REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
CONTENTS
Wednesday 5 March 1997
Review of the Office of the Ombudsman
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
Chair / Président: Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)
Mr LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)
Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East / Est PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants:
Ms RobertaJamieson, Ombudsman
Clerk pro tem /
Greffier par intérim: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr Philip Kaye, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in committee room 2.
REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
The Chair (Mr John Parker): I am pleased to call this meeting to order and to begin by welcoming Mr McLean to today's proceedings. I'm honoured to be here with you, sir.
We have completed a number of weeks of public hearings with respect to the 1993 report. You will recall that at the beginning of those hearings we heard from the Ombudsman. That discussion was curtailed as we entered into the process of hearing from some third parties. We have heard from all of the third parties who responded to our invitation and the Ombudsman is now back for us today to pick up where she left off when she was speaking with us earlier.
She has contacted me privately and suggested to me that she's open as to how we proceed from here. I'd invite her to repeat that invitation to this meeting and then I will ask this meeting how you wish to proceed from here on in.
Madam Ombudsman, welcome back. The floor is yours.
Ms Roberta Jamieson: Good morning, bonjour, sago. Nice to see all of you again. It feels like spring. I hope it's really coming.
We got last day, I think, through to recommendation 18 and it was your request at that time that I go one by one. I'm happy to continue that in what I would call an abbreviated format. Many of the recommendations I've already spoken to in substance and so I could go through them, reference where I've mentioned the issue earlier, add any issues that I think need to be highlighted and conclude the 44 recommendations. I would do that without repeating answers that were given before.
We can have questions as we go or at the end, as you wish. Alternatively, we can have more of a dialogue on the particular recommendations that members want to explore further. I'm in the committee's hands; either way is fine with me.
The Chair: The invitation has been put before us. Any discussion? I'm looking to the government caucus first.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Mr Chairman, I think we're at 18. I suggest we continue on and go through them one at a time and have dialogue with the Ombudsman, and we go from there, just get on with the report.
The Chair: If it makes sense to cluster them together, would that be suitable to you?
Mr Stewart: No problem with me, Mr Chairman. I just think, let's go for it.
The Chair: Is the opposition caucus happy with that? Mr Hoy, thank you. I see Mr Wood nodding as well. There you have it, Madam Ombudsman. Carry on.
Ms Jamieson: Recommendation 19 deals with the standing committee's responsibility for amendments to the Ombudsman Act and 20 deals with the appointment of the Ombudsman.
You'll remember when I did the initial contribution, I separated these recommendations into a number of themes and I'll try and reference those themes as we go to keep some sort of order. This one was simply under sort of other issues.
As far as I can see, these issues are a matter for the House to determine. I've provided my own ideas, suggestions on the composition of a committee that would be important to consider these matters. I suggest merely that whatever is done to construct such a committee, it be done in such a way as to strengthen and preserve the independence of the office. I'm happy to talk about that further, but I have referenced that earlier.
Number 21 deals with the terms of an Ombudsman's appointment. This is a change to the act that's proposed and I think my only concern here would be that whatever number of years is settled upon makes the term beyond the terms of a particular government. That's important just to demonstrate that the holder of the office will be able to do his or her job without any appearance of an opportunity for political influence. Whether it's six years, seven years, eight years, as long as it's beyond the term of a government, I think that suits the purpose.
Number 22: I think this is entirely agreed and that this section should be removed. I don't think there is a need for the retirement clause that's in there now.
Numbers 23 and 24, I'd like to take together. Both of these recommendations deal with estimates and I've grouped them under the theme "estimates and directives" in my response. Number 23 proposes a new role for the standing committee in the process of estimates. The current process, as you know, is for the Ombudsman to present my estimates to the Legislature's Board of Internal Economy, which is chaired by the Speaker.
In addition, section 10 of the Ombudsman Act requires an annual audit by the Provincial Auditor, which I then publish each year in the annual report. I think these measures of accountability are entirely appropriate and that it's important, in thinking about estimates review, that it be clear that the Ombudsman is not a civil servant, is not part of government and has a financial accountability relationship that reinforces that.
The relationship I have now allows the public to have confidence that the work I do is conducted without interference or opportunity for interference politically, and that the relationship I have with the board is very much like -- it is in fact the same one that the officers of the Legislature have. Whether you're talking about the auditor, elections finance, the electoral officer, anyone of these officers, we all now have the same relationship with the board and I think that it is an appropriate one. I think it works in practice and in a practical sense.
In this matter, I have echoing in my ears the words of Donald Morand, the second Ombudsman in the province, who in giving evidence before the 1993 report was done by this committee, summed it up by saying whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and that's certainly in the mind of the public as they review how the Ombudsman office is funded.
Indeed, I'm asked everywhere how they can be sure, as members of the public, that I do my investigations without influence, without being directed by government as to what to find and how to find it. In fact, we did an opinion poll a few years ago and found that almost half the people surveyed were sceptical, and if there's one thing they were sceptical about, it's the Ombudsman's ability to remain independent should funding be or be seen to be provided by government. Any time you have a committee structure that lends itself to that perception is where it will occur. I think it is very important to ensure that the office be and be seen to be beyond the reach of potentially partisan interests so that the public will have that trust.
