Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

ANNUAL REPORTS, OMBUDSMAN, 1989-90 AND 1990-91

CONTENTS

Wednesday 4 December 1991

Annual reports, Ombudsman, 1989-90 and 1990-91

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)

Vice-Chair: Haeck, Christel (St. Catharines-Brock NDP)

Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North L)

Henderson, D. James (Etobicoke-Humber L)

Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)

Mammoliti, George (Yorkview NDP)

Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)

Scott, Ian G. (St George-St David L)

Ward, Margery (Don Mills NDP)

Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC)

Substitution:

Akande, Zanana L. (St. Andrew-St. Patrick NDP) for Mr Mammoliti

Also taking part: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC)

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

Staff: Murray, Paul, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1009 in room 151.

ANNUAL REPORTS, OMBUDSMAN, 1989-90 AND 1990-91

The Chair: I welcome everybody to the standing committee on the Ombudsman. I am the Chairperson, Mark Morrow. We are continuing our discussions this morning on the Ombudsman's reports, 1989-90 and 1990-91. We have the Honourable Roberta Jamieson here. Now I would like to open the floor for discussion again.

Mr McLean: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I would like to ask the Ombudsman if she has a report with regard to the issue I raised last week. If she has, I would like to hear from her at this time. I have another committee I am supposed to be at and I just thought I would pop in this morning to find out if the Ombudsman had a report.

Ms Jamieson: Thank you, Mr McLean, and to the Chair for the invitation to come back this morning. Good morning, bonjour, sago, in my language. I am delighted to see you all.

I made a number of undertakings at the last meeting which I would like to discharge at the outset. I can do them in whatever order you wish. We can start with Mr McLean's question, if that is the Chair's pleasure.

The Chair: Please do.

Ms Jamieson: Mr McLean was kind enough during the meeting last week to give me copies of materials, which I have reviewed, and I have done some further homework on this subject. I have reviewed Mr Morand's report of 1982. You will be interested to know the Ombudsman's report of 1982 followed an earlier report of 1979. This case has been going on for a very long time. I also had an opportunity to review a number of reports the standing committee on the Ombudsman has made on this subject. The most comprehensive one is the 16th report of 1988, where the standing committee itself recounts that it has raised this matter in its 15th report and its 13th report as well.

I have determined that the standing committee passed a resolution which adopted a recommendation, first to support the Ombudsman's findings and conclusions in the case and then to support the appointment of an independent adjudicator to assess whether interest is owed to the complainant. Remember, the Ombudsman had already reported that not only is the principal due, but so is the interest.

Thereafter the standing committee, as I understand it, encouraged the parties to finalize this matter as quickly as possible and in fact recalled the deputy minister of the Ministry of the Environment on one, if not two, occasions to ask why it had not yet finalized the issue. I also understand there was some informal involvement by the Office of the Ombudsman to assist in this matter.

I am also aware that in the draft terms of reference which were prepared, section 4 of that draft outlined a role for the Ombudsman in which the parties may request and the Ombudsman may respond to the request positively in the appointment of an adjudicator. In other words, the Office of the Ombudsman, after the report was tabled to the standing committee, where the findings were made clear to committee, had no further formal involvement. There was some informal involvement on the part of my office, and the parties included in their draft terms of reference, to which the Ombudsman's office was not a party, an opportunity to ask the Ombudsman to participate further. That has occurred. I have responded. Mr McLean has referred to the letter in which I responded to this matter.

I have reflected a good deal over the last week. I feel that the role of the Ombudsman in this matter was discharged not once but at least twice on this case and was put squarely before the committee. The Ombudsman at this stage has no powers to enforce the committee's recommendation that this matter proceed to arbitration. The Legislature has not given me the powers to enable me to make sure that any ministry fulfils its undertaking to this committee. If a ministry does not want to go to arbitration on an issue, I have no power to force it to do so.

I can only say again that I was struck by the fact that we discussed last week whether the ministry could indeed be brought before committee. I found that not only could they but they had been on more than one occasion. I leave it to the Chair and committee to determine what further course of action you wish to take on this subject.

Mr McLean: Thank you for your report. I would like to indicate that this individual has been through hell, so to speak, over this long period of time. He is just an ordinary individual, and I really feel sorry for an individual who has gone through what he has to try and get what was fair and right. I do not think we should leave any stone unturned to make sure that happens.

While I agree with the Ombudsman that there is no way she can make a ministry do what it does not want to do, I believe the committee, with the direction approved by the Legislature, can determine whether the ministry will co-operate or not. I urge the committee to perhaps instruct our Ombudsman to proceed by appointing an arbitrator, if at all possible. There were three recommended by each party, three by the Ministry of the Environment and three by the individual, and I urge you to ask her to pick an adjudicator to proceed with the settlement.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that suggestion.

Ms Jamieson: Would you like me to fulfil the other undertakings I made for information?

The Chair: Please, I would appreciate it.

Mr Curling: I am not quite clear on the instruction of the committee here, whether or not, as Mr McLean asked, the committee will instruct the Ombudsman. Is that what I am hearing?

The Chair: What you are hearing is a member who is not a member of this group making a suggestion that we take it up at some later date.

Mr Curling: So it is not a motion, it is just that a member has mentioned something.

The Chair: That is right. Do you wish to make a motion on that, Mr Curling?

Mr Curling: Let me say it this way then. If you want me to make the motion, I will, but Mr McLean may want to make the motion himself.

Mr McLean: I cannot make a motion because I am not subbed in. However, I think probably later this morning may be more appropriate.

The Chair: That is right.

Mr Curling: I do not mind making the motion.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Curling.

Mr Curling: If I understand the request and the understanding of this committee, the matter has now reached the stage where an arbitrator should be appointed, and I therefore make a motion that this committee give direction to the Ombudsman to proceed in appointing an arbitrator in this matter with the Ministry of the Environment. I do not have the details. I hope the clerk will put the details in place, but I understand an arbitrator should be appointed and it should be proceeded with, having the matter settled this way.

The Chair: Is there any discussion or comment on that motion?

1020

Ms Jamieson: I would just like to make it clear that my office has discharged its responsibilities on this file. It is my strong view that neither is it appropriate nor is it within my mandate to enforce a recommendation of this committee, which is what you would be asking me to do. It is a committee recommendation and resolution that an adjudicator be appointed, and this really speaks to the need for us to talk frankly about the relationship between the Ombudsman and this committee. The Ombudsman is created by statute with a very clear and independent role, clearly defined. The Ombudsman does not have a board of directors. The Ombudsman operates according to the mandate set out in the act.

When my predecessors felt they had discharged all their responsibilities on a file and they could not get government to accept the recommendations, they then brought it to committee, because this is the ultimate opportunity to bring a file to the public's attention and to the attention of the Legislature. It then leaves the Ombudsman's hands because she or he has done his or her best, has discharged his or her responsibility. It is then in the political process and it is for committee and for the Legislature to deal with the government department that I have been unable to convince to comply with my recommendations. It then leaves the Ombudsman's responsibility and comes within the realm of the Legislature's responsibility. I think I have been clear.

Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman: I think it is very clear that this committee has the authority to direct the Ombudsman to appoint an adjudicator who in turn would bring his findings back to this committee. Failing that, where does an individual go as a last resort? I thought the Ombudsman was the last resort for people who felt they had been unduly treated by ministries and that is where the Ombudsman would continue and take it to justice, so to speak. I used to sit on this committee, for about six years I guess, and we have had a lot of cases where people were unduly treated, the same as this individual has been unduly treated. How do we get justice for this individual if the Ombudsman cannot do that for us?

