the data correctly, because it would be very easy for me to say, and I try and say, that in three weeks I require a response from the ministries. I try and judge each response as it comes in on whether it is justified to take longer than three weeks or not. I am struggling with that, Mr Curling, but I am determined to comment on it in this year's report. That will be made available to the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: I have lots more to go.
The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions?
Ms Haeck: I actually have a bit of a supplementary to Mr Curling. Through the government caucus we have had some discussion about getting better consultation going with the native community, to be aware of their individual concerns. I know that, say, in Attawapiskat, the Attorney General's office has a special program and it is working rather well. But around what you intend to do, have you made the local communities aware already that you are going to be coming in three months hence, or two months hence? I know that sometimes because of the geography it is difficult, unlike picking up the phone here and saying, "There's this event. Can you get over here?" You have some real problems in getting people from one place to another, or in information flow. Can you comment on that?
Ms Jamieson: We have been in contact with the communities. I have written to every one of the chiefs. Also, my director of community access and intake has had telephone contact with all the communities already. We picked the date that would be convenient for all. I am preparing a special bit of information for the trip for which we have already arranged translation into syllabics.
It is extremely important to me that we make the most of the visit. These visits, as you may know, take considerable resources. We will be not only providing information but listening and taking complaints on site so that we make the most of the time we will have in each of the communities. We are trying to organize in each of the communities a mix of meetings, in co-operation with community leaders, with band councils, in the schools and community open meetings, and we are finalizing those details right now.
I cannot tell you how much I am looking forward to this visit. I have been to a number of communities in the north, fly-in communities and so on, and I am very well aware that they have need to speak to the Ombudsman from time to time. I am determined that they see a public face to the office so they will access our services, and that we go back and reinforce, that we not just do a one-time-only visit.
Mr B. Murdoch: Would you like me to wrap up?
The Chair: Please, if you would not mind.
Mr B. Murdoch: Maybe Alvin will not let me. First of all, I would like to thank you for coming. You have been here three times now and I appreciate that. I think we have learned pretty well what your role is. I know you are pretty sure of what your role is and I think we should be. I still find it difficult to know where we fit into this whole thing. We have some time between now and the spring session. We have some days set aside. I guess what we are going to have to do is sit down among ourselves and read the act properly and try to figure out just where we really fit in with you, because we get complaints from time to time and we have to find out how to deal with them with your office.
I do not think we really want to have to have you back here to deal with each individual complaint we may get because we do not know whether it is legitimate or whatever, but we have to deal with them. We have to see where we fit in this whole scope of things. As we have said before in the last few meetings, if we do not like the act, we have to change the act. We are the legislators you deal with. I guess that is what we are going to have sit down and do.
We have some new faces. I know Christel Haeck was not here when we seemed to get all frustrated and say, "Where do we sit with you?" In the past, we have had some problems -- at least, we think we have had, anyway -- in getting information. Maybe we cannot get that information. I do not know. I think if it boils down to the fact that we have directed staff to get some information from your office and you feel you cannot give us that information, I think we have to come back in a closed meeting and sit down and say: "We think we should have this. Tell us why we shouldn't." Maybe we will have to get specific. Eventually, it will all be sorted out.
1120
I still do not know where we sit, to be honest with you. I know where you sit, and that is fine. I have no problem with that with this committee. I guess we are going to have to do it among ourselves. If we do not like the way it is, we will have to change it. That is what it is all about.
One final thing is that maybe to make our relationship so much better, you should take us with you to James Bay, but I would rather go in the summer. If you are going in February --
Ms Jamieson: You would rather go in blackfly season, would you, Bill?
Mr B. Murdoch: Yes, I think I would rather go then than in the winter. February in James Bay does not turn me on. It is bad enough up in Grey right now. We have lots of snow.
Ms Jamieson: That is where I guess I am lucky, because I enjoy this weather. I still have my parka. If I can fit it, I will have that on to go up in February.
Mr B. Murdoch: If you just hit away from the fly season, either before or just after it, then maybe we could go then. I thought I would throw that in. It is just a suggestion.
Ms Haeck: An alternative is Australia.
Mr B. Murdoch: I thought there was one in Geneva we were supposed to go to.
Interjection: Vienna.
Mr B. Murdoch: Vienna, okay. Maybe we will all go together to that one, but hopefully we will have got our problems sorted out by then. I do not think we are sorted out. We are going to have problems, and I can see all of us jumping at the bit here. If you want me to wrap up, I will give it back to you. All I really want to say today is that I appreciate your coming. I think we still have some things to work out, but I think we have to come back here and say, "Where did we get, how far did we get, and where have we got to go?"
Ms Jamieson: If I could just add a word or two, yes, in the last year or two, there has been information requested, including files and so on. No, I cannot provide it. It has nothing to do with a lack of willingness, I assure you. It has to do with the confidentiality requirements that the Legislature has seen fit to put on my office. If between meetings there are questions or concerns that staff of committee have had, I have designated LaVerne Monette, the director of investigations and legal services, who is also here today, as the contact person for committee, clerk and counsel to work out any glitches. They can meet and discuss the restrictions, the parameters of the act and help clarify in that way. I am happy to commit to those meetings, and I know she is happy to attend them. I want to make that undertaking again to the Chair. I think the clerk and staff know one another, so maybe we can set that kind of meeting in the interim, if it would help.
