SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

CONTENTS

Thursday 22 February 2001

Special Report, Provincial Auditor: Section 3.04, institutional services and young offender operations

Ministry of Correctional Services
Hon Norman W. Sterling, minister
Mr Morris Zbar, deputy minister
Mr Brian Low, executive lead, alternative services division
Mr John Rabeau, assistant deputy minister, adult institutional services
Ms Deborah Newman, assistant deputy minister, community and young offender services
Mr Kurt Jensen, director, infrastructure renewal

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Chair / Président
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les îles L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les îles L)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North / -Nord PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Mario Sergio (York West / -Ouest L)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor
Mr Andrew Cheung, director, justice and regulatory audit portfolio,
Office of the Provincial Auditor

Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel
Mr Ray McLellan, research officer,
Research and Information Services

The committee met at 1043 in room 228.

SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Consideration of section 3.04, institutional services and young offender operations.

The Chair (Mr John Gerretsen): I'd like to call the meeting to order. Welcome to everybody here this morning.

I noticed, Mr Deputy, that you have a prepared statement. Did you want to make that statement first, while we're waiting for the minister? Did I understand you correctly, that the minister is expected to be here this morning?

Mr Morris Zbar: Yes, it's my understanding that the minister will be joining us. I believe he would like to say something first, and then I'd be happy to make my statement, if that's OK.

The Chair: OK. I'm going to ask the indulgence of the committee, then, since we're starting somewhat late, that perhaps this morning's session can go until 12:30, if that's all right.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Agreed.

The Chair: That will allow the minister and the ministry to make their presentation. Then we'll still have three 20-minute rounds for each caucus. Is that agreeable?

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): Mr Chair, I see we're coming back at 1:30. So if it's over at 12:30 we can still be back at 1:30.

The Chair: We can still come back at 1:30. I'm sure it won't take more than that.

Good morning, Minister. It's a pleasure to have you here this morning. We are not normally graced by the presence of a minister of the crown at this humble committee process, but we're glad you're here.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services, Minister of Correctional Services): Good morning. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. As you know, I have only recently been given this opportunity to be the minister of corrections and I, quite frankly, don't know how long I will hold that post, but we shall see.

I thought I would just make a few opening remarks before my deputy, Morris Zbar, who is sitting to my left, carries on. No doubt he will be able to more specifically answer your questions with regard to the auditor's report.

One of the things I have found since I have been appointed as Minister of Correctional Services is that I have gained a greater understanding of the difficult job that our correctional staff have across this province. I have read many of their letters to me as the minister, their e-mails, and have really been impressed with their commitment to corrections and their hard work and the difficult task they have in delivering this essential service that we have in our province.

I would like to say to this committee that I am truly excited about the transformation of our correctional system into one that's safe, efficient, effective and publicly accountable. Reforms are long overdue in this particular area of our jurisdiction. If we look back over the last 30, 40 or 50 years, little has been done to try to consolidate, update, rebuild, deal with the many small and outdated prisons that we have had across our province.

I must, however, emphasize that I am dismayed at how expensive it is to run our jails. The per diem rate in 1999-2000 is $140 per bed in our adult institutions. What is truly surprising is just how much the older institutions cost the taxpayers of the province. The Sault Ste Marie jail, for instance, has a per diem rate of $226.10 for each inmate each day. On the other hand, the Toronto West Detention Centre costs the taxpayers only $85.27 per day per inmate.

The Provincial Auditor has written in his report that our correctional system is plagued with chronic absenteeism. The average number of sick days for correctional staff is about 20 per year. The average number of sick days for the Ontario public service is about 10 days per year. While every institution is different and of course there are different factors with regard to absenteeism, it is a problem more at some jails than at others. For instance, the Burtch Correctional Centre has an average number of sick days of almost 21. The small Walkerton jail has an average number of sick days of about nine.

This absenteeism must stop. We must make better use of the taxpayers' money. The ministry will take measures to address this problem. I am heartened to know that the ministry will publish the average number of sick days for each institution on a regular basis. This way, the public will have the opportunity to view for themselves the performance of their local jail.

I am pleased about the ministry's attempts to secure private sector partners for the delivery of correctional services. If the public sector enjoys a monopoly for correctional services, there is little incentive for innovation. By introducing the discipline of the market, I believe the public system will improve too. The competition between the publicly and privately operated jails will ultimately be good for the staff. Through competition, we will introduce a sense of mission to encourage the creativity of correctional staff.

1050

As you may be aware, the Penetang jail, which is being built at the present time and is near completion, and the Lindsay jail, which is I believe about halfway completed at this point in time, are identical institutions. One will be run by the private sector and one will be run in the public sector. It will be the perfect opportunity for us to compare the success of each institution and compare what is in the interests of the taxpayer. With regard to the Penetanguishene jail, at this point the pre-qualified bidders should be well on their way to developing their bids that meet or exceed our ministry's high and tough standards. I am proud that this government, unlike many governments of the past, is finally addressing the challenges of delivering correctional services in a modern age.

I apologize that I will not be able to stay very long, but I know Mr Zbar, my deputy, will be in a position to answer your questions. Before I go, I would entertain some generic questions of some nature if you have them, but I only have a very short period of time because I'm in another committee of cabinet at this time.

The Chair: That's unfortunate. We were going to give you all the time to answer all the questions that the members would have.

Does the committee agree that we will allow each caucus five minutes to question the minister on his statement? Is that agreeable?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Agreed.

Mr Kormos: No, it's not agreed.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): But you'll live with it anyway, right? How many minutes do you want?

Mr Kormos: I don't want to ask the minister questions. He's here for five minutes for each caucus; far more important is to be able to talk to the bureaucrats.

The Chair: All right. There will be no questions, then. Thank you very much for your presence here today, Mr Sterling. Have a good day.

Deputy Zbar, the media has left; the floor is yours.

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, if I may, I have a motion to present to the committee. May I be advised when it's the appropriate time to introduce it?

The Chair: I would suggest that if there is a motion, we deal with it before our adjournment at the end of this morning.

Mr Sergio: Fine. Then I will be more than pleased to introduce it now, Chair.

The Chair: Now?

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): He said at the end.

Mr Sergio: At the end? OK, that's fine.

The Chair: Mr Deputy, go ahead.

Mr Zbar: Good morning and thank you very much. I'm going to introduce my senior team. They will be up here helping me answer questions. One of them has just left the room, so I'll wait until he returns and I'll continue with my remarks and introduce them at the end.

Oh, you're back. I'd like to introduce John Rabeau, who is the assistant deputy minister for adult institutions; Deborah Newman, who is the assistant deputy minister for community and young offender services-

The Chair: Excuse me for a moment. Yes, Mr Maves?

Mr Maves: We were just conferring. Why don't we have that motion introduced now so that between now and the end of the day, at lunch and whatever, we can have an opportunity to look at it and look into it?

The Chair: Fine. Will you read the motion in, and then we'll have copies of it produced.

Mr Sergio: This motion actually was introduced yesterday by our colleague Mrs McLeod and it was defeated yesterday by the committee. Subsequent to that, the Premier did indicate, when he was questioned on this same motion, that he would have no problem to look at it and have it introduced and have it approved. Therefore I'm going to make my motion now.

I move that the Provincial Auditor be asked to investigate the value-for-money aspects of the decision by Cancer Care Ontario to provide after-hours radiation therapy through a private clinic rather than in-house.

The Chair: The motion is out of order since the exact same motion was dealt with yesterday.

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, the Premier has no problem in looking at this motion, so I would ask the indulgence of the Chair and the members of the committee to accept the motion.

The Chair: Unless there is unanimous consent-

Mr Sergio: I would request unanimous consent.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

I heard a no, so there is no unanimous consent. That particular motion, since it is exactly the same as yesterday's motion, is out of order.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): May I ask, Mr Chair, does that mean that a motion dealing with a similar topic and the same intent would be substantially the same?

The Chair: There has to be a substantive change.

Mrs McLeod: Then in terms of the Premier's response yesterday, I'm just surprised that there was a no. I would have thought that the government members of the committee would have wanted to entertain this motion, given the Premier's obvious enthusiasm to have value-for-money audits done in a circumstance like this. He made that quite clear this morning. That was why the motion was being reintroduced. I'm not sure whether government members might want to be asked for unanimous consent again later in the morning, after they've had a chance to determine whether or not it's government policy to deny value-for-money audits.

Mr Gill: Chair, I'm just going by what you had said, that this motion was dealt with yesterday. But we might be willing to reconsider it, if you allow us to put it on the table again. I'm just going by what you said, that this was an identical motion, which was dealt with and defeated yesterday.

The Chair: The committee can do whatever it wants by unanimous consent. I asked before if there was unanimous consent to allow the motion to be dealt with today and there was not.

Mr Sergio: The motion, the way it stands, is not based on the comments of our member across the room here, it is based on the fact that the Premier himself yesterday, subsequent to the introduction of the motion and defeat of the same, did express willingness and support for the motion. Therefore, we thought it would be more than appropriate to reintroduce the motion. Ms McLeod, unfortunately, does not have voting rights, so she cannot introduce the motion. I'm doing that on her behalf to give the opportunity to the members and the Premier to look into this matter accordingly. Again, based on the information coming across from the government side, I'm willing to reintroduce the motion and hopefully have the vote reconsidered and allow not only the members of this committee, but the Premier, to really look into the depth of the motion.

Mr Maves: The Premier is not on the committee.

Mr Sergio: I can appreciate that.

The Chair: I will ask again, is there unanimous consent for this motion to be dealt with?

Mr Kormos: Agreed.

The Chair: I didn't hear a dissent that time, so the motion will be dealt with. I suggest that we deal with it at 12:20.

Ms Mushinski: I'm sorry, Mr Chair, but it was my understanding that this committee was going to be meeting until 12 today, and there isn't any opportunity for me to be here at 12:30; I have a long-standing commitment at 12 until 1:30. So I'm wondering if we can possibly deal with it prior to 12.