Ms Jamieson: I would like to reply. Mr McLean raises a very important issue. I agree with you that the Ombudsman is the office of last resort once an individual has exhausted all his avenues in government and cannot get redress. They come to me. There is a very clear process I have to follow in my legislation to try to get government to listen to my recommendations after I have done a thorough investigation. If I cannot get government to listen to me by going through the deputy, the minister, the Premier and so on, my last recourse is to come here. It is at this stage that the Ombudsman gives a full and detailed report and says: "Committee, I have not been able to get government to listen to my recommendation." It is now a matter for a standing committee to take, and it is a political issue. It is a matter then for a standing committee to bring pressure to bear on the ministry, or perhaps you pass resolutions that go to the Legislature as a whole.

I note you have called ministry officials before you and so on. This is a case where the Ombudsman has made a finding on interest. The Ombudsman says interest should be paid. It strikes me as odd that the Ombudsman would then be looked to to appoint an adjudicator to make a finding on an issue the Ombudsman has already made a finding on. The Ombudsman is a non-binding arbitrator and has expended considerable resources on this case and brought the findings forward and has supported the payment of interest. I agree with you, and my predecessors agreed, there was an injustice done to this individual. But the Ombudsman has exhausted his/her mandate and resources appropriately on this subject and I have no further role. It is now for the political process to bring its influence to bear on getting this matter dealt with by the ministry.

Ms Akande: My comments really concern the responsibilities and the powers of both the Ombudsman and the duties and powers of this particular committee. When I look at the material we have been given that I have to refer to, on page 2 it says, "On another occasion the Ombudsman, at the request of the parties, agreed to select an arbitrator in the event that the parties were unable to agree upon one." This does not seem to be the case here, where both parties have asked for an arbitrator to be set.

It seems to me that if we look at the responsibilities of the committee and the fact that we do have a responsibility and the power to consider reports and actions referred to the committee by the Ombudsman concerning recommendations denied -- if I can stretch that, this recommendation has not been denied, but it has not been complied with. It would be my feeling that it would be appropriate to request that the minister responsible for such activity be called to the committee.

The Chair: Is that an amendment to that motion?

Ms Akande: Actually it is not, because it is different from the motion. I am sorry. I should really not be introducing another motion, nor have I. I have asked a question to allow for some consideration and perhaps a change in direction of the motion which you made, Mr Curling, in relation to Mr McLean's request.

Mr Curling: In response to Ms Akande's comments, the goal of this exercise is to resolve the issue. I have some concerns about what the Ombudsman stated, not against you, Ombudsman, but the process. I think later on we will have to deal with that, but if we deal with the matter of resolving the problem, I think Ms Akande made a suggestion that would move towards resolving it and coming to the bottom of it, whether or not the refusal to have an adjudicator has been clear enough to say, "We refuse to have one."

It is not quite clear, but if the minister comes to this committee and the question is asked, "Why is it not proceeding and why is it not being settled?" within that process, I have no problem at all in having the minister come before the standing committee to address this matter and have it resolved.

We may proceed in getting to the bottom of this case, and then deal later on -- it comes up all the time, Ms Jamieson: the role of the Ombudsman, the role of the standing committee. If we can proceed in this way, that it is within our jurisdiction to have the minister come forward and explain why this process is not being finalized, even though there are two recommendations of the Ombudsman, I think I would be prepared to go in that direction.

The Chair: You now have the option to withdraw your original motion.

Mr Curling: I will withdraw that motion and request that the Minister of the Environment come before the standing committee at the earliest possible date.

The Chair: That is no problem, Mr Curling. We will move to that, I hope, as soon as we finish with our annual reports. Is that fair enough? Can I have a motion for that?

Mr Curling: The motion is to request that the Minister of the Environment come before the standing committee at the earliest possible date.

1030

The Chair: Are there any comments or questions on Mr Curling's motion? Seeing none, all in favour? Carried.

Now we will move back to the annual reports. Any further comments or questions?

Ms Jamieson: I have a couple of other responses to questions. First, there was a question put by Mr Curling on the cost of having separate French and English versions of my annual report printed as compared to having them bound together as one volume.

The cost of printing the reports separately was $17,250. The cost of printing them together in one booklet was $24,550. Therefore I made the judgement call that we should print them separately.

Mr Curling: So separately they cost $17,250, meaning that the French and English in total cost $17,250. Putting them together, French and English, would have cost $24,550.

Ms Jamieson: That is correct. There is a substantial difference. I would also like to advise you that French and English copies went out to all MPPs, ministers, deputies and heads of agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals. French reports also went to all francophone agencies, service groups, community organizations, and the francophone media, including TV, radio, newspapers and newsletters. Requests received to date have been for additional reports, most frequently in my northern offices. I do not have any reports of people having difficulty getting copies of French reports. Our mailing list is quite extensive and updated regularly. We just finalized a first-rate one within the last year, for francophone communities, aboriginal communities, visible minorities, multicultural organizations and so on.

The Chair: Ms Jamieson, can I have a clarification? How many copies are we talking about here?

Ms Jamieson: It is 7,500 copies in total. Do you want to know how many English and how many French were printed?

The Chair: Yes, please, if you would not mind.

Ms Jamieson: I do not have that in my head, but just a moment -- 7,500 English were printed; 2,500 French were printed. I am out of the English copies and we have just reordered 2,500 more. I still have a substantial stock of the French copies remaining.

Mr Curling: Was the reason for having some French copies on hand because it is upon request that they get it?

Ms Jamieson: No. The lists I gave were the lists of people, MPPs, etc, who receive French and English copies. We also sent out copies to a whole host of francophone organizations -- community organizations, community groups and so on.

Mr Curling: So you printed 2,500 French.

Ms Jamieson: Yes.

Mr Curling: And you have some on hand now. Do you know how many copies you have on hand?

Ms Jamieson: No. I could find that out, if that is of interest.

Mr Curling: It would be. You see, access is important --

Ms Jamieson: To me as well.

Mr Curling: -- and you have emphasized it quite often in your report. I was just wondering how many of the French copies are on hand.

Ms Jamieson: I can find that out, and I can also give you not only the people it went to, but the numbers, if that is of interest. You are right, access is extremely important to me, and if there are any individuals or organizations watching this broadcast, or whom you may know, who are having difficulty accessing it in French, or indeed on audiotape, I would like to know, because I will address it forthwith.

Mr Curling: Just one other question about the costs. Maybe I am not familiar with all the printing costs and what is involved in compiling a report like this, but you said you have made a saving of about $6,700 here. It cost $17,250 having them separate and $24,000 if you had them printed together. I just wonder how the cost came about?

Usually when you send things out they will talk about the cover having a specific cost. In these 1989-91 reports the one cover plays the role of two languages. This cover is English, and there is nothing on the back. I thought that should produce quite a lot of saving. What caused the saving, do you feel? Do you have far fewer French annual reports printed? Was that the saving?

Ms Jamieson: It is less and less because there is less demand. Also, you are right, there is a difference in the covers. This is not a cheap cover. It is pretty heavy and it is embossed and so on. This year I went to recycled paper, very basic colour, not too glitzy, and tried to save some money so that we could, frankly, make it more attractive and more readable inside and devote the resources to that -- do some photographs, do a report that was more inviting to people as opposed to one that looked terrific on the coffee table.

Ms Haeck: I have a supplementary to Mr Curling's comments. You mentioned the audio tape and the cost of production of your annual report. Was the cost of producing the audio tapes included, or is that a separate line item?

Ms Jamieson: That was a separate cost, but it was just a few hundred dollars, $300 in fact, to have it done.

