REVIEW OF OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
CONTENTS
Thursday 27 August 1992
Review of Office of the Ombudsman
John P. Kruger
Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies
Diane Cresswell, manager, communications
Kim Way, summer student; youth in care, Perth County Children's Aid Society
Ray Muldoon, executive director, Norfolk County Family and Children's Services
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
*Chair / Président: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Drainville, Dennis (Victoria-Haliburton ND)
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Henderson, D. James (Etobicoke-Humber L)
Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)
*Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)
*Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)
*Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
*Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Christopherson, David (Hamilton Centre ND) for Ms Akande
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L) for Mr Henderson
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND) for Mr Johnson
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND) for Mr Drainville
*McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mrs Witmer
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Ms Haeck
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mr Murdoch
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND) for Mr Duignan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Murray, Paul, committee counsel and research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1011 in room 151.
REVIEW OF OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
The Chair (Mr Mark Morrow): We're here this morning to discuss the review of the Office of the Ombudsman, as a motion was passed in the House July 23 allowing us to do so.
JOHN P. KRUGER
The Chair: This morning we have appearing before us John Kruger, chairperson of the Ontario Municipal Board. Good morning and welcome. I would appreciate it if at the end of your presentation you would allow some time for questions and/or comments. Begin when you will.
Mr John P. Kruger: I thought it might be beneficial to you to leave most of my appearance here to questions, because you've got all your research in front of you and no doubt there are some pertinent questions you'd want to ask.
I've only got four very brief comments to make. With regard to the Ontario Municipal Board and its relationship with the Ombudsman, we have no problems with that, because as an adjudicative board, we are not a regulatory board. If an individual is aggrieved with any of our decisions -- well, I think it's fair to say that anyone who loses before the OMB is aggrieved, and they have a whole series of ways in which they can get redress, as they see it in their own eyes.
It's very common for us to get letters from the local councillor, from the mayor, from MPPs, and these are not letters telling us how we ought to have decided the case but on behalf of individual constituents. I guess the elected officials also act as a form of Ombudsman. We get many letters if people are aggrieved. They send the letters to the minister, and just more recently they have been sending them to the Premier.
We also have in our act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, in section 43 -- because a body such as ours is very similar to the courts: We hold hearings, everything is done under oath, we take evidence as cross-examination, and finally we are obliged to render a decision in writing that's appealable to the courts on a question of law, or it's appealable back to the board. Under section 43 of our act, we have the right to alter, revise or to do anything with the decision. We get a lot of requests where people feel aggrieved, and it will come back to us. Most of the letters I get from elected officials and from the individuals themselves say, "I think you ought to take another look at this." We will then, if necessary, make a motion to hold another hearing if, under the narrow limits of section 43, we feel they have been aggrieved.
The Ombudsman, of course, has looked at some of our decisions, not from the point of view of the veracity of the decision but perhaps of process. The only thing I can recall where the Ombudsman and our board have come into some dialogue has been over this question: We don't have enough members, and I try to keep the backlog down but I've got to have two members sitting on a hearing. They raised the question, what if they can't agree? I said, "When that happens, then let's talk," but in the meantime they generally do agree.
So as far as the Ombudsman's role with the board is concerned, it's somewhat like a PR exercise. If a person is aggrieved, all our records are public, everything is public, and any complaint goes right into the public record. In fact, if an individual complains about the evidence of some other witness, then that's all on the public record.
As far as systemic reviews are concerned, as a board we're subject to internal audit. We're not frightened by that, because they merely look at financial matters, structure, things of that type. Nobody ever looks at our decisions, and we've been a board that's been around since -- well, 1932 is the genesis of our board in its present form. There is no interference with any of our decisions.
We are subject to the Provincial Auditor, who can come in, and generally that is also dealing with structure, financial matters, making sure that we do indeed comply with regulations and so forth.
We're subject to appearance before the public accounts committee and we're subject to appearance before the committee dealing with agencies, boards and commissions. They all have a lot of questions, and we have no problem with that. I've never encountered any case where any elected official, ever, has questioned the fact that we have a decision and we've made that decision and that we ought to alter the decision. I've never had that. In fact, if that did come, we would be the first to complain most bitterly about it. It's just not going to happen.
The recommendation-denied was a question put to us. There is no body of elected officials that should ever, in my view, review the decision of a tribunal. They have every right to question process. They have every right, I believe, to ask that that tribunal be accountable. But the way it's done has got to be very carefully thought through because, while we take a lot of power -- there are about 100 acts we adjudicate and we take power from those acts -- the fact of the matter is that perception is reality, and how we behave is even more important than any power we have.
Every day of my life as the chair of this board I make sure that the independence of the board is never in question. Nor have I had occasion, even though we now respond to the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- we've recently brought out two decisions that rip that ministry to pieces; this is on individual cases; we weren't looking at the total thing. We were critical of the ministry, and I'm sure it did not like our decisions. But that's the independence which one has to enjoy. Now, I've heard nothing about that. I've heard a lot of rumblings, but there would never be any question of that decision, because the perception is reality.
One of the most important things we have too is the media. If there's any decision by this board that upsets the community, you can believe it'll be in the media and we'll be questioned very thoroughly about that.
One of our biggest problems these days is under section 43 on affordable housing. It used to be that I tried having only one member on those hearings. In something like about 60% of those cases where the individual ratepayer group or community group lost, they were appealing under section 43. Then I put two members on and it dropped to 25%. If you've got two members of a board sitting there the perception is, "At least they talk to one another," whereas if you have one individual it's a little different.
The only other remark, based upon some considerable municipal experience both as an elected official -- I try to not show that on my résumé when I'm applying for jobs within the bureaucracy -- and also as the CAO of Metro for some 15 years, when I see a question raised about expansion of the Ombudsman to municipalities and school boards, look, that's a quagmire. I can tell you, if you ever did that, you would never have enough staff within the Ombudsman's office. There is a principle in these things that says, if you can't do it totally and properly, don't even try it, because you raise the expectation of people.
1020
We get a lot of complaints about municipal politicians, a lot of complaints. I've got two on my desk. One of them I happened to write this morning in response, where this person lost his case. He was absolutely convinced, because he ran for office and lost, that there was a vendetta against him, and this is normal.
That's about all I have to say. I throw it open to your committee. No doubt you've got a lot of questions. I've been the chair of regulatory boards. I've also been the chair of the pension commission and so forth, so I might be able to give you some advantage, but we're not mad at the Ombudsman.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that thoughtful presentation. Any questions or comments?
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Thank you very much, Mr Kruger, for your presentation today. I found it very refreshing, because you have a very open attitude towards the government and the public in regard to the operation of your tribunal. You've had one of the most important tribunals there is in Ontario today.
What I find refreshing about your presentation is that you seem to be able to distinguish quite readily between the independence of your decision-making powers -- certainly you respect and defend that, as you should and we all do here -- but also have a very clear understanding of the fiscal and process accountability you have to the public.
That's a problem we're grappling with here, because we in this committee feel, from the reports we're receiving from the Ombudsman, that she doesn't distinguish that, she doesn't see that difference, and somehow wants to guard any scrutiny of process and fiscal responsibility, as we would call it. I'm almost wondering whether maybe, for some reason, there's some little germ hiding in the crevices or something of the Ombudsman's office that attacks these people as they come in. You've both had very important agencies of government, but there's got to be accountability. I don't know how to account for that.
Your view is very refreshing. Maybe you can shed some light on why you don't feel threatened when an MPP calls you and says, "I'm not quite sure that person had his day in court." You don't see that as a threat, because I'm not calling you to say, "You made the wrong decision."
Mr Kruger: I think the best way I can answer you, Mr Ramsay, is by saying we all come from somewhere. I come from a different experience to Roberta. Roberta is a lawyer; I'm not a lawyer. My areas of expertise were psychology and economics. I have been an elected official, and I know the importance it had when I went out to the voters to make sure that whatever money was spent, the staff we employed, had to be accountable. I've been a bureaucrat for a very long time, and I have, as a result of that experience, no problem in seeing the difference between keeping one's accountability and at the same time ensuring that there is no interference in your operation.
The Ombudsman is a lawyer, came from that experience. It is my experience, even with the lawyers who are on my board, that they are a little more hyper about these things than I am.
I've found that the best way of resolving issues of this type, Mr Ramsay, is to talk about them; for the committee and the individual involved to talk about them. In my experience in this government and at Metro, I've had many occasions where there have been people who have been at the commissioner level or that where they've have problems. I've said: "The first thing you do, don't write memos. Go and sit down with the people and talk about an accommodation."
It's very important, though, that it be done in such a way that the perception is that a person comes with open hands but with very strong views. "Thou shalt not go over this line." When it comes to accountability, there are more ways of getting at that than just saying, "We're going to put the auditor on to you." That can be, to some people who are not skilled in government, one of the most frightening things. Auditors don't frighten me. Goodness me, I've been around. Maybe it's a product of age too.
I think it's just a matter of perception, and you must understand that everything we do at our board is in the public domain. It's there because if it goes to court, it's going to be in the public domain.
There is obviously a very clear role. I have seen, within ministries, that when an individual bureaucrat may have some power, it can be abused. You need an Ombudsman, there's no question about that, and the Ombudsman has to have freedom to investigate, to ask the questions and to do those things. But when it comes to how much money they spend, that's something -- again you must have some type of accountability in that area. It's how you get there that's the important thing.
Mr Ramsay: You may have really hit the nail on the head here that where we come from of course has great influence on our views and perceptions. It may be that you have the confidence in the people of Ontario that they can distinguish between those two principles, that they still see you as an independent decision-maker but at the same time understand your fiscal and professional accountability.
