CONTENTS
Thursday 11 March 1993
Annual report, Ombudsman, 1991-92
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
*Chair / Président: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
*Drainville, Dennis (Victoria-Haliburton ND)
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Henderson, D. James (Etobicoke-Humber L)
Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)
*Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)
*Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
*Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Jamieson, Roberta, Ombudsman
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND) for Mr Duignan
Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Henderson
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND) for Mr Perruzza
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND) for Mr Johnson
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Ms Akande
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Murray, Paul, committee counsel and research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in committee room 2.
ANNUAL REPORT, OMBUDSMAN, 1991-92
The Chair (Mr Mark Morrow): I'd like to call the standing committee on the Ombudsman to order. This morning we have appearing before us Roberta Jamieson, the Ombudsman of the province of Ontario. Welcome, Ms Jamieson. It's always a pleasure to have you here. You've been scheduled at 10 o'clock this morning until 12 and again at 2, if necessary, if you feel like it. Begin when you're ready. I understand you probably do have some opening remarks that you'd like to make, and please, if you would, leave some time this morning so that the members can ask you questions and/or comments.
Ms Roberta Jamieson: Good morning all, bonjour, sago. Nice to see everybody. I will not make a lengthy opening statement for members today. I would like to put the report that we're going to discuss today in some context, however. It's the third report I've worked on as Ombudsman.
The first one I reported on, most of the year was my predecessor's work, so my part of it was really to set the stage for my term.
The second report outlined in a bit more detail the approach I wanted to bring to the office as Ombudsman. I published for the first time a mission statement of the office. We tried to make the report one that was more accessible for the public. Some of you may remember that we experimented with using people's pictures, making it more readable and so on. We set out in the mission statement the approach of conflict resolution, a win-win resolution; that I propose to take preventative ombudsmanship, introduce that concept; and for the first time we analysed complaints according to what it was people were most concerned about, the top 12 issues. So that was the second report.
In this third report, which we're here to discuss, again I tried to make the format, the print and so on, so that it was more accessible for the average reader, as well as useful for the Legislature. It is a report that attempts to say: "We are implementing the mission statement. This is what we've done, these are the trends we've seen, these are the obstacles we've found and here's our record."
I started out with a message that made comments on some of the trends I was seeing in the complaints. We reported on our activities in public education, our efforts in outreach and increasing access and the increased use of district offices. I talked about the particular challenges I found in the north when I travelled, particularly to the isolated communities up the James Bay coast. I talked about the title Ombudsman. I talked about what we were doing internally to increase our efficiency in dealing with complaints. I talked some more about preventive ombudsmanship and what that means. I tried again to give an indication of the kinds of cases we deal with, ordering them again under the top 12 headings of areas of complaint, and there gave a representative number of examples which really run the gamut of the entire bureaucracy and a number of the agency, board and commission tribunals that I deal with as well.
I then went on in the report to devote a special section to a special investigation I'd conducted on the Human Rights Commission. I also included a section on jurisdictional matters. You'll recall this committee requested some time ago my views on this subject. We did study that area and I've included in the report a statement on jurisdiction. I dealt with a particularly perplexing issue proposed by the current provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an issue that remains outstanding. I'd be happy to discuss that with you further. I could certainly use any intervention legislators might wish to make on this question.
I then tried to give some excerpts of things I was saying around the province about the job, about the work, and so on. I gave a bit of a section on what other ombudsmen are saying in Zimbabwe, Mauritius, England, Poland, Israel, Guam and elsewhere in the world, because it is an international community that I'm a part of.
The statistical information that took the over 33,000 complaints and inquiries I receive each year and broke them down in a way which I hope was helpful -- I certainly think we can improve in the way we represent statistics and we're looking to do that.
Expenditures, a listing of the Ombudsman's staff, the staff I rely on and who are so good at what they do; professionals in this field.
Finally, the mission statement in a much briefer version, just to remind myself and everyone of the standards against which I'm prepared to be held accountable.
I think I'm going to stop there and address any questions members might have. I hope to be able to answer them today. If I can't, I'll certainly undertake to get back with the answer.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Thank you, Ms Jamieson, I'll open it up to questions. We've tended to be not necessarily as precise as some committees in allotting time, but we'll go around the room and I will ask the Liberal caucus to -- Mr Ramsay, did you have some questions?
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Sure, I can start off. Welcome, Ms Jamieson. Nice to see you again. Thanks for coming to the committee today. It's great where we are finally here together to talk about your report and we certainly are eager to discuss it.
I will start at the beginning. I have a question on page 2. You talk about the awareness and outreach of your office and how important that is, and talk about the campaign you had launched. I was wondering if you've done any sort of follow-up study, any evaluation as to how effective that was and what impact it might have had upon your office.
Ms Jamieson: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. You're quite right, increasing awareness is something that has been very important to me and we did an opinion survey over a year ago just to see what the public knew about the office, whether they were using the office and what it is they wanted to know more about. I had some of my suspicions confirmed and I learned a lot. I learned that the more vulnerable you are, the less likely you are to know about my office; the more likely, however, you are to have interaction with government and have complaints about government. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to know about us. I found out that I had quite a job to do to let people know the Ombudsman office exists for them, that they can make a difference and how to access us, and I wondered how to go about that.
We've done a few things. One is to have the district officers go out and do more public education, as well as intake clinics in community centres out and around the province. Specific to this area, Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, as you know, 52% of the population of Ontario is here and we wondered how best to reach them. There's only so much you can do by publishing annual reports and giving speeches.
We took a first step by doing a six-week campaign to raise public awareness. We did some media interviews, we did some billboards, we published new materials. I've heard a good deal about the materials, all constructive comments which we've taken to heart for future campaigns. But in terms of impact, this is a very difficult thing to gauge, because it's not as though there are millions of people sitting out there waiting to rush to the Office of the Ombudsman to launch their complaints.
We knew going at this that we were really filling a knowledge gap. Like those magnets you stick on your fridge that say, "Should you need to call the fire department or the police, or whatever, here's the office, here's the number," that's really the knowledge gap we were trying to fill.
I didn't expect thousands of people to stream into my office to lodge their complaints. I suspect we will see over time how effective it's been. We are trying to keep up-to-date statistics when people come to us: "How did you hear about us? Did your MPP refer you? Did a government official refer you? Did you know about us from before or did you see that campaign?" Right now we're nearing this year-end. I'm going to be tabulating the numbers of complaints and inquiries. That too will be a factor. I hope I've responded to your question.
Mr Ramsay: Yes. I guess there was a bit of an expenditure, so I was wondering if you would have done a little more exacting evaluation just to see if you felt it was effective, but I guess, as you say, until you tabulate your cases -- you're right too, it's not like other types of advertising campaigns. When you're trying to create demand, if the demand's not there -- it may be later on. Maybe you've planted the seed that there is an avenue of recourse and it's to come to your office. So you're right, maybe only over time.
I was wondering if you have considered other ideas to get the message out about what your office does, because we on this committee are very sympathetic to this, that there must be a better awareness in the general public's mind about your office. Have you looked at other ways in which we might be able to communicate what you do?
Ms Jamieson: Yes, I have. In fact, that's been a primary area of focus for me. I'll review a number of the things we've done.
One is that I have moved to resource-staff my district offices, of which there are nine, with two people in each district, and I'm almost finished that; I'm two short at the moment. We call them district officers, and their jobs are really twofold: Part of their job is to do public education, and the other part is to take complaints.
I've also had them develop, both there and in Toronto, where we have also now developed that capability -- we never had it before. Before that campaign a year ago, we did not do outreach strategic public education at all. So that was really a first step. We're doing much more of that now. At the time of writing of this report, we had developed strategic public education plans for each of the districts and for Toronto. I don't want to pre-empt my own next report, which I'm writing right now, but I can tell you we're a way along in that.
Part of the strategy has been not just to go out and tell people that we're there, come back, leave the office open 9 to 5 and wait for people to come to us. In some places we go out and hold monthly intake clinics in community centres; we go to Indian friendship centres; we go to communities and centres that people with disabilities would frequent. So we are trying to be out and about and not waiting for people. That's part of the strategy.
The other part is that we looked demographically at the province. We looked at where the inmate population is concentrated, for example, and where we have a heavy concentration of aboriginal peoples, where we have francophone people in the province, where that concentration is, so we could inform our own strategy and meet those demands as required.
They're ambitious plans. They do demand resourcing. So far, we've been accomplishing them on existing levels and so far I have not sought additional staff to do it. So I would say we're at the beginning stages, but it's an area of high priority for me.
1020
Mr Ramsay: I want to talk about the next point you just alluded to when you said you hadn't hired new staff to do it. A concern I also have would be a sense of balance in priority-setting within the operation, certainly for the allocation of resources; that as you increase the outreach efforts, which we all agree need to be done, we all want to make sure we still have maximized the resources towards problem resolution. I guess it has to be a balance. We wouldn't want to take away resources from getting problems solved for people.
Coupled with that, in the outreach, would you maybe be attracting people to come to you before they have exhausted all avenues of appeal? I think it's important that people understand that you're the last avenue of appeal, that they should follow through whatever process they're in till the end and then come to you. They shouldn't come to you early in the game.
Ms Jamieson: I understand your concern. That's why I want to make clear that when people go out, it's not only to deliver a role and function about the office, though that's a very important part of the job: to let people know what we do. We are very clear that we are the place of last resort, when we do it. But the other part of the job, when you're out there, is to sit down and take complaints. There are the exceptional public outreach activities where that doesn't happen.
When I went up the James Bay coast or wherever I've been in the province, at the end of the discussion there is usually a lineup of people wanting to talk to us. For some of that, we give useful referrals: People don't know when they've exhausted their last resort because they don't know about all the levels of appeal, so we tell them that. We say, "You've got two or three things to do yet, and if you're still dissatisfied, we're here for you." We share information so that they use us appropriately the next time.
There are inevitably people in that lineup who have reached the end who are very pleased to hear there's someplace left to go and who will sit down and give you their complaint onsite. Frequently, my staff are able to resolve those complaints fairly quickly. Early on, when I did a take on, "Well, how successful are we at resolving complaints?" I found that 70% of the complaints and inquiries that come to us are resolved in the district offices.
You're right. The balance needs to be there between educating people and resolving complaints, but I think we're reaching the end of that. You can only reprofile your staff so much before you're saying, "No, I really need something more."
The last thing I want to say is that I really think it is part of the job that, if you're going to say you are a public office, you're there for the public. You can't say it with a straight face when you're out there telling people you're available to them unless they have some way of knowing that, and that takes deliberate strategic activity. We're trying to use our resources wisely in that regard.
Mr Ramsay: I just have one more question in this area. As you know, our committee has been looking at the legislation in regard to your office; we're all very seized with this as being a problem, for sure. I suggested to the committee yesterday, why don't we make it mandatory in government offices, like in the welfare system, that if you're not happy with the decision you have received from a government official, you should be notified of what your total avenue of appeal is in regard to that agency or ministry? That way, people would know immediately, when dealing with any government official where they're not happy with the outcome, what to do next, whether it's to go to the manager or head of the department in whatever agency. Included in that would be the total avenue of appeal they would have. Of course, your office would be there at the end; the phone number would be there.
This list would either have to be given orally over the phone, or if in person, like in the welfare offices, there would be the piece of paper that would say, "You can appeal to this board," so that people knew at the point of contact.
I think you're right that people don't know. They get what for them is a negative decision from a government bureaucrat and they go off and don't know, until maybe they fall into one of your outreach meetings or see an ad, or maybe it's too late and they've forgotten about it and don't follow it up. Maybe they should know at point of contact what their recourse is. I was wondering what you thought of that. Would you see it as being helpful to your office if everybody knew they could come to you eventually?
Ms Jamieson: Certainly. I think any way of increasing the public knowledge about their levels of appeal would be helpful. Many government departments do that, frankly, and we get a number of people referred to us by government employees who say to people: "I've done everything I can do for you. Now there is this office."
To get that relationship with the bureaucracy, it's a very interesting balance we have to strike between saying, "We're not afraid to call them as we see them," but also being there as a creative resource to find answers that will benefit both the person with the complaint and the government employee to do a better job, which we assume all government employees are interested in doing.
The only thing I would ask you to think about is that there are a lot of reasons why people come to us. First, they may know the avenue of appeal. Let's talk about those people for a moment. There are many people who don't, but there are some people who do know the avenue of appeal but want to talk to us so that they feel more powerful in approaching the avenue of appeal. We're not an advocate for people and we make that very clear, but it's also very true that the average member of the public does not feel very powerful when dealing with government. Sometimes they want the comfort of saying, "I've called the Ombudsman office" before they meet the government official. That's a reality I don't think is likely to go away very quickly.