Having said that, I also know that it's my responsibility to be sensitive to the fiscal environment, to the issues that are facing the public sector as a whole and to the attempts that are being made by the Legislature to make sure that all institutions in the public sector are effective without wasting funds or requiring excessive resources, and I think that is my responsibility. In fact, in the last year I have operated an organization with it that received a 20% reduction in budget, which was a decision taken by the Board of Internal Economy.
Number 24 deals with the same matter and I won't repeat myself.
Number 25: This recommendation proposes a new role again for a standing committee to monitor and review the work of my office, and it allows an opportunity for a standing committee, if this is implemented, to inquire into any matters which the committee feels are important to inquire into at my office.
I have dealt with this a bit before in discussing my view of how a relationship that would make the Ombudsman responsible to a committee that would in fact become the board of directors would not be appropriate and would allow and opportunity for the public to once again become concerned about the degree to which government could, if it wished, exert control over my office.
The language of "monitor and review" I think may set up exactly that kind of relationship. I know the phrase can be interpreted in a number of ways, and I think Mr Hoy mentioned this at an earlier session. But when I go back to look at the 1993 report and see how this particular recommendation was discussed on pages 77 and 78, it is precisely where that discussion was going that troubles me. It is precisely because that discussion went towards providing an opportunity for micro-managing that has caused me some concern.
I want to hasten to add that my views about this section are not about this Ombudsman or this committee. I am trying to look at these issues in terms of the longer term -- the next Ombudsman, the next committee. What's the appropriate balance in the relationship? What is it that we want to be able to demonstrate to the public? And in looking at that, to ensure that the public continues to have confidence in the independence of the office. Anything that takes away from that, you will understand I'll be concerned about.
1020
I think on that question, we have discussed the board of directors issue in other sessions. I have given the clerk a detailed response to each of the recommendations in turn and I won't repeat them over and over.
Recommendation 26 speaks to the Ombudsman's Ombudsplan, as the committee calls it. I have already covered this in the introductory remarks I made at the outset of this review and merely want to emphasize that I'm very pleased to share information with the committee and look forward to doing that.
Recommendations 27 an 28 both deal with the rule-making issue. I've divided, in my response, rule-making into two sections, one process issues and the other content. This one falls squarely in the process and relates to a role that the standing committee would have to exercise.
Having said that I've talked extensively about my views on rule-making generally, I just want to underline the fact that especially right now, with the magnitude of changes that are going on in the public sector and the speed, if anything, it's even more important that my office be able to respond, have the room to have flexibility in how I would go about examining new issues as they arise, changes in agencies, boards and commissions. The more one makes rules, the more restrictive, usually, the world becomes, and I really think that flexibility is something that is necessary even more in the future.
So I just underline my earlier comments on this issue. If rule-making is to be pursued by this committee, I think then we need to focus on a process that allows us to dialogue very early on when rules are being considered by committee and I'm happy to participate in that should that come to pass.
Number 28 really deals with the same matter.
Numbers 29 and 30 I'll take together, again dealing with rule-making, this time about content. This proposes in kind of a nutshell that the Ombudsman perform a role beyond presenting the case where a government has refused to adopt my recommendations; that after I've presented the case to committee, I continue to perform a role on that matter.
We've had over the last couple of months a chance to do two cases, and I think it's more clear to me than ever that once I've presented the case to committee, answered all the committee's questions on it and the committee has had an opportunity to hear from me, it is then in the hands of the committee and the committee calls the ministry.
Indeed, you have asked to hear from me again on those cases. I think it worked quite well in those two cases and, if anything, I'm very convinced that it is quite appropriate that once I've presented the case here, my job is over. It's hard to see what I would do to follow up on things like Ms C, the issue of the inmates on remand, once I've brought that case forward. I think the process ends with this committee's report back into the House. I think that deals with both 29 and 30.
On 31, this recommendation deals with contents of the annual report. I did use this as an example in my introductory remarks. I am committed to reporting the outcome of these cases that the committee has expressed interest in, where a tentative or a final report has been made. Beyond that, there are only some qualifications that I have, and they have to do with protecting confidentiality. As I've said, we've explored that already and the committee understands my views on that.
Recommendation 32 makes it clear that the committee no longer wishes to review complaints from the public with a view to making recommendations on my handling of a particular case. I certainly welcome this recommendation, and it is consistent with my office being the place of last resort. It was never thought that the committee would be the court of appeal, and I agree with that.
Recommendation 33 -- and you can see, Chair, I'm just going to motor along here -- deals with the establishment of an internal complaints process for complaints I receive about my own office. This report was done in 1993. We in fact have created and implemented such a process, which I described in last year's annual report. In this year's annual report, I'll be reporting on the complaints we got about the office and what has happened with them. I'll be very happy to hear any feedback the committee will have on that process or indeed on how we report it in the annual report.
Recommendation 34 deals, again, with rule-making. This recommendation I've commented on in part in talking about rule-making generally, but I would like to mention one thing in particular on this one. This recommendation seeks an amendment so that I would be able to disclose information to committee about the handling of a particular investigation, provided that the member of the public who complained agreed.
At the moment, as you know, the act makes it very clear that I can't disclose to anyone information about an investigation, even that an investigation is under way in fact, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances, and even that's not clear. But I can't disclose information to anyone unless I do it through a report, either a recommendation-denied report or the annual report.