Maybe that's the problem right now with the Ombudsman, and we are going to be speaking with her this afternoon. I agree with you. I've been one on this committee who has really pushed to keep trying to further invitations. We are going to be getting together, and I think it's going to be a very productive session. Hopefully, through that understanding, we who are elected officials could share that, that we know the public can distinguish that. I think the public wants that accountability on one hand, but also wants us to respect and defend that independence of decision-making.
Mr Kruger: Mr Ramsay, you see, from the experience I've had, I have no problem at all -- if I'm appearing before an elected official body, no matter where it is, be it in public or in camera, if I think that you've gone over the line, I'll tell you. I have no problem with that. I have enough confidence in myself and in the support of the acts.
After all, there are conflict-of-interest guidelines put out by the Premier. No person on the executive council, even in previous governments, has ever called our board to say, "Look, you ought to alter that decision," or "You'd better do something" -- nobody. If it happened, not only would I tell the committee, but I wouldn't hesitate to tell the press.
Mr Ramsay: Sure.
Mr Kruger: But first of all, I'd try to make my accommodation with the government. I want my job.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ramsay. Mr McLean, please.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Good morning, Mr Kruger. It's good to see you again.
You indicated in your remarks with regard to the reviews of some of the OMB decisions that -- I'm not sure whether it's correct or not that you said there had been none that had been changed after your recommendations had been made and that the OMB has the final decision.
Mr Kruger: No. What happens is the members will make a decision. If there's an appeal against that decision to the board, under section 43 we have the right to review or to alter.
We take a look at that decision and we listen to the representations that have been made. If there's an obvious, manifest error of fact or law, if there's some information that could not be given at the hearings that has since come to light, or if there's a question about apprehension of bias on the part of the member, if it has something to do with the conduct of the member and if we're convinced, then we will go forward and we will hold a motion with a different member where all of the parties can come together and say their piece. If it looks as though there's some substance to what this person says, we'll hold a complete new hearing. Now, that happens. It doesn't happen too often, but it does happen.
Another device we use is that if the individual, in coming forward, feels aggrieved and it's being grieved against some other party, then what we will do is send the letter to the other party and say: "Look, this is what we're being told. Tell us what you think." There are many devices.
Also, on the conduct of members, I will get personal and confidential letters coming to me. I get a few of these on a simple thing such as this: There's one little door out of the council chamber -- we generally ask for retiring rooms -- but what happens is that the member has got to walk right down the council chamber to get out for the break period. He might happen to know the elected official or the lawyer that is there for the council and say hello or something. Then I get a letter, personal and confidential, saying, "The member was prejudiced," or "Things were said to the member," when it was no more than a hello.
What I will do is tell the people, "Look, if you're making a claim against that, I will investigate that as best I can, but if you're going to make this stick, you better know that your private and confidential letter is going to be right out there in public." That stops a lot of the nonsense; some of it does stick.
1030
Mr McLean: The follow-up question I have is, once that appeal has been heard and the decision has been made, cabinet then has the opportunity to --
Mr Kruger: No, not on the OMB. Since 1983 under the Planning Act, it's only on joint boards. The Leslie Street extension, which is a common thing you see in the paper now, that's a joint board; that is appealable by petition to the cabinet. There are certain things under the Municipal Act that are still appealable to the cabinet. As an example, the Palladium -- I expect you would know about that -- was not appealable to the cabinet, and the decision of the board was final.
That changed in 1983, because what was happening was that everyone who felt aggrieved was petitioning the cabinet, and the cabinet didn't want that. So the people now rely upon section 43 of the act. That's the best device that a tribunal can have, the ability to rehear the case. Sometimes we go through the process, and although it has nothing to do with the act that we're adjudicating, because of the perception that justice was not done, we might even put it on for a section 43.
Mr McLean: Who do you think would be the most capable agency or board to review the expenses of the Ombudsman's office?
Mr Kruger: In the supplementary report, the Ombudsman has suggested that an independent group -- and I think the suggestion was an independent CA firm -- should take a look at that. I look back to my experience in Metropolitan Toronto where we had a very similar case on the licensing commission, which is quite a problem.
We did have independent reviews of our various boards by independent CA firms, but the Metropolitan auditor always said: "These are the standards that we operate by. You go ahead and do it." Their report always got geared through to the auditor to see. I think that is a device that would keep the appearance of being independent but at the same time would give you some sense of control.
The important thing you're looking for, or that I would be looking for if I were in your position, is to make sure that whatever is being expended is being expended in an expeditious way. I think this can come forward in a report, and then I would see nothing wrong in the Ombudsman appearing. I think you'd have to hear from her. I don't know enough about the functioning of this committee.
Whether it's done in camera or in public, it might give greater comfort to the Ombudsman to have it done in camera, where you take a look at this report and you have the Provincial Auditor, who has said, "All right, that's the firm that we should hire, and these are the standards that this committee might be looking for," and to have it so that you could assure yourselves or that committee, whoever it is, that the money was being spent wisely. As I understand it, that's what committees of the Legislature are about.
There was a time when people wanted to look into individual cases. I think that's an absolute no-no. I think the Ombudsman can rightly tell you, "This is the process we follow. These are the things we found," and if, for some reason, there are still complaints or something about that result, then the Ombudsman should have the right to go back and say: "All right. I'll take another look at it." That's exactly what we do.
Mr McLean: And that's exactly what we used to do. I've sat on this committee for quite a while, and we used to review. We wouldn't go into any detail, but on the overall office expenditure we would like to determine why are we spending $1 million to run a certain office. Give us a breakdown.
Mr Kruger: Certainly I have no problem with anybody inquiring into the processes of our board. I have no problem with that, but I would get very upset if any committee said: "Well, this is a process you've got to change. You've got to change all of that." Nor do I have any problem with somebody looking at how we do things. It's completely independent from us, and I'm willing to defend what we do.
I think it's as much confidence and as much attitude as anything, but I think there's a limit. If a committee is going to dig in too deeply behind some of these expenditures and say, "Why did you expend that amount of money on that particular case?" if I was the Ombudsman, you'd hear from me. I'd say: "Keep your cotton-picking hands out of that. That's my job, and if you don't like what I do, fire me."
Mr McLean: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we move to the next question, I understand Mr Ramsay has a supplementary that he would like to pose to you.
Mr Ramsay: Just on Mr McLean's question, when Mr McLean asked you who would be the appropriate person to audit the Office of the Ombudsman, I got from your answer that there might not be public perception out there that the Provincial Auditor is independent and that there needs to be some sort of outside independent CA firm doing this. Don't you think the Provincial Auditor is perceived to be and entrusted to be an independent auditor?
Mr Kruger: Of course the Provincial Auditor is, and that's never concerned me, but if any board has a particular problem with that, a way around the problem, as far as compromise is concerned, might be to say that although the Office of the Provincial Auditor itself might not do the actual work, under the coordination of the Provincial Auditor you could have an outside independent firm do that, to take a look at it.
I have used that device before, and it's based on some experience. The end result is the same when it goes to the committee. You get the information you want, but it's coordinated under a different guise. By having to go through the Provincial Auditor, the Provincial Auditor knows what the government and the Legislature want to know.
They know the standards that they've got to look for, they know the inquiry part of it, and if they say to an independent auditor, "Look, these are the areas that you should be particularly concerned about," that's where the coordination comes in, although the Provincial Auditor might not do it. There's always a suspicion, I think, by some people of an auditor that's also a part of a government.
Mr Ramsay: The same could be said of the Office of the Ombudsman, because the Office of the Ombudsman is part of the government.
Mr Kruger: That's right.
Mr Ramsay: But what you're saying is that any provincial agency that doesn't want to play by the rules should be allowed to go outside the rules and get some special treatment because it doesn't like playing by the rules.
1040
Mr Kruger: No. I'm saying, Mr Ramsay, as I read the media, there's a particular interest in this problem at this point in time, and you are seeking answers. I'm suggesting to you that might be a compromise between the parties. That's all I'm suggesting.
Mr Ramsay: Okay.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Kruger, as usual, you handle yourself very well, with all the confidence we know that you do have.
You made a statement that concerns me a little bit. You said you feel that the Ontario Municipal Board has provisions in there for all the appeals possible to address the cases, even to a point where citizens who feel that they're not being served properly can appeal it through section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act. It's also appealed through the courts, and they also feel that the media will do justice to any cause that is there. Even at your OMB hearings, you do have lawyers there too?
Mr Kruger: Yes.
Mr Curling: And usually lawyers are on the OMB side; in other words, to interpret the law. But are they representing the OMB?
Mr Kruger: No, that's not true, Mr Curling. We don't have lawyers who represent the OMB before our hearings.
Mr Curling: The lawyer who is there at the OMB, who does that lawyer --
Mr Kruger: No. What happens is that the proponent will have his own lawyers. They have their own lawyers. The appellant will have his own lawyers. It's just like a courtroom. They sit down and we take the evidence from the witnesses and those lawyers are either the appellant's lawyer or the proponent's lawyer.
The lawyer who works for the OMB is a person who just does things internally and never, ever appears before our board, because like a court, it's only based upon the evidence that we hear. This is why it's difficult for an Ombudsman or anyone to look into individual decisions. It's only based on the evidence that we hear, cross-examination and so forth. That member then makes a decision, the member of the board. That member, and there are Supreme Court of Canada cases on that, he or she, who hears the evidence must make the decision. I cannot interfere in those decisions. No other member of the board can interfere in that decision; that's up to that member. I only interfere if there's an appeal against that decision.
Mr Curling: Thanks for clarifying that. However, the citizen who is there, sometimes not having enough funds to carry through all --
Mr Kruger: Yes, quite often they don't have lawyers.