The Chair: OK, we can deal with it now, if you'd like to have a discussion.

Mr Maves: Not only that, Chair, but when I requested initially that he introduce the motion now, I also said that we could deal with it at the end of the day; we'd have lunchtime to consider the motion.

The Chair: All right, we can deal with it at the end of the day, then. I'm at your disposal.

Mr Sergio: Do you consider 12:30 the end of the day, or 1:30?

Mr Maves: No.

The Chair: No, these hearings go on in the morning and in the afternoon, depending upon how many corrections delegations there are presently in front of us. At the end of that process, I am suggesting that the motion be dealt with.

Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, this bickering is really generating high anxiety. I'm having a hard time dealing with it.

The Chair: We don't want to give you any anxiety attacks or anything like that, so we'll now listen to the deputy and we'll deal with this motion later on today.

Mrs McLeod: Is the committee sitting until 12:30 this morning?

The Chair: This morning the committee is sitting till 12:30, by unanimous consent earlier, and we'll come back at 1:30 to conclude the rest of the day.

OK, Mr Deputy.

Mr Zbar: Thank you very much. I think I got as far as introducing John Rabeau. Deborah Newman is the assistant director of community and young offender services. She just joined us from our Kingston regional office a short while ago. Brian Low is the executive lead of our alternate service delivery. They'll be joining me up here as soon as I'm finished my comments, to provide further-

The Chair: They can join you right now, if they so wish. It's entirely up to them and you.

Mr Zbar: Thank you.

I'd like to begin by saying that our ministry is undergoing unprecedented change through our transformation strategy; the minister referred to it. Our correctional system is being transformed into one that achieves improved results, increased public safety, more secure and efficient institutions, greater accountability and lower reoffending rates. As always, public safety and the enhancement of public safety is the government's and the ministry's number one priority. The government is committed to creating a results-based, efficient correctional system that spends taxpayers' dollars more effectively.

1100

A number of initiatives are underway to help us achieve these transformational goals. I need to stress to you that, as the minister mentioned, the change that we're undergoing in corrections is major. It's on all fronts, it's very complex and it's going to take time. But the changes in part were precipitated by the auditor's remarks in 1995 or so, when he spoke about the expense of the system and about trying to get costs into line. That was one of the reasons for initiating some of this change.

Under the infrastructure renewal project, or IRP, the ministry is replacing and updating what are considered to be some of the oldest and most inefficient facilities in the country. The government is also making both institutional and community settings safer for our staff by introducing a zero tolerance policy for violence against correctional staff.

Another initiative, the new earned remission program, will make inmates accountable for their actions by requiring them to earn their remission by actively participating in work and rehabilitation programs and by abiding by institutional rules.

Also linked to offender accountability is the introduction of a drug and alcohol testing program. Offenders both in institutional and in community settings will be required to submit to random drug and alcohol tests to ensure that they are complying with institutional rules or release conditions.

The ministry is also in the process of establishing a dedicated system for young offenders, which includes transferring young offenders currently residing in facilities shared by adults to facilities solely for young offenders. This dedicated system will focus on specific programming, with a dawn-to-dusk approach that will apply strict discipline measures for youth to achieve better results in correcting unlawful and antisocial behaviour.

The ministry is also working on many community-based improvements and, as a result of last year's budget announcement, is now in the process of hiring an additional 165 probation and parole officers. This is part of our community strict discipline approach, and these probation and parole officers will provide more frequent and intensive monitoring of offenders serving their sentences in the community.

I'll speak more about these and other initiatives in a few minutes, but first I'd like to provide a brief overview of the correctional services in this province.

As I've mentioned, the government's top priority is public safety. The preservation and enhancement of public safety is paramount in all of the ministry's planning and decision-making. That being said, ministry staff perform a very complex and difficult role as the custodians of the province's correctional system.

The ministry's mandate is to supervise the detention and release of inmates, parolees, probationers and young offenders within an environment designed to encourage changes in behaviour through the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. To facilitate these changes in behaviour, the ministry provides supervision, training, treatment and related services designed to create opportunities for successful personal and social readjustment in the community.

I'd like to refer you to the quick facts attachment included in your package that we provided. It gives you some of our operational data, and I'll just review a few of the numbers.

In terms of numbers, over the past year, on any given day, there were approximately 73,000 people under the supervision of the ministry. That's on any given day. This number includes the approximately 7,400 adult inmates and 700 young offenders in the province's correctional institutions. To better understand the current correctional system, it is important to note that approximately 88% of our offenders are sentenced to community supervision, and only 12% of offenders are incarcerated.

On the adult side, the ministry has custody of adult offenders sentenced to terms of two years less a day, accused persons on remand awaiting trial or sentencing, persons held for immigration hearings and deportation and persons awaiting transfers to federal prisons to serve sentences of two years or more. The average length of sentence in Ontario for adults is 83 days for male offenders and 52 days for female offenders. The average length of stay for remanded offenders is 27 days.

In the community, the ministry is responsible for supervising all adult offenders who are on probation, conditional sentence or provincial parole. The average probation order for adults is 492 days, or approximately a year and a half.

The ministry also supervises young offenders between 16 and 17 years of age, the majority of whom are involved with the correctional system for up to three years. The average length of a secure-custody order is 91 days for males and 52 days for females. The average length of open-custody order is 86 days for males and 69 days for females.

The remaining young offenders are supervised in the community while on probation or alternative measures, such as community service or restitution. The average length of community supervision for young offenders is about 15 months.

You'll recall that one of the ministry's goals is to effect changes in behaviours through supervision and by providing training, treatment and related services. With relatively short terms of incarceration, it's a challenge to be able to impart positive behavioural changes through programming for inmates. That is why some of the recently announced initiatives, such as the new earned remission program, are so important.

The government introduced the new earned remission program as part of Bill 144, the Corrections Accountability Act. As I mentioned, offenders will now have to earn the privilege of early release by actively participating in rehabilitation programs and demonstrating positive behaviour, instead of being automatically credited with remission for early release. Inmates will not earn remission or will lose remission already earned by failing or refusing to actively participate in treatment or work programs, violating the zero tolerance policy for violence against correctional staff, failing to demonstrate that they are drug- and alcohol-free, or failing to meet standards for positive behaviour. Essentially, the new earned remission program will encourage positive behaviour in inmates by providing the incentive for them to gain the skills that will help them reintegrate into the community upon release.

Other components of this act include: implementing random drug and alcohol testing for offenders both in institutions and in the community; reconstituting the Ontario Board of Parole into the Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board-the authority responsible for making all conditional release decisions except administrative temporary releases, such as attending a medical appointment; establishing a clear accountability framework for all public-private partnerships for the delivery of correctional services; and creating local boards of monitors, with members appointed from the local community, for Ontario's correctional institutions.

The drug and alcohol testing component of this bill will also work to address safety concerns both in institutional and community settings, and help to identify offenders in need of assistance with substance abuse problems. Substance abuse is a known factor contributing toward criminal behaviour. In Ontario, about 80% of adult inmates sentenced to incarceration in provincial correctional institutions and about 60% of adult offenders serving sentences in the community are found to have some degree-and I stress "some degree"-of alcohol or drug dependency. Drug and alcohol testing within Ontario's correctional system will provide the ministry with the tools to respond to problems related to alcohol and illegal drug use, and to hold offenders accountable for their behaviour.

Under Bill 171, the Victim Empowerment Act, the government introduced several initiatives to strengthen the rights of victims within the provincial correctional system. If passed, this bill would: allow greater participation of victims in parole hearings; introduce a process to monitor, intercept or block communications between inmates and others where it is reasonable for safety and security of other persons and institutions-this, by the way, is done in other jurisdictions, including the federal correctional system; introduce grooming and appearance standards for inmates serving sentences in correctional institutions relevant to security, health and safety issues; and introduce standards of professional ethics for all staff involved in providing correctional services, whether employed by public or private operators.

Another important government commitment is to modernize the province's correctional system, which falls under the infrastructure renewal project that I mentioned earlier. The IRP involves expansion and security upgrade projects and the construction of a number of new correctional institutions to replace aging facilities. These projects will help transform an outdated correctional system, with facilities that predate Confederation, to one that is safe, secure, effective, efficient and accountable. They will also create a better regional balance in the delivery of programs across the province.

A key aspect of the modernization is the introduction of a new design for our facilities. The ministry looked at correctional facilities in many jurisdictions worldwide. The result is a made-in-Ontario design that will create a safer environment for both staff and inmates. This will be achieved through improved sight lines, restricted inmate movement and the introduction of advanced security technology.

1110

The various initiatives I've outlined for you illustrate the magnitude of change that our ministry is undergoing. This change will have many benefits, both in the near and distant future. Ontario's correctional system truly is in the process of transformation to a modernized system, and there are costs related to the extensive changes that are underway. However, the ministry is continually working to manage operating expenses.

One of the ministry's most problematic issues is the cost associated with staff absenteeism and overtime. The ministry is very concerned with absenteeism and is implementing a number of initiatives to address attendance problems. The ministry is currently reviewing attendance records of individuals with excessive absenteeism and considering appropriate action. In addition, a new unit has been created within the ministry's human resources branch specifically for case management. The ministry is also assessing the tracking and reporting features available through the new Workforce Information Network system to enable the most efficient collection and reporting of attendance data.

Building on the success of our public-private partnerships in delivering correctional services such as those for open-custody residences, the province is continuing to pursue partnership opportunities with public and private service agencies. These partnerships will assist the ministry to deliver the most safe, secure, efficient, effective and accountable service to the people of Ontario. Introducing partnerships into the system will help the province's correctional services to achieve improved results and to reach a proper balance of detention, correction, and accountability. The province believes that both public and private operators of jails can produce acceptable results provided the focus of the operation is on delivering these results.

Public safety is our top priority, and all correctional facilities, whether publicly or privately run, will be required to meet the same high standards for safety, security and efficiency.

Public accountability is of great importance to the ministry. To that end, as part of Bill 144, the ministry will be introducing local boards of monitors for all of the province's correctional institutions. The boards of monitors, whose members will be appointed by the government, will have three main functions.