Ms Haeck: How many of those would you have distributed?

Ms Jamieson: I could find that out. I do not have that in my head, I am sorry.

Ms Haeck: It is just a curiosity in light of the fact that more and more people are accessing government services. It would be interesting to know how far-reaching this kind of report would be, and to look at the availability of other government reports in a similar manner.

Ms Jamieson: This is a first for us. I am happy to correspond through the Chair and respond to that question, if that would be helpful.

Ms Haeck: That would be good.

Ms Jamieson: Do you want me to go to the other questions I am responding to?

The Chair: If you would.

Ms Jamieson: Ms Akande asked for the specific test that had to be met to be considered a governmental organization within the meaning of the Ombudsman Act.

First, let me say that section 15 in the act outlines my function. It says that I am to "investigate a decision or recommendation or act or omission in the course of administration of a governmental organization and affecting any person or body of persons in his or her personal capacity."

Clause 15(1)(a) defines government organization as meaning "ministry, commission, board or other administrative unit of the government of Ontario, including any agency thereof."

For further guidance, we can look to the words of Mr Justice Morden. This is a subject that went before the Ontario Court of Appeal. It was a jurisdictional challenge. The case is re Ombudsman of Ontario and the Health Disciplines Board of Ontario. I have brought 10 copies I am happy to have distributed. Mr Justice Morden noted that there were three reasons why he felt the Health Disciplines Board in that case was a board as defined under the section of the Ombudsman Act that I referred to. He said:

"It is my opinion that the Health Disciplines Board is a board as defined in section 1(a) because (1) it is established by a provincial statute; (2) its members are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; (3) it discharges a provincially assumed regulatory responsibility in the course of which it is required to apply provincial law. These features are in themselves sufficient for the board to fall under the section of the Ombudsman Act."

He goes on to talk about other parts of the Health Disciplines Act. I will not read that out to you, but I have copies of the case. Those are the three basic elements of the test to be met and to be applied in conjunction with clause 15(1)(a) of the act.

1040

Let me see, what else do I have to respond to? I think that is it for those members here present who put questions last time, except perhaps for the question of the role, which came up towards the end of the discussion. You asked me to bring the correspondence we exchanged last spring regarding our respective roles. My notes for those remarks are included as part of the record, I think. I have brought copies for your ease of reference.

Actually, it all started at our meeting last April. We met April 3 when I appeared before this committee, then I had an in-camera exchange with an orientation session; for that you were kind enough to come to my offices. Then on April 24, following a further in-camera session, I received a letter from the Chair telling me the committee had adopted a new policy with respect to its review of communications from the public. I have brought that letter as well.

The form letter that was attached followed the principles we discussed in our meetings, namely that the people approaching the committee to express concern about the way the Ombudsman had dealt with their complaints have the responsibility of providing the committee with all necessary documentation. In that way, the Ombudsman was not asked to violate those restrictions placed on me by the act for confidentiality. You outlined some of the documents you wanted: final report, correspondence and so on. Your letter also confirmed that the committee's review is for the purpose of looking at whether the treatment and investigation of the complaint was full, fair and adequate. It also confirmed that the committee would not act as a court of appeal from the Ombudsman.

We then had an opportunity on June 5 to test the policy with respect to a particular case where a question was raised as to my involvement. I was very happy to be able to provide the committee with an outline of my practice and procedure in that regard. I know no committee is bound by the decisions of its predecessors, but I hope this working arrangement will help us to concentrate on our respective roles.

I am happy to have these distributed. I will give these to the clerk perhaps, and also the cases.

The Chair: We do have documentation, but we will take it, obviously.

Ms Jamieson: Simply put, I receive complaints either directly from the public or through members of the Legislature. I investigate them, make findings, consider my findings and make recommendations. I do my level best to get the governmental organization to implement my recommendations. Where it does not do so, I have the option of reporting the failure to implement my recommendations to the Legislature. At that point, as I have said previously, my responsibility ends and it is up to the Legislature to take whatever action it wishes.

I certainly plan to work very hard to develop a co-operative relationship with this committee because, frankly, I depend on this committee to uphold my integrity as an officer of the Legislature.

One last thing may be informative and that is, when can I reopen an investigation? There are limited circumstances when the Ombudsman can do that after she has reached a finding of non-support of a complaint. There is a legal case on this question and what it says is that the Ombudsman's power to further investigate -- in other words, to reopen -- should be limited to his investigation of evidence not previously known to him, whether or not it could have been previously discovered; in other words, substantial new evidence.

If the committee has before it a complaint from a member of the public and there is new evidence available which I was not able to consider in my report, you will see that clearly because the reports we give to the public when I do not support complaints are fully detailed. I have a very high standard to meet. I do not just say, "I do not support your complaint." I say what I understand the complaint to be, what steps I have taken, and why I have decided not to support the complaint. A very high standard is what I require of my office.

If at any time you find there is additional evidence that was not considered, please, by all means refer the member of the public back to me. I would be delighted to have another look at it. In fact, I have my own internal mechanism for reviewing complaints from the public on how we have handled cases. I will leave it there.

The Chair: Just a couple of points of clarification. It is my understanding that the subcommittee can ask that you reopen a case. In the June 5 letter I believe we asked you for specifics and you answered us generally. That is just for clarification. Are there any further comments or questions?

Ms Haeck: I have a particular concern that follows up on Mr McLean's and relates to timeliness. The case he has brought forward raises questions. How many cases are there of a citizen who has a complaint having to wait 13 or 14 years for some kind of resolution? That, for me personally, is extremely bothersome because I think there should be some answer, one way or the other, a whole lot sooner than 13 or 14 years after the incident in question. An undertaking I would raise with you is to find out the longevity of some of the cases you have and the average time frame for resolution.

John and Joan Q. Public view your office as the mechanism to achieve some sort of resolution in a relatively timely fashion, so I think we as a committee should have a handle on what is waiting, what is out there, what is happening, in order to grapple with what needs to be done to facilitate resolution.

Ms Jamieson: I can respond to that today. I know of no other cases similar to the one that Mr McLean raised and I can also advise that the Ombudsman reported on that case in 1982. The fact that the recommendation of the committee has not been implemented is another question. I do not know how many cases may be in that category, but let me deal with the ones that are still with me.

First of all, I should tell you I do not have a backlog. Second, I should tell you I have some cases, fewer than five, that are more than three years old. "Why do cases take a long time?" I ask regularly. Some are stalled because the court case intervenes and we discontinue for a period, or we close it completely. Some have to do with complexity, some have to do with lack of co-operation with ministries and some have to do with an unwillingness on the part of a complainant to let the case go.

We may find we have just reached a conclusion or are very close, and before I reach my final report, if I am not going to support a case, I write to the complainants and tell them: "This is what it looks like to me. Do you have anything more to say to me before I finally conclude on this case?" Often they will raise another issue and I will look at that. Sometimes they continue to raise issues and it is very difficult to bring the case to a close. Sometimes my staff is unwilling to let the case close, and I am trying to deal with that.

1050

In the category of cases that are two to three years old, that is rapidly going down. There are some two dozens. In the category of cases that are between the age of one and two years old, there are 135. The vast majority of my files, some 90%, are less than one year old as at the end of October. The vast majority of my files are assigned to an investigator less than three weeks after they come in the door. We act on them within three weeks. It is a kind of rule of thumb.

How long does it take? Longer than I would like. One of the priorities for my newly appointed director of investigations and legal services, who is here today and able to hear both my concerns and yours, is to lessen even further the period of time. A recent study we did internally showed that 70% of the cases that my district offices deal with throughout the province are resolved early on, without the necessity of launching a formal investigation. This is where I propose to place increasingly more emphasis, as well as collecting cases and doing systemic reviews, as opposed to doing six or eight cases on the same complaint. I hope I have responded to the question.