The reason I understand that was put into the act is to protect a couple of things: first, of course to protect the investigative process so that the world is not on notice each time I'm doing an investigation; second, to protect the privacy of the person who's complaining; third, and this is the part I would like to raise with committee, it's done to protect the public servant or servants who are being complained about. I get many complaints, many allegations that are subsequently unfounded, where I issue a non-support report.
I would be concerned about being required to disclose information about those in a public forum where someone's reputation may well be damaged by an allegation, and we all know allegations are damaging reputations every day. People seldom wait to read the final report. I'd be very wary of a change that would compromise that. It is a very delicate balance that's been struck in the act, and I would encourage the committee to be mindful of that balance as you think about this recommendation some more. I think this would very quickly lead to a lack of cooperation on the part of public servants.
1030
Recommendations 35, 36 and 37 all deal with statistical reporting. I've grouped them in my response under "Annual Reports" and "Ombudsplan." Again, you have a detailed response from me on each one of these. Basically, since this report was tabled in 1993, we have made changes to the statistical reporting in the annual report and last year, for the first time, produced an appendix to the report which gave even more detail on statistics. We reported by riding, for example.
I think we certainly tried to accommodate a good number of the concerns that were expressed in the 1993 report, and I'm happy to talk about this further, any other questions that members may have. Other than that, I'll leave my written comments stand as they are.
Recommendations 38, 39, 40 and 41 all deal with the theme that I've called "estimates and directives." These two were dealt with in the introductory remarks and the comments I made earlier on estimates review.
The one thing I would add a footnote to is recommendation 40, which proposes the act be amended to require my office to adhere to the Management Board of Cabinet's Directives and Guidelines. I'd just like to draw to the committee's attention that those guidelines were developed for a bureaucracy of about 80,000 public servants. They're not always appropriate to an organization that has less than 100 people. I do have a collective agreement, and I do have my own internal policies and directives which we've developed to govern the way our office functions. I did speak to this a bit in the annual report.
My ongoing concern would be that we have that room to have guidelines and directives that are not only fair but are appropriate to the size of our workforce. Also, once again, I think it's important to be clear that we are separate from the public service in what we do.
Having said that, I can tell you that in doing our own policy directives and guideline creation, we do have a mind to what the Management Board ones are. There are often good ideas there. Indeed, they're often the subject of my investigation.
Recommendation 42 speaks to the makeup of the standing committee. Again, I think this is of course for the Legislature to determine. I have some points I've offered some advice on, and those have been made available to the committee.
Recommendation 43: Similarly, how the Legislature operates is of course a matter for the Legislature, and I have put my own views before you on some concerns I would have about the public desire for scrutiny, consultation and checks and balances.
The last one is recommendation 44. It's kind of a mega-recommendation which brings together all of the previous 43 recommendations and lumps them together in an overarching revision of the standing orders for the standing committee. It deals not only with the relationship between the committee and my office on estimates and directives but on rule-making, monitoring and reviewing, the appointment of the Ombudsman and so on and so forth. I think I have dealt adequately with all these issues elsewhere in my comments, both in the introductory remarks and our earlier hearings, so I don't propose to repeat my views on each of these themes save to say, as you read 44, have a look at my earlier remarks and the passage I've put in the written submission on each of the subsections of recommendation 44.
That concludes the tour of 19 through 44, and I'm very pleased to answer any questions members may have.
The Chair: I open the session to questions or comments from the members, looking first to the government caucus.
Mr Stewart: What has come out here over the last number of weeks, not only from you, Ms Jamieson, but also from a number of people we've had from other countries and other provinces who have given us an indication of how they operate, and it seems to be coming up more and more in my mind all the time, is accountability versus independence. At this point in time, I can appreciate your concern that you must have independence, and I am very much in agreement with that. The problem I have, though, is where the accountability comes into effect, whether it be to a committee, to the province, to the government, to the taxpayer, whatever. There doesn't appear to be any link between those two, and that concerns me.
I'm not in any way suggesting or pointing fingers or whatever, but the word "accountability" does not come up very often; "independence" does. When we're looking at spending a number of millions of dollars in an organization without an accountability factor there, I guess I get a bit concerned.
I asked the question one day, maybe it was on the Ms C thing, "How many dollars did it cost to do that, and how long did it take?" There was no great response. As a person representing a number of the taxpayers of the province and as a businessperson, it's an area I have grave concerns for.
I don't know whether that's a question or a comment, but it is a concern. I think both have to go hand in hand, and I'm only hearing the independent part of it, and that gives me concern.
1040
Ms Jamieson: I certainly would agree with the member that they have to go hand in hand. I think why maybe you feel you've heard more from me on independence is because the direction the recommendations go in is to alter that balance at the cost of independence. I think the balance is there today. Let me just explain what I mean when I say that.
On the issue of accountability, let's talk for a moment about financial accountability. It is very clear that I'm financially accountable, both in the presentation of my estimates -- which I put in front of the Board of Internal Economy, and I assure you this is a process that is not without scrutiny or questioning from all parties. It is the same process that applies to all the officers in the Legislature, including the auditor and other officers I've mentioned.