Mr Curling: Yes, and sometimes they would still feel, as you said, that justice was not done to them and the case was not being done properly. But you said there are options and there are directions which they can go to the court. Some of the citizens see the Ombudsman as that individual to whom they will say: "Could you address this for me? I don't feel that justice was done. I don't think the procedures were right," one way or the other. They would then see that not as a cost to them, because they don't have to get a lawyer through the Ombudsman, and they are being deprived of that. They would say, "Well, you have recourse to go to the courts." I would say, "I have no money." Just comment on the fact, why would you deprive --
Mr Kruger: First of all, if they appeal under section 43, they don't have to have a lawyer. In fact, a good number, about 50% of the appeals --
Mr Curling: But that's within the OMB?
Mr Kruger: That comes from citizens. The Ombudsman cannot adjudicate and say, "We made the wrong decision." I'll tell you, if the Ombudsman came in and took a look at our decision, the Supreme Court would be around their necks so quick, they just can't do it. He or she who hears the evidence must make the decision, and it's just that simple.
Now the Ombudsman can look at process. They might say, "That member was terrible, treated you badly." We've had very few complaints that way on anything that has ended up with the Ombudsman. Nothing that has gone to the Ombudsman has ever altered the decision.
Mr Curling: That's the point I'm making. I'm not talking about the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board; I'm talking about the process that someone may question. The Ombudsman will not reverse the decision, but the individual will complain about the process.
Mr Kruger: The one thing that the Ombudsman suggested to us is that we ought not to have two members sit on panels; it should be one or three. I don't have the luxury. The Ombudsman suggested we should take a protocol and develop a protocol. We said, "No." We've had cases where two members couldn't agree in the history of this board twice. Generally there's compromise because it's one body of evidence. So what happens is that they will go out and they will investigate, but what the Ombudsman hears is the end of the process. By that time it's gone to councillors, it's gone to MPPs, it's gone to the media, it's gone to everyone, so I just don't know. I particularly refer some people to the Ombudsman at the end of the day, and I say, "Go and speak to the Ombudsman," and I must frankly admit, Mr Curling, I do that as a PR gesture, because they think there's someone else who can help them.
If they come up with something that says, "Look, your member did not conduct himself in a proper way," then that's a section 43, that's open to that. We will be in touch with the individual immediately because there's no time limit on a section 43. We'll say, "What exactly is the complaint?" and the Ombudsman will tell us. Generally, we've heard it all before, but if there's something we haven't heard then we will talk with that member, because anyone who loses at the board, Mr Curling, is aggrieved. When you've got to wait 13 months for hearing and you don't win, you're mad. I know, I take the phone calls; they don't go through a secretary.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Curling. Mr Perruzza, please.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I'm not going to be very long, but it's been my experience that municipal councils generally tend to make decisions based on the politics of the day.
Mr Kruger: Yes.
Mr Perruzza: Quite often their decisions are not based in law or in legal argument. It's been my experience that with the Ontario Municipal Board, decisions are generally made based on legal arguments and based in law and, quite often, the arguments, in my opinion, are tilted in favour of the people who can afford the lawyers and who can afford to generate the expert reports, the traffic studies and the sewer studies and all of the social impact studies etc, because the board, quite frankly, doesn't have the resources or the research capabilities to do its own independent assessments.
Quite often you have in front of you developer X who has a trail of lawyers and has generated a trail of reports and studies that have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, and those are all submitted as very, what I would call, irrefutable evidence in their favour.
On the other side you have resident A and resident B, who are just there saying: "But I can't get out of my driveway now because of the string of traffic. I can't move in my neighbourhood. We're having all kinds of problems. You call an ambulance, they can't get through. You call the police, they're understaffed because we live in an extremely densely populated area. I know these things because I live there, but I can't afford to generate the reports or the studies that will prove my case." Quite frankly, in that case, those people generally tend to lose.
Wouldn't you agree that there should be some body which would, at that point, be able to step in and say: "Let's assess the fairness of this. Let's forget about all the legal arguments that can be made and put aside all the studies that have been generated and let's remove the political influences that may have, at different stages, impacted on this decision. Let's look at plain and simply an issue of fairness here and how resident A and B and developer X have been treated and what's the fair compromise. Where's the meeting ground"?
Mr Kruger: All right. I have two responses. What you just described we see pretty well every day of our lives in hearings. It bothers the board because it is not necessarily a level playing field, as you say. It's for that reason we lean over backwards for citizens' groups, and we even give them the right to cross-examine these expert witnesses.
If an individual said the things you've just indicated, "Well, listen, I can't get out of my driveway," that's a very important piece of information, and if that doesn't come out in cross-examination the board will ask that question because we try to be fair.
We are subject to the acts under which we administer, and the Planning Act is very, very clear as to what the rights are. On a simple thing like a severance it really bothers me, or if it's just a variance. Subsection 44(1) has four tests, and the act is very clear that you've got to be able to comply with those four tests.
1050
We see cases time and time again where we know that, from our perspective, we ought to go the other way, or perhaps we ought to go the other way and it doesn't seem fair. But that's the law and that's what it says. That's the first response. We lean over backwards.
The second response is, that's the role of intervenor funding. I've just been through a most difficult hearing, which was the Etobicoke lakefront. There was this little ratepayer group. I felt really sorry for them. We even put into our decision, "Intervenor funding: That's something that ought to be considered."
In our decision on costs, although we didn't award costs against government -- and this is all on the public record -- we did say the government ought to consider whether or not it should give some money to this group. They sat there every day and they happened to have one person who was doing most of the questioning. We leaned over backwards to the point where I had lawyers popping up every once in a while saying, "That's wrong," and I told them to sit down and let this person ask his questions. He has his MA in planning and he's looking for a job. While he was looking for a job he represented his ratepayer group.
If there had been intervenor funding, that's how you would get the level playing field.
There's a third alternative, and I hate to even suggest it: that the board be given resources, and that's not the role of the board. You'd have to change about four acts. You'd have to change our act and you'd have to change the Planning Act, and there are a couple of other acts you'd have to change as well to permit it. So there are ways around that problem.
As to whether or not the Ombudsman can come in, the Ombudsman could talk about process and say, "Your process is wrong; it's disadvantaged." I hear this particularly in affordable housing cases where the people will say: "Yes, I know that the municipality says it's a proper thing to do; I know all those things. But it's our community and we don't want it, and surely that's important."
The Ombudsman can take a look at that, but what can the Ombudsman say? "Did we handle the hearing right? If we didn't handle the hearing right, we'll be thrown into court so quickly. We'll have the media on our backs," because that's the first thing that the ratepayers would do in a case like that.
It becomes a question as to what the Ombudsman could do, because the Ombudsman wasn't there to hear the evidence, and we're obliged, under administrative law, to operate in that fashion. We're obliged; we are hemmed in by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act as to how we must conduct ourselves. It's just that simple.
So look to intervenor funding. But then I must ask the question, who's going to pay the intervenor funding? The municipality? The proponent, who sometimes can be a rich developer and sometimes can't be? Should it be the government if there's a large public interest? The Ombudsman can't help in the answer to those questions, because that's a question eventually for the government.
Mr Perruzza: So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying, "Yes, this is a problem, and the way to resolve the problem is intervenor funding"?
Mr Kruger: Well, the way to resolve the problem is through some changes in the Planning Act, which Mr Sewell is looking at. Intervenor funding is another way. That's how you get your level playing field. That's why they set it up in the Environmental Assessment Board, but then it becomes a problem for our board. There are about 20 or 30 cases we could see, out of the 6,000 appeals we get in a year, that would probably qualify for intervenor funding. It should only be put forward where there is a large public interest involved. I shudder to think that anyone who's on a consent or a variance should get intervenor funding.
Mr Perruzza: So you're recognizing that there isn't the playing field and you're recommending that intervenor funding under the Planning Act be changed in order to better achieve a level playing field?
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, one moment, please. Can I ask you to please stay within the confines of the review of the Ombudsman.
Mr Perruzza: That was my last comment, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kruger, for appearing before us today. I know that your schedule is very hectic and we do appreciate it.
Mr Kruger: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. It's a real pleasure to appear before your committee.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES
The Chair: Our next group presenting is the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. Good morning and welcome. It's a pleasure to have you here this morning. You have approximately one hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate if you would leave some time at the end so it can ask you some questions and/or make some comments that it might have for you. Make yourselves comfortable, make yourselves at home. Begin when you're ready and please state your names for the record.
Ms Diane Cresswell: I would like to introduce myself and my colleagues. My name is Diane Cresswell and I'm with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. I'm the manager of communications. I have with me today Kim Way, and Kim is a youth on extended care and maintenance of the Perth County Children's Aid Society. She is a student at the University of Waterloo and she has worked for the last three months, for the summer, at the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. Also with me is Ray Muldoon, and Ray is the executive director of the Norfolk County Family and Children's Services.
I have provided you all with a submission and we will highlight parts of the submission and will be quite pleased to answer any questions following our submission.
On behalf of the OACAS, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee today and to comment specifically on the possible inclusion of children's aid societies in an expanded jurisdiction of the Ombudsman's office.
The OACAS appeared before this committee in 1988 and documented extensive checks and reviews of CAS work through legislation, court processes, review bodies and other complaint mechanisms. Our 1988 position was that there was no need for an expansion of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to children's aid societies. Our position in 1992 is exactly the same.
The standing committee on the Ombudsman poses the questions: Should the Ombudsman's jurisdiction be expanded, and should the jurisdiction be expanded to include children's aid societies?
The OACAS feels that there is no need to expand jurisdiction to CASs. The 49 member societies of the OACAS are concerned about quality of service and assert that the review mechanisms and complaint procedures provided for in the Child and Family Services Act are sufficient.
The OACAS believes that the opportunities for consumer input provided by children's aid societies allows persons to come forward when they have concerns about service. The OACAS and its member agencies are also invested in the development of standards of service and an accreditation program for all children's aid societies.
There are 54 children's aid societies in the province of Ontario, three of which provide services to native children and families exclusively. The remaining 51 children's aid societies provide services to approximately 79,000 families with children in the community and care for approximately 20,000 children each calendar year.