Ms Haeck: You have, and you have raised a number of other questions. Can I proceed for a few more minutes?

The Chair: By all means, go ahead.

Ms Haeck: In the case of the ministries which are providing some interesting obstacles for you or for your staff, is there a procedure whereby this committee could assist you in achieving resolution?

Ms Jamieson: Yes. The process is that I need to come to you and demonstrate that I have exhausted all avenues to get government to respond to my recommendations. In terms of getting a reply, there are a number of things I can do. Normally, if I cannot get a response at the line level, I will raise it with the deputy. If I do not get a response there, I will raise it with the minister.

Ms Haeck: Could I just interject here? What are the time frames you are dealing with? Do you provide those people with a time frame and say, "In three weeks, I want a response"?

Ms Jamieson: Yes, and it is exactly as you have said it; it is three weeks. If it is a matter of providing some documents, I do not usually have a great deal of difficulty. If they are not willing to provide documents, I have a power of subpoena, and I can enter premises and seize documents. I can do those things. What I prefer to do is to try and work with a ministry, and we have, by and large, a good relationship.

At times, though, I have to remind them that I have those powers. If they are not too willing to be co-operative upfront, I do not hesitate to raise it further. I do set deadlines, I do advise them. If the deadlines are not adhered to, I will take further steps. It has not gotten to the stage where it has been bad enough that I have subpoenaed. I have not exhausted what is available to me at this stage, so I have not seen that as something I have wanted to raise with committee.

The question was asked about response time. I am looking at that and hope to be able to say something about it in my upcoming annual report. I think it is improved. It is still not terrific, but I do not want to make a judgement call on that without my statistics. I am having my system searched now on that subject.

Ms Haeck: The figure that comes to mind is 31,000; that is a rather large number of calls to receive. Having worked as a public librarian for 15 years, I know the whole process of information and referral, and that is a good chunk of calls. I assume you are not filling out a case sheet or something of this sort for each one of those, but you will be a quick referral on to another agency if that is the case. Most of these, I would assume, are resolved almost immediately if that seems to be the issue.

Would you feel that in reality there might be a better way of your office's handling that, in a sense -- I should not say your office -- that there should be another means for the government to possibly set up a mechanism of providing information and referral, or do you feel that your office is performing a very valuable function in this regard?

Ms Jamieson: First of all, the 31,000 comes at a time when the opinion survey I did told me that not as many people are aware of my office as should be, and those who are most vulnerable are least likely to be aware. It leads me to believe there are quite a number more out there who are not coming to us. Of the 31,000 who are coming, we do keep inquiry referral records and forms and so on. I make it a policy not to send people away without a referral. By the time people come to me, I am the place of last resort. Many of the individuals who come to me are frustrated. They have been the rounds and tried everything they know how to try. I just think it would be really counterproductive if I were to send them off without a referral.

Ms Haeck: What about a follow-up? I know, having done this on many occasions myself in my other life, that people get exceedingly frustrated being shunted from pillar to post or office to office. At that point they want to feel that someone is taking them seriously and working on their behalf and there is something actually being done. Another referral frequently exasperates them. Do you have any sense that those people, as a result of your referral, have received some sort of satisfaction?

Ms Jamieson: We have some information on that; we are aware. Sometimes we make a phone call and put the individual in touch with the referral. If it is something we can deal with quickly, my staff will deal with it very quickly even though it is not, strictly speaking, within my jurisdiction. Often we resolve complaints simply by explaining to an individual what has happened. I am sure you would share with me that government can always improve on its explanation of why decisions were taken, why forms were sent or why an individual is on the receiving end of a decision. Often we merely explain what has happened.

We will on occasion do follow-up, but if it is a non-jurisdictional issue I ask my staff to try to be considerate. Yes, we do give a referral, but we cannot spend the Ontario taxpayer's money on following up things that are not strictly within my jurisdiction.

Ms Haeck: I am partly looking for some guidance here because of the kinds of comments my staff get in my constituency office. We have an awful lot of calls as well. Other members of this committee have had discussions in our area, particularly Mr Kormos and I, about making forms and procedures as a whole more simple for people.

Obviously, if your office is receiving such a great number of calls I think it would really be a great service to all of us and the ministries in question to make some recommendations on how to improve service. Some questions that you are getting, whether it is OSAP or something else, people find these things complex and confusing and frequently useless. So if you have those kinds of information, I think it would be a great help to all the ministries and the government as a whole on how to be more helpful to the large constituency that Ontario is.

1100

Ms Jamieson: I could not agree more, and I think my office is obliged to draw the conclusions from complaints that come our way. We have had occasion to refer quite a number of calls to ministries, and when we approach a ministry about its adequacy of service, we have had one response which I have in mind, which is, "Well, yes, but we do follow up on it when you call."

That is not good enough. Not every individual ought to have me as the go-between to get his or her matter dealt with appropriately. I agree with you that where we see that as a trend, either within one department or throughout government, we are obliged to raise that question. This is where I think more broad-based investigation, more systemic views, would be very beneficial. The Ombudsman has an opportunity to do own-motion investigations, and where I see a trend like that developing, I think I am obliged to follow it up and make some conclusions.

We are right now trying very hard to revamp the way we collect the complaints coming in so that we can easily manipulate them into giving us the information we need, or easily translate them, comprehend them, so that they can be the foundation of a fuller investigation. We have not kept those statistics historically. I have an internal data working group, just very, very new. We are looking at ways of doing that and also of keeping track and giving my staff the credit they deserve on the complaints they are resolving.

Ms Haeck: Is there one ministry above all others that you have to deal with?

Ms Jamieson: Yes, there is.

Ms Haeck: And what might that one be?

Ms Jamieson: The Ministry of Correctional Services; that is why I have devoted a particular section in this last annual report, page 44, to correctional issues. I am available to receive complaints from all inmates in all correctional facilities, so in pure numbers, I guess we deal more with corrections. I hasten to add that this does not mean they are the worst or anything like that, but the numbers are there.

Mr Curling: Another supplementary and then I hope I get the chance to ask you some other further questions. Just on the follow-up on this, I asked you the first time you were here, last week, if you would give a report of the ministries that are the good ones and the bad ones, or the ones that co-operate or not. The reason I asked that is that the standing committee then would be in a position to assist you in doing your job better. I think you have advocates here who want to see a better Ontario and justice being served better.

In your annual report you mention the complaints in different categories. Would it be helpful if that list could be given to us, about who goes beyond the three weeks of response time, how many of those you have had to bring to the Premier's office and say, "I think you should call these people in, because consistently I am not getting the response time"? I put it even stronger. You have a responsibility to this committee to say: "Here's what I have done over the year. Here are the people who are making the job a little more difficult. Here are the people to whom I want to give accolades because they are just so co-operative." Individually, as is pointed out by my colleague, we have difficulty getting responses from some ministries. Would that be helpful? Could you supply us with all those ministries that took a longer time in responding to the guidelines that are laid out?

Ms Jamieson: I think the opportunity of the annual report -- and more frequent reports, if I am able to make them and it is appropriate -- provide me with a vehicle to advise the committee via the Speaker, with whom I am obliged to table my report, on some of those observations. I gave some thought to it last year -- I think I mentioned this last time -- gold stars and words of encouragement.

I am asking my systems people to pull out response time track records so that I can put my finger on the improvement, which I think is there, and also the troublesome spots. I hope to comment on that in the next annual report and then I would be very pleased to discuss it further in more detail.