The other thing is, we have to look at the changing demographics of this province. There are many recent immigrants in this province and many people coming from countries where complaining is not a positive thing to do; as a matter of fact, it's a very dangerous thing to do. So there are many people who, I suspect, will be on the receiving end of a government decision and go away and will not ask a government official, "Where's the avenue of appeal?" or may not even express dissatisfaction. They may get the letter in the mail and do no more because they feel helpless and they feel it's pointless.
However, if they know they can approach an office like mine without fear -- I'm not saying there's good reason for their fear in Ontario; I don't think there is. But in their life experience it might be a pretty scary thing to say, "I don't like what government's doing." If they know they can access my office, speaking their language -- I undertake to make the services available in the language of choice -- they also may feel we'll say to them, "Look, you can complain. It is a positive act. It will not be received negatively. Go here. If you're still not satisfied, yes, you can come back to us, but try this first," and encourage them to do that, and we do.
1030
Mr Ramsay: They might feel more comfortable, then, if they automatically got a notice stating their avenue of appeal. If that came automatically with a negative response from government, that might --
Ms Jamieson: Let's say they'd have the knowledge. I think you still have a challenge of whether people would indeed feel it was real, if they could make a difference. It would also depend on the degree to which they understood what was being sent to them in the mail. Let's face it, many, many people in the province do not speak English or French.
Mr Ramsay: It would have to be multilingual, yes.
Ms Jamieson: There are other dimensions I would ask you to think about, but in general, anything that will increase the public knowledge about their avenues of appeal I think would be positive. That's as far as I would go in the hypothetical. I'd very much like to see the outcome of what you recommend and would be happy to respond at that stage.
Mr Ramsay: Good. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, if you will, please.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Good morning. Thank you very much for coming. I'm going to go back to an old topic that you're probably sick of in terms of it coming out of this member's mouth, but a topic that I think is very important. You actually touch on it in your report in terms of human resources and how important that is to you, that your office provide equality and equity and respect and freedom from discrimination and harassment.
I tend to wonder, after looking at a number of letters that have come through either this office, the Chairman's, or mine, either at the constituency level or at the Queen's Park level, in terms of the problems that exist within the office and the consistency in those complaints, that your office doesn't provide for equality, equity, respect, freedom from discrimination and harassment -- as a matter of fact, the letters will tell you the complete opposite, that individuals are frightened to be there and are afraid to work there and are actually at this point demanding that this committee get involved in some capacity in terms of intervening.
I'd just like to read for a second the latest letter that has reached my desk. Of course this one, like many, is anonymous. I must say that we've got to weigh that as well, but in terms of the message and it being consistent with the rest of the letters that have come, I think we have no choice but to look at the content of the letter.
"We, the staff at the Ombudsman's office, feel the committee should be aware of the goings-on in the office. Each of us are afraid day to day of our positions, which is a very stressful state to work under. This office, over the past three years, has deteriorated more than the committee knows. During this period, approximately 100 employees have either been let go or left because of working conditions. With a staff complement of 125 employees, this is an unreasonable turnover. Some of the employees who have lost their jobs have worked with the Ontario government for more than 15 years and up to 26."
At the end of the letter it says: "This office is a hell-hole to work in under the current leadership. Please help."
Here we have the leader of the office telling us that things are going smoothly, that this is what you want to accomplish through these reports, that your management has proved to be positive in terms of the level of service that goes out as well as improving staff morale; on the other hand, we're getting signed and anonymous letters being very specific and consistent in that they are frightened to be there and that there's a problem internally.
Are you aware of any of these problems and, if you are, have you tried to rectify these problems since the last time I made you aware of them? As well, if the numbers are correct and if there have been more employees let go since the last time we spoke, could I please have the numbers in terms of severance packages and how much it's costing the Ontario government to let those employees go?
I know I asked for that a few months ago and you were kind enough to send that to our committee, but I'd like to ask for another group of numbers so that we can get an indication of how much that's costing the taxpayer. That's the first question.
Ms Jamieson: I thought, Mr Chair, that we were beyond this. I thought that we had moved forward in our relationship. I'll answer the question as best I can.
The Chair: Just let me clarify before you answer. I looked at the situation when Mr Mammoliti was asking his question, and in context of the report, he is in order to ask the question.
Ms Jamieson: This is not a challenge; it's not a point of order.
Mr Mammoliti: I was just trying to clarify the situation --
Ms Jamieson: No, Mr Chairman, this is not a point of order. This is a statement that I thought we were beyond this discussion. However, I'll answer the question this way. I will be as constructive and as positive as I can be in responding to the question because that's the kind of relationship I am here to build with this committee.
I will say that I would consider it very unprofessional of me to respond to anonymous allegations at any time. When I take a complaint about government action I don't take anonymous complaints. That's right in my act. I must deal with complaints which are clear and which one can professionally deal with.
I also would like to say that this is really the first time I've heard any of these letters. None of them have been forwarded to me, despite requests that I made some considerable time ago to meet privately with members to receive any. I have received none.
I also would like to say that in any organization in the present climate undergoing significant change, and I would class the Ombudsman's office, along with many, many others out there in the public sector, as being one of them, yes, there are stresses; yes, there are changes; yes, there are frustrations. Sure, there are some unhappy people; there are unhappy people everywhere, in everyone's office. Now what is available to those people to make sure their issues are dealt with? Are there mechanisms available? Is there fair access to them?
I have told this committee on two occasions and provided a copy of a grievance procedure that's available in my office. It continues to be available. I even quoted statistics on the extent to which it had been used. It is above and beyond any grievance procedure I believe available to any member of the public sector because it provides for appeals internally and appeals to outside arbitration, outside the Office of the Ombudsman. That is available to any staff member who is not happy with what is happening.
1040
The other thing I would like to say is that the issues that concern Mr Mammoliti, which he has raised once again, I have yet to see any substantiation of them, any facts, any anything, and I will not engage in myth-making today about those things. I would like to let members know about two things that are happening.
One, you well know that the auditor is conducting, at my request and with the agreement of the public accounts committee, a value-for-money audit. He will undoubtedly look at this area. He's conducting it on the basis of this fiscal year we're just coming to a close on. I had that discussion with the public accounts committee. If the concern is about expenditure of taxpayers' money and those kinds of things, I feel confident the Provincial Auditor will look at that, and should he feel there are issues that need to be raised that cause him serious concern, I trust he will raise them, not only in the context of the report he makes available to me but also in his annual report, if he feels there are issues. He always has done this.
The second thing you should be aware of is that my staff and I are about to embark on an exercise in collective bargaining. With the passage of the changes to the Labour Relations Act, which made it much easier for people in this circumstance to organize, to unionize and so on, that is exactly what my staff have done. They've exercised their rights to do that and they've organized. Many of these issues, if there are such issues, will have an opportunity to be raised in that context. I think on two counts, those issues are dealt with or have a forum to be heard.
I will not reply to anonymous comments. I don't think it's appropriate in light of the developments to exercise my discretion to share any further information with this committee on that subject. I'd like to respect the processes that are in action at the moment.
Mr Mammoliti: As a follow-up, Mr Chair, first of all let me say that in terms of the collective bargaining procedure, if there is going to be a procedure, that's good news in a sense. If there are problems, perhaps this may be the way those problems would get resolved. So that's good news. This is the first time I'm hearing about that and I'm glad.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It's in the letter.
Mr Mammoliti: Yes. It's the first time I've actually heard about that, and it's good. I'm glad to hear that.
The other issue is, of course, the dissatisfaction with what you've said in terms of providing me with perhaps some more figures in terms of who has been let go or how many people have been let go since the last time we've spoken and how much that's going to cost.
I appreciate the fact that the auditor is doing his thing, but I also have a responsibility on this committee and I'd like to find those numbers out at first hand. I'd like to ask you again to consider giving me those numbers and request that again. Would you reconsider and give us the numbers in terms of how many people have been let go since the last time we spoke and how much that's going to cost?
Ms Jamieson: I'm going to avoid the temptation to go back to our earlier discussion of what is the role of the Ombudsman and what is the role of this committee. I will only say that it may be instructive to review section 8 of the Ombudsman Act. I'm not sure whether you have that in front of you. Internal operations, particularly staffing, are a matter that the act reserves to the Ombudsman. It is inappropriate for me, I believe, to entertain this question further.
Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chair, I'm going to look to you for some advice on this, because even though I've been here for a couple of years, I think I've still got a lot to learn in terms of procedure in committee. I would think there's an obligation at this point for the Ombudsman to provide this information after one of us has asked for it. If I need to put this in the form of a motion that would ask the committee to ask for this information, I'd be willing to do that. If that's not the way to get this information, then I'd like for you to perhaps explain to me how I would go about getting that from the Ombudsman.
The Chair: I've ruled once, Mr Mammoliti, that your questions are in order, that the human resources, the Ombudsman's report for the year, the expenditures -- you can ask questions on that. The Ombudsman is free to answer or not to answer.
Mr Mammoliti: In light of that, I'm going to ask one more time: Will the Ombudsman reconsider and give me the information I'd asked for in my latest statement?
Ms Jamieson: I'll try once again to be helpful. The Board of Internal Economy, as you know, reviews my estimates. Every party's House leader sits on that board. All parties are represented and the Speaker chairs that committee. They review my estimates. I have also undertaken to table with that board a copy of the auditor's report at the conclusion of the value-for-money audit. I think there is a way for members, I would suggest to you, to access that information. I can't conceive of a value-for-money audit that wouldn't look at these kinds of questions.
I have no further comment to make on this, Mr Chair, except to say that I'm trying hard to be constructive but I really take issue --
Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chairman, I was hoping this information could reach us before this afternoon. I'm hearing that this information is not going to be given to us at all and I think my rights perhaps as a member of this committee are being destroyed at this point. I need to ask some questions around this area and I need this information to be able to do it.
I would like this information before the end of the day so I can resume my questions to the Ombudsman. If this isn't going to be, Mr Chairman, then frankly my questions aren't going to be answered and I can't wait for the auditor's report. I want to know about this information and I'd like to know at first hand from the Ombudsman. Mr Chairman, should I put in a motion that would ask the Ombudsman to go back and dig up this information for us?
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, if you want to move a motion, that's entirely up to you. You have the right in this committee, as in any committee, to ask the questions of your choice, but you also have to understand that deputants appearing before us have the right to answer them or not.
Mr Mammoliti: Okay. I move that we, as a body, ask the Ombudsman to provide us with the number of individuals who have either resigned or have been let go since the last time I asked this question, and the amount of money this will be costing the provincial government and the Ombudsman's office.
The Chair: Do you want me to read the motion to you? Any comments or questions on Mr Mammoliti's motion?
Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to indicate that I will not be supporting the motion, because there is going to be an audit done of the Ombudsman's office and I hope that in the course of the audit all that information would be available to us. I personally thought we were going to deal with our report. There's some excellent information here and I think it's time for us to move beyond where we've been and deal with the future of this committee and the future of the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Chair: Further questions and/or comments?
Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I would like to ask just a question to her to clarify.
1050
The Chair: We are now dealing with Mr Mammoliti's motion.
Mr Rizzo: I'm talking about the motion because there may be more information I can get from her that would encourage me to vote for or against the motion.
The Chair: Speak only to the motion, please.
Mr Rizzo: Who can give me an answer? Should I ask him the question then? I don't know how to decide. I want to know if this information is available right now. Is it public information right now? If it is, why aren't you volunteering to give that information? If it's not, then when are we going to have that information available through an auditor's report? The Chair: Thank you. Any further questions and/or comments?
Mr Mammoliti: I might add, Mr Chairman, that the last time I asked for this information the Ombudsman's office was kind enough to give it to us before the end of the day, so I can't understand why the Ombudsman's office and the Ombudsman are refusing to give me that information at this time.
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, please.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I think Tony has a very good question. He just asked, "Is it available now or isn't it?" or, "When would it be available?" I don't think there's anything wrong with that question. I think you should answer it. I mean, that shows him the way he wants to vote. Maybe it's not available.
The Chair: Ms Jamieson, do you feel like answering Mr Rizzo's question at this time?
Ms Jamieson: Sure. Is it available publicly? No, it's not a matter of public record. The Ombudsman Act reserves to the Ombudsman in section 8 -- it's one of the things the Legislature did in ensuring that the Ombudsman had independence to act. They said the Ombudsman will be appointed for 10 years. The government can't cut the Ombudsman's salary. She will lease such premises as she feels necessary, and staff in terms of employment as are necessary. These were all checks and balances put in the act to make sure you had someone free and willing and available to call them as she sees them, to criticize the government in an investigative finding if that was necessary, without fear of reprisal or any action like that.
There is an audit done every year on the books by the Provincial Auditor under the act. He usually looks at financial transactions. This year I have asked him to look at more than that and to look at value-for-money audit, which the public accounts committee and I have agreed is something that will be done at the conclusion of this fiscal year. He will then provide the report to me as he's obliged to do under my act. I've undertaken to give it to the Board of Internal Economy and that information can be accessed through the Board of Internal Economy in that fashion.