The first is to act as independent observers of the day-to-day operation of the institution. Board members will help evaluate and monitor the provision of adequate care, supervision and programs for offenders in accordance with stated safety and security standards, and approved regulations and procedures.

The second is to provide a link between the community and the institution. Members will be able to educate the public about corrections and to address public concerns. They will also provide management with a community perspective on institutional decisions.

The third is to provide advice on the operation of the correctional facility and the impact on the community. Board members will fulfill this role by regularly visiting the institution, sitting in on programs, and meeting with management, staff and offenders.

The last item I would like to address is that of treatment programs. It is estimated that 15% to 20% of the inmate population suffer from some form of mental health problem. Therefore, the provision of appropriate treatment programs is a significant requirement for the ministry.

The government will be placing correctional and treatment facilities in the same location to enhance operational efficiencies, reduce the need to transfer offenders between facilities and make better use of the professional services available. By locating correctional and mental health forensic services in the same place, the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of Health will both realize operational cost savings. These savings will be reinvested in establishing safe, secure mental health facilities for offenders with serious mental disorders, whose needs will be better served by these new facilities.

The government will be constructing two state-of-the-art facilities in Brockville and North Bay to accommodate and treat offenders with mental health problems. For the Brockville facility, the ministry is partnering with the Royal Ottawa Hospital for the delivery of treatment and forensic psychiatry services. These projects will result in a significant increase in the number of adult treatment beds.

Offenders under community supervision are referred to the appropriate community resources for the delivery of mental health treatment, and their progress is monitored. The additional probation and parole officers being hired by the ministry will be able to provide more frequent and intensive supervision of offenders serving sentences in the community. This intensive supervision will be especially important with certain types of offenders, including those with specific mental health problems.

The province is continually looking at ways to deliver the safest, most secure, effective, cost-efficient and accountable correctional system possible. The ministry has a difficult and complex business to run, with many competing priorities and many challenges. However, public safety will always be our top priority. The transformation strategy is leading toward a more modern, efficient and effective system that is safer for both the public and our staff, and also our offenders.

The new programs aimed at making offenders more accountable for their actions will work toward better preparing offenders for reintegration into the community through work and rehab programs. Smoother reintegration of offenders into the community will lead to lower reoffending rates.

Of course, giving victims a stronger voice and protecting victims of crime are of great importance to the government and the ministry. Together with our justice sector partners, the Ministry of Correctional Services is working to better integrate the services and programs provided to victims of crime. The ministry's role is to protect and support victims while holding offenders accountable for their conduct. Initiatives include improved services to victims of domestic violence through implementation of the May-Iles jury recommendations and proposed legislation to allow for greater victim participation in the parole process.

Victims of crime are also provided with a victim support line, VSL, and a victim notification system, VNS. This VNS provides registered victims with automated telephone notification of any changes in an offender's release status. It also advises of upcoming parole hearings, allowing victims to express their concerns or provide any information they feel is relevant.

I hope in my brief comments I've been able to provide you with a sense of the magnitude and scope of change that our ministry is undergoing and our commitment to continuous improvement. We will now make an effort to address any questions the committee may have.

I'll stop, but I just want to make one more brief comment. We have approximately 7,500 staff. They are very dedicated people. They work extremely hard under very difficult circumstances. What we're trying to do is create an environment that will support our staff and therefore provide better service to the province and to the people in the province. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Deputy. We will now have questioning, starting with the Liberal caucus.

Mr Sergio: Mr Chair, how much time do we have per caucus?

The Chair: I suggest 25 minutes per caucus. That will take us right to 12:30.

Mr Sergio: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee, Mr Zbar, with members. I'll have a few questions with respect to safety and accountability, including the economy and efficiency within the system.

My first one to you is that the average daily inmate count, and that goes for both youth and adults, dropped between 1996 and 1997 by some 6%, but the operating expenses have not come down accordingly. As a matter of fact, they have gone up by some 19% between 1995-96 and 1998-99 or 1999-2000. Can you give us a reasonable explanation of the stage where we are now and why it is that we have, I would say, a reasonably sharp drop in the average number of inmates but the expenses have gone up dramatically since 1995? Why is that?

Mr Zbar: I'd be pleased to try and give you an answer that I hope you find suitable. There is no question that we have an expensive correctional adult institutional system especially. That was pointed out in the provincial audit of 1995. In fact, we are the second highest in terms of per diem in the country, after Newfoundland. That's why we're modernizing our correctional system, that's why we're building our new facilities, to bring the costs down. If we don't, the cost drivers in terms of old, inefficient jails are extremely high, and the only way to deal with that is to create operating efficiencies. That's what we're in the process of doing.

As you know, the new facilities are not on line yet. They'll be coming on line very shortly: Penetanguishene in the summer, Lindsay the following spring, and Maplehurst, which is a major retrofit, in the next couple of months. It's at that time that we hope to see the per diems start to come down.

1120

I just want to speak about the last five years, the time that the auditor looked at this. Part of the costs were also created by unique circumstances and one-time events. For example, the 1996 OPSEU strike led to a tremendous amount of overtime for management and others, and that was a blip. The grievance arbitration decisions we've had over the last few years have increased our costs by millions. The community escort policy that went to arbitration and was ruled on has cost us millions of dollars. There's been a tremendous increase in health care expenses related to our treatment of offenders due to new treatments and increased medical problems in terms of AIDS and other diseases that are cost drivers, and of course negotiated increases to salaries. If you remove that from the basic operating, we actually feel that over the five years, the percentage increase has been about 11.3%, which is still over the consumer price index of 9.8%. But those are some of the reasons, those cost escalators.

Mr Sergio: Perhaps with the exception of the problem associated with the strike, I believe the expenses on a daily basis are the same throughout the country, which makes our per diem expenses much higher than in the rest of Canada, than facilities in many other provinces.

You mentioned the facility in Penetanguishene. I believe in 1998 there was a report to privatize, not to go along with that facility. Is it still your view that that facility should not go ahead with and be privatized?

Mr Zbar: I'm going to ask Brian.

Mr Brian Low: I'm Brian Low. I'm the executive lead, alternative service delivery.

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking the reason for the decision to proceed to select a private operator for the site at Penetanguishene?

Mr Sergio: Partly that and partly the report from Mr Peters, I believe, not favouring to proceed with that particular facility. Are you still of that opinion?

Mr Low: We're certainly of the opinion that-we are in the process of completing the construction there. There was a decision to not go forward with a "design, build and operate" by the private sector at that time. It was felt that at that time the government, the ministry, would construct the site and at the completion would then consider the option of entering into an agreement with a private sector operator for a period of time. That would allow the ministry to enter into a private sector agreement for a shorter period of time in terms of just a contract of purchasing service for the operation that would allow us to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of operating with a partner from the private sector.

Mr Sergio: I have a number of questions. I'll be jumping from one place to another, so Mr Zbar or whoever may want to answer.

I believe Ontario is one of the Canadian provinces with the lowest number of inmates being transferred from a security facility into another institution. Why is it that Ontario has one of the lowest placements from such a facility into another institution? Why do we have such a very low record?

Mr Zbar: I'm not sure I'm understanding the question.

Mr Sergio: From a prison into another institution: move those inmates from that particular place, from such a sterile environment, if you will, into an institution closer to the community. Even Quebec has a very high percentage of moving inmates from the institution to other facilities in the community.

Mr Zbar: Let me begin by reminding you that 88% of our offenders are in fact in the community, so what you're referring to is the 12% who are incarcerated. Again, let me remind you that the average length of stay for adult males-and I'll deal with adult males-is approximately 87 days. What we try to do in those 87 days is get them stabilized, provide some assessment and try and find some integration strategies to bring them back into the community. We're not talking about long-term offenders here; we're talking about short-term offenders. We use risk assessment tools and, when appropriate, we do in fact use temporary absence programs. I don't know if you're suggesting that we should be using more of them, but the fact is, based on our assessment criteria, based on the risk tools that we use, we're comfortable with the fact that we're releasing the appropriate number on temporary absence and ensuring that we maintain public safety. Again, I remind you that we are talking about very short-term-sentence offenders; you know, 87 days.

Mr Sergio: Out of the 47 correctional institutions that we now have, 60% have or have had security non-compliance problems. A lot of them have gone on, unrectified, for over a two-year period. To your knowledge, have they been rectified? What action have you been taking and what system do you have in place to monitor that indeed those measures are now being adhered to?

Mr Zbar: I'm going to ask John Rabeau, who is the assistant deputy minister for adult institutions, to respond to you on that.

Mr Sergio: Give everybody a chance. Good.

Mr John Rabeau: We have a number of ways of looking at our security requirements within our institutions. In fact, we are enhancing our monitoring of adherence to standards. We have had self-administered workbooks that superintendents use to check the security requirements within the institutions, but within those workbooks there are a number of operational requirements outlined as well. So our problems with regard to compliance to procedures are not all security issues; they are operational issues as well.

We are enhancing our look at the security side-there's an annual review in each institution on the security requirements-and developing further tools to ensure that shortfalls that are identified in those reviews are fixed in the year in which they are identified.

Mr Sergio: So have those 60% non-compliants been looked at? Have they been rectified now?

Mr Rabeau: We are reviewing each of our institutions yearly, Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: A further question. The auditor's report states that sick days for correctional staff increased from 12 days in 1995 to 16 days in 1998, which now represents an increase in spending of some 11.1%, to $16.5 million. In the private sector, an increase of six days might be blamed on poor management or bad working conditions. What is the ministry doing to address the situation, taking into account the health and welfare of those who work in Ontario facilities under very difficult conditions?

Mr Zbar: I'm going to again ask Mr Rabeau to respond, but as I mentioned in my opening remarks, attendance is a problem. But again, we have to acknowledge the difficult environment that corrections operates in. That's not to say we can't reduce and we must reduce the rate. I think part of our program in terms of infrastructure renewal, creating new facilities which will give staff a better working environment and a safer working environment, will be of assistance.