Mr Curling: I am hearing from you then that you are not prepared to give us that report now, but in the next year.

Ms Jamieson: I do not have that report now. I am advised that the way I provide my reports has to be through the Speaker and then the Speaker refers them to the committee.

Mr Curling: We still have a concern about it that we are going to address later on. Sometimes I hear you saying that we just give instructions and directions --

Ms Jamieson: Yes.

Mr Curling: -- not you, really, but to call before us a minister to respond or to explain certain things. Now I am hearing another process which we will come to later on, that when you do have reports, it is through the Speaker that you present them.

Ms Jamieson: I am sorry, that is what the act says.

Mr Curling: That is fine. I understand that; but later on I think we will have to examine that so that the committee can play its role in a better, more effective way.

Ms Jamieson: Okay.

Mr B. Murdoch: Just to follow up on this, I think Alvin has touched on the whole problem we are having here. If the committee has a problem finding out what our role is and it keeps coming back to, "Well, this is what the act says," maybe we have to change the act, if that is what we have to do. I think we are here trying to help you and we want you to help us when we get a problem, but if we have to keep sort of pussyfooting around the act, that is the problem.

I think Alvin has a good question. If you are having trouble with some ministries, maybe we should know, because we can help. I think that is what we want to know here at this committee. This is the whole crux of the problem and one of the reasons why we want you here, and I think we have got to discuss that somehow and come to a conclusion. If the act is wrong, then I guess we have to change it. This is what it is all about, if this committee is redundant. I think we feel we are sitting here and we are just sort of helpless -- at least we have felt that in the past, anyway. And yet, are you working with us? I do not mean you personally. The system seems to be working against itself and nothing will ever get resolved.

I want to say this now because, just as Alvin said, we would like to know that. You skirted around it pretty good and in the end you used the act to get out of it. If that is the case, then maybe we are going to have to look at the whole act, open the whole thing up again and see whether we need this committee.

The Vice-Chair: I think the Ombudsman would like to make a reply.

Ms Jamieson: I want to be clear. Last year I did not have one case where the recommendations were denied. I said in the report that by and large I enjoyed quite a co-operative relationship with government departments, ministries, agencies, boards and tribunals. If I had great difficulty, if I could not get government to accept my recommendations and if I had tried all the things I must try, you can rest assured that I would be before this committee on a case, outlining in full detail what I had done and the difficulties I had and why I was looking to the committee to assist in having my recommendations dealt with.

The Legislature has given the Ombudsman vigorous investigative powers. I have to use my brain and discretion in exercising those powers of investigation, subpoenaing documents and so on, but I have them. If I were to come to committee each week and complain about this ministry or that ministry, I would think committee would be well within its rights to say to me: "Ombudsman, (a) you have powers in the act. The Legislature has given them to you. Use them. Have you done so? And (b) you are to come to us when you have exhausted the available process and when you require the weight of the Legislature to see that your recommendations are implemented." That is where the relationship occurs.

1110

I do not want to give the impression that there are a whole bunch of cases the Ombudsman is having incredible difficulty with, that the Ombudsman is just running up against the proverbial brick wall with ministries. That is not the case. Were it the case, I would bring the file here, having exhausted all that which I am supposed to under the act. The act tells me how I am to bring it to you, namely, by a report tabled with the Speaker.

Ms Akande: I am not so much concerned with the time it takes to do the investigations. I recognize through the report that you are enjoying unusual success -- unusual from other arenas, perhaps not from yours. What I am concerned with is a link between the terms of reference of this committee and the responsibilities you hold, and how in fact we may operate in a way that makes us also an effective tool when and if you have to come to us. I am concerned with the fact that there seems to be a limbo there, where your responsibilities and powers end and, after you have reported through the Speaker and it is brought to us, where ours begin. I am not certain whether the limbo is one in fact or whether we have failed to define our responsibilities, so I bring this question to you.

Recognizing that you make recommendations and that some of them are denied -- and you talked about that -- and that most of them are complied with, what about those recommendations that are neither denied nor complied with, such as the one to which we previously referred, although I do not want to talk about the particular case?

Ms Jamieson: I guess there are two categories of those and it has to do with tense timing. If I have looked at a complaint which has led me to recommend that a ministry change its procedure, whether it is Corrections or Health or the Ministry of Community and Social Services or whatever, and it has accepted my recommendation on the individual case and provided the appropriate redress, whether it is apology, financial compensation, whatever, and it has also said, "Yes, we undertake to change our procedure," I will say: "Okay, that's fine. That's in compliance with my recommendation and I accept your response."

I do not leave it there, however. I then will say, "I would like to see your procedure," and a time line is outlined, and if the ministry does not comply I follow up with it to ensure that it has taken the action it has agreed to take. If they have not, I will expend whatever energy at whatever level to see that it is dealt with. If it is not dealt with, I then have the option of bringing it to committee. Not every Ombudsman has brought every case to committee. The Ombudsman has to say, "Is this something that requires public attention, to be aired publicly?" Once I have decided that yes, this should be brought to committee, I bring it. The committee hears the case and may choose to hear from the ministry. It comes to its own conclusion, which I hope is to support my recommendation.

Thereafter, any undertakings would be made to committee and then it would be up to committee. It seems to me the individual making the undertaking to change the procedure is answerable to committee. He ceases to be answerable to me when I say: "Hey, I have exhausted all my avenues. I even took it to the Premier and I couldn't get anywhere and I am bringing it to committee." It is there that the Ombudsman's responsibility ends on that particular file. Then if a ministry says, "Yes, we'll do it," and it does not, I guess it has to answer to the Legislature through committee, which historically has been an incredibly powerful tool.

The Chair: I have a clarification and then a few brief questions, if I have everybody's indulgence. Mr Mammoliti asked you for a copy of your grievance procedure. Did you happen to bring it so you can share it with us?

Ms Jamieson: Yes, I have. As a matter of fact, I was hoping Mr Mammoliti would be here.

Mr Curling: I was hoping too.

Ms Jamieson: He asked me for a copy of the grievance procedure -- I have brought about 10 -- and he also asked me a couple of other questions.

The Chair: Can you share them with us now?

Ms Jamieson: Certainly. I would be happy to. He asked me about numbers. He did not ask me for specifics of facts and so on with respect to grievance procedure and I think that was appropriate. I am prepared to share the procedure, which is some 13 pages long and provides for a variety of steps, from having the issue raised with one's supervisor and up through the Office of the Ombudsman, ultimately, if the matter cannot be settled -- does this sound familiar? -- to an arbitrator, which the Ombudsman is obliged to pay for.

The policy begins with an outline of the fact that the purpose is to encourage employees to discuss any matters of concern with their supervisors. If they cannot achieve success informally, there is the formal grievance process. We also have the employee relations committee in my office, which is a group of elected employees who are available to act as a resource or indeed to represent the employee who has a grievance.

Employees receive travel costs, etc, time off from work, of course, and so on to attend grievance meetings. There are forms in here showing how the grievance should be filed and so on. Since I have been appointed, which is all I propose to speak for, the grievance procedure has been invoked nine times by four individuals in total. One individual has filed five grievances, one individual has filed two and the other two individuals have filed one each.

Of the grievances that have been filed in the last two years, three have been upheld, three are in process and two are being joined to arbitration. That is both the grievance procedure -- maybe we can give this to the clerk -- and the statistics. In the last two months, I have had a meeting with all staff and encouraged -- underlined really -- the policy of the office to deal with their concerns with openness, sincerity and fairness.