The field of child welfare has always been subject to review of its actions because of the extensive powers granted to children's aid societies to intervene in the privacy of family life for the purposes of protecting children. Being subject to such scrutiny goes with the territory for children's aid societies.
Scrutiny comes from outside bodies, such as the courts, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and special reviews like crown ward reviews etc. Scrutiny comes from within CASs through such practices as case work supervision, comprehensive case recording, monitoring by the board of directors and mechanisms such as case conferences and placement review committees.
1100
In order to ascertain that children's aid societies are carrying out their functions as assigned by legislation and within the parameters established in Ontario regulations and ministry standards, guidelines and policies, children's aid societies are already subject to many reviews. A listing is provided in our submission, and a description of each of these reviews is found in the appendix in the green pages. I won't bore you with going through all those, but there are many and the descriptions are there.
A study of the review and accountability mechanisms contained within the Child and Family Services Act was carried out by a committee representing ministry, CAS and OACAS persons. A report was published in 1991.
The study described review mechanisms and accountability systems which in some cases duplicate one another and are reviews after the fact of children's aid society actions and decisions. The committee of ministry and CAS personnel recommended a forward-looking approach to accountability and encouraged the ministry to support the development of an accreditation process for children's aid societies. The OACAS and its member societies had already begun development of an accreditation process, and that started in 1989.
Children's aid societies in the province are incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act as not-for-profit private corporations. Each CAS is governed by a board of directors of elected volunteers from the local community. Regulation requires that there be at least four municipal representatives on the board of directors. The Ministry of Community and Social Services provides model bylaws for use by the agency, and each children's aid society determines the board structure, the board membership, the board committees, bylaws and the general operation of the society.
While the board is responsible for the overall governance of the society, the executive director is responsible for the day-to-day operations. He or she is employed by the board of directors to implement its policy and planning decisions within the parameters established by the Child and Family Services Act and other legislation.
The Ministry of Community and Social Services requires reports on services and finances from each society on at least a quarterly basis. The CFSA also assigns a program supervisor to the local society. The program supervisor has the right to advise, supervise and inspect the work of the children's aid society. The program supervisor has power of entry and other rights to exercise in order to ensure compliance of the children's aid society with the provisions of the Child and Family Services Act.
Children's aid societies only intervene in family life when there is evidence that a child may be in need of protection. That intervention is also only with the consent of the parent or on the direction of a family court judge. If a child is admitted into the care of a society without parental consent or if the child is voluntarily in CAS care on the parents' consent and the CAS determines that the child cannot be returned home, the society must make an application to the court within five days of the apprehension of the child.
Part III of the act sets out detailed provisions as to when and how a society brings matters before the court and how to review outstanding orders. The act also provides access to the courts to parents, foster parents, Indian and native representatives and children, both for review of existing issues and for the court to consider new ones. The CFSA makes clear provisions for the legal representation for all parties, including an official guardian representative for the child.
The Child and Family Services Act provides for two complaints procedures for children's aid societies.
Section 64 outlines that a society must establish "a written review procedure, which shall be approved by a director, for hearing and dealing with complaints by any person regarding services sought or received from the society, and shall make the review procedure available to any person on request." The procedure must include an opportunity for the person making the complaint to be heard by the society's board of directors. If the person is not satisfied with the response of the society's board of directors, the matter can be reviewed by a ministry director.
Every society in Ontario has a written complaints procedure, in accordance with section 64, which is available to clients in written form. Societies providing services to francophone communities provide procedures in both French and English.
There is a blue page in your submission which is a copy of the complaints procedure which is handed to clients who've come into contact with the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto. The Catholic CAS not only provides this complaints procedure in English but also provides it in French, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish. The CAS here in Toronto has this information also in Japanese, Chinese, Greek, Vietnamese, Arabic and Somali, and it will soon have it in Spanish and Hindu.
The vast number of complaints are dealt with by the front-line worker or supervisory level. I'll give you some statistics in terms of those complaints that went beyond the supervisory level and then were in fact dealt with at the formal level in two children's aid societies.
The Toronto CAS here in the city serves more than 9,800 families annually and cares for 2,400 children each year. In 1991, 22 complaints reached the service directors. That was into the formal process, above and beyond what would be dealt with at the supervisory and front-line level. Only 22 complaints reached the service director's level for resolution. In 1992 to date, only 13 have been dealt with at the service director's level.
In that same agency in 1991 and 1992, only six reviews have needed to be dealt with by the executive director, and two went to the board of directors. Over the last five years, only two reviews have needed to be reviewed at the ministry level for the Toronto CAS.
Ottawa serves 4,000 families annually and cares for 1,300 children each year. Of the 20 formal complaints received in 1991, 18 were resolved internally at the children's aid society, and in two it was necessary to receive ministry intervention.
The Ministry of Community and Social Services has informed me, at my request, that only 20 cases have required a director's review over the last five years, that is, since 1987. I will remind you that children's aid societies in the province provide service to more than 80,000 families each year and care for 20,000 children each year, so we're talking about 20 cases that went to that review over five years.
When a director's review is conducted, the recommendations from the review are provided to the ministry and to the society. The society is requested to respond, indicating what it will do with the recommendation and in what time frame. The Ministry of Community and Social Services is then there to monitor the situation.
Section 105 of the Child and Family Services Act outlines that a service provider who provides residential services to children or places children in residential placements shall establish a written procedure for hearing and dealing with complaints regarding alleged violations of the rights of children in care. The service provider must conduct a review or ensure that a review is conducted on the complaint of a child in care, the child's parent or another person representing the child, and shall seek to resolve the complaint.
Should the issue not be resolved, then section 106 of the act provides for a further review by someone appointed by a ministry director and not employed with the society. The appointee may hold a hearing and must provide a written report to the complainant, the society and the minister within 30 days.
These complaint procedures are designed to take the minimum amount of time to complete so that, should the service or the result desired require an alteration in the plans for the child, the disruption will be as little as possible. It is also important to recognize that in any of these complaints, time is of the essence. When the concerns are expressed in terms of the internal complaints procedure, there is somebody available to deal with the issue, and that is very important.
The standing committee on the Ombudsman poses the question: If Ombudsman's services are needed with children's aid societies, are there better ways to provide them than through expanding the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman? We believe the work being done on an accreditation program and the involvement of consumers of service in our work greatly enhances the complaints procedures and the review mechanisms provided for in the legislation.
1110
The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies has 49 member societies, and we receive numerous questions about the role of the CAS, access to services and the rights of clients. These calls are initiated by clients themselves and by advocates such as the Ombudsman's office.
All concerns are handled by a manager at the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies who has extensive social work and children's aid society experience. Callers are provided an objective listener who encourages the client to use the local agency complaints procedure, offers objective advice and intervenes on behalf of the client where necessary. OACAS staff contact the local agency to inform them of the complaint, and senior staff of those societies not only are responsive and helpful in dealing with these problems but take a personal role in dealing with the issues.
Although the Child and Family Services Act demands services be offered in the least intrusive manner, the need to intervene to protect children is intrusive. Parents do not always agree with the intervention which the agency has determined necessary; however, the family court system is the final check and balance to ensure that individual clients' rights are respected and that ultimately children are protected. At times of high emotion, however, the clients still sometimes find it difficult to understand or accept the intervention.
In 1989 the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, at the request of its member societies, began work on the development of an accreditation system. Standards of service have been developed in 10 areas of service. The standards go beyond minimum standards required by government. The standards express good practice and expert assessment of what agency structures and processes will contribute to quality service outcomes for consumers. The standards specifically address clients' rights and complaints procedures for children, parents, foster parents and other persons.
The accreditation process will include an agency self-study process in which the children's aid society will review its compliance with each standard and report its findings to the provincial accreditation committee. Every fourth year a site review team composed of senior child welfare personnel will visit the CAS to interview staff, board, foster parents, volunteers and others to confirm the degree of compliance with standards reported by the children's aid society in its self-study. The self-study and site review processes will involve a variety of means to obtain client input about their satisfaction with the service. The accreditation process requires that agencies establish quality assurance systems to measure the quality of service provided on a regular basis.
The accreditation program focuses on structures and processes which must be in place to provide for client satisfaction with service and make good client outcomes possible.
Children's aid societies in Ontario are extremely concerned about the quality of service they provide. One of the goals of the OACAS information systems project, funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is to develop ways to measure client benefits. OACAS will soon survey children's aid societies and other transfer-payment children's services to determine what quality assurance initiatives exist.
The OACAS is also seeking funding to develop a comprehensive competency-based in-service training system for child welfare workers. Training of staff is an important aspect of quality service. In order to assure a quality outcome and output, we believe we need quality input. The relationship between the worker and the consumer is the essence of CAS work. Clients deserve the quality input that adequately trained staff can provide.
Children's aid societies in the province provide a voice for consumer groups by supporting the establishment of youth-in-care groups, parent advocacy groups, foster parent associations and adoptive parent support groups. These groups provide opportunities for consumers to meet together and to discuss problems and make recommendations for change to service.
The OACAS Youth Project, established in 1985, provides youth in care a voice at the provincial, regional and local levels. Youth are invited to conferences, workshops and groups to discuss services and concerns with service providers and others who make decisions about their lives. This is an excellent example of the empowerment of clients, providing opportunities for them to speak out and make recommendations for change and then adjusting services to meet their needs.
In your package you have a copy of the Journal, which is the orange journal of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. In that we highlight the deliberations of youth at our recent conference in May 1992.
In the spring of 1985 the OACAS invited youth to attend the OACAS conference to review services and make recommendations for change. Over the past seven years, 80 to 100 youth have attended every year at the conference. In 1992 the youth presented their concerns and their recommendations in front of the 600 delegates from throughout Ontario who were service providers, board members, foster parents, executive directors, ministry personnel and other youth. Much has been accomplished through this particular project.