I'll ask Mr Rabeau to provide more specifics.

Mr Rabeau: We certainly recognize that during this period of transition in our organization, the uncertainty in the workplace is contributing to our problem. We're certainly hoping that as we get to a position of more certainty and into our new institutions, this problem will be rectified somewhat.

We are doing a number of things. We've developed committees in each of our institutions, which are supported by our bargaining agents as well as management, to look at wellness issues within each institution, concerned particularly with the working conditions and the environment within those institutions.

1130

We have developed a better capacity, I think, to assist our staff who are off sick for extended periods of time to come back and get back into the workforce. We're certainly attempting to accommodate their return to work in a more timely fashion, adjusting jobs and the types of work to allow folks to come back. We are increasing our efforts to try to manage a group of staff who are abusing the sick time provisions that they have and developing a stronger support mechanism for our managers to help them manage those individuals who are creating difficulty in that area.

Mr Sergio: If I heard right, Mr Zbar, you said that you are looking to hire some 160 or 165 new staff?

Mr Zbar: We received permission as a budget item last year to hire 165 new probation and parole officers, 80 this fiscal year, and 85-half and half, basically. The hiring is proceeding and we hope by the end of this fiscal year to have the first 80 on board. That's to help our probation services provide the kind of supervision that's required. The caseloads were very high and we felt there needed to be additional probation officers to provide better support and ensure public safety. So, yes, we are doing that.

Mr Sergio: So it's in process but no hiring has taken place yet.

Mr Zbar: Yes. The process has been, first, to meet with the bargaining agent to make sure we deal with issues of transfers and folks who want to move, make sure everybody is accommodated that way. The ads are in the process of going out, or have gone out. Actually, I'll ask Deborah Newman, who is responsible for that program, to comment.

Mr Sergio: Before you go-

Mr Zbar: Sure. She'll give you a fuller answer.

Mr Sergio: What is the difference between transferring and hiring the new probation officers?

Mr Zbar: No, what I'm saying is, let's say we have 85 new positions across the province in terms of probation. We have met with the bargaining agent to ensure that if there are members who for personal or family or professional reasons want to move from one part of the province to another, we have set those things in place using the collective agreement; we've placed those people. Then we hire behind them. So the net number of new jobs is the same, but we're accommodating our staff first. That's all in the process.

Why don't I ask Deborah Newman to give you a more detailed picture of that.

Ms Deborah Newman: I'm Deborah Newman, the assistant deputy minister of community and young offender services.

Just to elaborate on Mr Zbar's response, the hiring of the 165 new probation and parole officers is well underway. The first 80 are being hired this year and we expected to have the hiring process complete by the end of this fiscal year, by March 31st.

As Mr Zbar mentioned, we've gone through a process following consultation with OPSEU and with our own professional Probation Officers Association of Ontario. We agreed to a particular process that allowed our staff to exercise their options under the lateral transfer provisions. We then have looked at areas of search that provide job-threatened staff who are qualified and who work in our institutions an opportunity to apply to these new positions in probation and parole as well.

Then we are advertising. In fact, a number of ads have been out since the end of January across the province, because of course these 80 positions are distributed across the province in various locations. So we're in the full process of hiring at the moment for the new positions and then we'll be hiring the next round of 85 positions in the subsequent year, in the new fiscal year.

Mr Sergio: Training for these probation officers: do they come with training or do they have to be trained, and what kind and where do they get this training?

Mr Zbar: Again, I'll ask Ms Newman to respond.

Ms Newman: One of the qualifications to be a probation officer is a degree in the social sciences, so our probation officers do come with basic academic qualifications, but we then provide training for our staff with respect to their responsibilities in probation and parole. In fact, we just implemented, in the last 12 to 18 months, a new service delivery model in communities for the supervision of offenders that allows us to provide more intensive supervision of the higher risk offenders. We're streaming offenders based on a comprehensive assessment of the risk and needs they pose. So our probation officers are being trained, firstly, with respect to doing comprehensive assessment of offender need and risk and then, following that, they're being trained to deliver intensive supervision as well as rehabilitative programs.

Mr Sergio: With respect to the Milton facility and the new jail facility there-it was originally designed to provide meals for 10 correctional institutions, and it's now reported as being able to serve only six. In addition, the cost of the facility has risen from an estimated $5 million to some $9.5 million. Basically this indicates that the enacted planning and construction has cost more and is serving less than planned. What went wrong, and what is the ministry doing to rectify the situation?

Mr Zbar: I'll have Mr Kurt Jensen, who is the director of our projects, talk to you about that and respond to your question. Is that all right, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Kurt Jensen: I'm Kurt Jensen. I'm director of the infrastructure renewal project for the ministry. I've been the director for this project since Mr Peters gave us his last report-

The Chair: Could you speak up a little?

Mr Jensen: -and we decided to embark on this project.

As part of this project, we looked at a lot of jurisdictions as to the delivery of various correctional services, and one of the things we looked at was how we were going to deliver food to our inmate population in southern Ontario. We had an original estimate of approximately $5 million for the construction of that cook-chill facility. In addition to the $5 million, we also had an initial estimate of about $4.5 million for the equipment that would go into that facility. Therefore, the original estimate we had was about $9.5 million for the cook-chill facility in Milton.

As we progressed with the project and got the design further along, we got a subsequent estimate for that project. The actual escalation of the cost of the cook-chill went from $9.5 million to $11.7 million. That was $5.5 million and $6.2 million for construction and equipment respectively. So while the auditor is quite correct that there was an escalation in construction cost-it was actually an increase of approximately $500,000 for construction-the equipment cost increased somewhat more, and the total cost went from $9.5 million to $11.7 million.

With regard to the capacity of the cook-chill facility, based on a number of studies we've had by various groups, the capacity of that facility is very flexible, depending on how the facility is operated. It's our intention that it will provide sufficient meals for the southern Ontario correctional facilities if it's operated on an eight-hour day, five days a week. There's nothing to say it could not be operated on two shifts of eight hours, five days a week. It could even operate seven days a week as necessary.

We think the upper limit of the capacity of that facility is somewhere in the order of 45,000 meals, which far exceeds the capacity we would need in the long run in southern Ontario.

1140

Mr Sergio: Is there a time when you may be reporting on some changes or improvements in that respect?

Mr Jensen: I'm sorry?

Mr Sergio: Is there a time when you may be reporting on how you will be making some of those changes and improvements?

Mr Jensen: I think that as we begin to operationalize the cook-chill facility and bring more institutions on line, we would make the determination if we need to run that facility seven days a week or if we need to add an extra shift or perhaps instead of running eight-hour shifts we could run 10-hour shifts. I think those things will happen as time goes on.

The Chair: OK, that's it, Mr Sergio. The auditor wants to make one comment before I turn it over to Mr Kormos.

Mr Erik Peters: I just want to relate back to some of the numbers you provided us with. At the time we did the audit, the equipment was estimated to cost less than $100,000. Was there a subsequent submission to Management Board for the $4.5 million you are talking about?

Mr Jensen: No, the $100,000 you refer to was not equipment associated with the cook-chill facility at Maplehurst, nor with the re-therm kitchens at Maplehurst, Penetang or Lindsay. That was to put re-therm ovens into the other older facilities that we would supply with cook-chill food: Toronto East, Toronto West and the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre.

Just the cost of buying re-therm ovens for those facilities was estimated at $100,000. When we went back and did a more extensive audit, we found that not only did those institutions require re-therm ovens to be able to deliver cook-chill food, but the equipment was such that they had been operating it for 25 years and those institutions needed a total retrofit of their kitchens. That's what escalated that $100,000 to a projected $4 million: to do a total refit of those three kitchen facilities.

Mr Peters: Was that done subsequent to the original Management Board submission for $5 million? In the original submission to Management Board, you went for $5 million.

Mr Jensen: The original submission to Management Board was $5 million for construction at the cook-chill only. In addition to that, there was an equipment cost of $4.5 million.

Mr Peters: Was that in the Management Board submission?

Mr Jensen: Yes, it was.

Mr Andrew Cheung: We didn't find the $4 million in the Management Board submission.

The Chair: I'm sorry-

Mr Peters: We need to clarify that, because we didn't find that $4.5 million in the Management Board submission. So if that could be clarified-

Mr Jensen: We would be glad to provide you with the budget projections from those times.

Mr Peters: The second question I have is, you indicated the operation of the facility could be expanded in order to provide 45,000 meals, I think you said?

Mr Jensen: Those are projections we've had from subsequent consultants who have looked at that kitchen facility. That certainly is not based on our original assumption of operating eight hours a day, five days per week. That would be going to a second shift, operating 16 hours a day, five days a week or some interim solution of 10 or 12 hours a day, five days a week.

Mr Peters: That would include operating the water-chilling facility for these extended hours, because it struck us that that was the bottleneck at the time we looked at it; it could only be operated for eight to 12 hours a day.

Mr Jensen: We've had various different opinions from consultants on that. What I'm giving you is the best advice we've had from those consultants, who obviously know more about that than we do.

The Chair: Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, people. You're here knowing that this committee is concerning itself with the auditor's report, and obviously you've come armed with your briefing materials, anticipating questions. Is that a fair observation?

Mr Zbar: So far.

Mr Kormos: And you're using those briefing materials to respond to the questions that are being put to you?

Mr Zbar: That's a fair assumption.

Mr Kormos: Then may I request, Chair, that those same briefing materials be tabled with the committee? It would make it so much easier.

The Chair: We can request that the briefing materials be tabled with the committee, but we cannot compel them to do that.

Mr Kormos: I understand: a right without a remedy.

The Chair: Your request has been noted, and if the ministry feels so inclined they can table it.

Mr Kormos: On the Penetanguishene-Lindsay jail proposals, I understand it was a precondition by Management Board that an RFQ be issued before those be embarked on. Am I correct in that?

Mr Low: Are we speaking about the construction now?