I want to make it very clear to the member asking the question that we have had lengthy discussions, myself and the committee, on the role of this committee vis-à-vis the Office of the Ombudsman. The role of the committee is not to be the board of directors of the Ombudsman or to oversee the day-to-day operations of the Ombudsman. The act makes that very clear. Because there were so many myths swirling around last summer without foundation, without fact, without substantiation, I, in an effort to dispel myths, used my discretion to make that information available to this committee.
I think events have now moved beyond that. I had hoped the relationship with the committee had moved beyond that. We now have a value-for-money audit happening which will provide an opportunity for those questions to be asked and answered by the appropriate people. If there are any doubts in any members' minds that there are problems, then there's an opportunity in the collective bargaining context to deal with those as we look to the future. So I think there are two ways the concerns that have been expressed can be addressed if there is foundation for them. I hope that's helpful.
The Chair: Before I move on to you, Mr Murdoch, I'd like to acknowledge Hugh O'Neil, the member for Quinte, and some guests that he's brought into the room. Welcome, and good morning.
Mr Murdoch, please.
Mr Murdoch: When I asked the question before, Roberta hadn't said some of the things that she's continued to say, so this sort of answered some of my questions because we did get that information. That's what I was going to ask you, if we did get it before, and I thought we did, and you said we did, so that answered that question.
This is what this committee's whole problem is, though, with you sometimes -- not you per se but with the Ombudsman's office. Some of our members get frustrated, and in this case George would like to know some information, and whether it's valid or not, he's requested it. I hate to see it go even in the form of a motion, because you can still ignore the motion, but if it passed, then what it does is put this committee into a conflict with you again, which I don't want to see, because we've got to work together. I think before we're done today on this report there are some other things and I hope we can get together to work. So we don't need this kind of confrontation and I'd hoped there would be some way we could resolve it without even taking a vote, because there again I don't know where that'll lead.
As I say, I don't know where to go from here, other than I know what you're saying. This allegation that was just read into the record was unsigned. I believe there are some that are signed and sometimes there are other ones, and I agree with you, in a lot of cases you can't deal -- my office is the same way. If I get complaints that are not signed, I file them where nobody else will find them either. But when you do get them, sometimes you have to deal with them. In this case, I think, when we're here, George is asking for some information.
Is it really that hard to get that you couldn't send it to him? Maybe I'm off topic a little bit. I'm still talking to this motion, but is there not some way we can try to get along and help George with his concerns, because I think he's really serious about this, and I don't think he's looking for trouble. He's just trying, in his own mind and maybe some of his own constituents -- I don't know -- to solve this problem that we do have.
We're always going to get complaints about all kinds of government offices. That's always going to happen and we're always going to have them, but we'd like to be able to deal with them. I just try to appeal to you that maybe you could do that, if it's that easily available. I don't know. I'm just trying to solve this problem so we can go on with some more constructive business.
Mrs Witmer: Call the question and get on with it.
Mr Murdoch: George wanted to say one more thing, I think.
The Chair: The question is called. That's it. I'll read the motion out.
Mrs Witmer: I'd ask for a recorded vote.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): Mr Mammoliti moved that the committee ask the Ontario Ombudsman to provide us with a list of the numbers of individuals that have been let go and the amount of money paid to them.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Ayes
Frankford, Mammoliti, Murdoch (Grey), Rizzo.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Abel, Drainville, Eddy, Haeck, Miclash, Ramsay, Witmer.
The Chair: Motion denied. Okay, questions and/or comments?
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to turn now to another topic. It's still the outreach, but I know you've taken some steps to ensure that the public is more aware of what the office is able to do and also what the members are able to do. Do you have any statistics at all that would indicate to you that more members of provincial Parliament are referring constituents to you? Do you have numbers or any indication?
Ms Jamieson: I actually don't have numbers with me today, but I can tell you that I have witnessed, as I've said, I think, in this report -- on page 4 I say there's been improved communication and an increase in numbers.
One of the things that I did early on was go round and meet with each caucus, because I knew there was a whole host of new members in the Legislature after the last election, and talk about the office. The other thing we've done as officers of the Legislature, all of us, the conflicts commissioner, the auditor and so on, is hold information sessions -- the Speaker's hosted them -- to let members know. I've also had my staff hold orientation sessions for constituency assistants, and I hope to do more of that.
Yes, I think the contact is increasing. I think with the ones that are referred now there's a very clear communication of what we can and cannot do. Some members indeed even come with their constituents, as Mr Murdoch did very recently, and I know this is on the increase and I'm pleased to see it. I haven't brought the numbers with me. I suppose I could dig that out if that would be helpful.
1100
Mrs Witmer: I just know that within my own constituency office my staff are now aware of the ability that they do have to make referrals to you if all else has failed. I'd like to ask you about that, because I have to tell you, when I was reading through the report yesterday, there are examples of cases that you deal with that surprise me, because my staff deal with many of these issues. I guess I'm wondering why some of these issues were not dealt with within the MPP office and why you would become involved at such an early stage, because my staff does the majority of these cases in Waterloo on our behalf.
Ms Jamieson: It doesn't surprise me that in the member's office many of the complaints are similar in nature. We often will ask people who come to us: "Have you approached your member? Have you dealt with your member?" There may be reasons why members of the public would not do that first, whether they are of a different political persuasion, whatever the reason may be. That of course is their option, but we do ask them whether they've gone to their member and let them know that their member is there to do things like this.
I am very clear that members take up and resolve complaints from their constituents every day. What the Legislature has done in creating the Ombudsman is to say: "We have a special need here. We need a place of last resort that's independent of government and that has extensive investigative powers, so we're going to create it and give that to the Ombudsman."
Many members will say: "I've gone as far as I can. This needs a formal investigation. I don't have the resources to do that, but the Ombudsman does. Go to her."
I try and work cooperatively and, where possible, we do say: "Have you talked to your member? This is something your member could help you with." In that way I hope we're complementing one another.
Let me also say though, lastly, that by the time people get to my office, they've had it, usually. They are very frustrated and they have been through all the channels of government and have been turned down and are coming to us as the place where they hope they can get some help.
If the answer is again seen to be a bureaucratic one of, "You're in the wrong place; go over here," it is sometimes not well received. So I ask you just to keep that in mind as well. If it's something we can do, and do quickly and do simply, we will. We may use the opportunity to educate them that something like this, in future, they might take to a member or avenue of appeal and use the opportunity to educate.
Mrs Witmer: I really think that is important. Maybe it's because of my time as a school trustee, but there are steps that individuals need to go through. For example, before they used to be able to come to the school trustee, they'd go through the principal and the superintendent and what have you. In the same way now, I tend to be very careful if people come to me with a municipal or school issue. I direct them back to the appropriate level of government.
I am a little bit concerned that many of these problems are not that serious, and I think we sometimes have been able to resolve them ourselves within our constituency office by one phone call. Even though the individual can't get through the red tape, our staff are able to, or were able to. I would hope that you will continue to encourage individuals to deal with the appropriate level of government, because I see the function of the Ombudsman as the place of last resort. Certainly any issues that we send your way are because we've spent a lot of time and we can't get anywhere and all the avenues are exhausted.
We had some discussion around the title of "Ombudsman." I know you've indicated that we should be creative and we should look for another title. However, I have to tell you that at the end of our discussion, I think we basically came to the conclusion that the best title was still Ombudsman. "Public protector" -- we could see you in the Batmobile and what have you, and we didn't like the connotation of "complaints commissioner."
We were also concerned that a lot of money has been spent in advertising recently and making the public aware of the role this should have. If we were to change the name now, there might be some confusion. I would really like to hear your comments.
Ms Jamieson: I was speaking at the faculty of law at the University of Windsor the night before last and I was asked this question again. There isn't one public function I have been to, certainly in the last 18 months or perhaps longer, where this issue wasn't raised with me as a question from the floor or privately. I've had this discussion about it with my colleagues, including the Swedish Ombudsman, and it is a concern. People view it as a sexist title, and I've researched this.
I used to say that frankly, it's a Swedish word and that's why it's "Ombudsman." Well, then I dug deeper. If you look at the root at end of the word, it has the same connotation as "man" in mankind, so that explanation frankly doesn't wash. It is also very difficult to pronounce. At almost every public function I'm at, I meet people who cannot pronounce it. It's often the person introducing me, and I don't blame them. They can't get it; they can't wrap their tongue around that, so it's a difficult word for a few reasons.
All right, so what do you change it to? Some universities have used the title "Ombuds." Now we're getting to the stage where that really doesn't mean anything. It's not a Swedish word, it's not an English word, it's not an anything word. Others use "Ombudsperson." The only problem with that is again, that is half an English word, half a Swedish word, creating a new language and it's more difficult to pronounce than "Ombudsman."
I'm not sure that's the solution but I know there should be one, and I'm collecting alternatives from people because everybody who tells me, I say: "Call your MPP. If you're going to change it, it needs an amendment. Until then I'm stuck with it." I have people who still introduce me as "Ombudsperson" because politically they will not say "Ombudsman." Some of them I've collected are parliamentary commissioner, public protector.
I have the same issue. "Public protector" definitely smacks of advocacy in the face of massive unfairness. I would look for something more neutral in tone that gets the essence of the office across. One of the titles I'm thinking about lately is public mediator. What does that do? That says you're available to the public but it says the function is mediation. You're between government and the public. That's the job: Find a solution between the two, and it kind of has the essence of the role in it. I'm not pushing that in particular but it has a certain appeal.
I do know that we need to find a title that means something to the Ontario of this decade and indeed of the next century. We are a changing population. We have many people from many parts of the world in this province and we need an office that will capture the spirit of the job in a way that we can all understand and share, and that's the challenge.
Mrs Witmer: I guess it appears there hasn't been a satisfactory alternative provided at the present time, and obviously those people who share that position throughout the world haven't even been able to determine what is most appropriate.
Ms Jamieson: To be frank, we're talking about it. But I'll tell you that the same views about sexist language that manifest themselves on either side of the debate are very much alive in the Ombudsman community. At the last meeting, I can tell you there were maybe five females in the world who hold the post. We're talking about this subject and some people have a certain affection for the term because of the history of it.
You raised the question of confusion and money. Confusion: I don't know. "Ombudsman" is confusing to a lot of people, particularly if you can't pronounce it. Money: Is it going to cost a whole lot of money for me to produce a whole lot of new material? I have run out of the public education materials we did last spring, frankly, and have just had to have some more printed, minus the cover that was so talked about last year. It talks about: Do you have problems with provincial government organizations? So we have a demand for public education materials that's ongoing. If the title were to be changed, it would be a matter of phasing it in and, I think, could be accomplished.
1110
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'd like to start off by welcoming you to the committee and thanking you as well for taking time to come to the northern part of Ontario. As you will remember, we met on a number of occasions while you were up there and I think people quite appreciated the fact that you took the time.
However, I must say I was somewhat taken back by some of your comments in terms of people feeling isolated, lacking resources, access to services, knowledge of government and comments like those you ended up making. As a person who's third-generation northerner, I can't say how much I've seen communications in the north: in terms of airports being built in most of the northern communities you visited; in terms of telephone linkage between all those communities and the offices, my office in particular. There's a 1-800 number that goes to every single community.
I was wondering if you can maybe expand on some of the things you found in the northern communities where they were not accessing government as much as they would like to. At this time, too, I must say that whenever I do a northern tour, and I do them frequently -- we have additional moneys in our budgets as northern members to carry out these tours -- I come across a lot of people, bureaucrats in particular, doing the same thing I am and on a much more regular basis than I do. So I'm just wondering if you could expand a bit on your comments.
Ms Jamieson: Thank you for the question. If your question is specific, perhaps I should ask first, are we talking about the James Bay communities specifically?
Mr Miclash: Those, and you also mentioned -- I was pleased that for the first time some members visited the community of Kenora, and you found out they too had similar concerns and issues.
Ms Jamieson: I have since been back to a number of northern communities and this is a constant theme. I am not in the position you are, Mr Miclash, to say to what degree they've improved over time. I am in the position, though, to report what I heard from people, that there's a long way to go yet. There continues to be concern about lack of services or, if there are services, they're few and far between and not to the level people would like, whether you're talking about health issues in the north, the northern health travel grant -- health was a hot issue up there, I can tell you -- and lack of access to resources.
There is a feeling that in the south people have ready access to most things. As you go farther and farther north, the farther away you get from offices, the farther away you get from government bureaucrats, the less likely you're to know about the availability of grants, programs and so on. This is how people feel. This is what people told me.
In the James Bay area, I think the concerns were a little different because of the historical circumstance of the people on the James Bay coast. There, there was a real concern about services, but there's a tangled web of federal and provincial issues in those communities. Mind you, to a greater or lesser degree, this concerns the communities. Some of the communities are saying, "We don't care which government does it; we just know we have a need for a school," or whatever it is, "and we're not getting it," and insist that I should be able to take up their complaint, even though it might be federally related, for example. So that has special challenges.