One, the estimates review process; two, the audit that is done every year by the Provincial Auditor, which I publish publicly; three, from time to time he has done a value-for-money audit, which I tabled as well with the Board of Internal Economy. On the issue of money, financial accountability, I think that is clearly in place.
You talk about case-cost analysis. I have seen some of my colleagues attempt that analysis in other jurisdictions, and I've thought about that, frankly, and continue to think about it over time. It sounds as though it would make very good sense from an accounting point of view, and it would be very simple for me to say, "So, $7.5 million divided by 29,000 and whatever cases, inquiries and complaints equals cost per case." That would give an answer, but it would not be one that I think has quality or value, and this is why: There are different categories of activity on those 29,000 -- let's call them 30,000 -- issues that come forward. Some take very little time; others take months. For us to do an analysis -- and we have looked into this -- how would we break it down? The ones that are early resolution ones, how much does that cost? The ones that take more work, the ones that take a full-blown investigation ending up in front of this committee, what does that cost?
That may well involve docketing, which is what legal firms do, right? Every time they do something, they write it down. "Talked to Ms C about the file." Their budget goes up and down according to their docketing and their billings; mine, of course, doesn't. I have a fixed budget, and I can't turn calls away unless they're vexatious or frivolous; very few are. I'm obliged to respond to every case. That's another thought, I would ask, to keep in mind.
In looking at the cost-benefit of putting into place a docketing system to get that result, at this moment I'm not convinced there's a cost-benefit to it. In fact, it would take a great deal of time to put it into place, and I wonder what the value would be. Having said that, at this stage, I continue to review how my other colleagues do it; I've thought about how we might, and we continue to discuss these issues.
Parallel to that, and this will answer another part of your concern, Mr Stewart, while we haven't put in place a docketing system, we have put in place time lines for internal activity, management systems that make sure -- and they're continually being improved -- we're not spending too much time on a file, that the time spent is quality time spent and managing the performance of staff to ensure we are handling the cases effectively and efficiently. We are putting that in place.
Mr Stewart: I don't think accountability solely is directed towards dollars and cents either.
Ms Jamieson: Okay.
Mr Stewart: I guess that also is the other part of the question, where you're saying that in your operation you want to be totally independent with basically no accountability to anybody other than the Management Board when it comes forward that you have to do your budget etc.
I guess my concern is that every one of us in society today in some little way has to be slightly -- I hate to use the word "police" -- have some type of control. I don't like that word either, I'll eventually find the right one, if you get what I'm trying to say. It's great to be independent and nobody will tell me what to do because they may think we are being run by the government or whatever. But when I look at government, there happen to be three segments of making up government, which are opposition and government, and I think that we -- and that's what I look at as government -- should have some type of control within, still giving you your independence but to still have some type of that, again, to go back to accountability.
Ms Jamieson: Let me talk about the aspects other than financial. As I said before, I think the balance is right. The Ombudsman Act, beyond the financial accountability, goes on to require me to table an annual report, which I do and which is referred to this committee and provides quite an opportunity for a dialogue and answerability to the Legislature for the activities of the office on a yearly basis. I don't think, frankly, given that we haven't met on my annual report in a couple of years, we have explored the extent to which that is a useful accountability mechanism. I think it is and I take it very seriously, which is why I report as I do. I think that should not be overlooked. That is a very key aspect of accountability.
The ultimate accountability check and balance is that if the Ombudsman of the day is determined by the Legislature not to be doing his or her job, they can be removed for cause. I think there are aspects, a very clear balance on accountability, in the act, while assuring the independence.
The last thing is on cases. You've seen with the case of Ms C and with inmates on remand, where government will not implement recommendations, I have to come and defend every one of those to this committee. I also report my cases in the annual report.
Let me put the last footnote on accountability, and that is the accountability I feel towards members of the public, that every time I sign off a report which says I don't support the complaint, I'm obliged under the act to outline in writing what I found and what my findings are and to substantiate it. I think the public is also entitled to hold me accountable to ensure that the proper independence is available to my office so that I can do my job, knowing what their scepticism is about the ability of government or political influences to control my office. I think the balance is right. I think the accountability mechanism is in place and is very clear.
The Chair: I don't intend to be bound by the rules of rotation but I want to give the opposition parties a chance to get their bit in before we return to the government caucus. I have Mr McLean on my list so far, but I want to give the opposition first a chance to make a comment or ask a question.
1050
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): If I could, I'd like to get two small points made here, or questions. I appreciate your being here again. We went through some 20 pages of recommendations the first time and about 30 now, and it's good that we have all your views enunciated thus far, along with the other people who have been here for the public part of the hearings.
You mentioned this morning, and I just want to go back to that, that your budget was cut 20% last year by the Board of Internal Economy, so there is therefore some policing of what you're spending.
Ms Jamieson: Very much so, Mr Hoy.
Mr Hoy: For my benefit, and hopefully the benefit of all committee members, if your caseloads are not known, you don't know from this date to a year from this date how many cases you may have, how do you service the people who come to you when your budget is reduced? How do you have any predictability of how you will handle cases? Clearly your budget is not open-ended, so can you describe for me briefly how you handle an unknown number of cases with time limits that you would not know? Some may take you a few weeks; some could take you conceivably months. How do you deal with that?