Mr Kormos: Yes, before either project was commenced in terms of turning sod.

Mr Zbar: I'll ask Kurt Jensen to come back.

Mr Jensen: As part of the construction for Penetang and Lindsay, there was an RFQ that was initiated-actually there were two RFQs initiated. There was one to identify an architectural firm that would work with us in the design of those facilities, and that also included the Maplehurst complex, and there was a subsequent RFQ issued for each of those three projects which was to shortlist a number of general contractors who would subsequently bid on the construction of those facilities.

Mr Kormos: I understand that, but based on the auditor's report, I'm left with the impression that Management Board had required as a precondition, with the anticipation that these were both going to be private sector operators, that an RFQ-is the auditor wrong? He doesn't mind being told he's wrong. Is he wrong in his observation that "as part of exploring alternative service delivery options, in August 1996, Management Board directed the ministry to prepare a[n] ... RFQ for the two new facilities"?

Mr Jensen: When we went to Management Board, they asked us to explore the feasibility of the private sector being involved in the construction or operation of one or more of these projects. I don't remember asking them that they specify Penetang and Lindsay. They asked that we consider the use of partnering with the private sector in some fashion. They didn't give us directions as to exactly how that was going to take place; they said we should explore that feasibility.

Mr Kormos: The auditor's report similarly says that the ministry's response to the issue, as raised by the auditor, was "that the RFQ was never prepared due to time constraints...." Is the auditor correct in that observation?

Mr Jensen: The ministry proceeded in that manner by having a number of meetings with interested private sector companies. They were invited to come and express to us how they felt or what questions they had or what they would like to see or where they thought they might fit in in delivering a correctional service in the province of Ontario.

Mr Kormos: I'm reading page 78 of the auditor's report where the auditor reports, "The ministry informed us that the RFQ was never prepared due to time constraints...." The auditor acknowledges being advised that they met with members of the private sector consortium, but I want to know if that's correct, that the ministry advised the auditor that you never prepared an RFQ due to time constraints.

Mr Jensen: I'm not aware of us saying that we didn't do that because of time constraints.

Mr Kormos: Do you know who would have given that information to the auditor that he included in his report?

Mr Zbar: Mr Jensen is saying that he is not aware of whom, so if you're asking the question, we will try and find that answer.

Mr Kormos: Please, because I understand that an RFQ eventually was issued with respect to Penetanguishene in terms of operators.

Mr Low: That's correct. In terms of the operation and the opportunity for partnering with a private sector operator for the operation and for that portion of the business, yes, a request for qualification was issued.

Mr Kormos: Who were the interested private sector consortia that were met with in lieu of the RFQ for the construction of the Penetanguishene and Lindsay operations?

Mr Jensen: You mean the firms?

Mr Kormos: Yes.

Mr Jensen: If I recollect, there was Group Four, Wackenhut security, Management and Training Corp, and Corrections Corp of America. I think those were the four that came to see us.

Mr Kormos: Were minutes kept of those meetings?

Mr Jensen: Yes, there were.

1150

Mr Kormos: Did those meetings impact on the decisions to utilize private sector versus public sector in the Penetanguishene and Lindsay operations?

Mr Jensen: The result of those meetings were quite different from the RFQ process that's being undertaken at the current time. We found out a number of things as a result of those meetings. This was very early on in the project as we went through the Management Board approval process. The indication was that at that time the private sector expressed a greater interest in operating facilities and in the finance of these facilities. That was the main theme that came out of those meetings.

Mr Kormos: We're told that in April 1997 the operational agreement for Project Turnaround was awarded to a private bidder and that three-year contract was entered into for $8.3 million. That contract, I trust, was prepared by the ministry?

Mr Zbar: Deborah will answer that.

Ms Newman: Sorry, Mr Kormos. Your question was what was the value of the contract?

Mr Kormos: No, I'm talking about the preparation of the $8.3-million contract for Project Turnaround that we're told was awarded in April 1997.

Ms Newman: I guess I'm not clear on what you're asking me.

Mr Kormos: The authorship of it. The contract was authored by the ministry.

Ms Newman: Yes, there was a contract prepared by the ministry and negotiated between the ministry and the private operator, Encourage Youth Corp.

Mr Kormos: That was subsequent to the RFP in February 1997?

Ms Newman: I wasn't present in the position at that time. Through the RFP process they were selected and then the contract would have been developed with deliverables based on the RFP.

Mr Kormos: The development of the contract was something that took place conjointly with ministry staff and with the private sector operators?

Ms Newman: That would be my understanding.

Mr Kormos: The contract was based on the requirements of the ministry in terms of minimum standards that were to take place or exist at Project Turnaround?

Ms Newman: That's correct.

Mr Kormos: The auditor tells us that subsequent to that contract an additional $400,000 was paid to the operators of Project Turnaround. How did that happen?

Ms Newman: There was a review of security conducted by the ministry of Project Turnaround and it indicated that the security of the operation could be improved through the addition of one post, which was an eight-hour post, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This resulted in a request to Encourage Youth Corp to add this post to improve the security of the operation. The $400,000 payment covered the period from the time that post was added in December 1997 to July 2000, without penalty or interest. So it was not for a single contract year. Once the contract was renegotiated, then the post was built into the contract in July 2000.

Mr Kormos: What prompted the review of security that resulted in that renegotiation?

Ms Newman: You may recall that there was an escape that happened from Project Turnaround that precipitated this and the security audit was conducted as a result of the escape of two young offenders from Project Turnaround.

Mr Kormos: We were told, as I recall, that the escape was a result of an electrical storm that had short-circuited some of the electrical security systems. Was that correct?

Ms Newman: In part, yes. There was a thunderstorm and lightning struck the building and short-circuited the electrical system, so that's correct, and it caused a malfunction to some of the fire doors of the facility. As a precautionary measure, vehicles were parked against those doors that were malfunctioning at the time. Two cadets were then able to force their way through these access doors because there wasn't a post that was providing continuous monitoring at that particular time. The young offenders were able to force their way through those malfunctioning doors into a compound area where they were able to hotwire a vehicle and crash the vehicle through the perimeter fence.

Mr Kormos: The auditor also notes that some $24,000 per year had been overpaid to the contractor. How did that happen?

Ms Newman: That's correct. The ministry has undertaken to more closely monitor the contract from a financial perspective. The overpayment was a result of the contractor invoicing the ministry the same amount as a first invoice that they had delivered to us for the after-care portion of the program. That particular invoice, the first one, was for a three-month period rather than a two-month period, and then the error was propagated thereafter. They kept invoicing the ministry for the same amount of money, so subsequent invoices simply mirrored the first bill without an adjustment being made to reflect a two-month bill rather than the three-month bill. So the overpayment continued until the auditor discovered it, around August 1999. At that time the error was immediately corrected, the billing error was brought to the attention of the service provider and the entire overpayment amount of $24,000 was recovered from the next invoice.

Mr Kormos: Earlier you talked about the minimum academic standards for probation officers. In the contract with the operators of Project Turnaround, what was the minimum training level or academic standard for staff they would be employing?

Ms Newman: This was simply a human error in financial-

Mr Kormos: No, no, I'm not concerned about that any more. You talked about the minimum academic requirements for new hires in the probation area. In the contract, what was the minimum academic or training standard for staff being utilized by the operators of Project Turnaround?

Ms Newman: The staff at Project Turnaround would be required to have the same academic standard as correctional officers in our public system, which is a grade 12 education.

Mr Kormos: And there was no prerequisite that they have any other training with respect to youth issues, rehabilitation issues or programming?

Ms Newman: I would have to go back and look at what those qualifications were, but I can tell you that the staff who work at Project Turnaround in fact do come with a variety of experience in working with young people in a social service area, and many of them actually have experience in corrections specifically.

Mr Kormos: I've spoken with a number of them, which makes me ask, are you aware that the operators of Project Turnaround engage in a profit-sharing relationship with their staff?

Ms Newman: That would be outside of any contractual arrangements we have with them.

Mr Kormos: Quite right, but do you know that to be the case, that they're motivating their staff with profit-sharing?

Ms Newman: I'm not able to verify that.

Mr Kormos: On the RFQ with respect to Penetanguishene and Lindsay, you also indicated that the-and again, this is where I'm a little confused, because the auditor reports that somebody told the auditor that it was time constraints that prevented you from obtaining the RFQ, but then there was further information that appears to have been given to the auditor to the effect that the reason for abandoning private sector financing and ownership of Penetanguishene and Lindsay was as a result of the meetings you had with the private sector consortium. That's consistent with what you told me earlier, isn't it, sir?

1200

Mr Jensen: That was certainly one of the reasons we chose not to go that way. At that time, through the development of the whole infrastructure on the old project, there were continuous meetings with staff at Management Board and staff at the Ministry of Finance, and one of the reasons that many jurisdictions had entered into the whole issue of finance, build, own and operate was because they didn't have the money to be able to finance large-scale capital projects.

It wasn't the opinion of the Ministry of Finance at that time that there were any savings to the province in using private sector money for the construction of the facility. As a matter of fact, there would have been a penalty of approximately 200 basis points had we used private sector funding, and in one way or another that gets paid, whether it's up front in capital or through operating costs at a later time.

The other reason that the ministry chose to proceed with using provincial funds to construct these projects was that it gave a significant amount of flexibility at a later time. The province would own those facilities. It wouldn't constrain us if we wanted to change-

Mr Kormos: And then if the private sector operation failed, you could take them back.

Mr Jensen: It would give us that larger amount of flexibility. It wouldn't tie us into a 15- or 20-year operating contract.

Mr Kormos: Right. But you did ultimately issue an RFQ for the operation of the Penetanguishene operation, and the RFQ is designed to find out who out there meets the qualification standards for operating. Isn't that what an RFQ is?

Mr Jensen: Yes.

Mr Kormos: And what was the response to your RFQ, request for qualifications, with respect to private sector operators of Penetanguishene?

Mr Jensen: I'm going to have to defer to Brian, because the infrastructure renewal project grew to the point where-

Mr Kormos: Fair enough; go ahead.