There's also a feeling in those communities that I found: There's a profound sense of distrust in many, and this has to do with the history of relations, a very sad history of relations that we will all acknowledge exists in this province between aboriginal peoples and governments, historically, a distrust that if they advance it, government will in fact do something about it. I underline the fact that this is historical in nature, and even though improvements are being made, it took a long time to get that attitude; it's going to take a long time to deal with it.
I hope that helps amplify on some of the concerns I heard.
Mr Miclash: It does. When you hear these specific complaints from folks up there, are they relayed to the various ministries that are involved, and relayed directly?
Ms Jamieson: Yes. First of all, we again suggest that they contact someone in the ministry, give them a number and a name. Sometimes we also use translators in those communities. I travelled with a translator there. Again, I will find some places where people are ready to do that, and some places where they feel that even if they did it, they wouldn't get a response. So we have to deal with that as we find it. We may assist them. They call, they get the answer, they get more faith in the system to answer them the next time. We may do it; they see the response; they may have more courage to do it next time.
If it's a broader question, I will come back and write to, and did write to, a number of ministers and raise the issues. I acknowledge there's a federal element. I have even written to the federal minister and said, "Yes, I know this is not my area of jurisdiction, but I heard it; you should know about it; whatever action you take, that's up to you, but I'm hearing it," and try and get the word out to the people who are most able to deal with it.
Mr Miclash: I just have one further comment. That's around the name. As the previous member had indicated, we spent some time over the last week on the name, and I must say that I'm quite satisfied with "Ombudsman," because I think a person coming to yourself in your capacity really doesn't care what the name is, as long as they get their problem solved. I'm finding that out, anyway, from my point of view, and the Ombudsman does have a history in this province. I guess I'm a little bit nostalgic when it comes to this, but that's where I'm coming from on the name. So I'll put that on the record.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Miclash. Mr Drainville, if you will, please.
Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Thank you very much for coming. I have a number of questions. I'd like to go back to the question that was raised by Mrs Witmer about the complaints that you get, many of which we would handle in our own constituency offices.
I raise this coming at it from a couple of different angles. I am in a riding, Victoria-Haliburton, that doesn't have a lot of government offices, so we end up being a clearing house for an awful lot of things that people would have to go to Oshawa or Peterborough or Toronto to do. We become a conduit for a massive amount of work. Actually, the fact that some people go to you is, as far as we're concerned, terrific, because you've got a lot more staff than I have and if people want to go and use your resources, that's fine. I say that as somebody who earnestly wants people's problems to be solved.
The other side of it is concern about your office and concern about the province of Ontario and focusing some of these things. I've read through it, by the way, and I appreciate a lot of the work that's gone into the report and some of the material that's here in terms of what people bring to you in terms of problems.
I look at that and I sort of think to myself, "Thank God people are using your office," but the other side of that is, some of those things people may well be frustrated about, but some of those things are really things that should be handed on to a constituency office. There are a thousand reasons why people don't. You may not like the local member; it may be a different political party; it may be that you phoned once and you didn't get them on the line because the line was busy. There are a whole lot of reasons why people don't end up connecting.
1120
My only concern about this is your ability to handle that kind of volume because of the number of complaints you get and how some of them, in my view, are inappropriate; not inappropriate in the sense that obviously there's an issue there to be dealt with and you deal with it and do it as quickly as you can, but rather the fact that you could almost build yourself into a situation in which you're taking so many varied problems that you end up not being able to do the very real, difficult cases that are going to come up, because you need this huge bureaucracy to be able to handle it all.
That's one of my concerns. How do you make sure you're not overburdening the whole process by taking on some of these things that will inevitably make it more difficult for you to handle the very real concerns that you have to in your position?
Ms Jamieson: I guess the way we've done that is trying to make sure that in handling all the issues that come forward and referring people or letting them know what their avenues of appeal are, we're doing that quickly, we have the knowledge to pass on and we're not spending two or three hours. Many people just want someone to tell their problem to. I think it's an issue where you try to train staff to be sensitive, to hear people out, not to be overly bureaucratic in responding, even if the message is, "You're not in the right place," to give that sensitively and to do it time-efficiently.
It does put a lot of stress on people. My staff hear complaints from people all day long. That is our business and it's a very stressful environment. It's hard to be positive all the time and so on, but they do a terrific job at it. You try make sure people know where the focus of the work should be -- on jurisdictional complaints -- and make sure we're as helpful as we can be but realistic when we deal with people. We don't give them unrealistic expectations that we can take on the world. I have people calling about, "We think the Prime Minister shouldn't be around any more."
Mr Ramsay: You took care of that one.
Mr Drainville: That's a big one. Keep up the good work.
Ms Jamieson: Or "We're upset with the courts," or "We're not happy with the local employer," or whatever. You've got to listen and take that in, but let them know where the right place is to go with their concern. I don't want to make light of the issues coming to us. People feel strongly when they come to me. They've had it and they're determined to get something done. It's a very delicate balance; you're quite right.
The other thing to keep in mind is that while people may come on an issue and express an issue and may be too early in raising their complaint with us, and we may refer them on, we also are trying to keep note of the things they're complaining about. Why? Because sometimes you'll hear things in Ottawa, Timmins, Windsor, North Bay, and if you hear them enough, you'll know there is a broader issue here, that they're not getting good information, as they should be, from government offices, that there's something that can improve throughout government. So you might keep an element of the complaint that I can then explore.
This is where the Ombudsman's ability to do own-motion investigations is helpful, to separate the individual's concern, which we may or may not be able to help him with at that stage, from the symptoms, which might be: "Nobody's answering my phone call. I can't get a reply. I can't get through on the telephone line." We may then launch a broader investigation, looking at four, five, six district offices, and fix something that person brought to us. So the balance is important, but there is value in every communication.
Mr Drainville: Let's move from that to the issue of efficiency. You mention in your section on efficiency, which I read with some interest, page 5 of your report, that you've established a requirement that complainants and government are informed at least every two months of the status of an investigation. Has that had any effects, and could you describe what kind of effects you've received with setting up that policy?
Ms Jamieson: I think the effect is twofold: One, internally, if we're into a formal investigation and you know that every two months you must update the parties, you're cognizant of what you have to update about; externally, people are kept in the picture, up to date. We thought we'd try the two-month rule. It's possible we could even improve on that. As you know, in most of our complaints, the average time it takes us to resolve an issue is about 102 days, a little over three months. So not every complaint goes that length of time, and I want to make that clear, but if it goes longer than two months, I think at a minimum people should know what we are doing with their issue, what progress we have made. I think it's been twofold.
Mr Drainville: You are very laudatory about the Ministry of Correctional Services. I'm interested in finding out what the change in the response time was in that particular situation.
Ms Jamieson: I didn't bring those statistics with me. I can certainly see if I can dig that up. I'm about to comment again; as you know, I'm writing my fourth report now, which will be tabled in a couple of months. I'll be able to give out my words of commendation for those who are doing well and encouragement for those who could do better. But I can tell you that in that particular year, yes, they did improve. Would you like those?
Mr Drainville: It would be interesting to note; it gives you sort of a sense. I think part of the function of this committee is a function of knowing not only how you set your priorities and how you set your procedures but also the success of those things. It's helpful for us to know that because it gives us a sense of how you're moving towards your objectives. I'd appreciate those figures if you have them.
I want to touch briefly on the issue of systemic problems. In a sense, my own work in 10 years of working with low-income people across the country and across this province led me to be very much in contact with people and groups of people who were experiencing systemic problems of various kinds. Whether it's sexism or agism or racism, whatever the problem was, our structures and our systems definitely reflect that.
First of all, let me just ask a brief philosophical question. You have expressed yourself on this before, but I think it would be good to hear again your response to this. Obviously, you deal with specific cases very often, but there are times when systemic problems arise. There is perhaps a coalescing of events and circumstances which leads you to believe that it is advisable for you in your position as Ombudsman to do a study or an investigation of something that may be widespread. Could you just talk a little bit about how you see this particular situation in systemic problems and how you approach it as Ombudsman?
Ms Jamieson: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this. This is a very important theme for me and for the staff at my office, because I think the potential to impact positively on the improvement of government administration really lies in looking at things systemically. You can resolve complaints one after one after one, but if you can see if there's a pattern there and effect change throughout government, boy, can you have an effect for the rest of us in this province, the other 10 million people who may not be coming forward but who may have occasion to meet those issues.
1130
Systemic issues present themselves to me in a variety of forms, such as the inmate in the correctional facility who feels, as I reported in this last report, that the facility didn't meet his religious requirement. His religious requirement was to have a diet that met Muslim standards. That was his complaint, and the correctional facility did not provide that diet. We looked at it and we found the response from the ministry, which was, "We can't get that food. It's not available in our local town," to be without foundation and were able to encourage them at corrections to look at those kinds of barriers.
We also looked at hair products for inmates, another thing where these are rules which, on their face, seem quite fair and neutral but in their effect you find that they have an adverse impact on a particular group of people, and that's really the definition of systemic issues as I see it.
You might have a rule for response time to government calling for grant applications and it may be a week or three weeks; let's say it's three weeks for grant applications. That might work in the south, but it certainly doesn't work in the north where you may have the postal time and so on. Those are the kinds of issues where I think, if we can identify that, we can put together what the public is telling us, to jell that kind of an issue.
The chance for government to improve is just incredibly enhanced. So if I'm showing I'm keen about this area, I am keen about it, because I think there's a great potential there for change. I've looked at systemic issues in housing authorities that may have rules about a certain age you have to be to transfer into a one- bedroom. Last year we looked at one where you not only had to be 60, but to have a medical problem, and we found how that perhaps adversely affected others.
Every time we can do that, I know the potential for improvement for millions is there and I'm excited about that. So it is an area of particular concern to me and one which we are trying to look at in every complaint this way. That's what I mean when I talk about preventive ombudsmanship. Every complaint we look at, if we solve it, the question should be asked, "We've solved it for that person, but have we put in place things that will prevent it from happening again?" That forces all of us to look at the possibility of a systemic issue in every complaint. So thank you for that question.
Mr Drainville: It leads me to my final question, Mr Chair, and that is a question that arose out of discussions that you've had with the committee before, discussions around jurisdiction and the scope of your endeavours. For instance, you mentioned that in British Columbia recently there was a decision to include municipalities within the purview of the Ombudsman in British Columbia.
The reason I raise that is because there actually has been sort of a process in all my questions. I've been talking basically about workload, efficiency and jurisdiction, and this leads me to this final point because part of my role in my former incarnations has been to look at structures and how structures and institutions reflect the society they are part of. I have a very high value on the role of the Ombudsman; I think it's a very important position. I think the function of the role of the Ombudsman is absolutely essential to the kind of society that we live in today.
One of my concerns, though, as somebody who looks at structures, is that we don't end up in another situation where we have created another structure which by its very nature will begin to emulate some of the problem structures of our society. In fact the larger the structure you build and the more bureaucratic that structure must necessarily become, the more that structure in itself will have the seeds of its inherent fall within it.
So I come to this final question, because I know that you have expressed an interest -- and again, this is said very straight and very direct. I have no other agendas, but it's both a philosophical question for me and a question of the ability of your office to function appropriately; that is that if, let us say, hypothetically speaking, the Office of the Ombudsman were to move into such an area and to increase its job in the province, I have grave qualms about the ability of your office to be able to do an effective job.
On one hand I weight that by saying, "What value do you put on justice?" Philosophically, it has to be fundamental to our society. But we know from past history that by establishing such structures and increasing the size of those structures, we will, or we could possibly, if we look at history, see the destruction of that structure. The structure just begins not to work any more.
I put that out to you and just ask you to respond, taking into consideration some of the concerns that I have.
Ms Jamieson: Okay. I think you're quite right when you say that as structures get larger, there are greater risks, there's a greater tendency to bureaucratize even further, and that has inherent in it some problems.
When I look at Ombudsman-like services for things like municipalities, children's aid societies, hospitals, school boards, all the areas that I talked about in the section on jurisdiction, I know that the mark of a democratic government is the willingness to hold itself up to independent review, to open itself up to independent review and investigation. I know that's the hallmark, and that's why the Ombudsman's office was created in the first place.
It follows from that, in my thinking, that the same ability should be there whether you're talking about municipal governments, school boards, children's aid societies, general welfare applications, what have you. That ability to go to someone outside the structure that made the decision, to see if it was fair or not fair, should be available.
Does that translate into a much larger Ombudsman's office, my office? I'm not sure it does, and that's why I didn't take a hard position in the chapter on it. I think there are a number of ways of accomplishing it and that's why I put out the options. One way is to say, "Ombudsman, you do all this now." The resource implications of that are considerable, let's not kid anybody, to do that.