Ms Jamieson: This last year with some difficulty, because I asked for more money than I was given on the basis of our projected caseload, our experience of 20 years and what I thought was required. The board did not approve what I asked for, so we have been left to cope with a caseload with 27 fewer people, because that's what the 20% cut translated into on the ground in my office layoffs.
My remaining staff have done an outstanding job in dealing with what's been a dramatically increased load for each and every one of them in the investigations and intake area. That is really what we've done to date: We have done more. We have done more but we have had fewer people. I mean each one of us has done more. We've had fewer people answering telephones, though, to be honest, because the layoff occurred and you just had fewer bodies at the phones, so fewer people taking complaints.
We've also given a good deal of thought to how to create a system of managed backlog. Frankly the backlog we anticipated occurring was later in the process. I thought there would be much more of a backlog in those ready for investigations. In reality there's been much more at the front end and that was a function of layoff, among other things.
So we have fewer people -- from 110 to 84 people -- doing about the same number of complaints with a slight decrease at this stage, I think -- we're still analysing that -- and just doing more work, probably slower -- we're analysing that as well -- and under some strain. I am very concerned at this stage about our ability to serve the public to the standard that I think we ought to be serving them. We're not doing as much public education as we were, which I think is key. If you don't know you've got the right to complain, do you have the right to complain? I don't think so. I'm troubled by that. I hope that answers your question. I'll be doing much more detailed analysis and reflection in this annual report, because we're just coming to the end of our fiscal year right now.
Mr Hoy: Could I have another brief question? Recommendation 13 on page 15 says the Lieutenant Governor in Council may add governmental organizations to the schedule by order. I believe we touched on this perhaps even last year when you were here. You made the point that if you make a list, omissions could be made, and you gave an example of one of the government boards, that if you missed it, it might cause a problem -- the creation of new boards, commissions, agencies -- the listing would have to be constantly revised and you thought that might be a problem, and I understand that. Then you also went on to talk about privatization and it wasn't clear -- I don't think you were clear at the time -- how the government was going to handle that question. I've learned, and I believe this to be correct, that you have written to both the Premier and the minister for privatization about your concerns. Have you gotten a response from them to your letter?
Ms Jamieson: You're quite right. Things have unfolded quite quickly since I wrote this submission. I wrote to Minister Sampson last September. I have met with him. Last week I shared a letter that I wrote to the Premier. I have not met with him.
I remain concerned about the loss of the right to complain if steps are not taken to preserve it when whole sectors are privatized. In meeting with Mr Sampson, it is not clear to me that there is an overarching approach or commitment to retain the right of complaint as whole divisions are privatized or moved over to be self-regulating. Indeed, what's becoming clearer is that auto dealers may well have the last word on auto dealer complaints. If safety enforcement is similarly self-regulating, amusement rides will not be -- that complaint ability will be gone; safety, elevators. I am very concerned about this and I don't think enough time and attention are being put on it.
We've met with Minister Tsubouchi's staff on some of the areas, on the areas of Bill 54 that I'm talking about, self-regulating. On Minister Sampson's area it's not clear yet what's going to be privatized; lots of candidates are being talked about. The Ontario Housing Corp is being talked about; Hydro has been talked about; Ontario Clean Water Agency has been talked about. I'm very concerned, if those move off to private areas, that they'll be beyond the reach of certainly investigation, independent investigation by my office, and that people will be left complaining to the private corporation, and if their issues aren't satisfied, they'll be left with only going to court. That will be the only area that's left, and we know what the lineup is like at court and we know what the cost is. I don't know about you, but I couldn't sustain a court action, certainly not against the government, up through the various levels.
I continue to be very troubled and I'm hopeful that the Premier will respond and will give an explicit direction that the right to complaint will be preserved where it exists and will be provided where it doesn't exist: namely, municipal areas.
I'm sorry, I've gone a bit beyond your question but I remain concerned, about jails as well. If we privatize jails, what happens to the responsibility of government for the care and custody of inmates to keep standards up to some of the -- we're bound internationally on standards of the treatment of prisoners; we have domestic laws that bind us to a certain level. At the moment, inmates who are at the receiving end of a very dramatically different power imbalance can come to the Ombudsman to complain. If it's not made explicit, as private jails are created, that that continues, it will be gone, and I don't want it to be gone either by oversight or certainly by design. That's why I've raised the issue with the Premier, to make sure that he focuses on it and hopefully gives some assurance that that is being taken into account and is being provided.
1100
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much for coming forward in the second day now, going over the 44 recommendations that look back to 1993. I know you were up into my area around Constance Lake and into Timmins the week before that. I appreciate that very much. It helps. Some of the complaints that would have come to my office I'm sure went to your office.
You mentioned the 24% reduction last year, but that's not the only reduction when we're talking about accountability. I'm sure you had some controls during the expenditure controls and the social contract that lasted for three years, and then at end of that a further 20% reduction, the 27 fewer employees. Have you had to restrict your amount of travelling or the number of employees who can travel now throughout the province? I'm sure that some areas you would probably visit twice a year. Are you only able to visit them once every two years now? Just an idea of how that's affecting your outreach.
Ms Jamieson: Before I answer that, Mr Wood, I just want to be clear: It's not 24%, it was a 20% reduction last year.