Mr Low: With respect to the request for qualifications that was issued last summer, there was a response from a number of interested proponents, and those qualifications were subsequently evaluated to determine from that who the qualified bidders would be, who would then be invited to submit a proposal for the operation.

Mr Kormos: How many submissions were made?

Mr Low: As part of the process and right from the outset of the process, it was determined that the number and the identity of the proponents would not be identified at this time, in keeping with what would be a fair and competitive process. That information will be released at the end of the entire process.

Mr Kormos: What percentage of submitters failed to meet the qualifications?

Mr Low: That as well-

Mr Kormos: It doesn't involve numbers; that's a mere percentage.

Mr Low: I understand that, but that all comes from the numbers, and our advice is that we should not enter into talking about, at this time, who either did or did not qualify, or the proportion. But we will be pleased to release that later.

Mr Kormos: Were there submissions made by companies other than companies based in Canada?

Mr Low: Yes, I can say that there were submissions that were multi-jurisdictional.

Mr Kormos: Were the Canadian submissions qualified?

Mr Low: That then begins to identify proponents, so I'm afraid that at this point in time I'm not able to respond to that question.

Mr Kormos: Were the multi-jurisdictional or the not exclusively Canadian jurisdiction companies similarly among the group that were qualified?

Mr Low: I'm sorry. I'm going to appear evasive, but at the same time, to indicate from what jurisdiction parties did or did not qualify would begin to lead toward identification of numbers or names.

Mr Kormos: We've heard reports that there were no qualified Canadian companies. Are those reports accurate?

Mr Low: I've indeed read those same reports and I do not know where that information would come from, so-

Mr Kormos: Somewhere in the ministry.

Mr Low: I don't believe that the reports I've read have in fact come from-

Mr Kormos: Even Harris couldn't get 12 people together without one rat.

Mr Low: I think the reports I've read in fact have not emanated from the ministry, certainly if we're looking at the same information. Those are rumours, and I can't respond to those.

Mr Kormos: What was the perspective of recognizing that some operators-Wackenhut, Group Four, you said, among others-were engaging in conversations, discussions, meetings with the ministry in lieu of an RFQ? Those conversations clearly influenced the ministry's decision about whether or not to require private sector operator financing of the operation. What was the check and balance in terms of the RFQ for operators vis-à-vis the fact that some of those same potential operators may have influenced the government or the ministry's decision to abandon private sector participation in the construction and financing of the institutions? What was done to isolate the people the ministry consulted in these meetings in lieu of an RFQ? What was done to isolate those meetings with the RFQ which eventually went out?

Mr Low: Before an RFQ, and in the process of developing the RFQ, we had the opportunity to make a decision that we would go forward in looking at a partnership with the private sector. So we looked at a variety of jurisdictions, we visited and, in fact, during that process we had the opportunity to speak with various operators, both public and private sector. That's something that would inform us as to what we would be looking for in terms of criteria.

Once the process began and once the RFQ was developed and issued, then there was a very strict process in terms of communication, influence and conflict of interest. At that stage there is a very disciplined process in terms of the ability of proponents to submit their expressions of interest. But certainly prior to that, in order to establish what will be the very best ultimate product, we would indeed speak with both the jurisdictions that hold contracts with private sector and operate public sector and as well then come back and in some cases speak to both private and public sector operators.

Mr Kormos: With respect to Project Turnaround, the operators of Project Turnaround who came to the table with you to negotiate the contract held themselves out to have experience and expertise in the operation of this type of secure facility?

Ms Newman: I assume that was one of the rating factors.

Mr Kormos: In developing the contract, the ministry relied upon them as well as its own resources to determine standards or levels of staffing for the purpose of security. That's not unfair, is it?

Ms Newman: I think the ministry set the standards with respect to the operation of the institution, and that would then have been evaluated through the RFP process.

Mr Kormos: Clearly you're suggesting that there were egress doors, more than one, that were unmonitored in the original proposal in terms of staffing or monitoring. Am I getting that correct?

Ms Newman: There needed to be subsequent security enhancements to be able to provide continuous monitoring of all those doors. So initially-

Mr Kormos: But that means there were egress doors that weren't being monitored in the staffing level or staffing component in the original contract.

Ms Newman: They were being monitored, but there was no capacity for continuous monitoring.

Mr Kormos: No, they were being checked once an hour or once every 45 minutes.

Ms Newman: They would have been checked continuously 16 hours a day and then for the rest of the time through regular checks.

Mr Kormos: The solution was to use cameras and put a staff person on to monitor these doors?

Ms Newman: There were also physical security enhancements made to the building itself.

Mr Kormos: But I'm interested in the $400,000, appreciating that that's over a period of time from December 1997 to July 2000. That $400,000, you suggested, was the staffing cost. Was that staff person monitoring a video screen that uses camera surveillance?

Ms Newman: That's correct.

Mr Kormos: That's one staff person?

Ms Newman: No, this is a continuous control-module post. In other words, it's now staffed continuously, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Mr Kormos: Do you mean it's a central monitoring post with surveillance cameras throughout the institution?

Ms Newman: That's right.

Mr Kormos: Hadn't that been included as part of the original agreement?

Ms Newman: No, as part of the original agreement it was envisioned that what we refer to as dynamic security would have been sufficient and that staff interaction-relationship custody-with youth was the primary means of providing security. It was intended to be an interactive type of model, and it still is, but it needed to be enhanced.

Mr Kormos: It was sort of like, if you develop a good enough rapport with this youngster, he'll let you know before he tries to leave.

Ms Newman: I'm sorry, I didn't catch all that.

The Chair: OK, we'll have to leave it at that. The government.

Mr Maves: Chair, I'm going to start, and then I think Mr Gill has a quick question.

I want to pick up Mr Kormos's line of questioning with regard to Project Turnaround. You had that escape in 1997 when it opened. How many have you had subsequently from Project Turnaround?

Ms Newman: We've had no further escapes.

1210

Mr Maves: In that same time period, how many escapes have we had from the other publicly run facilities?

Ms Newman: In 1999-2000, we had four escapes from our facilities, and in 1998-99, we had six escapes.

Mr Maves: And 1997-98? Do you have a number for that?

Ms Newman: Sorry. In 1998-99, we had six escapes across our system; in 1999-2000, we had four; in the year to date, we've had no escapes.

Mr Maves: Do you have a number for 1997-98?

Ms Newman: I do have those records, if you can bear with me for a moment.

I can go back as far as 1991-92 if you like.

Mr Maves: Just 1997-98, for comparison.

Ms Newman: In 1996-97, there were five escapes across the system. In 1997-98, there were three.

Mr Maves: OK. That gives me 18 since Project Turnaround was opened. One of those was from Project Turnaround, and the rest would be from publicly run facilities?

Ms Newman: That's correct.

Mr Maves: One of the things the auditor talked about in his 1993 report and again in this report was the very high cost to our system of adult facilities and our youth facilities. How do Project Turnaround's costs compare to some of our other facilities?

Mr Zbar: I'll ask Ms Newman to give you the per diems on our YO facilities if that would be helpful.

Mr Maves: That would be fine.

Ms Newman: Certainly. In fact, the per diem rate for Project Turnaround is the lowest of our youth centre per diem rates, at $213.86. Our Bluewater Youth Centre in Goderich has the highest per diem at $423.61. Brookside Youth Centre in Cobourg is $331.71. Cecil Facer Youth Centre in Sudbury is $303.

Mr Maves: That's good. So there's a substantial difference between our publicly run facilities and Project Turnaround. Are we doing anything to try to reduce some of the costs at some of those facilities? From the numbers you gave me, Bluewater, for instance, is double what Project Turnaround is. Is there any opportunity for us to reduce the cost of running some of those institutions?

Ms Newman: We are trying to operate those institutions as efficiently as possible, and we are piloting further strict-discipline programs in two of our public sector facilities now, at Brookside Youth Centre in Cobourg and at Bluewater Youth Centre in Goderich, because clearly those are cost-effective and highly accountable operations.

The per diem at Bluewater is particularly high because we are also housing phase 1 young offenders on behalf of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and the staffing ratios and standards contribute to those costs.

Mr Maves: So Project Turnaround, as far as escapes, is really doing quite well compared to some of our other facilities. On costs, they're doing better than all our facilities. Have you been measuring the outcomes? The most important outcome in the system is obviously going to be recidivism and whether kids are actually turned around. How is Project Turnaround doing compared to some of our other facilities?

Ms Newman: We have conducted a number of evaluations of Project Turnaround, and they've been very promising. An evaluation of Project Turnaround was conducted by Dr Don Andrews and associates in 1998 and 1999 on three separate occasions, and an instrument called the correctional program assessment inventory was used to assess whether the Project Turnaround program was aligned with what we know leads to successful correctional outcomes; in other words, reduced reoffending, reduced criminal thinking, better management of anger and substance abuse issues, and so on. Project Turnaround's program was found to be well-aligned with best practices in youth corrections for lowering reoffending rates. The importance of the after-care component of the program was also identified in the Andrews report. Overall, Project Turnaround was given one of the highest ratings in the history of these correctional program assessment inventory projects. I would comment that there are several hundred such programs that have been evaluated across Canada-that is, youth corrections programs-the United States and New Zealand, and Turnaround has had the highest ratings in their inventory.

Dr Doris MacKenzie from the University of Maryland also conducted a study that compared boot camps and traditional correctional facilities for young offenders across North America. She compared 25 so-called boot camps with 25 traditional youth correctional facilities, mainly in the United States and in Canada. Project Turnaround participated, as did one of our public sector youth centres. The environment and the daily activities and the perceptions of young offenders and staff were contrasted between the two types of programs. It was one of the first big studies of the differences between the two types of programs. She found that the boot camps were seen to provide more activity, control, caring, programming and structure, and that the structure contributed to perceptions by both staff and residence of increased safety. Staff reported an increased morale and an increased investment in their work.