I think one way of thinking about it is to look at a couple of measures. One way of going would be to say a particular ministry over a particular area, for example, should have, inherently, its own complaints bureau, and that should be a first stop for looking at complaints from the public. That gives you at least the element of internal remedy and examination.
What you lose there is the independent review, but one way of doing it is to couple that with the ultimate ability to go outside. In the United States they're trying this in a number of the federal departments there. Every federal department has to have a complaints resolution director within it.
So that's one way, but I don't think we should think for a moment that the public will accept that as independent review. They won't. They will accept it as a place for them to try to solve their complaint. That could be one step; then ultimately to go outside.
If you don't centralize it, then what do you create if you accept that you need this independent ability? Do you create an ombudsman for children's aid societies? Another one for the school boards? Another one for municipalities? That too has its resource implications and they're incredible.
The other thing you'd lose there is you don't get the benefit of the 17 years of experience that is housed in my office with the staff who are so good at what they do. You'd be recreating it every time. You'd be reinventing the wheel and you might lose consistency, you might lose common standards of what is fair treatment. So you'd have the ability to investigate, but you'd lose on having some common understanding of what's fair.
1140
You also might make it even more confusing for the public. They'd say, "Okay, so if I've got a problem with this, I go to that specialized Ombudsman; if I have a problem with this, I go over here," and you might be creating more layers. Then you have to face the question of how these layers relate to one another and what that does to the face of government. We're discussing something that deserves a good deal more discussion. I'll resist the temptation to go further, except to say I believe very strongly that the ability to investigate, by an independent person, the actions of agencies such as the ones listed in this chapter is critical to people having faith in government generally. How you accomplish it is in your hands, and I'm happy to help you think about it further.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I thank Dennis for his question and how he built it, as well as your answer, because it in fact in some small way mirrors a question we started to worry about yesterday. That bone is not necessarily well buried or in any way chewed up in any satisfactory manner.
You've indicated that there is a diversity of opinion out there among the Ombudsman community, but you also provide us with some interesting statistics and comments in your report, which was actually another area I wanted to address.
But first of all, on page 27 of your report, under the heading "Statement of Jurisdiction," you mention the municipalities and say the number of questions that you get relating to that particular area as well as social assistance, boards of ed, children's aid societies etc, and then you provide -- for those who don't have a report in front of them -- on page 39 a table of the questions you've received which really are outside your jurisdiction.
This is a wealth of experience; it's a wealth of knowledge. I think even our own offices have a range of understanding of what questions we're getting. Obviously, I pass on the concerns to the ministries in question that, "Hey, such and such is not happening." In the case of, say, a children's aid society, people want to know more about adoptions -- just saying that off the cuff, but that is a concern. In the case of municipalities and some of these other agencies, how are you able to communicate to them, or have you taken that opportunity to communicate to them, the very real concern of all of our constituents in how they are being dealt with and the information being provided by that range of offices? Do you discuss anything with AMO, which is an umbrella organization which can obviously address these issues? Have you done so?
Ms Jamieson: AMO?
Ms Haeck: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Acronyms are rampant around this place.
Ms Jamieson: I'm not up to date; I know there are all these short forms. At every opportunity I raise the question. I was asked a year ago to talk to a group of municipalities in southeastern Ontario. I did go and talk to them about the need for them to have the essential qualities of an Ombudsman office, an ability to deal with complaints. I have not advanced the concept formally to AMO, but every chance I get to talk to a municipality, to talk to a mayor, to talk to the chief of a first nation, to talk to whomever, I advance the fact that they ought to be thinking, if they haven't already, about how they are going to provide for that element of people who have complaints about their way of doing business. If we have a complaint about a children's aid society -- I know that a lot of my districts maintain one-on-one contacts. When I go and do public receptions, public education outreach visits, we invite people from all these agencies so that they know what we do, how we do it, so that we can work better together and frankly so I can influence them to think about what they're doing in this regard. I'm doing what I think we can. I welcome any suggestions for what more could be done.
Ms Haeck: As a supplement to that, obviously you have built up, again, a wealth of knowledge as far as what is or is not happening within the range of ministries that exists in the provincial government is concerned. Is there a mechanism by which you can inform -- I understand there is an opportunity with the Premier or deputy minister on a specific issue -- on a more general basis where the logjams are? Obviously, your office has some idea of how to resolve some of these issues, because you've given opinions on them, but there are some general things. There are obviously a lot of requests that you get that you don't take any further, but there must be even some straight consumer information type of issues that get dumped into your lap on a regular basis that could be of assistance to all the ministries on how to really deal with the public. Do you take the opportunity? Do you have a mechanism by which you can communicate these concerns and suggestions to them?
Ms Jamieson: I think I can respond to the member's question in a couple of ways. One is that obviously we are trying to use the vehicle of the report as much as we can in that regard, to share the information trends etc we are seeing. I can tell you that this is very new for my office, this kind of analysis. We are trying to refine it and do it better every day.
On an individual complaint basis, whether I support or don't support the complaint, there are many things that we find out or that occur to us while we're investigating. We often will write the ministry involved and say: "Although I'm not supporting this complaint, there are some areas that trouble me. I'm going to raise them for you. Please, will you get back to me and tell me what you intend to do about them or what you think?" And they do. They're very open about it and they will get back to me. I appreciate that. That may be ministry-specific.
The other thing we do is look for opportunities to go out and talk to ministries -- groups of regional managers, directors, deputies, whomever -- to talk about the common areas of concern that keep coming up. It's usually the top 12 that I list here: delay, failure to keep a proper record, all those things. The case studies are helpful, but it's also helpful for me to remind them on strategies of how to improve in those areas, sometimes before they experience the problem. I might have a problem in ministry X that I think ministry Y should know about before it is faced with the same problem, and I'll do that, I'll let them know about it.
I am always looking for ways to share more. Last year I tried, with the words of encouragement and the words of commendation, to say, "You people are doing terrific," and, "You people can improve." I'll do that again this year in the annual report, and I will see how much more we can do along the lines you're raising, to share more of the impressions we're getting, what are the trends. It's one thing to list five complaints against the Attorney General, 16 against this ministry, but it doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't tell you if they're good or bad or just more in contact with the public. I think what people want is to know, "Am I hearing what they're complaining about and are we inputting in the right places?" I'll certainly keep that in mind. If there's anything more I can share with you, please let me know.
Ms Haeck: One of the things that has come up in my office is around family support payments in the AG's office. I think one of the simplest things that probably could take some of the heat out of the concern is actually having a real person answer the phone.
1150
People find these answering machines extremely frustrating. In fact, the phone company probably gets a lot of requests to replace phones on the wall, because out of sheer frustration they are calling everywhere. We obviously face it when we call here ourselves, "If you have a touch-tone phone, please press 1," and you sit for 20 minutes listening to the tape of how many numbers you're supposed to punch -- and then you might get to the right person.
Having been a public service employee doing information and referral for 16 years, I fully appreciate how the public responds and how we have, at times, responded as a public agency and as a government. So I understand how some of your staff feel in listening to nothing but negatives all day, every day, for the length of time they do.
I do welcome a number of the points you raise here. But when you talk about preventive ombudsmanship, I would see that as a great public service your office could provide to the -- well, it was 26 ministries and about five secretariats, but we all know that's changed. There is an awful lot of the public service customer relations side of that equation that I think could really take the heat out of a number of issues and relieve frustration for everyone. I'd appreciate any comments you have in your next report in that regard.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Following up your observation on the areas you don't cover, you mentioned hospitals; I note that health is right at the top of the areas you get complaints in. Also, with regard to your discussion about whether you should get into more areas or whether one should be having new ombudsmen with new mandates, I don't know if you saw this: I recently got a British Columbia Ministry of Health document setting out an agenda for reform. One of the things I noted there was a suggestion of having a health Ombudsman. Now, I'm not sure whether this was going to be a separate office or part of their existing Ombudsman; I could see how that might be an interesting discussion. I wondered if you'd noticed it and if you have any comments.
Ms Jamieson: I actually haven't focused on that development in British Columbia. I know of the others. I didn't know they were asking for a specialized Ombudsman in health. I can see some areas where it does make sense. Policing is one. That's why I thought, when Clare Lewis was given the mandate he was given, "Yes, that makes sense to me," and was very supportive of that development.
I have concerns about it when it multiplies. Federally, you've got the official languages, corrections, privacy, information -- now those two are together -- and they've kind of tended to go the route of specialized. I think the people who are doing those jobs are doing a dynamite job. However, I think it becomes complicated for the public when there are so many doors and there's no relationship among the doors and there's a huge gap: Federally, there is no Ombudsman. I can't tell you how strongly my colleagues and I feel that there should be one.
I think that if you start doing specialized ones, you really beg the question of why the gaps where you're not. It does become confusing. Health is a hot issue. I think the table you were looking at was corrections. It's not the top area of complaint throughout the province but it certainly is, in corrections, one of the top areas.
I think that's all I have to offer. I'm happy to consider that further.
Mr Frankford: I guess why hospitals are there is that they really are an odd situation: They're publicly funded but essentially private institutions. In discussions, I certainly have heard people saying, "The boards should take more responsibility for hearing complaints." I think there's a very valid point made that they don't sufficiently consider complaints about what goes on. That presumably could be corrected by policy direction from the ministry or possibly a new hospitals act.
This is a very major area of essentially public concern. Even if there were a directive and the boards took that very seriously, I think there would still be complaints which slipped out and areas where they might be protecting their own institution. A very strong case could be made that the Ombudsman should have this area added, in the same way that the suggestion was made that you would have discussions with AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. There's also the Ontario Hospital Association, which would take the same sort of overview of the hospitals in the province.
Ms Jamieson: It's never made sense to me why I can take a complaint from a patient in a psychiatric facility operated by a province but not from the same patient suffering from the same psychiatric disability in a psychiatric unit of a public hospital. It just doesn't make sense to me, or, for that matter, why you can take a complaint about a college but not about a university.
It's one thing for hospital boards to say, "Come to us with your complaints," and I suggest to you that that's a very positive development. The problem is that if that's left on its own, you still don't have the essential element that the Ombudsman role has of independent investigation. It is independence that the public is extremely concerned about. They certainly told me in my survey that's what they're most concerned and most sceptical about: independence.
The Chair: Dr Frankford, would you care to recess at this point and pick it up at 2 o'clock?
Mr Frankford: Thank you, yes.
The Chair: We now stand recessed until 2 this afternoon.
The committee recessed at 1157.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1411.
The Vice-Chair: We'll call the afternoon session for the standing committee on the Ombudsman in session. I will call on Mr Frankford for his question.
Mr Frankford: To follow up, and actually I've done a bit of homework over the lunch break on the situation in British Columbia, the recommendation there is actually that the provincial Ombudsman, and not a separate health Ombudsman, be given jurisdiction to deal with complaints regarding hospital boards and professional associations. That's what they're thinking.
It's also perhaps interesting to note the top paragraph in these priorities: They're suggesting that patients have the right to fully access their medical records. I can imagine that if one combined those two, we could get a very interesting situation.
Perhaps just to follow on from that, it says here they're proposing that the Ombudsman deal with complaints regarding professional associations. That clearly would be a difference from now. I guess there is the Health Services Appeal Board, but in many ways the professional associations have the last word. I can see that this may be something that's going to present some problems to them in the near future. For one thing, we're suddenly going to get a great many new professions, some of which are going to be quite small and have somewhat limited resources about investigation of complaints.
The other thing which occurs to me is the proposed legislation about sexual abuse. There has been quite a lot of reaction from some professions about this. I think that perhaps one aspect of this is that it presents something of a conflict or exaggerates the conflict present in self-regulating bodies. I just wonder whether they might even welcome some independent body, such as the Ombudsman, actually being involved in that.
I wonder if you have any thoughts on those thoughts.
Ms Jamieson: Only to say that you're quite right: The public is looking for greater openness everywhere, a greater degree of scrutiny for decisions that are being made, including in the professions. It's an ongoing question for me. I receive a good number of complaints about professionals and I look at the state of the law from time to time, particularly with respect to the law society. What I'm finding in professional associations generally is that there's always an opportunity to have serious issues dealt with: negligence, malfeasance, those kinds of things. In any of the professions there are sanctions available.
Where there is a gap is rudeness, lack of client service. A lot of the complaints that come to me are: "I can't get my professional" -- whoever it is, lawyer, doctor, whatever -- "to answer the telephone. I can't get a reply." There is no place for complaints like that to go in the current system, and that's an area I think bears some review.
The negligence, yes, but unprofessional conduct sitting on a panel, no. That's an area I would suggest you might want to think about. I now do have the ability to look at complaints about the Health Services Appeal Board, the Health Disciplines Board, but those are very restricted areas.