The Chair: That actually raises a point I was just going to raise. After this meeting, if there are any comments or questions, I am sure that if we write them out, you will be more than happy to respond to them.
Ms Jamieson: Certainly.
The Chair: Mr Curling, you had something brief.
Mr Curling: There are certain ministers who, because of their portfolio, almost require you to be in contact with them quite often. Do you meet regularly with, specifically, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Health, and especially the minister of human rights and race relations? Do you meet regularly with that minister? Those are the complaints I get with regard to the handling of people's cases out there. Have you had the opportunity of meeting with those ministers regularly?
Ms Jamieson: With some ministries we set up regularized meetings.
Mr Curling: But I am speaking about the ministers themselves.
Ms Jamieson: The ministers themselves? Up until this time, I meet only as and when I have complaints that require their attention. Over the last two years, actually, I have met with a number of them, first, just to touch base at the outset of my appointment and theirs, and thereafter, when I have complaints, files that require their attention. Are you suggesting we consider doing something more on a regularized basis?
Mr Curling: I was just responding to a statement of fact you made. As you say, as the community and our society become more diverse -- you did not say it, but you were alluding to that -- and complex, we find services that are offered to people that are either misunderstood or confusing. It is just to take a great leap in order that you meet regularly to say, "These are the problems I am facing out there." As a committee, we know that too. It is that kind of support we can give. That is why I ask if you do so. Maybe if the recommendation is outside your area, at some time we may then ask the ministers to come before the committee to say that these are some of the cases we are seeing. I would like the system to work for the people, especially those who are more vulnerable in our society as we become more complex. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for allowing me that extra little time.
The Chair: There is no problem there, Mr Curling. Are there any more comments or questions?
Mr Curling: I want to thank the Ombudsman for coming here. I really have so many questions that come up after we ask one question. There are many more and I am looking forward to having a one-to-one with you. I think I could get more answers from you.
Ms Jamieson: Thank you.
Ms Haeck: I have one short question. I have not at this point asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food for information in this area, but I will set about doing it. I understand from people in my own area of St Catharines-Brock that there is a case your office has been dealing with relating to an agricultural issue. It is a federal-provincial agreement relating to a grape pull out and replacement program. I know there were some 20-odd farmers who were somewhat concerned about some aspects of that program. Possibly Ms Monette can get back to me at a later time, to find out where this is, because they were concerned. This is some months ago, but they still had not heard one way or another. Do you rule on federal-provincial matters? You would be ruling basically on the provincial end of it. If there is a federal component, would you get involved at all?
Ms Jamieson: For obvious reasons, I will not respond to the particulars of that.
Ms Haeck: I appreciate that.
Ms Jamieson: On federal and provincial, that has been a bit of a challenge. I think it will be more of a challenge, because there are so many programs that are available by virtue of federal-provincial agreement. To date I have only examined the complaint in terms of the provincial role in decision-making or in action on a particular matter. Sometimes that is easier than others, as you might expect. I see this as a real challenge for the future. I do not know whether the committee has discussed this matter, but I and my colleagues across the country have been suggesting in the strongest of terms to the federal government that it consider the appointment of a federal Ombudsman, because I have nowhere to refer complaints that I get from people about federal programs, federal issues. They go to their member and they go to the government department concerned, but there is no federal Ombudsman, particularly in the field of aboriginal affairs. My colleagues and I are really lobbying hard for this appointment. As I see more and more federal-provincial programs that may be the subject of complaint or concern, I really do not have a counterpart to work with and it makes it awkward and difficult. On the specifics, we will have a look at that and be back in touch with you.
Ms Haeck: I appreciate your comments because I anticipate that it is a thorny issue because of the two levels of government being involved. I also appreciate the fact that Ms Monette will get back to me.
The Chair: In closing, there is something I would like you to supply to us at a future date if you can. Can we get a copy of the results of your survey? You have mentioned that a few times.
Ms Jamieson: There is only a summary in the annual report. There is a fuller version and I would be pleased to provide that to the committee. If you will just let us know how many copies, I will be happy to provide it through the clerk to the committee. It is a very interesting survey, and once you have had a look at it, you may want to talk about the findings. Further, it raises some questions in my mind, but I will hold any further discussions until you have had an opportunity to review it in its entirety.
The Chair: I want to thank you for that. I am sure we will only need one copy, as the clerk can make copies. I want to thank you for appearing before us. This is your third time, and I know we have taken a lot of your time. I want to thank you on behalf of all members present. I also want to wish you and your staff a merry Christmas.
Ms Jamieson: In my language, Nyaweh means thank you, and on New Year's in my community we say New Yah.
The committee adjourned at 1132.