Public education and outreach are certainly the area where we have been doing less and being very careful in managing any travel funds we have to do outreach and to do public ed. I would like to do much more. I think an office like mine should be out and about much more than we are, but those are the realities that we have been living with. I can't give you in numbers the number of trips we would have made and the number of trips we did make but I can tell you that, yes, those activities have been curtailed.
First of all, we don't have the people in some of the offices who could do it. Some of our offices have gone from two people to one-person offices, where we used to be able to have one person out doing the outreach and the other person running the office. That's gone now in some places. We've got one person trying to do both, trying to be open for business and trying to serve communities. As you know in the north -- just two weeks ago, in going from Timmins to Constance Lake, I don't know about you, but for us it was a three-and-a-half-hour drive. If I have a staff person doing that, that really limits their ability to also be running the office as well as we might. So of course I'd like to do more, and yes, we have had that limited.
We've tried to work with what we've got, though, in the face of that. We've said if an investigator can't now fly up to Thunder Bay to look at a particular area that's being complained about, whether it's an environmental assessment issue, maybe it's an issue having to do with MNR or the Ministry of Transportation, where a site visit would be a good idea, we're using our regional staff as much as we can to go and do those things and then report back to the investigator. So we've managed as best we could, but yes, I'd like to do more and we should be doing more.
Mr Len Wood: We know that privatization is the big buzzword now that is out there. Every weekend when I go back I hear the word "privatization," what's going on in the schools, what's going on in the municipalities, what's going on in the health care sector, not only with the direct government employees who have been reduced by a few thousand -- that's another number that would probably be contracted out if Bill 104 goes through and some of the other bills in the series. Your office has been reduced; my particular riding has been doubled in size so that it's going to be very difficult for the provincial member of Parliament to get around; the federal boundaries have all changed; and like I said before, you have fewer employees.
Where are the people going to be able to go as a last resort, trying to get their problems resolved, if everything is being squeezed down, or is there going to be an avenue for them to turn to with all the major changes that are taking place?
Ms Jamieson: At the moment, if you have a complaint about social housing, you can come to my offices for a complaint; if someone's not being treated fairly by a housing authority, for example. If, as is being discussed, the Ontario Housing Corp is privatized, that'll be gone. You'll be going to the courts. If, as is also being talked about, social housing may go to municipal governments, then you're still out of luck because there's no municipal Ombudsman, which there ought to be. I get more than a couple of thousand complaints a year on municipal issues. So if we're adding things to the municipal level and not adding the right to complain, it ends up being a net loss of the right to complain. That's why I spoke out last week.
If you're complaining about jails, if you're complaining about real estate transactions, if you're complaining about travel issues or motor vehicle issues or amusement rides or elevators and the government's actions to make sure those standards are maintained, you will not have anywhere to go unless it's provided for in the administrative agreements that are being signed or in the legislation, or unless a schedule -- as Mr Hoy mentioned earlier, if the Ombudsman Act is amended to leave the definition of governmental organization in place now, but then, say, we can add by schedule new organizations where the right to complain will be guaranteed, then those could be added explicitly. You'd name the agencies and you'd change the schedule, as you change your list of agencies, as you change your names, which is happening now more and more. Whole agencies are being combined or revised in simply their title.
Unless that's done, unless it's clear in law or by schedule or by the administrative agreement, people will not have anywhere to go for a place that can do an independent investigation. They'll be able to go and complain -- and this is what is being talked about now. I've seen and read in the press lately, and you have Minister Tsubouchi saying: "Well, on some of these agencies we've made sure that consumers are going to be represented. We've made sure that there's going to be people on there -- the board of directors will have the right checks and balances."
But this point has been missed: That board will not have the ability or the power, and the consumer reps on there will not have the power, to do an independent investigation. That is going to be lost if that is how they're constructed. So while you may have two or three consumer reps on any given board advocating for public protection or protection of public rights, you will not have the ability for them to do the investigation or to come forward with independent findings. So where are you left? You're left back in the lineup at the courts.
Mr Len Wood: Just briefly, the $7.5 million, your budget, compared to the $8 million that is being spent to see Mike Harris's face on TV, I think the $7.5 million spent over a year for the Ombudsman's office and staff --
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): That's out of order, Mr Chair.
Mr Len Wood: I think that's money better spent than seeing Mike Harris on TV for two months for $8 million.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just have a couple of questions with regard to the first question on accountability. Your budget has never been to the estimates committee before, but they're still allowed to go to the estimates committee if they wanted to have it. Is that right?
Ms Jamieson: I'm not sure, Mr McLean, whether it's ever been. I just don't have that history in my mind. As I understand, that's available for all public sector institutions, the ability for estimates committee to review.
1110
Mr McLean: That's right. So if the estimates committee wanted to review your budget, they could.
Ms Jamieson: I believe that's true.
Mr McLean: So there is accountability there, if they so desired. Thank you. I wanted to clarify that.
Mr Hoy: You picked up again about boards of directors under privatization. Not that the standing committee could become a board of directors, but I'm speaking in terms of new privatized entities that will have their own mechanism of policing and self-regulation.