Mr Frankford: With the new professions legislation, one of the features is to have more lay representation on the colleges, but it seems to me that although that might deal with the smaller issues you mention, it's not that certain. Obviously, lay members are not going to be there for ever. They're not going to be developing the body of expertise and all the resources you have to look into those complaints.
Ms Jamieson: The difference, I guess, is the powers available to the Ombudsman to enter government offices, seize records and take evidence under oath, all the powers that have been given to the office to get the facts out into the open. That's not available to others and that is a very clear difference.
Mr Frankford: If I can just use my time for one other health-related area which is quite peripheral to this, but perhaps follows on the discussions about services in the north, it seems to me you have the possibility of influencing policy or implementation around the rights to care, the rights to access to services, to help to equalize things, so if you're living somewhere remote in the north, it doesn't mean you're going to have to forego a range of health services and health practitioners.
Ms Jamieson: Yes. I do hear that question. Where I have to be careful is that I am not reviewing or becoming involved in the making of policy. That's not the job of my office. In the health care field, it's sometimes a difficult line to draw, because the complaint may be about something like an OHIP schedule for paying for a particular device.
One of the famous cases the Ombudsman, one of my predecessors, became involved in was breast pumps. OHIP didn't pay for breast pumps and the Ombudsman thought there was something unfair about that. That case was taken through and OHIP now pays for breast pumps. I have to draw a very clear line between what's policy and what's administrative unfairness, which really is my business.
The other thing I'd like to say is that one of the reasons why a lot of the professions don't want anyone else involved in looking at their conduct, at the way they do their business, one of the reasons that's given is that there's no expertise, that only professionals can look at professionals. I hear that argument all the time when I'm looking at a commission or a board dealing in a particular area.
The reality is that the expertise the Ombudsman's office has is administrative fairness. It's not about milk marketing, it's not about things specific to the scientific field a particular board might be in, nor need it be, as long as we can get that expertise to understand the fairness issue. Our expertise is in the business of fairness. There's 17 years of that, and that works in a commission, in the Human Rights Commission, in the securities commission, at Hydro, at the Ministry of Community and Social Services, wherever. Those rules hopefully are constant and uniform. So on that argument that I often hear from the professions, that's what I think about it when I hear it.
Mr Frankford: I appreciate that.
1420
Mr Ramsay: Ms Jamieson, going back to your report, I'd like to talk a little bit about the chapter on page 5 there, "Efficiency in Resolving Issues." You state there in the first paragraph that you "have established a maximum two-month recorded contract rule, meaning that both complainant and governmental organization are kept informed at least within two months, preferably far sooner."
I would be interested to know, since you've implemented that, what sort of results you have seen from that. Have you seen some improvements? Whether it's just client reaction or government responding, what has been the positive benefit of that?
Ms Jamieson: I hope I'm not repeating something I said this morning, but I guess it's twofold. One, we are much more aware of our progress, I think, on files. We're always aware, but this two-month rule forces us to focus at least every two months, and certainly we focus more often. Also, people are kept in the picture, they're up to date and the response to that has been very positive, because people like to know what is happening on their file and that progress is being made. The government response: It also keeps the issue very much alive for them, and so it prods response.
I think the benefits are positive. I, of course, would like to do even better than that and maybe make it every month. We're constantly looking at those things. You might be interested to know that we also have internal file review dates that are less than the two-month period, so there are other standards that augment that as well.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Thank you.
In the third paragraph you mention that you "commend the Ministry of Correctional Services and most of the organizations for which it is responsible for the vast improvement" in its turnaround. Has that ministry made any attempt to provide some sort of in-house ombudsman service? Do you know if they're trying to rectify their own complaints before they come to you?
Ms Jamieson: As far as I'm aware, there is no internal ombudsman in that department. I also am anxious to underline the fact that this was the list as at a year ago. I'm doing the list now for how things are going this year, so I want you to know that I was commending the Ministry of Correctional Services as at the end of last March. They certainly were showing vast improvement.
One of the things I can tell you that is a constant in the ministry of corrections is that we get over 8,000 inmate approaches a year. For a lot of the things they call us about, we suggest they should be going to the superintendent of the institution they happen to be in, and one of the things I encourage corrections to do is to make its superintendents more accessible, to be more available to inmates so that they feel they can make the approach more easily.
A lot of inmates will still call us. They know they should go to the superintendent. They just wanted us to know, so in case they don't get anywhere with the superintendent, we're aware. Somehow they feel that empowers them, frankly, and that's not the only place that phenomenon occurs. I think I referred to that this morning as well.
Mr Ramsay: Do you take this as an inquiry or a complaint?
Ms Jamieson: Inquiry.
Mr Ramsay: That's an inquiry there, and the criteria are pretty well spelled out for people taking those --
Ms Jamieson: The way we've tallied complaints is that it has to be in writing. There are lots of things I tally as inquiries that are jurisdictional that we do resolve but we haven't counted as complaints because they're not in writing. It's very strict right now, a little bit artificial, I would suggest to you, and we're working on making it less artificial and more representative of the good work my staff does.
Mr Ramsay: When you report this, though, in your statistical information, you lump inquiries and complaints together.
Ms Jamieson: In the total, yes, and then we break them out.
Mr Ramsay: In all the pie charts. But they are broken out, are they?
Ms Jamieson: Yes.
Mr Ramsay: I actually wanted to get to that for a second, because I want to talk about how we report that to make it easier for everybody. Just before I get to that, it was just interesting, the comment you made about corrections, because I was going to ask, what is the change in the response time by the Correctional Services ministry?
I'm asking based on your last year's report and I'm getting a sense from what you're saying now that maybe they improved it and I was trying to find out what the improvement was, but now maybe you're implying -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- that it's not as good as it had become. What changes have you seen with the response time of Correctional Services?
Ms Jamieson: I don't know whether you were in the room this morning, Mr Ramsay. Mr Drainville asked very much the same question and I undertook to pull the time periods as they then were and as they then became when I said they were improving. I'm happy to provide those to give you a sense of the measure of improvement.
I'll also make sure I put my mind to that in reporting in this annual report where I'm giving words of commendation and words of encouragement in the alternative so the criteria and the measures we're using are clear. I hope that'll be of assistance to the committee.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. I wanted to talk a little bit about how you report the statistical data. We discussed this week that it would be helpful if we could come to some agreement to maybe standardize it, because I see even the difference in reporting from your first annual report to this one. For instance, you have dropped the pie chart from 1990-91 that talks about "Resolved Complaints by Stages of Investigation," and that's interesting, because that would show the public and especially us how effective staff is at certain points and how time-consuming handling different complaints is. That was interesting and I see that's been dropped.
Even though in your latest one you break down the complaints by type and concern -- which is actually good and I wouldn't say get rid of it; I like that, actually, and I think that's good -- I find as a legislator I wouldn't mind you keeping also, though, what you had in 1988-89 where you break it down -- and you mentioned it this morning -- by ministry.
I think that might help keep the ministries on their toes, even though, as you say, it maybe doesn't give an indication of how bad a complaint it was or how frivolous maybe. We might have a bunch of angry farmers, for instance, and you see a large number of the ones up here, but then the way you've also broken it down where it's been fixed it would give a sense of, well, okay, maybe they were frivolous and they were corrected well. But I think it would keep the ministries on their toes.
For us as legislators, it would certainly give us a sense right away, "Gee, there seems to be a problem in ministry X," and so we as legislators, who would like to correct the situation, that gives us a sense of, "There looks to be a real problem in this ministry," and we would know by your data there.
But I like it, and especially for laypeople, the way you've actually put it out also that it's a Health matter or whatever it is. I think that's for a lot of people the subject matter. Corrections, complaints and inquiries by subject matter I think is actually good too. But I guess for me, being in government, I find that very effective.
Ms Jamieson: Yes. I'm just trying to understand how to be most helpful in putting it out. The reason I did it that way, frankly, is because I was appointed and then five months later it was annual report time and this was the way they were kept and my predecessors reported it, so I just repeated it.
What I found in this is it tells you numbers, but what it doesn't tell you is in fact which ministries are better or worse, because the fact that a ministry's got a higher number beside its name doesn't mean that it's better or worse. It might mean that it's more in contact with the public. It might mean, as you say, there is a group of people pressing something. It might also mean, though, that they're the best ones when it comes to my raising complaints with them and they solve them fast.
The fact that I got 50 or 2 doesn't transmit who's more or less giving good service to the public or who's more or less causing problems. That's why I struggled and came up with: "Okay, what do we really want to know? We want to know what people are upset about." That's why I went to the top 10, or top 12 I guess it is, and then felt, well, that gives you an idea of the areas of complaint but it still doesn't tell you who's terrific and who's in trouble. That's when I went to the gold-star column and the tarnished-star column, and frankly I'm searching for ways of improving. I'm trying to understand how I can help you.
1430
Mr Ramsay: That's good, because that's where I'd like to go next. You've asked the question, "What do we want to know and how should we report it?" As I've said in our previous discussions when you last came before us, I really feel very strongly that your office and this committee should be very strong allies, and that I think we help each other. Maybe there's been a little more of that in the past where the ombudspersons who talked before really saw this committee as an ally. They could bring in something that wasn't resolved etc -- and we could talk about that a little later on, that part of it. But this is an area where I think maybe we could work more closely together.
I was going to ask you if you think this is an area where we could work together, the committee and you, and let's try to decide among us what would be the best information and how to lay it out. Because I think we've got different sorts of clients looking at it: There are laypeople out there who want to see certain types of data; I think we as legislators would want to see certain types of data; and then maybe people in the government itself -- and you notice I separate legislators and government, because I really think there's a big difference there -- maybe there's something that the people in government would want to see. It might help them correct their jobs.
I would see that as an area where we could really work together. As you said, you're looking for suggestions. Maybe we could, in a sense, come to an agreement that this is how we'd like stats reported in the annual report and try to make it some sort of standardized thing and maybe put it in our rules of procedure so that the next ombudsperson would be looking at that also and we'd have some continuity, year over year, and we really could compare the performance of your office and the performance of ministries. We'd be able to do that year over year, because we'd have some standardized data presented in a standardized format.
What would you think of that as sort of almost a starting project to --
Ms Jamieson: I'm happy to receive any suggestions for how I can improve reporting statistics. You'll have to determine whether that's something on which you want to explore the role-making of the committee. I wouldn't presume to suggest that, but I'm happy for any suggestions because I'm looking for ways to improve all the time. It may be that some information that would be useful to committee or to legislators might not be useful to -- as you say, there are different audiences. Something you may want may not --
The Vice-Chair: Can I just add to that as a point of information, having been a reference librarian in my other life, one of the things we used to talk about, looking at government documents, it's just that government publishes only for itself, not really taking into consideration who else uses it. Some of the discussion centring around this report really holds true for federal government publications and this government's publications and has held true for many, many years.
I think it would be an interesting project for all of us to hear how, in fact, the public looks at these statistics -- and the public that probably is going to be the most readily accessible would be something like the legislative library -- to see what kinds of questions they get and how they have to use your details. That's one within this building, but then you take the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library, which I believe is again a depository library, and how someone who is using statistics would look at these reports and what they would like to see from year to year.
The university libraries, those are people who are obviously dealing with a fair number of people, a range of projects. In fact frequently the public don't even want to do the work themselves. We found, when I was doing that work, we had to do a lot of the interpretation, pulling out the details for people and trying to find it consistently through Statistics Canada or other things. They don't always like the detail themselves, they don't like the statistics, they find them difficult to deal with.
I think if you asked some of the public service staff that actually has to interpret your detail, you might come up with some rather interesting answers on how they perceive what's in the written document. My point of information is ended.
Ms Jamieson: In fact, I do make this a talking point when I talk to people who are reading this, members of the public. I think you suggested some other areas where, if we haven't already touched base, it might be useful. I don't think the annual report has to be the only way that information gets out. The annual report, or any report that the Ombudsman does, he or she does at his or her prerogative. The contents are the prerogative of the Ombudsman, but there may be additional questions the committee may have.
I can tell you that where government's concerned, I undertake to give some of the departments I do most of my business with quarterly reports, and I do provide them, because it's most helpful for them, maybe at a deputy level, to keep track of what's happening in their department. This committee may have other needs, and I can look at how best I can provide within my mandate information so that those needs can be met, but I don't think it all has to be done in the context of writing the annual report.
Mr Ramsay: Just one other point on this issue before I give the floor to somebody else; it gets back to stats. I wouldn't mind seeing just more information when you make some statements, and I'm going back to efficiency in resolving issues, to even put some stats of info that back up what the problem is.
In the last paragraph in your section "Efficiency in Resolving Issues," after praising some of the changes with the Ministry of Correctional Services, you then say, and you're very diplomatic here, "I urge the Health Disciplines Board, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Financial Institutions and particularly the Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Human Rights Commission to work toward improving their respective abilities to cooperate in finding prompt and satisfactory resolution to the complaints and issues brought to their attention."