In 1991 the Ministry of Community and Social Services provided funding to organize regional activities and develop a youth-in-care network. More than 50 young people in each of eight regions participated in regional activities where services were reviewed, concerns expressed and recommendations made. Following this involvement, youth attended the 1992 conference with a sense of accomplishment, seeing results from their voices and actions.
In the summer of 1992, OACAS was able to hire a youth under the extended care and maintenance program to act as liaison with youth in care in Ontario, and Kim is with us today. She will speak to us in a few minutes about the establishment of a youth telephone line at OACAS; the development of a youth newsletter; changes to accessibility of OSAP funds for youth in care; the need for a policy review of extended care and maintenance; her meetings and conversations with senior ministry officials, judges, senior child welfare officials, front-line staff and youth and then the establishment of youth representative positions in each CAS in Ontario.
The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies believes that the services of the Ombudsman's office are indeed necessary for those government agencies that do not have review mechanisms and complaints procedures in place. However, we do not support an expansion of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to CAS. We feel that the checks and reviews that are mandated by the Child and Family Services Act are more than sufficient to provide for accountability. The complaints procedures outlined in the Child and Family Services Act are adequate to provide children and families protection of their rights.
The role of local boards of directors in the governance of the work of the society is an important monitoring mechanism. The Ministry of Community and Social Services monitors, through the program supervisors, the work of the society. The courts provide the final determination of whether a child needs to be removed from the home.
The development of standards of service and an accreditation program for children's aid societies enhances the reviews and complaints procedures mandated by the legislation. Last but not least, the encouragement of consumer input to services provides children in care opportunities to be heard at all levels.
I'm going to ask Kim to give you some information on her work this summer at the OACAS and how she's connected with young people who are in care of children's aid societies throughout the province. Then I will ask Mr Muldoon to speak to dealing with a complaint in the local society, and then we will be prepared to respond to any questions.
Ms Kim Way: I'm Kim Way, and I'm with the Perth County CAS. I've been involved with children's aid societies for a very long part of my life, and I've been in care for eight years. Of the seven years that the OACAS has been involving youth at the conferences, I've been at four of the conferences and have heard many of the youth concerns and issues and am very familiar with them even just from my own life.
I've been hired at the OACAS to represent youth at the provincial level when talking to ministries, committees etc about issues and concerns of youth across the province. I've developed youth communications through the newsletter and through a telephone line, as well as meeting with different youth in Ontario about their concerns and issues and the movement on recommendations that are established at the conferences. I support and encourage the youth in the planning processes of their fall regional activities in the eight different regions in Ontario.
We decided to establish a youth telephone line at the OACAS on some Wednesday afternoons, and through our newsletter we made all the youth in Ontario aware that there would be this phone line there. The youth are encouraged to call me if they have any problems with their social workers or with their agencies that they feel they cannot deal with or just to call with information about other contact people and agencies in order to link them up with each other.
1120
We also have developed a youth newsletter called NOTICE, Needs of Teens in Care Everywhere, and I will leave five copies of it for you to browse through. It updates youths on what we are doing provincially, as well as giving them suggestions on how to make youth groups better or to start a newsletter, information such as that. In the next issue we plan on talking about the discussion paper that talked about independence and advising them of the child advocacy office and policy reviews and the job position that we're hoping to have in the fall.
Because of the 1991 conference, the big concern was with OSAP and the crown wards not receiving maximum amounts when they were going to post-secondary education. Youth, staff, front-line workers, ministry personnel, OACAS, got together and discussed the concerns and issues of OSAP. There was a new procedure for youths in care to apply to OSAP and there were 50 applications that were directed to the Thunder Bay office so that they could all be assessed at one office and a different procedure within the agency in order to get them there. We'll be deciding in the fall if this procedure helped at all.
We need a policy review of extended care maintenance. Extended care maintenance has been a very big issue with youths for a long time. We did a survey at the beginning of the summer and we've been working on a discussion paper. The survey analyses the different agencies, the funding and the support that each youth gets, and it varies across the province. We need some consistency and the youths have been saying that. We've been working on it. We also asked youths to comment on things that we've done and make suggestions etc.
I've had different conversations in meetings with assistant deputy minister Sandra Lang and members of the coordination branch, as well as the director of the child services branch and people such as that about the extended care maintenance issue and the policy review, as well as developing the youth networks and what we're doing to help the youth.
We hope to establish youth representatives in each agency in the fall, and we realize it will probably take time and there will be scattered contact people in each agency, but the youth representative would be responsible at every level -- the local, regional and provincial levels -- and giving comments and concerns and voicing youths' opinions on the recommendations and concerns that they have. We hope that youths will be on committees of the board and present to the board at their local agencies so that the issues are heard there as well.
We hope that youths will help in the planning processes of the regional activities, as well as help run youth groups and develop communications within their own agencies to get the concerns that may not be being voiced because individual youths are shy of telling but they may tell other youths.
Youths have been able to comment on OSAP, as well as the accreditation part. Child-in-care standards: Youths have had a chance to comment on that as well. So the youths in Ontario of the children's aid societies have got a voice and they are being heard at the local, regional and provincial levels.
Mr Ray Muldoon: Good morning. My name is Ray Muldoon. I'm the director of the Norfolk county children's aid society. For those who don't know where Norfolk is, it's a small, little, beautiful part of Ontario on Lake Erie. Simcoe is our main centre.
We provide services to approximately 55,000 people in our jurisdiction and during the past year we serviced approximately 700 families. Because of the nature of the service that we provide, we often invoke issues, and there are concerns expressed by our client population. There's no question.
I'm not here today to evoke any direct concerns related to those complaint mechanisms because I feel strongly that they work for the clients and the kids in our care. I did a quick review when I was called by Diane to join her in this presentation, and we were able to track approximately 20 client-initiated issues or concerns related to our service during the past two years.
However, when those clients were able to come to the agency and meet with the worker and the supervisor involved, only three of those situations required a formal meeting with myself, which is the next step in the procedure, and one of those meetings required a meeting with the board of directors. So really, I guess what I'd indicate is that the client complaint procedures our agency and every agency in the province have in place work rather effectively.
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent matter that came to my attention which I think does clearly indicate how complaints are handled at children's aid society levels, and how kids are involved in those complaints.
The issue I was made aware of involved an access custody matter. As you probably would be well aware, many of these issues are very emotional. Tempers and emotions run very high. In this particular case, both parties were making accusations around the custody and access between the parties. The child was on weekend visitation and there were some allegations that the child was being injured during his visitations.
After a brief investigation and assessment of the issue, both parties complained, and complained vigorously, that the issues weren't being directly dealt with. It then became necessary for our agency to become more involved, and the supervisor was involved with the family doctor. Very quickly we sat down, we reassessed the issue, and we put in place, we think, a pretty effective child protection plan and an access plan for this particular kid.
What's important about that particular example is that the issue was dealt with within one week, and the child's access was not disrupted. We think the child was protected effectively, and we also feel that the issues of both parties were heard.
My concern, related to any more formalized complaint procedure with issues such as those, is that basically we'd be in a position where access issues, complaint issues, might need to be dealt with over a longer period of time.
In conclusion, I'd just like to state that from my dealings with client issues through our boards, through our courts and through our own complaint procedures, I would suggest that those issues are appropriately dealt with and that client issues are heard.
The final point that needs to be made is that in any situation where agencies are looking at custody of children, long-term custody where we're looking at very intrusive interventions in the family, the family court system is the final check and balance. We can't make those decisions without that family court order. So we feel that our current state of dealing with client issues is very effective and would support the OACAS position.
The Chair: Questions and/or comments?
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Ms Cresswell, we seem to be running into each other this summer with various committees I'm involved in. I'd like to thank you for your presentation. As usual, it's well-thought-out and well articulated by yourself and your colleagues.
I'd like to ask questions about the complaints procedure and then I'd like to ask Ms Way some questions with respect to the youth representative.
In terms of the other pieces of legislation we're working on, the Advocacy Act, the Consent to Treatment Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, do you see those as having a positive effect in terms of bolstering your case with respect to not being covered by the Ombudsman; that the Advocacy Act, for instance, will put in additional checks and balances that weren't available prior to your taking this position in 1988? You mentioned that you presented at this committee in the past. Do you see the new legislation coming on stream as actually being an additional check and balance for you?
Ms Cresswell: Yes, it certainly is.
Mr Owens: Whether you give it full support, I guess, is the other question.
Ms Cresswell: Perhaps you recognize what our position is, certainly on the Consent to Treatment Act in terms of the position on age. Yes, I see that as just another check and balance. We feel there are many; we don't need to be under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and have one more check and balance.
Mr Owens: In terms of your complaints procedure, how accessible is it, whether it's the client in care or the parent who may be objecting to a decision that's been taken? What type of steps do you take in order to explain the complaints procedure, and are these complaints procedures posted and visible to people?
1130
Ms Cresswell: Maybe I could ask Ray to speak to that in terms of the Norfolk agency, and then I'll make some comments.
Mr Muldoon: For all children in care, we're legislated to explain to them their rights and their right to a complaint procedure, so they're all handed a booklet, and this booklet is read or explained to younger children. Basically it would outline their rights in care and their right to a complaint procedure. The same thing would apply with our foster parents, and there's an extensive foster parent manual that all foster parents have access to.
Probably, most of our complaints would be initiated by families who are provided service by the agency. Any family or any individual who requests a meeting with a worker or a supervisor to discuss issues is provided with a copy of our complaint procedure. It's in writing -- I have a copy of it with me, as a matter of fact -- and it's pretty clear. It's not very technical. We think it's something all our families can and should understand.