I'm trying to think of the phrase and the words -- I don't think I have exactly the right ones -- but a lot of crown corporations and people who belong on those boards are protected by a clause that says if they act in good faith or if they act in good conscience -- and I may not have the exact words; I was trying to recall what they were -- it is for them a protection that under certain laws they can't be held accountable to the extreme if they acted in good faith or good conscience. Could they hide behind that under a self-regulatory consideration of their board or agency and then shield themselves and no one would be able to go to the Ombudsman?
Ms Jamieson: I'm not sure about the current state of the law on protection under the Corporations Act, but I can tell you it's less today than it was a couple of years ago.
What is clear to me, though, Mr Hoy, is that private companies are responsible to their shareholders, pure and simple. That's how they're created. That's the nature of the entity. If it's a private company, that's who it's responsible to, which means not responsible to government other than is provided in the agreement. If in creating these private entities, whether it's for the lottery corporation or clean water or housing, government divests itself of its relationship to make sure certain standards are upheld, then there is no place for the public to go back to government and say to Minister Tsubouchi: "What about this real estate group? What about this auto dealer group? They're not listening to me."
They could go back to Minister Tsubouchi and he could sever the agreement, I suppose, but short of that there is no way for ongoing, day-to-day unfairness to be remedied through government hearing complaints, and as a result, if you don't get to government, you don't get to the Ombudsman. Every time you sever that relationship between an agency and government, people are losing the right to complain to the Ombudsman and the right for independent investigation.
That troubles me, especially in areas where there are overriding safety issues, where you've got care of people who are vulnerable, shelter for people who need social housing, any of these areas where clearly there has always been an understanding that there is a government role to be played, and that worries me. I hope that responds to your question.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): It's always nice to hear from you, Roberta, at these meetings.
First of all, I'd just like to say that if this committee is ever going to work, it has to be a non-partisan committee. I am really disappointed in the two opposition parties and their comments that have just gone on. You guys didn't sit here through this committee report. I did. I want to tell you that all three parties have worked well together, but you two people or your two parties have just -- it's unacceptable what you've tried to put on here today, trying to get partisan. This committee has in the past worked great. What you've just done is unacceptable and I'm really disappointed in both your parties for what you've done here today.
That being said, Roberta, we didn't always agree in the past and we probably won't in the future, but I think this is part of government getting away from -- less government for the people. What you're saying and what these two parties have tried to bring in is spending more taxpayers' money. The people out there quite clearly said they wanted less government. I never did agree with you before on a municipal Ombudsman and I never would. I think the role of the Ombudsman can actually be downgraded. You don't need as much responsibility once we go to private enterprise. There are lots of ways in private enterprise that people can be looked after.
People don't want to be looked after from cradle to grave by government. I really disagree with all your comments about more powers to the Ombudsman or more ways for people to complain. I think there's enough in the private sector now that we don't need more. I just wanted to put those things on the record. It's fine for you to have your reasons; I just don't agree with you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Any response?
Ms Jamieson: Just very briefly. I think it is my responsibility to speak out when the right of complaint is being endangered, lost, forgotten about, what have you. I think that is the business of the Ombudsman. I wouldn't be doing my job, in the public mind, if I didn't alert government as I have done over the last year. I talked about privatization and the right of complaint in the last annual report. I've talked about the municipal Ombudsman for a couple of years. Why? Because there are many, many complaints that go unaddressed, and there are lessons to be learned, good experiences to be shared, from other jurisdictions.
In Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, most recently in British Columbia, the opportunity to complain about the decisions of municipal governments have been extended. The city of Winnipeg has just created an Ombudsman in the last year and a bit; the city of Montreal has created an Ombudsman. Many cities themselves are taking these steps and many other governments are extending it. Even though I certainly hear a good deal -- I'm not immune to reading the press about less government. What I have heard, though, at the same time from many people is, "But don't forget about that right of complaint, indeed extending it in the private sector." I think that's all.
Mr Hoy: Mr Chairman, my line of questioning with regard to recommendation 13 was of an inquiring nature. I made no comment as to whether certain actions by the government were good or bad. The Ombudsman brought it up previously before the committee. I was simply asking her for an update and what she thought could happen to persons who were perhaps victimized by certain future actions of the government. I did not comment whether those actions would be good or bad. It was of an inquiring nature, and I don't feel that the rebuttal by the previous member to my line of questioning was necessary. I made no comment as to whether what the government may do or may not do is right or wrong. I just want to put that on the record. It was the Ombudsman who brought up this issue. I was looking for an update. She has been investigating over some period of time what would happen under certain actions by the government, and I simply wanted an update. I think the remarks were uncalled for.
1120
Mr Len Wood: We can be accused by the Conservative caucus of being partisan if they want, but I also sat on the committee through the 44 recommendations. I covered that at the beginning, that I thought there were a lot of good recommendations there and I was pleased to see the response coming back and going into a dialogue.
The only other comment I would make is that I'm sure thousands of people out there are going to agree with me that a $7.5-million budget for the Ombudsman, compared to an $8-million waste of money for Mike Harris on TV -- that's money wasted where this is money well spent, listening to the complaints process coming through. I'm happy with that and I'm pleased to see that we're seeing good dialogue coming through on how we can better the Ombudsman's office as a result.
The Chair: I'm going to suggest that that particular issue has now been fully aired, and I ask everyone to now focus on the report once again.