I wouldn't mind if that was more hard-hitting in that you actually showed some examples of how poor that service might be, like, "Gee, from that ministry we're getting a six-week or a three-month response time, and I, as the Ombudsman, just don't feel that's proper." Again, I think that more critical reporting where you think there's a problem would sharpen up those ministries and make everybody's job better. If they're being slack, in your opinion, I'd give them a slap. I don't think there's anything wrong with your annual report being used in order to praise, as you have, and to maybe slap on the wrist if a ministry or agency needs that.
I don't see a problem there. Maybe a few stats or something and people would say: "Gee, they've got something to handle. This ministry regularly takes four months to respond back to the Ombudsman. Well, that's not good." Public pressure would probably improve that by us seeing that. That's just a suggestion.
Ms Jamieson: I appreciate that. This report was a first, to name ministries, agencies and commissions that were doing well and that were not doing well. So I take your suggestions to heart. Thank you very much.
Mr Murdoch: I want to put a few things on the record that maybe should be there. I like the name "Ombudsman" too, even though I have a hard time saying it most times. Part of it is from lack of trying to find a better one, but I am open if something does come up. If there is a better name, I'd certainly look at it, but at this point I like it and I think a lot of people in Ontario relate to it. I think we'd have a hard time changing it, but we may do that. I just wanted to put that out.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that I would be very opposed to your ever getting involved in municipalities. I think they can handle themselves. They'll be judged when election time comes, and they have to run every three years. I think that's where it should stay. I'm open for discussion, and I'm sure our committee will have discussion on it because some people may feel differently. I just wanted to make sure you knew what my opinion was. If you started getting involved with municipalities, I just don't think you could handle the load. I think it just wouldn't work.
1440
The third thing I wanted to mention is that I did look at a lot of the complaints and the things you had to do. My office does handle a lot of those too. I have two of them. I have to have two of them in my riding. I would say at least half their time is used specifically on the things you're doing. I am just wondering if everybody else is doing that. I think around the discussions we've had here a lot of the members are, but I wonder if there are some members out there who aren't doing that who could handle some of the things that probably could be handled cheaper through my office than if they have to go into your bureaucracy. I'm not saying that you're overpaid and things like that, but it's just that you have a bigger bureaucracy to work with, whereas if somebody comes into my office, as I say, I have two -- I have one person who works in each office -- and the overhead isn't as high and things like that. Some of the smaller things they can handle. I do get calls from people in jail and things like that, and we've handled most of them.
There are things that we can't handle and do send them to you, as you know, and that's where we end up. I just wonder if there isn't somewhere along the line that we can maybe get the politicians and your office together so that they can maybe handle more of them, because some of the things that you've handled I think should have been handled by the constituency office they were at.
The fourth thing I was going to mention, so it's in the record, is that you mentioned that you had an audit done at your request. I know that. I just want to put it on the record that I think this committee also recommended that before. We're glad you did that and I think that's maybe how we can work together: that if we do suggest things, that you carry them out. That's one thing you did and we'll see what happens there.
The last thing I have is on tribunals. We talked about this before -- I don't know whether you and I have, but I've talked to other people, the OMB. Somebody can, as I see it anyway, take an OMB decision, if he's not happy with it, and come to the Ombudsman and ask you to look into it. I have some problems with that, your looking into it, because it's going to cost money for your office to do that. With a lot of at least OMB decisions -- there could be other tribunals too -- the decision's sort of final. There's nothing you can do about it. I know, even when you look at other things with ministries, the bottom line is that you can't make the ministry change; you have to depend on us to help you. But even this committee, if it's an OMB decision, cannot help you change that.
Ms Jamieson: Right.
Mr Murdoch: I guess the only thing you could come up with is if your office were in a different opinion from what happened at the OMB. You may show that there's a problem out there, but I just wonder how far we can go. I mean, I don't always agree with the OMB, and other tribunals too. I sometimes think their decisions are wrong, but there has to be a bottom line, there has to be somewhere where it stops. It just can't keep going on. People just can't keep complaining. That's the way I think human nature is: If you don't win, you like to try to win at some time. I just wonder what you think about that, because the tribunals are set up also by the government of the day. They appoint people to the OMB. Should you be getting involved in that? I just wanted some thoughts on that. I'm not saying one way or the other, but I'm just wondering. After a decision's been made, it's final. I'm talking more about land use, because by the time your decision would come out that land could be sold and reused and everything and there's just nothing. It's the law. It'd be deeded and everything and there's nothing you could do. Do you get a lot, or what happens there?
Ms Jamieson: We do get a fair number of complaints about agencies, boards, commissions, tribunals. You're right that the decisions of some of them are absolutely final, and unless it's so bad that it's a nullity and they have to start again, there's very little that can be done about it. The good news is that if they can come somewhere and look at the procedures and so on, the problem may not repeat itself, if there is a problem. I recall looking at an OMB file -- it's not in this report -- where there was a case where there were two people sitting on the hearing and there was a split decision, they were at loggerheads. So the individual, who had spent a fortune, more than one individual involved, was faced with: "Well, what? Are we going to go through this again?" They were at deadlock and they were going to have to foot the bill the second time around. Is that fair? We looked at it and said: "That isn't fair. If they have to go through this again, their costs should be paid. In future, don't sit two to a panel -- one or three -- so that you don't have deadlock. That way it improves the process." The good news is, or at least the outcome was, that those two sat down and came up with one decision. They didn't have to repeat the process.
I think there's another OMB case in here, but I know a lot of the tribunals make the argument that "We are like courts, we are final; no one except the court should be reviewing us." I want you to know that when I look at complaints about tribunals, I don't say I'm going to sit in their chair and determine whether, if I had the file before me, I would have decided otherwise. That's not my job. My job is to see if something happened there that was unfair. Was the procedure unfair? Did the person get a chance to be heard? Was all the evidence considered or was some important fact left out? Is the decision clear? Does the person get it? Did they understand when it was given to them? All those things, and in the end I can't displace their decision. I can recommend and hopefully recommend improvements for the future.
I get a lot of WCAT complaints. You can see that I report some of them. I have the securities commission, I have -- heavens, there are numbers -- the Human Rights Commission, that's no surprise to anyone, but we do look at them.
The alternative is, you say to people, "No, the Ombudsman can't look at tribunals." Then where do they go? "They can go to court," is the answer of some tribunals. That's true, they can, but the courts have been very clear: They will only get involved if the problem, the thing that went wrong, is an extreme case and then they'll overturn it. Again, you have no one there then to look at the rudeness, poor procedure, no notice provision, no opportunity to participate. You've got that whole gap where people have no place to go.
The other thing is, who can afford to take the government to court these days? Not too many people. So if you don't have somebody like the Ombudsman looking at those things or available to look at it, that's where you leave the public, and the public is going the other way. They want greater things, they want more things opened up to review, not fewer.
I guess that's how I'd answer that.
Mr Murdoch: Okay. That's fine. That's really all I have.
The Vice-Chair: Any more questions? Mr Mammoliti.
Mr Mammoliti: I agree with that last statement, by the way. I think people have a hard time affording courts and I would agree that the Ombudsman should continue looking after or at least investigating some of the complaints that come out of tribunal decisions for that reason. If that was final and if the courts were the only alternative, then of course a lot of people couldn't afford to go to court. They need that mechanism, that assurance that there's somebody there. I thought I'd put that on record.
I want to go back to corrections for a second, if you don't mind. I feel a little guilty sitting here listening to a number of correctional issues come up and I'm the PA to the minister of corrections. So I think I need to bring a couple of questions out in terms of some of the misconceptions that are out there that only inmates complain about the correctional system, when in essence staffers and staff complain about the system as well, if I'm not mistaken. I notice on your list in figure 6 that classification, transfers and committal are tops. Are they from staff?
Ms Jamieson: No. Classification, transfer and committal are inmate-related.
Mr Mammoliti: Are they?
Ms Jamieson: I believe so, but you are quite right when you say we also receive complaints from staff.
Mr Mammoliti: Okay.
Ms Jamieson: Let me look down the list.
Mr Mammoliti: In terms of "classification" then, what would that mean, relating that to an inmate?
Ms Jamieson: Where they're classified to be in the institution, which section are they put into, are they moved. Transfer has to do with between institutions, those kinds of things.
1450
Mr Mammoliti: There's a particular problem within the ministry in terms of a transfer classification that the union's actually looking at, at this point. I thought that's what this item was in reference to.
Ms Jamieson: I don't believe so. Classification "other," which is another heading on the right side, in the right column, I think that's more likely to be the place where --
Mr Mammoliti: So in those particular cases you would refer them to their union?
Ms Jamieson: At times. It really depends. Sometimes we get complaints about competitions within government departments or institutions. Someone feels he or she applied for a job and was unfairly screened out, that sort of thing, and if they've exhausted their avenues of appeal we will look at it. If it's something that is the subject of a collective agreement, we would refer it to that table as being the appropriate place. It really depends on the nature of the complaint.
Mr Mammoliti: I noticed on the list as well that you talk about living conditions under a number of different categories. "Food diet" -- I think you talked about that this morning -- "canteen allowance program" and "smoking." Are "canteen allowance program" and "smoking" not related?
Ms Jamieson: They can be. Some of the issues having to do with smoking can also have to do with the provision of canteen allowance amounts and so on. Canteen allowance can also have to do with things like: "The last institution I was in I was able to buy X. Why am I not in this one?" It can also have to do with amounts. There are any number of different dimensions to that.
Mr Mammoliti: "Staff misconduct," what would that be about?
Ms Jamieson: On this list it's related to assault.
Mr Mammoliti: Assault in reference to --
Ms Jamieson: People may be alleging that there was undue force, that sort of thing. We would look at that to a degree if we thought there was some matter that needed to be taken up in terms of it being an offence. We would refer that, as we're required to do under the act, to the appropriate authorities.
Mr Mammoliti: Am I right in saying that a lot on this list, these categories, would be referrals that you would actually refer to a different agency or a different group to deal with the problem as opposed to your taking it on in the Ombudsman's office?
Ms Jamieson: A number are referrals. If you look to the figure above, you will see that although we received, in total, almost 8,000 complaints and inquiries, 1,951 of them are listed as complaints. That means that in the way we've been collecting statistics, that they were in writing and that some measure of investigation was done. Now, they may be resolved along the way, or inmates may abandon them when they leave the institution, or there may be an alternate adequate remedy becoming available during the course, or, as we're investigating, the institution may say: "Gee, I didn't know that particular fact. We're prepared to deal with it; no further investigation required."
So if you look at the way this figure is set up, almost 8,000 come to us; in almost 2,000 there's some measure of investigation. The almost-6,000 figure there, 5,981, a lot of those are phone calls. An incredible number of those are phone calls and a number of those are referrals, yes.
Mr Mammoliti: This would be a part of the 33,000 that you deal with on an annual basis?
Ms Jamieson: Right.
Mr Mammoliti: So 8,000 of them would actually be cases that you would do some sort of investigation on? They would take some legwork to do and the rest of them would be phone calls?
Ms Jamieson: In the cases of corrections -- 8,000 complaints and inquiries in total, 2,000 complaints where some measure of investigation was done, yes.
That's generally true. These 5,981 are inquiries. They may have been jurisdictional complaints. We may have made a couple of phone calls and solved them. They may have been ready for us, but we didn't count them because they weren't in writing. I think that's unfortunate, because my staff don't get the credit, the way we've collected, for the excellent work they're doing.
We are right now looking at a better way of keeping track of that, because when somebody calls, if they are at the end, their last resort, we do in fact solve it. They are in the right place, and just because they didn't write it down and send it in to us, I think my staff should get credit for having settled that. At the moment we slot them, by and large, in the inquiry column. It looks like we're just asking somebody a question and that's it, and sometimes we do much more.
Mr Mammoliti: Thank you.
Ms Jamieson: You're welcome.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): The possible future appointment of a federal Ombudsman was discussed earlier and I'd like to inquire about that. Do you get a lot of inquiries that affect federal government departments, agencies etc, and what happens to them?
Ms Jamieson: One of my favourite topics, Mr Eddy. Last year we counted 2,904 complaints and inquiries about the federal government. We don't count them all and I'm sure it's much more than that. What do we do? We refer the individuals to their member of Parliament. We refer the individuals, unfortunately, back to the ministry they are complaining about. I get a little frustrated with it all, because they may have already tried those things and can't get satisfaction for whatever reason, maybe can't get a full investigation done.
We desperately need a federal Ombudsman. If this committee chooses to say something about that, I will be very pleased. I think the timing is pretty good and I know there's been interest on and off in the federal field for some considerable time. I'm told Trudeau almost appointed a federal Ombudsman at one time, so maybe in all the election platforms being crafted somewhere this will make its way in. It'd be great.