Ms Cresswell: Just to follow up on that, in most societies, that complaints procedure for clients goes with a worker, and that worker would pass that written material out to a client. Also, they are available in waiting rooms of children's aid societies so that people can pick them up. As Mr Muldoon outlined in terms of the complaints procedure for children in care, there is a booklet that is provided to all children as they come into care, and it is explained to them at that time.
It's very interesting that at our most recent conference, with our youth with us, what the young people were saying was: "You give us these books on rights and responsibilities and complaints procedures when we come into care and sometimes we forget that. When we're coming into care, there's so much going on right then." So our young people are saying to us: "Not only should you give it to us and explain it to us when we come into care, but we want you to come back to it and we want to review it again 30 days later" or "three months later."
There are some young people in the province, a group in the north, who are looking at the complaints procedure, looking at the rights and responsibilities booklets. They say that some of them are much too juvenile, so what they want to do is to write them at a level they can understand, that will be more extensive for the older youths, as opposed to for the younger child. So there's a lot of involvement of our young people in terms of reviewing those kinds of mechanisms too.
Mr Owens: I appreciate your answer, and I have certainly not come to any position personally in terms of whether I feel the children's aid societies should be covered. The Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association was in yesterday and making a similar point with respect to its feelings that there are enough checks and balances within the system.
The only comment I would like to make is that in terms of the processes that are in place, it's still an intragovernmental, intrasociety process, and I'm wondering if there may be a point of departure where it might be helpful to take, not all situations, not all cases, but a select segment and move them into another avenue of appeal. This is only a thought I've developed over the last couple of days in listening to some of the presentations.
Ms Cresswell: I think the other thing that's important to recognize is that our boards of directors are volunteers who are elected from the community, who have a full and wide range of experience and involvement in the community. If it gets to that level where there does need to be some intervention there, you've got a wide range of experience and people to impact on that review.
Mr Owens: In terms of the youth representatives, what types of authority does the children's aid society give its youth representatives? And in terms of tracking issues, what systems are in place to ensure that your concerns are being addressed and that resolutions are in fact being made on your issues? One of the concerns I have, not understanding your system, is that it's wonderful we have representatives, but it's how the input is handled: Is it effectively dealt with, and are results gained at the end of the process?
Ms Way: The youth representatives work with a staff member from the agency. It's usually a worker who's working on independence training or someone devoting his or her time to the youth groups. The youths are working right with the workers, so they can converse back and forth, as well as working with other youth.
When issues come in to the youths at a local level, the youths and the staff can work them out, or it can go above and beyond, where the youth representative may call the OACAS and say: "Kim, this is going on. What can we do about it? Can somebody say something to the workers? This system's just not working. Can somebody explain this to them?" That's where I'd ask Diane, and Diane could make contact with the agency or the supervisor who would be in charge.
The big issues seem to be coming up at the conference, and the recommendations are given to the OACAS and we work on them, such as we're doing with the extended care and maintenance and on OSAP and things like that. But there are smaller issues such as, "Well, gee, my worker's not phoning back." We direct them back to the local level, saying, "We want you to call them back at this certain time," or establish some type of grounds with them, "I'm only in the office this many times a week and in these hours, and I will try to call you back," or they keep coming back at the next conference and we will do them again.
Ms Cresswell: I just want to comment in terms of the representatives we are attempting to set up in each agency. This is a relatively new project in terms of setting that up, so we're working that through.
But as to the young people who have come to the conference over the last seven years, when they are selected or have earned the privilege or competed or whatever -- in many agencies they do it in different ways as to how we determine which of our many youths will go. Those young people are sent to the conference to be their own persons and come very clearly with their own views, and the agencies are quite willing to have them come forward and put their concerns and expressions on the table. Then what we try to do is to pull that all together and feed it back to the young people from there. But I really do feel that the agencies have been sending those young people to represent themselves and are quite confident that they will do that. A number of significant changes have been made in agencies as a result of that voice.
Mr Ramsay: Ms Cresswell, thank you for your presentation. I want to ask a question to get a sense of how agencies operate around the province. Is it common practice that all staff of the agency would be active participants at the annual meeting where the board of directors is elected?
Ms Cresswell: Staff would participate in the annual meeting. In most agencies, the bylaws provide that staff cannot be a voting member.
Mr Ramsay: So that's not common practice.
Ms Cresswell: There may be one or two agencies where staff can be voting members, but in most situations no. They would participate and contribute, certainly.
1140
Mr Ramsay: Under your complaints procedures, you talk about section 64 of the Child and Family Services Act and you refer to a written review procedure which shall be approved by a director. What kind of director is that?
Ms Cresswell: That would be a ministry manager, area director.
Mr Ramsay: So this would be the direct supervisor of the executive director of that agency, probably?
Ms Cresswell: Yes.
Mr Ramsay: Is that not a bit incestuous? Do we really have independence there, when we have the director from the ministry who is, in the day-to-day operation, supervising that agency now called upon to judge not only how that executive director is pursuing his or her duties but in a sense almost judging his or her own work, in that this person has supervised this agency's day-to-day operation? I mean, you're almost judging the relationship and the supervisory role, not just what the agency's doing, because the agency works under that person all the time. Is this enough of a watchdog? That's what I'm getting at.
Mr Muldoon: May I just make a comment? In terms of the role of the program supervisor, which is who we are talking about here, he or she doesn't become involved in the day-to-day activities of the agencies in any way, shape or form. They're more involved in funding issues related to the agency and ministry policy directions. In terms of day-to-day service, programming etc, the director and board do that work.
The complaints that are initiated -- as an example, the one I talked about -- are usually, I would say almost always, directly related to service provision. The director we're talking about has nothing to do with that direct service, so there really is very much of an arm's-length relationship in that sense.
Mr Ramsay: But if there are problems and that supervisor is not intervening in any way -- you're saying he or she is not supposed to intervene, but if there are major disputes, say, between the foster parents' association and the CAS as to whether the child is having proper supervision, the supervisor from Comsoc must be ultimately responsible for the operation of child protection in that area. You're the agency carrying that out day to day, but it just seems to me you are almost asking somebody to make a judgement upon himself in kind of an indirect way. I'm just wondering how much objectivity there is there, that's all.
Ms Cresswell: I think it is important to recognize, as Ray points out, that the executive director is hired by the board of directors, and the board of directors and the executive director have the day-to-day responsibility for the working of the agency. The ministry is supervising in terms of ministry direction, funding and programming in that way and does not become involved. Yes, I do believe there is enough of a separation there. That program supervisor does not get involved in the individual cases of the day. It would be much more funding for programming -- we need X number of dollars for a particular program; how can we access this, how can we change our overall programming? -- but certainly not the day-to-day work.
Mr Ramsay: I may be using a poor example, because in my hypothetical example, the perception is that the executive director has stacked the meeting, and all the staff have been active participants in voting for the board of directors; so now the perception is that the board of directors is stacked, so it's a very unhealthy situation. What you've just told me is that most boards, in bylaws, don't allow the staff to direct for the board of directors, which seems to me to make sense, because I think you'd have a conflict of interest voting for your boss.
Ms Cresswell: I know that in all children's aid societies, their bylaws would provide that there could not be a staff person on the board of directors. I'm quite sure that there may be just one or two where staff persons can be a member of the society and therefore participate in the annual meeting, but that's very unusual.
Mr McLean: I'll be very brief. You've made a very impressive presentation here today, and I agree with you that I don't think there is a need to have your jurisdiction under the Ombudsman.
I had the opportunity to spend a year on a board. I have a sister who is a foster parent, and I'm well aware of the workings of the children's aid society and the volunteers who give their time across this province. I think they're well run. I think the procedures we have for complaints is excellent. We don't get a lot of complaints with regard to the operations of the children's aid societies. I think they do a super job.
I really haven't got a question, but I wanted to make a few comments to let you know I certainly support what you're doing. For those kids who need you, you are doing a good job.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you for coming, and a special welcome to Kim. Where are you from, Kim? Are you from Toronto?
Ms Way: No. I'm from Stratford, but I live in Kitchener and I commute back and forth to Toronto to work.
Ms Harrington: I see. I think your group is probably the same group I've heard about from Marilyn Churley, who is from the Riverdale area of Toronto. She wanted several of us members of the Legislature to meet with the youth group to hear what you're doing.
I wanted to ask you if you could explain to me the term "extended care maintenance" and what that means.
Ms Way: When a child comes into care and becomes a crown ward, that is terminated when he or she turns 18. They have a choice of leaving care when they're 16 or 17 and up until they're about 18. When they're 18, the agency can apply for another year of being able to fund them and care for them. Then when they turn 19 through to 21, they have to apply to the area office, which is the ministry. In some cases, the youths are funded while they go on to post-secondary education or finish high school. They may need counselling, so they stay in the care of children's aid societies, or they just may need support, and the file is left open. A case worker will see them, and it's more or less just an open case with some support and some funding in some cases.
What we're finding is that some agencies have to let their youth go at 18 because they do not have the time with staff. They don't have the money to support these youths. They refer them to welfare or the kids are just out on their own all of a sudden. That's at the age of 18 that this all starts taking place.
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I want to thank you for taking the time out to appear before us this morning. I know that all three of you probably have an extremely busy schedule, and we really do appreciate it. This committee will stand adjourned until 2 pm this afternoon.
The committee recessed at 1148.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1407.
The Chair: I call the committee to order. Good afternoon. I'm Mark Morrow, Chairman of the standing committee on the Ombudsman. It is with regret that at 11:58 this morning I received a fax from the Ombudsman of Ontario telling the committee and myself that she would not be attending our session this afternoon. I'd like to read that fax out, with the indulgence of the committee.
"Mr Mark Morrow,
"Chair, standing committee on the Ombudsman.