Turning to the government caucus, any further questions or comments? Okay. Mr Patten, did you want to get back to your earlier point?
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I had a point to make, but I want to say to Mr Murdoch that I'm disappointed to hear his response. I don't think it was warranted to generalize.
Mr Murdoch: I was disappointed first, though.
The Chair: I said I've heard enough on that. Let's focus on the report.
Mr Patten: If I understand some of your overall major concerns, Ms Jamieson: By virtue of privatization is there still an accountability, the right of complaint, and then of course related to the provincial jurisdiction versus the municipalities' jursidiction? There was one response you had here in terms of an all-party committee. How many all-party committees, the balance of all parties, are there in Canada or other jurisdictions? Is that a model that is more and more being adopted or does it tend to be controlled by more members from the government side, as we have here?
Mr Murdoch: As it always has been.
Mr Patten: Oh, I agree. You're very touchy today, Mr Murdoch.
Mr Murdoch: I've sat in this committee for a long time and I've never heard this kind of stuff, especially from the NDP. They were so easy to work with in government.
The Chair: Knock it off. We're here to discuss the report.
Ms Jamieson: Thank you, Mr Patten, for the question. I can't take you across the country quickly on committees, but I'm happy to get back to you on that answer. I think we can find the information.
There are few committees in Canada on the Ombudsman. There may be only one other parallel, and it's not a committee on the Ombudsman; it's the Legislative Assembly committee in Alberta. It's an unusual arrangement here.
What would I see as the ideal structure? The structure that would make sense to me would be a committee chaired by the Speaker of the House as the senior, independent officer of the Legislature, and two members from each of the parties of the House. You would not have any majority. You could put other rules into place so that you could ensure that opposition parties wouldn't dominate over government parties. You could say that any resolution would have to be voted upon by at least one from each party, those kinds of safeguards. I think it is long overdue that such a committee be created.
If I can share some information with the committee, a year or two ago -- I think it's two years ago now -- the officers of the Legislature came together with then Speaker Warner and put forward a suggestion to the Legislature that such a committee be created for all officers of the Legislature to relate to. I thought then, and I think now, that the suggestion has merit. If you're talking about amendments to the Ombudsman Act or indeed any other act of the officers, you may want to have such a committee which is balanced and which is clearly non-partisan in appearance and in reality. Those are my thoughts. That letter that was written a couple of years ago might be worth dusting off and having another look at.
Mr Patten: Sometimes the argument is framed as accountability versus independence, and it seems to me that those two should not be woven against each other but rather that both are important. Because there is strong accountability does not mean there can't possibly be the independence that I think people require.
Also, when some members talk about people wanting less government, that doesn't mean they don't also want to have a voice. What I find as a member in my office -- and there are many more complaints relative to when I was a member before -- is that people keep calling back. I suggest they call the ministry. They call the ministry. They get a runaround. It's a loop that ends up going absolutely nowhere, and eventually they may end up in your office or we take on the case directly and try to intervene.
Mr Murdoch: That's just because you've got voice mail.
Mr Patten: No, we don't have it.
But I think the independence is important; otherwise, people will lose faith in their government if they don't feel there is a just mechanism to deal with the government. Even though government is smaller, it's still pretty darned big.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments? There being none, Madam Ombudsman, I thank you for -- I see you have a comment.
Ms Jamieson: Just one or two things I'd like to leave with the committee. This is my last appearance on this round. I'm not quite sure what the committee proposes to do next or how the process will unfold, but I want to indicate a couple of things.
One, I want to reiterate my very sincere commitment to work cooperatively with this committee in its work. I want also to say that as the process unfolds, I would very much like to have further input should the focus become one of proposing amendments to the Ombudsman Act.
If that happens, if that is a mandate explored by this committee or given to this committee, I have some thoughts on amendments to the Ombudsman Act myself. I have not identified them in this process, but if you focus there, I would be happy to do so. Having been in this post now for more than seven years, I certainly have some thoughts and hear from the public their thoughts that I'd like to register.
One of them will be no surprise. Every time I am introduced or attend a public function, the issue of the title is raised with me, the fact that it is not a gender-neutral word. We can all talk about it being a Swedish word etc, but it does not portray a gender-neutral image. That's just one area.
If you do start focusing on amendments to the act, I would very much like an opportunity to come back and speak with the committee and put forward my thoughts on other areas of the act to be changed.
I also want to draw to the committee's attention the fact that I received a letter that was dated November 25, 1996. That has been forwarded to the committee. The letter came from the president of the International Ombudsman Institute, Martin Oosting, who is also the Ombudsman for the Netherlands. The contents are self-explanatory. At his request, I have provided it to the committee and understand that it will form part of the formal record of the committee's review.
I also want to mention that I remain available and willing to meet with the committee on some of the other matters on the list of agenda items that remain outstanding: the annual report, of course; the Ombudsman fairness standards, which we put together and forwarded to the committee; further discussions you may want to have about the right of complaint and restructuring of government beyond privatization and including privatization. If the committee wants to talk about those matters some more, I'm happy to do so, to explain how the right to complain, for example, can be preserved and what role this committee might take in that.
With that, Chair, I simply want to wish the committee well in their further deliberations. If I can be of any help, please call upon me.
The Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you for assisting us in our process. This meeting is now adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1131.