Mr Eddy: Yes, I think it is a very important matter and we have discussed that. There was the appointment of either a federal Ombudsman or a parliamentary commissioner on aboriginal issues. Does that look like it's possible? I guess it's all under discussion at the present time and it's a matter of proposing it and keeping on the issue.
Ms Jamieson: Yes. I think so. I've written, my colleagues have written to the federal government on the parliamentary commissioner on aboriginal affairs. I've been referred to the royal commission. On the larger question, I have no substantive reply to date.
Mr Eddy: I think it certainly is important. Thank you.
Mr Ramsay: Just before you go, I want to talk a bit about what you mentioned in your report about freedom of information and protection of privacy and get an update of where that is. In referring to the previous questioning about the federal government, you noted the statistic you had for complaints and inquiries and you said you don't count all of them. What are your criteria for a complaint and inquiry, and then some that you have dismissed and your staff doesn't even record?
Ms Jamieson: We are attempting to count them all now. I asked for us to represent the federal breakout last year because I thought they were high, but I couldn't be sure at that time whether we had captured them all throughout the entire year. That's why I say it's probably higher than this.
We are at the moment looking at a computer system that would oblige us to count everything and what happens with it. I am told you can program computers now where it won't let you change the screen unless you say, "X happened or it didn't," and I think those are useful tools to remind us all. We try very hard. My staff do count. A lot of it historically has been manual. We've been working, labouring, with an outdated computer system and trying to make the best of it.
That's why some of these categories frankly are artificial and I would like them to be a little closer. I'd like to be able to show complaints and inquiries, take the complaints and what happened to them, follow them right through to the end, take the inquiries, what happened to them, so it would be much clearer. We're working right now on that model.
I've got a system that Mr Wang authored many years ago. You may know that Wang has gone into receivership. The good news is our lease is up shortly and this is an opportune time for us to look at what computer models will best allow us to do our best work and show our best work. That's why I answer you the way I do, Mr Ramsay.
1500
Mr Ramsay: How old is that equipment?
Ms Jamieson: About 10 years, I believe.
Mr Ramsay: It's going to be really timely to get that changed. That will be good.
Ms Jamieson: It is. There are some good investigation models out now. There are some good people in the complaint resolution field doing some models that we're looking at.
Mr Ramsay: Good. Could you give us an update on the judicial review you had asked for in regard to trying to ease this conflict with the freedom of information and protection of privacy commissioner?
Ms Jamieson: Yes. In fact the person who brought the issue before the Information and Privacy Commissioner passed away, so it seemed not a useful issue to pursue in terms of devoting resources to it. That application has been discontinued, but I can tell you the larger problem remains. I think the only way to solve it is for an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which makes it clear that the Ombudsman Act is on the list of acts where FIPPA does not apply.
On the one hand, you're saying to people, "Come to the Ombudsman in confidence." I think if we didn't say that, people may not come as readily and maybe government organizations wouldn't be as cooperative. They know I've got broad investigative powers. The balance to that was to make sure I had tight confidentiality requirements.
If an individual, as in this case, through the back door of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, somebody who wasn't a complainant, who wasn't a witness, who was in no way involved in the investigation, can access some of my records when they're in the hands of the government, I think there's something wrong with that system. I think it sends out the wrong message.
They're both laudable. It is laudable to have access for people to information about them. It is also laudable to have an Ombudsman who can do investigations in confidence, and we need to balance these things. I think it was an oversight when FIPPA was drafted. I've concluded that.
Mr Ramsay: Probably.
Ms Jamieson: I continue to urge an amendment. In the meantime, what does that leave me with? Doing verbal briefings, taking a long time. It's a very cumbersome process at the moment.
Mr Ramsay: It sounds like there's a sense of urgency here to get this corrected. Do you have any sense that the government will be proposing an amendment?
Ms Jamieson: Not at the moment.
Mr Ramsay: You're not getting responses to your urgings, as you call them?
Ms Jamieson: Not at the moment. I have no indication that an amendment is going to be put forward.
Mr Ramsay: I just say to the committee, that's possibly something we should be addressing in our report. Are there any other bodies that run into the same conflict? The only omission right now is with the Ombudsman, or is there another?
Ms Jamieson: Not that I'm aware of. I can tell you in a number of jurisdictions the Ombudsman does both, so it's not a problem. In other jurisdictions where you've got the two, pains have been taken to make sure they are complementary. I think it's just because the Ombudsman Act was passed 17 years ago and FIPPA is much more recent that no one realized the issue. Now that we've found it, I'm hopeful we can address it.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Murdoch, nothing comes to mind at this moment? Mr Frankford? Mr Abel?
Ms Jamieson: I was wondering if someone was going to explore this issue, but since you haven't, I think I'd like to for just a brief moment, that is, recommendation-denied cases. I was reading Hansard and so on about this issue and I just want to make it clear how we end up there and why, for example, there weren't any in this report and how that flow goes. If I can just take you through, you start out with over 33,000 complaints and inquiries.
The Vice-Chair: What page are you on, just so everybody is on the same one?
Ms Jamieson: Sorry, page 39.
Of those, almost 19,000 are provincial. I'm at figure 1. You go over the page to figure 3, where I deal only with provincial, and you can see at the bottom of the complaints column, with all the things I have said about how we collect that, 6,960 get some measure of formal investigation.
Follow that figure down to the next figure and you'll find that, of those, we list 1,095 as resolved; 617 of them were resolved in favour of the complainant and, of those, 96 went -- now there's no "96" there; this is what I'm just giving you in addition. This speaks to Mr Ramsay's earlier point about what stage. Of those, 96 tentative reports were done, what we call 18-3s. At that stage, you give it to the government. You hope they'll implement the recommendation or give you a reason why and more information etc.
Most of the 96 were solved at that stage. There were 39 that went to final report, 21-3. Of those, some of you will remember, 36 were human rights commission related. That final report means I've done everything possible. I'm giving it to the government agency for the last time to see if it's going to implement the recommendation or not.
If they are not, I then can go to the minister. I must go to the Premier. The 36 OHRCs went to the Premier. The other three I resolved working with the CEO involved in the organization where the complaint was lodged. So of the 39 that went to final report, they got solved, whether at the stage of the head of the agency, board or commission or with the Premier. That means there were no recommendation-denied cases. If, having gone to the Premier, there is no satisfaction, that's when you get a recommendation-denied case. That's when I have the option to bring it to committee.
Now does that mean that the Ombudsman -- and I'll put the questions -- is solving these cases for something less than a brave outcome? I want to tell you how I arrive at the resolution, what's a fair resolution. In accepting a settlement or arriving at a fair resolution, I look at, what is the complainant seeking? What is in the public interest and in the interest of improved government administration generally? What meets fairness standards that I'm obliged to look at which go beyond the standards that the courts bring to bear? Those are the ingredients I look at.
If I arrive at a level of compensation, for example, and put it to a department, do I negotiate it down? I usually have arrived at that for a reason. The only way that would be looked at again is if further information became available that they put forward to cause anybody to have a good look at it again. But I arrive at a recommendation and I put it forward, and then we pound the pavement and persuade people to accept it.
I really wanted to speak to that question of how we end up with these. That's not to say I won't end up with 10 this year or 30 next year, or none -- I don't know -- but that's the process it goes through.
1510
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to talk about this a little bit. I'm glad you brought it up, because when I look back at the history of your office and this committee, it seems to me that the resolution-denied cases are sort of the glue that's kept the two bodies together. If you look back in history, the committee has supported the Ombudsman 85% of the times past when these have been brought forward. In some cases it's been the power of your office, through this committee, that has in a sense taken a class action case right through the process. Through your power, you've empowered us as legislators.
There's an example from my constituency office about six years ago that happened with ONR and pensions. Like most members here, you run up against a brick wall. You say, as I still do today: "We do have a court of last resort? Let's contact the Ombudsman." And the Ombudsman couldn't make the ONR change, the Ontario Northland Railway. The Ombudsman brought it here. I wasn't on the committee at the time. The committee agreed, reported it to the Legislature and the Legislature agreed. Quite a few people -- I think about 300 people -- were affected by this, got their pensions, got that credit for a couple of years that was part-time work or something, which I think it was. They didn't want to credit them the way they were on contract or something, but they were sort of full-time.
Anyway, they got it corrected. It just really, I thought, showed the power of how a person can make a complaint when we've got an office such as yours, even when you, because you have no power except for the prestige of the office, can still exercise a lot of influence by bringing those things forward. If you can convince us -- and as I said, the history shows that 85% of the time this committee in the past has been convinced. We get it to the Legislature. The men and women of the Legislature are people who want to see the betterment of people's lives and are very progressive in those things and want to see things change.
I really see your office as an instrument for change. You just almost have to wonder that all of a sudden they've just sort of stopped. I grant that you're good; I just find it hard to believe that all of a sudden there's not one thing of the 26,000 complaints you get that may be still outstanding, that maybe, with a little extra shove, we could get the whole thing corrected. I don't know.
Ms Jamieson: The fact that the Ombudsman can bring a file before the Legislature, through this committee, through tabling a report, is a very persuasive tool. It's a very powerful thing to say that everyone knows that the public scrutiny can be brought to bear on actions. I talk about this everywhere I go. I am not saying that there will never be, but as long as government is implementing the recommendations, as long as it's making the changes -- you've got the office being a change agent, that's true. But as long as they're cooperative, then things are happening. The fact is that if they're not you can bring it forward is powerful, and the fact that that's available is a very powerful thing to have. Again, I'm not saying that there isn't ever going to be any or that it isn't tough to convince.
The Vice-Chair: Just as a supplementary, because I think you've raised it and it sort of falls into some of the discussion that Mr Ramsay has raised and you've raised with these comments. But you had 36 complaints regarding the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Ms Jamieson: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: According to your report, the date of which I believe was April 1992 when you were going to, I guess, have a look at it again. I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact words.
Ms Jamieson: That's what it says, yes.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Obviously we are almost looking at a year having elapsed, and I'm wondering if you are able at this point to comment on what would be a substantial block of cases dealing with a very important agency of this government.
Ms Jamieson: I'm able to comment to this extent. I chronicle in there what happened and that I ultimately went to the Premier on this file. I did review the matter in April 1992, and at that time it looked to me, with the infusion of resources, with the task force that was being done to deal with the backlog and so on, that there was reason to believe progress was being made and would be made to allow the OHRC to get its cases dealt with. That being the case, I have allowed them that opportunity to move forward. I'm not a professional monitor on a week-to-week basis, so I've said: "Okay, fine. You've taken steps. Away you go."
I can tell you that I am right now looking at that question again. I think that's as far as I can go in commenting on it right now. Before I can say anything publicly, as you know, I have to make sure I've said it to the people involved and then can bring it forward.
But I want you to know that I will not hesitate, should I have a situation on any case where government will not implement the recommendations, after a reasonable period of time, after seeing the Premier, to bring it to committee. I will not hesitate. I have to make a decision if it's an appropriate one. I have the option of bringing it. But if I think there's something there that needs to be dealt with and committee can certainly help with it, I will bring it. But as long as government's solving it, I can't create sort of blocks.
The Vice-Chair: Just to finish that question quickly, you raised it as a special investigation in this report.
Ms Jamieson: Right.
The Vice-Chair: Will we be seeing some sort of conclusionary remarks in your next report?
Ms Jamieson: Yes.
Mr Ramsay: You just mentioned the word "monitor." It was sort of my understanding that you didn't think it was in your purview to be monitoring after the fact, that you thought the changes were to be implemented to make sure that the government was doing them, but in this case you are.
Ms Jamieson: Sometimes I do, but I think, again, one has to balance the use of their resources. I could monitor every department for ever, and I have to say in some cases, "No, it's time for me to close that file." If I hear some more about it, I may have another look, but to keep reinvestigating the same thing over and over and month after month I think depletes the resources.
Sometimes I'll say, "I think you should implement X," and the government will say, "I'll develop a procedure on that." I don't simply close the file and go away. I say: "When you've developed it, provide it to me within a reasonable period of time." I'll look at it, and then I'll close it if I think it's sufficient, but not never to be opened again, but also not to be ridden herd on every week or every month. This is where I have to make sure I'm using -- because there's how many other thousand people waiting for me to devote some time to them.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Murdoch, anything you'd like to pursue? Mr Abel?
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): No.
The Vice-Chair: No? Very good. I got a chance to ask the human rights question I had been sort of sitting on before. I have to thank Mr Ramsay for giving me the segue into that. Unless my colleagues have some additional questions, and no one's responding, I will thank you very much for your time, Ms Jamieson. I think it's been another illuminating experience and I hope some of our comments have also been helpful to you. Ms Jamieson: Yes. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: Can we call the open part of the meeting adjourned? Paul, you had some other comments you wanted to make?
Mr Paul Murray: Yes, we had some further discussion.
The Vice-Chair: Some further discussion? Okay.
The committee continued in closed session at 1520.