The ministry also requested the London Family Court Clinic to conduct a review of the literature, with a view to identifying for young offenders the best practices in correctional programming and implementation, and their review indicated that the rehabilitative programming at Project Turnaround was consistent with the best-practice literature, indicating promising approaches to reducing reoffending.

Finally, an additional evaluation of Project Turnaround and its effectiveness is expected to be finalized in the near future, but preliminary reports with respect to this particular study have indicated positive results. In particular, the studies will show that Project Turnaround participants reoffend at a lower rate than the comparison group of young offenders, and will also provide evidence of reduction in criminal thinking and better anger management and problem-solving skills, more pro-social attitudes and other gains.

Mr Maves: Can I just ask you to go back to the first one, because that was intriguing; the "correctional program inventory," you called it. You were saying it had one of the highest ratings ever received. That's an inventory done by Dr Don Andrews, you said?

Ms Newman: Yes. Dr Don Andrews and associates.

Mr Maves: In his inventory, over how many years, roughly, has he been doing that assessment and out of how many assessments would he have done where we finish with one of the highest rankings ever?

Ms Newman: He has been doing it for a number of years. I'm not sure of the exact number of years, but I am advised that there are literally hundreds of assessments that have been done using that instrument, the CPAI, and that Turnaround had one of the highest ratings ever.

Mr Maves: Have any of our publicly owned and operated institutions ever taken part in that?

Ms Newman: We haven't used the CPAI in our publicly operated institutions, but we are planning to introduce it within this next fiscal year to public sector facilities as well.

Mr Maves: OK, Chair, I'll turn it over to Mr Gill, but I may come back, if I have any time.

1220

Mr Gill: This morning the minister did a comparison of the two facilities. He mentioned Sault Ste Marie at $226 per diem versus Toronto West at $85 per diem. That's quite a difference. Would you like to comment on that?

Mr Rabeau: The facility in the Soo is a relatively old building, quite divided up in terms of living spaces, so the requirement for staff there in terms of size compared to the Metro west facility is much greater, and that contributes to the high per diem cost. Metro west is a newer institution. We have done some recent retrofits there that allow us to supervise inmates with a much smaller staff. It's a much larger facility than the Soo with somewhere around 600 inmates, so it runs relatively economically because of that. Design particularly drives our costs.

Mr Gill: We were looking at the auditor's report where they have compared the different provinces, and the lowest one seemed to be Alberta at $83 per day. Therefore, Toronto West is as efficient, then, as Alberta rates. Is that what you're saying?

Mr Rabeau: Yes, Toronto West is, I think, our most efficient institution in the province. It would compare to Alberta, and the institutions there tend to be newer and of the same age as Metro west.

Mr Gill: One of the things the minister also mentioned was chronic absenteeism, compared to some of the other government services. What are the steps being taken perhaps to address that?

Mr Rabeau: The government generally about three years ago introduced a program to help reduce attendance problems across the government. The program had some fairly considerable success in every ministry except the ministry of corrections, where our attendance, in fact, is getting worse every year. In part, as I mentioned earlier, I think the type of work is certainly one of the reasons why our attendance is problematic. We've found that certainly at the Ministry of Health and at the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which also have institutions, the attendance is similar to ours.

We are trying to do a number of things to address the problem. We've entered into some discussions with the union to try to engage them in helping us deal with this issue. We are introducing work in our institutions to really look at ways of improving the environment there. There is a lot of uncertainty in our workplace and in part, that is not something that we control until we get to a mature system. We're closing a number of our smaller institutions over the next couple of years, and until we get certainty in terms of where people will be going to work, we're feeling that uncertainty is driving a lot of our problems.

We have instituted a couple of organizational units that are really focused on trying to deal with this problem, assisting managers in dealing with attendance problems and getting a better track and control of when we should be intervening with an individual who starts exhibiting problems and when we might have to take further steps to deal with that issue.

Mr Gill: I know you mentioned that it sort of seems like it's an inherent problem, part of the job-not absenteeism as part of the job, but because of the nature of the job, you say the absenteeism is higher. It seems to have gone up since 1995, from 11.7 days to 16. There's a progression and it's not only because of the nature of the job, I suppose. I know you've been talking to the union. Do you have a handle on why it's gone up?

Mr Rabeau: We think the biggest reason is because of the uncertainty in the workplace with the transition of our organization. That appears to be the variable here that would be different than in 1995.

Mr Gill: In a way, if the absenteeism is higher, the cost goes up and there's more incentive to make a change.

Mr Rabeau: Absolutely.

Mr Gill: Whatever the tactics are, it goes against what they are thinking.

Mr Rabeau: That's correct. We estimate the cost of our sick time is between $15 million and $20 million a year. Certainly that drives our per diem costs higher. In part, I think the sense we would have in terms of a competitive market is that people might understand that high sick time might drive us out of business.

Mr Gill: Is there a comparison to other places where the so-called privatization has happened in terms of the cost in a private institution versus a public institution?

Mr Low: Perhaps I could respond to that. Certainly when we've looked at other jurisdictions where there are private sector operators alongside public sector, we have seen two things over a longer period of time. Initially there appears to be a tremendous difference in terms of things like both cost and attendance, and also achievement of performance outcomes. So when we look at attendance, we can see that initially the attendance ratings for a private sector operator are often much better than in the public sector. What we have seen in those jurisdictions over time, as was mentioned earlier, and I believe you mentioned it as well, is that the competitive environment is there in terms of the marketplace, and the public sector is shown to improve both in areas of attendance and operation but in overall performance as well. So we do see a difference, and I would say that over time we see a narrowing of the difference because of a marked improvement within the public sector as it operates in the same jurisdiction as the private sector operator.

Mr Gill: I know we talked about an overrun in terms of one of the percentages, in Milton perhaps, from $5 million to $9 million or from $9.5 million to $11.7 million.

Mr Zbar: That's the cook-chill you're referring to.

Mr Gill: Yes. Was the cook-chill not factored in initially?

Mr Zbar: I'll ask Mr Jensen to come back.

Mr Jensen: The total budget for the Maplehurst project was some $89.9 million, and part of the cost associated with that was in fact the cook-chill kitchen.

Mr Gill: So cook-chill was factored in?

Mr Jensen: Yes.

Mr Gill: But you found that it was going to be more than estimated?

Mr Jensen: We had both an escalation in the cost of construction and a subsequent escalation in the cost of equipment. As we took the project further along, we did a more detailed analysis. The further along you take your construction documents, the more the cost consultants can put an exact price to it. That did lead to an increase in the projected cost from $9.5 million to $11.3 million for a combination of the cost of the cook-chill factory itself, the equipment to run the cook-chill factory, and the construction and equipment for the receiving kitchens at Penetang and Lindsay.

1230

The Chair: Any other questions?

Mr Sergio: Just one quick one. Perhaps I missed this in the presentation. Just for clarification, if I may, and I thank you for the time, I have a question with respect to the offenders housed at Camp Turnaround. Are they violent or more violent offenders? Do they have more special needs than others housed at other facilities? If so, does this influence the difference in the cost that we see in the various facilities?

Ms Newman: The selection of the young offenders for Project Turnaround tends to be young offenders with a higher risk to reoffend. Project Turnaround can accommodate up to 32 such young offenders. What we're finding is that we have a better rate of success with the higher-risk offenders in this particular environment, and that's what we expect our evaluation to show.

Mr Sergio: Are you saying that, let's say, the worst offenders are being directed to public facilities?

Ms Newman: We have 700 young offenders in custody in the system at any given time, and 32 of those go to Project Turnaround. So there are certainly many high-risk young offenders across the system, and we would have some diverted to Project Turnaround and some would be in our public sector institutions.

Mr Sergio: The choosing for this is done by you people?

Ms Newman: Yes. Our institutions make referrals to Project Turnaround and the youth also elect to go to Project Turnaround voluntarily.

The Chair: Are there any further questions that anyone has? If not, it will not be necessary for the ministry to come back this afternoon. Thank you very much for attending here today.

Before you leave, however, the auditor wanted to make some comments that came as a result of some of the government members' questions, so why don't we deal with that now.

Mr Peters: Yes, some of the other questions. One question was raised as to why the RFQ was not issued due to time constraints. We have the name of a ministry person who told us that. Rather than dealing with it in that way and putting an individual's name forward, I wonder if it would be to the satisfaction of the committee if I referred you to page 79 of our report, in which we said that the release of a request for RFQ could result in significant time delays caused by union grievances, because that was in the official submission by the ministry in terms of explaining the RFQ. The concern was that if an RFQ went out, there could be significant time delays, and those were the time constraints that were being referred to.

Mr Kormos: Is Mr Peters suggesting this as a way we can reconcile it?

Mr Peters: No, I'm providing this to you by way of an explanation. You asked, how did we find out? Rather than dealing with an individual who told us, I would refer you to page 79, where the source of our information is actually a submission by the ministry. So rather than naming names, I'm giving you the cause as to why this was given.

Mr Kormos: My difficulty with that is that I read mixed messages. Perhaps it's my misreading, perhaps I'm in error again, but I read mixed messages in the auditor's report. I appreciate that the time constraints could include, among other things, inter alia, the concern about grievances, but then I get the impression from the message here that there was a conscious decision made not to proceed with it as a result of the discussions with Group Four, Wackenhut etc.

Mr Peters: That we can reconcile as well. The request to issue RFQs was made in 1996 by the Management Board of Cabinet when they approved the $270 million. There is indeed a question as to why an RFQ was not issued for the two years between 1996 and 1998. The answer that was given in 1998 as to why it could cause time delays was because it could be caused by significant union grievances. I hope that answers your question.

Mr Kormos: It does. At least, you don't know whether Management Board gave, let's say, dispensation?

Mr Peters: We know they didn't, that at least-

The Chair: Does this relate to this issue?

Mr Sergio: No. Just one last quick, short question.

To carry on with some of the changes and improvements which you have mentioned and answer some of the questions in your brief here, it takes money. We have just had the Premier saying at his caucus that other than health and education, every other budget is going to be cut. Can you tell us how you're going to carry on some of those programs if indeed your department budget is going to be facing cuts?