"Dear Mr Morrow:
"Eight days ago I received a thoughtful and courteous letter from you asking if I might meet with the standing committee. I was delighted that no mention was made of the review; no mention of crossing the boundaries between our mandates. I was very hopeful that we would be able to start a dialogue. I have always felt that this dialogue was very important and had asked for it for months. When in a subsequent meeting, my staff and members of your subcommittee agreed to a fair compromise that would protect my office's independence, I was even more optimistic.
"Naturally, I was taken aback with your letter the following day which seemed to be a total retraction of the invitation. I was further concerned when your witness list appeared, in which I was listed among a number of witnesses who appear as part of the review.
"When I personally called you on Monday and asked you to make simple changes to make it clear that I was not part of the review, as we had agreed, you said you were unable to accommodate those concerns. I told you then that I would not be able to appear unless we could come to an arrangement. I never did hear back from you. I am sorry that you were not able to find a suitable arrangement.
"It is a shame that the efforts which may have made it possible for the committee and I to meet to start a badly needed dialogue has gone to naught over ambiguities. I can only conclude that the committee was unable to sort out the difference between technicalities and the spirit of our agreement. Our agreement would have gone a long way to protecting the public's fragile trust and understanding of the independence of the Ombudsman and, as you know, that is of paramount importance to me.
"I wish to thank those members of the committee who during the summer's course of events supported the concept of an independent Ombudsman and who sought a way to work cooperatively and productively together.
"I am hopeful that we will eventually find a satisfactory way for us to work together without compromising our principles. I look forward to meeting with members of the Legislature and to engaging in the dialogue set out in your August 19th letter after the Legislature reconvenes in late September and decides how it wishes to deal with my special report."
It's signed by Roberta Jamieson.
With the committee's indulgence, I would like to go back at this time chronologically to talk about and to read into the record the letters that we have received back and forth since July 27, 1992. Is that okay with the committee? Okay.
As the committee may be aware -- and I do apologize; this may take some time -- May 28, we tabled our 19th report.
"June 25, 1992: Ombudsman responds to the report and states that she is unable to comply with the recommendations.
"Ombudsman requests the opportunity to appear before the committee to set out her position in full detail and to engage in a dialogue.
"In her letter she commented that `since, as a result of the Legislative schedule, the committee may not be meeting for several months, I am placing it on the record now....'
"July 21, 1992: Committee writes to the Ombudsman stating that to begin our review we require some background material on the work and the operation of the Office of the Ombudsman.
"July 22, 1992: Ombudsman writes to state that our letter of July 21, 1992, does not mention her request of June 25, 1992, and states that a meeting must be held before she will consider giving consideration to the committee's letter of July 21, 1992.
"July 23, 1992: Legislature passes a motion which authorizes the committee to hold hearing in August for the purpose of conducting its review of the Office of the Ombudsman.
"July 27, 1992: Committee writes to the Ombudsman acknowledging her letters of June 25 and July 22."
I'll read that letter now:
"Roberta L. Jamieson,
"Ombudsman,
"Office of the Ombudsman
"Dear Ms Jamieson:
"Re: Review of the Office of the Ombudsman
"In your letter of July 22, 1992, you comment that you have not yet received a reply to your request of June 25, 1992, to appear before the standing committee, and that this meeting must be held before you will consider providing the information which we requested in our letter to you of July 21, 1992.
"With respect to your request to appear before the committee, we take this opportunity to inform you that on July 23, 1992, the Legislature passed a motion which authorizes the committee to hold hearings this August for the purpose of conducting its review of the Office of the Ombudsman. We believe that this would be an appropriate opportunity for you to raise your concerns with the committee's recommendations, along with other comments and suggestions concerning the need for changes to the Ombudsman Act and to your office's operations. We will shortly be forwarding you a list of issues on which the committee hopes to receive comments. We will then be meeting to arrange the schedule for witnesses to appear.
"The committee is extremely concerned with your refusal to comply with its recommendations and believes the discussion you suggest may be useful. However, in order for such a meeting to be productive we would ask that you provide a more detailed explanation as to your reasons for choosing not to implement the committee's recommendations. In this respect, we note that you have made a general assertion that compliance with the recommendations would represent an abdication of your responsibility to exercise your discretion independently, but have not indicated why this is the case for each of the various recommendations the committee has made. Some explanation of your concerns with respect to each of the recommendations would be helpful in advance of the meeting.
"While we look forward to meeting with you, we do not agree, as you suggest, that this meeting must be held before the information which we requested in our letter to you of July 21, 1992, is provided. We would note that the information requested relates to the matters which are the subject of the committee's hearings, and is therefore information which the committee is authorized to send for, since the committee is authorized to send for such persons, papers and things as it considers necessary for its proceedings or deliberations. Therefore, unless you believe that you do not have the power or responsibility to provide the information, we see no reason why the provision of this information should be delayed.
"We therefore repeat our request for this information. We would also ask that if you do take the position not to provide the information, please indicate to us why you believe that you do not have the power or responsibility to do so.
"Should you have any questions concerning the above please do not hesitate to call."
Following this letter, I had a breakfast meeting with the Ombudsman in the downstairs dining room, at which time she informed me in no uncertain terms that she would not be taking part in the review and that as far as she was concerned, the witness list and the questions we were sending out to the witnesses -- she had no comments on them, nor would she make any comments. The next letter I have to read is confirming that. "Mr Mark Morrow, MPP
"Chair, standing committee on the Ombudsman
"Dear Mr Morrow:
"Thank you for agreeing to meet with me this morning.
"In our meeting, I attempted to explore the history and causes of the apparent impasse which regrettably has developed between the Ombudsman and the standing committee which you chair.
"I reiterated the suggestion made for some time now that the way to avoid having the impasse become a confrontation was for me to appear before the committee acting under its regular orders of reference. In this way we might engage in dialogue as to how we can avoid conflict in discharging our respective mandates. We might then have a foundation for me to set out my response to the committee's 19th report, and for the committee to discuss my 1991-92 annual report.
"I explained to you why it would be inappropriate for me to appear before the committee in the context of the committee's current plans. To do so would seriously call into question whether the Ombudsman is free from outside pressures to deal with the public's complaints impartially and whether the Ombudsman is trusted to carry out her mandate. The committee's actions have already seeded strong doubt in the minds of the public and public service on these points. I asked you for your cooperation in finding a means for me to be as forthcoming as possible with the committee without worsening this situation.
"Through this letter, I once again advance my request. I also invite individual members of the committee to discuss this matter with me, individually or as a group, at their earliest convenience. I hope that with open and reasoned minds on all sides we can find a way to avoid a situation which can only lead to a weakening of respect equally for the Ombudsman institution and the Legislature. I am willing to meet any time and any place with any member of the committee."
Signed by Roberta Jamieson.
The next letter I would like to read to the committee is my response to that.
"Roberta L Jamieson
"Ombudsman
"Office of the Ombudsman
"Dear Ms Jamieson:
"In your special report of August 17, 1992, you have raised the need for your office and this committee to engage in a dialogue on our respective roles and their interrelationship. We believe engaging in such a dialogue would be helpful, and would invite you to meet with us.
"As you know, the committee is currently authorized to meet for the week of August 17 and August 24, 1992. We would be pleased to meet with you during this period in order to discuss your response to the committee's 19th report, your special report and any other issues with which you are concerned.
"We would appreciate receiving your response by Friday, August 21, 1992. Please contact either me at 325-7095 or the Clerk of the committee at 325-3515 to arrange a convenient time to meet."
Signed by myself.
We then received a fax from the Ombudsman and I will read the fax out. This is after a meeting we had with the Ombudsman's negotiators in my office at 9:40 on the morning of August 20. The subcommittee met -- David Ramsay, Christel Haeck, the clerk, myself and legal counsel. It's to myself.
"Dear Mr Morrow:
"This letter is in response to your letter of August 19, 1992.
"I was pleased that my representatives were able to meet with you, members of the subcommittee, and staff of the committee this morning and were able to agree without difficulty on the form of a meeting between the standing committee on the Ombudsman and me on August 27, 1992.
"As I understand it, it was agreed at the meeting:
"That the review of the Ombudsman will be suspended during the time of our meeting;
"That the meeting will be broadcast live and will be open to both the media and the public;
"That the television broadcast of the meeting will not display the words `review of the Ombudsman's office' or any other similar words;
"pu
That in your opening remarks you state that the meeting is held under the authority of the committee's normal orders of reference and is not part of the `review of the Ombudsman's office.'
"I am looking forward to discussing our respective mandates and their interrelationship and the beginning of a much-needed dialogue."
This is signed by the Ombudsman.
We wrote her back a letter of clarification on August 20. "Dear Ms Jamieson:
"Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1992, confirming our upcoming meeting. There are a few points of clarification concerning your understanding of the meeting, which we set out below.
"We did not discuss, as you have suggested, the notion that the committee's review would be suspended during the time of our meeting. We did agree that your appearance before the committee would not be treated as a part of the committee's present review, and that to indicate this we would ensure that the television broadcast of the meeting does not display the words `review of the Ombudsman's office' or any similar words. We trust this also reflects your understanding of our discussion.
1420
"You have also indicated that we agreed that I would state in my opening remarks that the meeting is held under the authority of the committee's normal orders of reference. We in fact agreed that I would simply indicate that the meeting did not form part of our current review. I would note that the committee's normal orders of reference only authorize the committee to meet while the House is in session.
"We trust that these points of clarification reflect your understanding of the arrangements agreed to for your meeting with the committee."
That's signed by myself.
Come Monday morning, the Ombudsman called my constituency office and talked to me about the agenda. We removed the word "review" from the agenda and had her appearing at 2 pm in the afternoon on August 27. As it looked, the names of the people appearing in the morning were above; she was appearing in the afternoon.