1120

I am very much aware that it is important for my office to be, as someone has said, fairer than fair, because if the Office of the Ombudsman is to review other agencies or if the Office of the Ombudsman is going to make decisions and findings on the basis of complaints about ministries, agencies, boards and tribunals, then the Ombudsman is obliged to represent a model administration. I speak to that actually in the mission statement of the most recent annual report, to the obligation on the part of my office to be of the highest standard. It is not to say that improvements cannot be made; they can and will be made.

I think that responds to the request of Mr Mammoliti in full. You will note that the grievance procedure is dated February 1989. It is a bit out of date, even though only two years have passed; for example, the executive director is named in the process. There has been no executive director at the Office of the Ombudsman since the reorganization. It needs some revamping to bring it in line with contemporary realities, and this is the subject I will be exploring further with staff.

The Chair: Thank you very much for sharing that with us, Ms Jamieson.

Mr Curling: You have had a tremendous amount of staff changes in the department in the last year, would you say so? You said you would change your own staff, and you mentioned that the executive director is no longer there. Are there any other positions that have been depleted or changed with the reorganization taking place, where many of those positions are no longer there?

Ms Jamieson: There were a number of changes in the organization. If you like, I can talk about a couple of them and give you a flavour of the whys and the whats. First, I guess as you know, I am appointed for a 10-year term and, as you know as well, the powers of the Ombudsman Act are vested in me personally and not in an office.

The act, of course, as I keep saying, defines my mandate -- Mr Murdoch will appreciate this -- and provides me, in section 8, with the authority to employ staff and to determine conditions of employment, so the Ombudsman is able to draw around him or her the people who will help him or her carry out the mandate in line with the particular approach the Ombudsman brings to the job. Each Ombudsman has a different style and a different approach even though the mandate has been consistent for about 16 years.

I came to the office with certain ideas of changes that needed to occur to make sure the Office of the Ombudsman was relevant and effective in the Ontario of the next century. I also came prepared to listen, and one of the first things I did was seek input. A lot has happened in a year and a half of my term, and just as my successor will probably find my approach inappropriate and my organization perhaps not the best for his or her liking, I too thought some changes should be made, and I have made some.

First, there was a grace period in which I listened. I talked to every manager in the office for an hour and a half or more to hear from them what they thought. They had been there, some of them, quite a period of time. What were the problems? What were the good parts? What needed to be dealt with?

Coming out of that were a series of things people felt strongly about. One of them was that there ought to be a mission for this office. There ought to be an identifiable goal statement that people could relate to. I then set about meeting with every member of my staff in small groups and developing a mission statement, which is in the report, with their input. I determined that certain reorganization was necessary. I created the directorate of community access and intake and created a director position. I created a director of human resources. The position had previously been a manager. I provided certain training opportunities for staff to help us get to where the mission statement wanted us to be.

The training opportunities have included conflict resolution training for every member of my staff at whatever level. I have also provided cultural sensitivity anti-racism training for every member of my staff at whatever level. I have also provided management training and training in bias-free interviewing skills for managers. I have also been very proactive in a recruitment strategy, because I feel strongly that my office needs to reflect Ontario. We have also had outreach and are putting together public education strategies. There was also a concern about equity in the office and the need for an independent, relevant salary scale, so we did a job evaluation and developed that.

Incidentally, that had a built-in appeal mechanism. Those employees who were not satisfied with the evaluation could appeal it right to me, and some did. Some people determined, for whatever reason, they wanted to move on. You will recall, some of you, that the voluntary exit option happened at the same time. Shortly after I was appointed there was a program extended also to my employees to allow people who wanted to move on to do so and there was a certain incentive. Some people chose that.

In a very few cases there was a gap between the orientation of individuals, what they wanted the office to do and be, and the approach the office was now taking. In those very few cases, frank discussions were held and every assistance was provided so they could consider options of employment outside my office. In those instances out-counselling was provided. In a year and a half it has been a period of adjustment, some testing and change. I think we are about 80% along the way, with the exception of two or three key positions that have yet to be filled. We have the foundation under this office to go forward, and we filled these jobs from inside and from outside.

I have said enough about the need of an officer of the Legislature to be one who exemplifies the integrity and credibility of the Legislature itself. I am quite aware of that and I am quite aware of the fact that I need every day to be moving towards the ideal that I set for myself in the mission statement on page 12 of the annual report.

Mr Curling: You have not said how many changes. Has your staff increased in number or has it decreased? How many people left with all the voluntary exit programs you had, both those who went to seek higher ground or those who decided to retire? I am asking how many have changed and how many positions -- you mention about two. How many positions have changed? You said two have not been filled.

Ms Jamieson: Yes, all right. I will go through it off the top of my head.

1130

Mr Curling: I just need numbers actually. Has the staff decreased or increased in rough complement?

Ms Jamieson: I have had 129 full-time equivalents from the day I walked in. At any given time, the numbers of positions filled because of recruitment, attrition and so on will differ. I have up to a maximum of 129 and I have not asked to go nor have I gone beyond that.

Mr Curling: Is it necessary for you to have more staff?

Ms Jamieson: It is very clear to me that the case load is going up. Last year we were 30,000 plus; the previous year 25,000. This year it will be higher. I know the caseload is going up and I also know it is going to cost me some money to provide the kind of genuine access to all people in Ontario that I think needs to be provided. There is likely to be a need, but I have not yet satisfied myself that I have found all the efficiencies in-house, that I have reallocated everything I can reallocate to meet the need. I have not settled on the indices to come to a conclusion on the need for additional resources.

When I reach that conclusion I can tell you that I will make sure I am well prepared before I go to the Board of Internal Economy. I can tell you though, for instance, my staff are suggesting to me in the strongest of terms that I ought not to have any office in the districts with one person only in it. I am placing an increasing emphasis on public education and outreach, and the same staff who have to do that in the districts also do intake.

I have transformed some of my offices into two-person offices with two district officers. It has been suggested to me that I ought to continue down that road. So far, I have been able to do it internally without seeking additional staff or resourcing.

Mr Curling: Will you find it necessary, if such a request is to go before the Board of Internal Economy, to come before the standing committee first to put your case? I just want to say it might have been helpful in the the case of the mission statement, because I am learning of the mission statement for the first time through the annual report. It would have been helpful for us to see that we work hand in hand.

As a matter of fact, since this is a Legislature, the standing committee is the body to which you report or come to appeal for support, because whether we look at it through the legal process of the Speaker, through the Legislature, or through the standing committee, this is it, really. Would you find it necessary or helpful to come before the standing committee and say: "Here it is. I would like to go to 150 and these are the reasons. I do not feel the north is served properly," and these are examples or "I haven't got adequate staff to address the Franco-Ontarian community adequately, or the native." I will ask later, as I have indicated, about how they are being served. What are the impediments or restrictions before you? Would you find that necessary to do so?

Ms Jamieson: Gee, I do not know what the Board of Internal Economy would say about that. That is the body I traditionally go to and support my case. I do not know how they would feel about that.

Mr Curling: You would probably feel great to know that a complement of quite adequate parliamentarians had sat you down and fully supported you to go before Internal Economy. You could say, "Everyone there supported me strongly."

Mr B. Murdoch: That is what I wanted to bring up.

The Chair: Mr Murdoch, please go ahead.

Mr B. Murdoch: That is what I wondered. Maybe you can tell me how the act -- because you decipher it better than even I do. Maybe this committee can help you with these kinds of things, or are we not to do so? I would like to know where you stand on that, because you told us about all the changes you made and I do not know whether they are for the best, hopefully they are.

