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.