She told me she did not like this and wanted it changed so she would appear on a separate piece of paper. She did not like appearing with people who were part of the review in the morning. I advised her on the phone that as Chairperson of this committee I had no authority to do that, nor would I take any authority to do that; but I would bring it to the committee the first time we had to meet, which was the next day.
It was brought to the committee. It was agreed that we would put her on a separate piece of paper, as she requested: "Standing committee on the Ombudsman, tentative agenda, committee room 151, Thursday 27 August 1992 at 2 pm, Roberta Jamieson, Ombudsman" appearing.
I received the fax that I just read out to you at 11:58 this morning, saying that she would not be able to attend.
Mr Perruzza: So she had agreed to come when you listed that other sheet.
The Chair: It was our understanding at that point, yes.
I just felt, members, that you should be kept fully informed and aware of what is going on. I don't want to keep anybody in the dark. I would now open the floor for any questions and/or comments.
Mr Ramsay: I'm rather saddened that this has happened today. On my part, and I know on the part of other members of the committee, we have put in a lot of work in the last couple of weeks in order to prepare ourselves to engage in a proper series of questions with the Ombudsman. Quite frankly, I'm still hoping we can do that some day.
I think it's of the utmost importance that this committee strive as much as it can to try to keep the relationship between the Legislative Assembly, through our committee, and the Office of the Ombudsman together. I'm just sorry that it seems semantics have prevented this meeting today, and that saddens me.
I would be prepared to move that the committee try again, that we invite the Ombudsman to come and meet with us when the normal sessions of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario resume September 28, and that she appear with us for discussion under our normal standing orders.
Mr Owens: I want to echo the sentiments of Mr Ramsay. As a member of this committee I, and I know my colleagues, share a sense of disappointment and concern because the Ombudsman has chosen not to show up today. I think we were all prepared to ask fair and reasonable questions and engage in constructive dialogue.
In terms of the preparation the committee has gone through in the past week or so, I think we've had an opportunity to take a look at the other relationship between the Ombudsman and the Legislature, and it's my view and the view of other members of this committee that we need to vigorously uphold the independence of the office, but keeping in mind that there needs to be an opportunity for this committee to have a look at the Office of the Ombudsman with respect to the issues we've been wanting to discuss with her.
Recognizing that motions don't need seconds on this committee, I want to say that I applaud Mr Ramsay's call for temperance in this issue, and I think we need to do whatever we need to do to be reasonable. We need to go the last mile with this and to keep hoping that the Ombudsman will appear. As I say, there are issues of great substance that we need to discuss.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Owens. Mr Ramsay, I don't have your motion in front of me, but the gist, as I see it, is that you would ask that the Ombudsman appear before us once we move back into session. Any comments or questions on the motion, please.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm going to agree with the motion. However, I must state for the record that my patience is certainly very thin at this point. I'd like to make a couple of comments, if you don't mind.
The Ombudsman has been accused of pushing around her staff. I've made it very clear at this committee that I'm interested in asking some questions in and around what's been happening internally in that office.
I agree with the motion. I think we should ask her to come again, but I'm not about to be pushed around as a part of this committee. I'm a member, as everybody else is on this committee, and I want some questions answered.
I'll leave it at that right now, but I think what we have to do is, as a team, maintain the relationship that has existed in the past, no question about it, but at the same time, have Ms Jamieson understand that we're not about to be pushed around; I'm not. I'd like to know what's happening. If I may, I'd like to talk a bit about how you, as I understand it, offered Ms Jamieson the opportunity to come to the committee in closed session as well, did you not?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Mammoliti: Who chose to have a public meeting today when you agreed to have her here?
The Chair: It was negotiated between her negotiators and the subcommittee.
Mr Mammoliti: Did she suggest that we have an open meeting?
The Chair: Her negotiators suggested an open meeting, yes.
Mr Mammoliti: So now she calls us and tells us that it's not acceptable and that she can't make it. I'm not very happy, Mr Chair. I'll agree to the motion.
Mr McLean: Just a minute, Mr Chair. There are other people around here who have the right to speak before you put the motion, and I think I'm one of them.
The Chair: Mr McLean, he's just agreeing to the motion, I think. He's not calling the question.
Mr McLean: I thought he said to put the question. Sorry.
Mr Mammoliti: I will agree with the motion. I will be voting in favour of the motion.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mammoliti. Mr Curling, if you will, please.
Mr Curling: I too agree with the motion my colleague David Ramsay has put forward to again request that the Ombudsman appear before the committee when we resume, in September or October. However, I'm not of great hope that she will appear. I say that because it's become almost like Jell-O on a wall now. Every time we decide to put certain structures in place and agree to certain things, we have to agree to a number of things again. I'm just wondering what would change between now and then. What should be laid out is exactly what it is that the Ombudsman requires in order to meet. As I understand it, it goes to a certain stage, and as soon as we go forward and make those provisions -- I realize it's all so strange.
1430
While I'm agreeing to this motion, of course we are taking the approach that it's for the good of all, that the cause is greater than the individual. I hope the Ombudsman herself feels that way, that having an Ombudsman in this province is extremely important and that we as a committee respect the independence, of course, of the Ombudsman and the role she plays.
I hope that the Ombudsman also respects the role of the standing committee and the role we play. So until the time comes for her to appear, I hope in the meantime we don't just sit back and wait, but clear up what is required and lay it down properly; what is required for her to appear and if we can meet those conditions. Because at that time, we're going to hear that the i wasn't dotted and the t wasn't crossed, and we'll wonder what's happening. We have to make sure that the requirements are in place. So I'm in support of that, but not very optimistic that it will happen.
Mr Perruzza: I can't help but say that this morning when I got up I was really excited. I thought today was going to be the first day on a long road towards building a very substantial bridge between ourselves and the Office of the Ombudsman. I have read media lately that suggests something to the contrary, and I can only stress how important a strong and vital Office of the Ombudsman is to this province and, quite frankly, to this Legislature.
I think one of our chief responsibilities is to make that office stronger, to make it independent and to ensure that it has effective independence and authority to be able to deal with problem situations that arise from time to time throughout government.
I thought that today I would get an opportunity, along with the colleagues on this committee from all three parties, to begin to take that first step in structuring and developing that relationship with the Ombudsman.
I can't tell you how saddened I am by the news that's just been relayed by yourself a few minutes ago that suggests the Ombudsman is not prepared to come and meet with this committee at this time. I find that disappointing. However, I'm hopeful and I'm prepared to be patient, as our Liberal colleague Mr Ramsay has suggested, and extend our hand of friendship and extend another invitation to the Ombudsman to come and participate with this committee in building a relationship, in building the bridges we so desperately need in order for the Office of the Ombudsman and in order for this committee to properly do the jobs that I believe we were both mandated to do. So I will be supporting Mr Ramsay's motion today.
Mr McLean: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this. As most of you are aware, I'm subbing on the committee. I'm not a regular member of the committee, although I'm certainly pleased that I've had the opportunity to sit on it. I've read much and listened to a lot with regard to the Ombudsman committee and how it has been dealing with the Ombudsman. It wasn't long ago that I heard some members talking about subpoenas, wanting to bring the Ombudsman before this committee.
I think I'd indicated that the way you deal with the Ombudsman is through cooperation and through negotiations and discussions. I had the opportunity for many years to sit on the Ombudsman committee with the previous Ombudsman. It was a working relationship which was good, it was excellent, there was cooperation on every avenue.
I have not seen that taking place since this committee has been formed, whether it's the fact that the committee is not familiar with the Ombudsman Act or the workings of the Ombudsman's office, whether it's had a tour of it or had the opportunity to discuss and talk with her about what takes place within the Ombudsman's office. It's an important office, but it doesn't function properly, in my opinion, unless it has the cooperation of the committee.
I have sat on many cases where the ministries turned down a request by the Ombudsman. It would be taken, then, through another full review with the Ombudsman in the committee, and the committee would make the recommendation supporting the Ombudsman, and that recommendation would be solved. As I mentioned to you before with regard to Farm Q, that's $250,000 the farmer would never have got if it had not been for this committee. I can cite you many other instances where the committee helped and supported the Ombudsman.
John Bell, who was the counsel for the standing committee on the Ombudsman for many years, was a steadying influence. I feel bad that that counsel has not been at the Chairman's side on many occasions when I believe it was needed. Over those years that I sat on the committee dealing with the Ombudsman's office, the solicitor we had, Mr Bell, had cooperation with the Ombudsman. That has to come back. This committee should be reviewing the fact of the counsel and that it has the opportunity to review cases that the Ombudsman feels would be appropriate and proper.
I feel bad that the Ombudsman is not here today, but I could probably understand her reasoning. The committee should, as in Mr Ramsay's motion, have her in. I'm not so sure that you maybe shouldn't have a meeting in camera with the Ombudsman as a start. But I do believe, Mr Chairman, that the time has come for you to have the legal counsel that we had at one time before to help advise the committee, to bring it back to where the province and the people will all benefit from the Ombudsman's office. This committee would be a lot happier if that happened.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McLean. Are there any further comments or questions?
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I'll first apologize for the way I'm dressed. As you know, I've been on this committee since it started, and I agreed that I would come back down from Owen Sound today to sit in on this committee to meet with the Ombudsman. I didn't find out until I was on Highway 410 that we weren't going to have this meeting. I thought I might as well get in here and see what's happening anyway, and that's why I'm dressed as I am. I would have changed, so I apologize for that.
I also talked to the Ombudsman on Highway 427; she phoned. So I did get to talk to her, so the trip wasn't wasted.
I think we should support David's motion, and I'm sure we will be able to work something out. I would like to see our subcommittee meet right after this meeting for a short session to talk about a few things. With that, I'd like to go with the motion.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Murdoch. Any further comments or questions?
Seeing none, all those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please indicate. Unanimous decision; everybody was in favour.
The Chair: Do we have any more business before the committee this afternoon? Seeing none, we are adjourned until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1438.