I thought maybe this committee would be here to help you, or at least you would come to the committee and say, "This is what I'm going to do; do you like it or don't you?" I guess if we did not then we might have a problem. I would assume most of us would probably go along with it, but if we had some concerns I am sure you would want to know about them. That is what I am wondering: Where is our job in the whole thing that is happening here?

Again, I think that is why you are here, because what we want to know is, should we have been involved with all these changes or, in your mind, should we have not been involved? Obviously not, but we are saying maybe we should have. We would like to support you. We want to work with you and not against you. I think that is the whole thing we are trying to find out. Again, maybe we would be redundant.

The Chair: Mr Murdoch, can I make a clarification for you? We used to review the estimates of the Ombudsman, but now that the standing orders are changed, the standing committee on estimates does that itself. We no longer do that.

Mr B. Murdoch: The Ombudsman and her people changed the way of operating. That is fine. I am not complaining about what you have done, but I am saying, maybe this committee should have been involved a little with it. Or should we not?

Mr Curling: The estimates procedure anyhow is a bit hokey. The estimates procedure is telling you to review and approve a budget that is all completed, so we know about the estimates game anyhow.

Mr B. Murdoch: But that is not the main thing I am talking about.

The Chair: Mr Murdoch, can you place your --

Mr Curling: He is doing very well.

Mr B. Murdoch: I am just following along what Alvin said. Are we to help out or are we not? This is it, and if we are, then we want to be here to help you, because we can go to the floor and help you. But if we are not, and if in your mind we are not, then maybe we have a bit of a problem and we should work that out. That is why we are here. We can talk about cases and things like that, but we have to find our role with you and your role with us. That is what I want to know.

That is what we have been sitting here complaining about for over a year now. What are we doing? This is what I am saying: Should we not have had some input? If we should not have, fine; but if we should, then when you do anything in the future, do you want to come and talk to us first? Maybe you do not feel that is right. I think that is why we are here: to hear from you. Do you follow? That is all. I just want to know where we fit in this whole scheme of things.

Everybody gets the report, so we are hearing it at the same time as everybody else. Yet we are supposed to be the committee. I would have thought that maybe with the mission statement you would have come here first and said, "This is what I'd like to do and this is my mission statement. You're my committee, what do you people think?"

Probably nine times out of 10 we would have agreed with you, but there might have been that little input we might have had and you might have said, "Oh yeah, they have a point there." But it did not happen that way. I am not saying it should have, but I think if we are going to be a committee of some action, we have to work together to solve problems.

Ms Jamieson: I guess we are coming back to the same theme. What we are struggling with is the fact that this committee and this officer are unlike any other in the Legislature, with the exception perhaps of the auditor. The relationship is different and I am certain it is different for many of you who are on other committees. I have no doubt. I can see that. We are struggling with, "What is the difference in relationship?"

What do I do when I want to figure that out? I look at the terms of reference. Frankly, my terms of reference are the act, and at the risk of being absolutely boring, that is what I must look to. The act has given quite a degree of independence to the Office of the Ombudsman. The appointment, as I understand it, is deliberately for a long period of time so that the Ombudsman would not feel beholden to any party, government or whatever and could act independently over time and feel free to criticize the actions of government. Section 8 of the act gives the Ombudsman independence in hiring, in determining employment conditions and so on. There is a significant amount of independence given to the Ombudsman.

1140

Yes, I think I should be tabling my reports and speaking to the committee. I did so. In the first report I outlined quite a number of the changes I had in mind. We did not, however, have an opportunity to meet on it. In the second report I followed that theme and you will see in my next one I will follow it again.

But I guess we are coming back to the same thing. When I look to find what my relationship is with this committee, I look at the act. The act tells me a number of things. The first thing it tells me is how I report. The process to do that is in section 12. The next thing it tells me is when I seek the support of the standing committee on something, and that is in subsection 22(4): after I have made a final report and the recommendation has been denied. It also speaks to a provision for a standing committee to make general rules, which it has done, for the office. The rules have been about things like the manner of tabling of reports and the fact that it should go to the Premier first.

You will recall last April when we talked about some of these things -- it was, I guess, quite a different group of people at that stage -- we hammered out some of these things and went over the fact that indeed the committee is interested in receiving complaints from the public about the Ombudsman's actions so it can inform itself on whether it needs to make rules of any type. That characterizes the relationship that seems to be outlined for me under the existing act and the existing procedure with the committee, and I stress again, it is different. I am exploring with the Speaker and others what it means to be an officer of the Legislature, because the Speaker is one, the Clerk of the House is one, the Provincial Auditor is one and I am one, and we are quite a different group and in quite a different relationship with legislative committees.

Mr Curling: I think this is very important. I think this committee should speak about it and speak openly of its understanding, because you said you are an officer like the Speaker. Not even the Speaker is above the Legislature. Parliament is supreme.

Ms Jamieson: I am not above the Legislature.

Mr Curling: No, I did not say you are, but I am saying that as officers -- and as members of Parliament we could call ourselves officers of Parliament because we respond to Parliament with its laws and its guidelines itself -- the standing committee here is Parliament. That is what it is, because we know that all those officers you have just named could not really all go to Parliament, so we have these subcommittees through which they address it.

My interpretation and understanding of this law is that you report to the standing committee through the Speaker himself. You relay the annual report through the Speaker and, in turn, the standing committee deals with that and asks the questions of you, and that is what we do.

The situation as you express it would be that it is to the Speaker, and we ourselves have no such powers to guide. The law here states that we can assess to find if you have conducted the office in the right manner or if some cases have been dealt with properly, and we can even say we will open those cases if we feel they have not been properly dealt with. That is how I understand it to be.

If we find ourselves incapable of exercising those duties, I do not know about my other colleagues, but I am one of the first to say we should suspend the spell of this committee. I think Mr Murdoch was trying to say too, and I support him wholeheartedly, that as an officer of the Legislature, which you are, and as an officer of the standing committee -- that is what I interpret you to be -- all of us support you in all your presentations of budgets, of mission, and here the standing committee would give you that support.

We can work the other way around and say, "It comes down to us for approval." I think if it comes that way, around the other side, of course we will be reacting to you all the time in being co-operative. I do not want to say that we are in contrast to you. I find the only way we can co-operate better is if we get information almost at the right time, when we ask for a request and all of us support you. But I am a bit lost at times, as soon as we are working together, to hear you say, "Well, listen, I have extraordinary powers as an officer. I also have extraordinary powers, but not beyond Parliament." I just want to come back to the fact that I see the standing committee as the committee to report to.

Mr B. Murdoch: I just want to add to what Mr Curling said. This committee does not want to get involved with your decisions of what people you are trying to help. That is a different ballgame, you might say. That is your job and we do not want to be involved in that. We are called the standing committee on the Ombudsman and it is frustrating if people come to us, even if it is staff or anyone, and say, "They are slow, they are not running right, I don't think the people are happy there," things like this. We just have to shrug our shoulders, yet we are supposed to be the committee. I think we have to learn to work together or maybe this committee should not be here. We do not need it. If we do not start some relationship, I really think this committee is redundant and we do not need it, if you are going to go the other way.

I do not think anyone here wants to be difficult about it either. It is just that it is frustrating to sit here, as I say, for a year and really not to have done a heck of a lot because we do not know where we are at. We are not trying to get into your business of helping the people out and coming to decisions there. It is just maybe on the administrative part of it we feel we should be involved somewhere along the line. So we have a problem, I think, and somehow we have to sort this out.

Ms Akande: I think I share with some of the members or at least understand their point in recognizing the limitations of their powers within the orders of reference. But I believe we are perhaps knocking at the wrong door to extend those powers. I would suggest we review the orders of reference with perhaps a view to making recommendations towards an extension of our terms of reference so that they may include those activities that would support the Office of the Ombudsman.