Mr Zbar: I'm not going to speculate on whether it's going to be cut or not. I will say we are going through the business planning and allocation process and we have made our submissions based on the plan that we have in place for the transformation of corrections. Obviously, if conditions change, we'll have to make adjustments. The plan is based on certain assumptions and certain projections of growth and certain building schedules. If the fiscal situation changes, we'll obviously have to review our plan. But the government is committed to proceeding with the transformation of corrections.

The Chair: Thank you very much for attending here today.

Since we're not coming back this afternoon, what's your wish with respect to the motion? I recognize Mr Maves.

Mr Maves: Chair, I'd like to move that the committee defer consideration of the motion until a future meeting, the date to be agreed upon by the subcommittee. I can speak to it if you'd like.

The Chair: Could you hold that motion just so we hear what the comments are?

Mr Maves: OK.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Sergio?

Mr Sergio: I have no problem. I think the committee has already decided to deal with the motion at the end of our business day here, so I think there is no other motion other than to debate my motion.

The Chair: With all due respect, it was agreed that the motion will be dealt with; however, a subsequent motion to defer-

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chair: That, in effect, sir, was the equivalent of a time allocation. The committee agreed that the motion would be dealt with. They effectively deferred the motion and, in the same spirit as a time allocation, they determined that that motion would be dealt with at the end of business today. That suggests to me that any motion that would obstruct that is not in order.

The Chair: I am ruling that a motion to defer the motion to some subsequent date is always in order on the motion that is made.

Mr Maves: I'd be happy to speak to it. As a regular member of the committee on public accounts, we have several times had discussions about-

The Chair: Excuse me for just a second. Could you carry on your discussions outside the room, please. We're still in committee right now.

Mr Maves: We've several times had discussions about motions that the committee passed asking the auditor to do certain value-for-money audits. There are a lot of things that go forward in that debate. For instance, if the committee is going to decide to start recommending to the auditor to do certain audits, there may be 100 other things that the committee might want to request the auditor to go and audit, and this request by Mrs McLeod may very well be one of them.

There are all kinds of other motions that have been made in the past for the auditor to go out and do audits. We've had lots of debate time around that, because it raises certain questions such as, if the auditor goes and does this audit that the committee directs him to do, what audits will he not do in that particular year? Will there be increased dollars that we're going to have to give to the auditor's office in order for them to do that audit? So there is a whole variety of questions and we've had the debate several times with the regular members of committee.

1240

So this may very well be one that the committee will ultimately decide we would like the auditor to do. However, I think that our preference is that we have the full committee, the regular members of the committee, get together and sit down and decide that if indeed we're going to request the auditor to do a specific audit, what other potential ideas does the committee have about things they might want the auditor to go out and audit? That's why I've made the motion to defer, because I think we've had the discussion many times before about moving motions from the floor, the committee asking the auditor to do a specific audit. I would rather have that fulsome discussion with the regular members of the committee so that we could entertain other ideas that other committee members have.

The Chair: I'll recognize Ms McLeod in a second. Just so that we know what we're talking about, there was unanimous consent-there was not a motion-to have it dealt with at the end of the day. It was by unanimous consent that it was agreed upon. But then a motion to defer that particular question is always in order. So we're debating that now and so now I recognize Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I fully respect the fact that the motion to defer is in order. What it is is a very obvious attempt to just kind of sweep this under the carpet and hope that it never comes back when anybody's noticing. I don't suspect that there are many situations in which a committee would have given unanimous consent to reconsider a motion which was defeated by the government members yesterday. I fully recognize that this committee, sitting in due session, defeated this same motion yesterday.

The reason the committee agreed earlier today to reconsider the motion was because of the equally unusual situation of having the Premier on the front page of the paper today saying he would welcome a value-for-money audit of the decision by Cancer Care Ontario to pay a private company to run an after-hours radiation clinic at Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre. This is a quote from the Premier: "We have no objection. In fact, we like full audits of everything that we're doing ... and we consider the auditor an ally." I'm sorry to quote the last part, because I'm not sure the Provincial Auditor would see himself as an ally of government as opposed to an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. So let me assure you, Mr Peters, I see you as an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. But the message from the Premier was abundantly clear on an issue of major public policy.

There are enormous concerns right now about whether or not this government is bound and determined to privatize a host of areas. You've just spent several hours with a focus on privatization in the correctional system, as I understand it. We are concerned about whether or not there is an increasing move to private delivery of health care.

The question challenges, I recognize, a basic assumption of whether or not it is cost-effective or cost-efficient or in the patient interest to have publicly paid-for services, administered by a public agency publicly funded by government, delivered by a private agency. That question is central to this government's entire direction.

For the Premier to say-and I thought it was laudable-that they are so convinced that this direction has merit that they're prepared to subject those decisions to a public audit-I think the government members would want to support the Premier in that, because failure to support that direction through the examination of a public audit into a specific decision that's come forward really challenges the government's whole ideological direction, in my view. I'm really surprised at the objection to this.

Mr Kormos: The motion to defer is puzzling and it's bothersome. Let me put one further to you, and that is that the decision being proposed could well be one that costs lives. It could well be one that results in either serious harm to people or in death to people. I agree with Ms McLeod and with the Premier that the auditor is well suited to assess the propriety of the proposal by the Premier. But I'm putting to you that efforts to delay this-and this motion to defer is nothing but an effort to delay it. The fact is that the committee will have to live with the decision made by the committee. We're not assured that the motion will pass or not pass. I think members of this committee-and am I a replacement member today? Yes, I am, but I'm prepared to accept my responsibilities and not shrug them off in view of the urgency around this matter where you're dealing with people's access and the risk of denying or inhibiting people's access to appropriate levels of health care. I'm concerned enough about the fact that that sort of move could well impact on people's health and their survival in situations of medical crisis that I think it's imperative we vote on this today so that if the vote does pass, the auditor can get involved with it as promptly as possible.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Mr Maves and then Mr Sergio.

Mr Maves: Chair, quite frankly, as I said in my opening remarks, the contents of this particular motion are relevant to my decision to move a motion to defer. As a regular member of this committee-I think Mr Hastings, the Chair and I are the only members in the room who are regular members of this committee-we quite often have discussions about motions that have mostly been moved by the opposition about audits that they want to request the Provincial Auditor to do. We're happy to entertain those and we have lots of debate over that.

It raises several questions. If the committee is going to tell the auditor they want him to go do a particular audit or several particular audits, the auditor then has to drop audits that he has underway or the auditor has to come to the Legislature and ask for more money to do more audits. It's fine to consider that and we don't mind considering that, but we have to weigh all of these questions against all of the other value-for-money audits and a lot of other issues that committee members-Ms Martel, Mr Cleary, Mr Patten, and I believe other members-may want to put before the auditor. We may have other issues that we want to put before the auditor. So we've had these debates before. We could have just voted down the motion if we were worried about it or didn't want the auditor to do it. What we've done is, we're going to defer the motion to consideration at another time in public committee. So we're happy to consider the motion, but we're going to do it at a later time.

Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, it doesn't happen very often that we have the Premier agreeing with some ideas put forward by a member of the opposition. I was delighted to introduce the motion on behalf of Mrs McLeod. Health issues, you would think, are a concern of every member of the House, including the members in this particular committee here today. I'm sure they are. I'm sure that they have all the goodwill with respect to seeing this through. You would think that if the Premier says, "I would welcome an audit by our mutual friend Mr Erik Peters, that he conduct an audit on this particular issue," which is a major issue, the members would say, "You know what? Even though we are in this particular situation, the Premier said yes, he would welcome an audit, so let's go ahead with it."

Having said that, if indeed there is a concern that this may cost a lot of time and a lot of money, extra time and extra money, for Mr Peters's office, then I would say to the members of the committee, let's debate it if you want or let's say to Mr Peters, "OK, we'd like to take this motion into consideration and direct you, Mr Peters, to report back to us if indeed there is a cost associated with conducting such an audit."

Let me add, Mr Chairman, that if indeed there is any cost, we are talking about conducting clinics, radiation for cancer treatment here at home versus the millions of dollars which we are wasting sending patients out of our own country. I believe that if indeed there is a minimum cost, it would be worthwhile to find out the cost associated with doing it in-house versus a private facility.

I am begging the members of this committee on the government side to say, "OK, maybe we should debate it further. Maybe we should have something ourselves attached to it. So let's find out from Mr Peters if indeed there is any additional cost to conduct such an audit." I think the minimum thing we should be doing as responsible members is to say, "Well, hold it a second here. We don't want to go full-fledged according to what our Premier has said, that he'd welcome an audit, but at least let's give the auditor a chance to say, `Yes, it costs a few dollars,' `No, it doesn't cost money,' or `I could do it in-house.'" I think we owe that to Mrs McLeod, who so thoughtfully has brought the motion to our attention here, and to the people out there who would like to know if there is such a cost.

I'm making a further amendment then, Mr Chair, if it's appropriate, that we ask Mr Peters to report back to the committee if there is a cost associated to conducting such an audit.

The Chair: No, the amendment has to be to Mr Maves's motion. Mr Maves's motion is a motion to defer so that the subcommittee can deal with the matter. I believe that's what you said.

Mr Kormos: The question, Mr Chair.

The Chair: That the question be put?

Mr Kormos: Yes.

The Chair: Is that correct? OK. I've got a request that the question be put now. No further debate.

All those in favour of the motion to defer?

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

AYES

Gill, Hastings, Maves.

NAYS

Kormos, Sergio.

Mr Sergio: You have a vote too, Mr Chairman, don't you?

The Chair: Only in a tie. Unless it's two and a half to two and a half, I can't vote. So the motion is carried; it is deferred. What I will try to do, since we're meeting next week, is get the subcommittee together next week to deal with this matter, and there are a couple of other issues as well that the subcommittee should be dealing with.

With that, the committee is adjourned for today.

The committee adjourned at 1252.