In saying that, let me be very clear that I am not implying nor do I want you to infer in any way that I mean we should be taking from the powers of the Ombudsman and assigning those powers to us, but rather that we should define our role among ourselves in a way that we could then make recommendations to support where she or he left off in the deliberations of her or his particular office. That I would see as being most effective and most necessary. But I do support the independence of the Ombudsman except in those responsibilities we have been assigned, because without it the Ombudsman might be acting as an extension of political power to the extent that her judgement would be influenced and her decisions could be seen as biased.

The Chair: Mr Murdoch, is this on the same thing?

Mr B. Murdoch: It is on the same thing. I just want to say this is something we have talked about for a long time. I know Ms Akande has not been on this committee for that long. This is what we have discussed. I think what we want to do, though, is look at where our mandate is; but we want to look at it with the Ombudsman so that we are not stepping on each other's toes. I think that is why you are here. That is why we are putting these questions out, because if we were to change something I think we would want to do it with your blessing so that we are working together. That is why you are here.

We could have done this too among ourselves, because we have been talking about it. But if we had come up with some ideas that really went against your judgement, I think we would be wrong. That is why you are here, to try to work out where our role is with you and hopefully you will like the same thing we come up with. I agree with what you are saying.

1150

The Chair: Ms Akande, did you have more?

Ms Akande: Just to indulge the comment about not going back and forth, there is something to be gained by doing it independently. In recognition of the responsibilities and role of the Ombudsman, I think we are less likely to co-influence the operations we have carved out for ourselves, and the communication of that role, once it has been defined, would be necessary and would allow for any comment. I think we are reasonable people and certainly able to act independently. It would be my preference to do it that way.

The Chair: Ms Jamieson, I really want to thank you for coming. I see a lot of people have more questions to ask you, so I am going to ask the members if they would like you to come back for one more day of questioning.

Mr Curling: I am going to address that before you comment, Ms Jamieson, because I asked some questions earlier and we had no chance to get into that. In the annual report there are still certain things I want to understand. I indicated the French-language services and the native outreach programs which I want to understand and learn more about through the annual report. I really want to commend you and thank you for the candid way you address your response, but I feel there are errors here.

The Chair: If I may address that, Mr Curling, we are getting close to 12 o'clock and we have two other dates on which Ms Jamieson can possibly come back.

Mr Curling: I was just saying that, yes, if you could come back --

The Chair: There is December 11 and December 18.

Ms Jamieson: Could I contribute something while members of committee are considering whether they want a return engagement? I tried, in my presentation to committee on April 3, to outline how I see the role and the relationship, and I would respectfully suggest some members might want to have a look at that in preparing for whatever further discussion you want to have on the relationship. I think we provided copies of that to the clerk; that is also a matter of record. I am delighted at any time to talk to members about those subjects.

The Chair: I am sure each member here has further questions regarding both annual reports. On December 11 there seems to be a bit of a scheduling problem in that the Lieutenant Governor will be in chambers at 11 o'clock. That might be bad timing for us to meet. How about the following Wednesday at 10 am? Is that agreeable? December 18 at 10 am in this room.

Mr Curling: Is that for an hour?

The Chair: We could meet from 10 to 11. I am open to whatever you want to do.

Mr B. Murdoch: I think we should wait until December 18 and have an hour.

Ms Akande: If I may suggest, Mr Chair, if we had an hour -- I am speaking to the request made by the member -- of dedicated discussion around issues identified this morning, it might be helpful in meeting the needs of those members who wish to discuss them. It would certainly be helpful in focusing on those issues and not being off at a tangent. I suggest we identify the issues -- you have identified first nations issues and whatever other ones people want to speak to -- and define the time limit around those areas. Otherwise a session could beget another session could beget another session. Would that be helpful?

Mr Curling: One of the problems we have had in the past is the change of committee members. Every time we get into understanding it, we have a change of committee members. Mr Murdoch and myself are the consistent members here. Your party has changed a lot and of course the chairman --

Ms Akande: I am causing you problems, Mr Curling.

Mr Curling: No, I understand as the new members come on -- and as Mr Murdoch was saying, we have gone through all that. I agree with you. Last week I identified the topics to discuss and the Ombudsman willingly said she would address them, and we just did not get to them. I agree with you, but I want to talk for just one second on the time limit. To limit an individual and say, "He will address this issue in this time," I think would not sit very well with me.

The Chair: In all fairness, we have the Ombudsman here to answer to the annual reports of 1990-91 and 1991-92. What are the wishes of the members?

Mr B. Murdoch: I think it is easiest to go to the 18th.

Mr Curling: The House adjourns the day after that.

The Chair: Let's deal with when we meet and then we have to talk about what we do during the break.

Ms Akande: How about an hour on the 11th and two hours on the 18th?

The Chair: Can you meet with us next week on the 11th for an hour?

Ms Jamieson: I am happy to make myself available. Am I also asked to set aside the 18th? I am not clear.

Mr B. Murdoch: I cannot come on the 11th, and I am not going to force you to come on the 18th.

Ms Jamieson: I am delighted to come either day.

Mr B. Murdoch: Come on the 11th. They will get all the questions --

Mr G. Wilson: I cannot be here on the 18th. The other thing is that it will not be an hour. Generally, it starts a little after 10 and we would probably have to break before 11 to get to the other engagement.

The Chair: Can I ask for a consensus that we possibly not meet on the 11th but we meet on the 18th? Is that agreeable? Agreed. Okay. Ms Jamieson, can you meet with us on the 18th from 10 to 12? It is a Wednesday.

Ms Jamieson: Delighted.

The Chair: We have one more matter of business to deal with. We have to request permission to meet during recess so we can write our annual report.

Mr Curling: Is that all we are meeting for, to write the annual report?

The Chair: We can do anything we want, but we do have to write our annual report.

Mr Curling: Are we talking about a request to meet in the recess?

The Chair: That is what we are looking for.

Mr Curling: And part of the agenda would be to write the annual report?

The Chair: Right. I am looking for a motion to meet during recess, and for some sort of time.

Mr Curling moves that the committee meet during the recess.

The Chair: Okay. Can I have some sort of time frame?

Mr Curling: What do you mean, "time"?

The Chair: January, February or early March. Can I throw a time out? Looking at the schedule for February -- because I know everybody is meeting in February -- I was hoping early March, if we could do it.

Ms M. Ward: Do you not really have to consider the question of how many days you want to meet rather than what time you would meet? I think the dates we would meet would be scheduled by the respective whips of the parties.

The Chair: We probably will not get more than a week from the House leaders' office.

Mr B. Murdoch: You mean we will get seven days?

The Chair: We will get five days.

Mr Curling: Of meetings?

The Chair: Of meetings.

Mr B. Murdoch: So we can meet any time in there, five days.

The Chair: That is right, Monday to Friday.

Mr B. Murdoch: You mean that is all they want to pay us? Is that what you are saying?

The Chair: No, that is not what I am saying.

Clerk of the Committee: There are other priorities, with the Constitution, resources, justice and social committees.

Mr Curling: I just wanted to know the priorities of the Ombudsman, because we have not really met --

The Chair: I guess the obvious line here is that we have agreed to meet during the recess. We now go to the House leaders' office and ask them what the best time is.

Ms Akande: I would hope for three meetings to deal with the orders of reference among ourselves.

Mr B. Murdoch: We may need more than five days to do that. It would take us five days just to figure them out.

The Chair: Is everyone agreed?

Motion agreed to.

The committee adjourned at 1200.