REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
UNION OF INJURED WORKERS OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 29 January 1997
Review of the Office of the Ombudsman
Union of Injured Workers of Ontario
Mr Phil Biggin
Mr Maurice Stewart
Mr George Aregers
Case of Ms C
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
Chair / Président: Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
*Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
*Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
*Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)
*Mr LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)
Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
*Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
*Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
*Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC) for Mrs Fisher
Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC) for Mr O'Toole
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC) for Mr Vankoughnet
Clerk pro tem /
Greffier par intérim: Mr Todd Decker
Staff / Personnel: Mr Philip Kaye and Mr Andrew McNaught, research officers,
Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in room 151.
REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
The Chair (Mr John L. Parker): I'd like to welcome everyone to this morning's meeting of the Ombudsman committee. This morning's agenda begins with public hearings on the working paper containing proposed revisions to recommendations made in the 1993 Report on the Office of the Ombudsman. I'd like to welcome Mr Patten to the committee. We're pleased to have you on board with us and we're sure we will benefit from your participation on the committee. Mr Smith is visiting us today as a substitute.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I'm a substitute too.
The Chair: Doug, are you a substitute? We welcome Mr Rollins to the committee this morning. You're such a regular I'd forgotten you weren't actually a permanent member.
UNION OF INJURED WORKERS OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Our first submission today is from the Union of Injured Workers: Phil Biggin, executive director, and Maurice Stewart. Welcome, gentlemen. We have a half-hour for your presentation. You may use that time as you wish. Any time left over after your formal presentation is typically left available for questions from the committee. If we have time for questions today we will begin with the opposition party.
Mr Phil Biggin: The Union of Injured Workers of Ontario welcomes the opportunity to speak to the standing committee on the Ombudsman in the discussions on the working paper and the 1993 report.
First of all, I would like to introduce ourselves. The Union of Injured Workers is a non-profit organization specializing in representing the interests of injured workers and other members of the community before the Workers' Compensation Board, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, Canada pension, the Human Rights Commission, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and other government agencies that our client group comes to us with problems with.
The UIW was founded in 1974 with the dual functions of advocacy and law reform. In 1975 the organization instituted direct representation of injured workers. That was done with the assistance of law students from the University of Toronto, and since, we have acquired funds and we have five full-time staff. For 23 years the UIW has been at the forefront of initiatives to reform the workers' compensation system. We consider the Office of the Ombudsman to be critical in protecting equity in the system.
Over the number of years we have been working in this area, the Ombudsman's office has been very important in highlighting problems that exist in the system. For this reason, because of their status, many of these problems were problems that either individual injured workers were complaining to us about or to their MPPs. But once it goes to the Ombudsman's office and the report is released, the issue becomes more public and it's possible to have the kind of debate that is necessary to bring about reform and make the system work better.
For injured workers, the final level of appeal in the workers' compensation process is the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. If an injured worker is not satisfied with a decision from the tribunal, they can contact the Office of the Ombudsman and ask that the matter be reviewed. The Ombudsman has broad powers to investigate decisions, procedures and practices of the appeals tribunal. The complainant can reasonably expect that if their complaint is justified, the Ombudsman has the power to recommend that the tribunal change its decision. Of course, we would appreciate it if the Ombudsman's power was in fact a little bit stronger. We understand, however, that this would not reflect the fact that the tribunal is the final level of appeal.
For complainants whose complaints are not justified, the Office of the Ombudsman provides a second opinion by providing a written decision and the reasons, and really can bring something to closure finally, with the worker having the understanding that, yes, even though they disagree with the decision, that decision was carried out in a fair and just way.
I'm going to turn over the balance of the presentation to one of my staff, Mr Maurice Stewart, and then we'll entertain some questions after we complete the submission.
Mr Maurice Stewart: Our opinion regarding awareness and accessibility of the Office of the Ombudsman: We agree there is a need for greater public awareness and accessibility of the Ombudsman's services. For example, many injured workers who represent themselves at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal level may not be aware of the services the Ombudsman can provide. The same is true of many people who, for example, have been denied welfare or who are unhappy with the way they are treated at the welfare office.
We agree that the Ombudsman should present, as part of the annual ombudsplan, proposed public education initiatives for each fiscal year, with the aim of increasing public awareness and accessibility to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Regarding the term "Ombudsman," we feel that a more gender-neutral term should be selected to describe the office. This is not Sweden where the term originated. If our equity laws mean anything and we object to any form of gender bias, the same rationale that was used to change the term "Workmen's Compensation Board" to "Workers' Compensation Board" should be adopted. We see nothing wrong in changing the term to "Ombudsperson."
1010
Revised recommendations, public comment by Ombudsman on investigation, revision 7: We feel it is unfortunate that at present the Ombudsman cannot release information to the public upon the completion of an investigation other than through tabling of a special or annual report with the Legislature. We feel that when it is in the public's interest, the Ombudsman should be able to comment publicly after an investigation in order to bring to light a government agency's refusal to implement recommendations. In our case, this agency is the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
We therefore support revision 7 which amends the act to make public comments possible. We disagree, however, that this should be done by means of a special report to the assembly. We feel this should be done publicly, which increases the public's awareness of the importance of the Office of the Ombudsman in the rule-making process.
Appointment of Ombudsman, revision 20: We submit that section 3 of the Ombudsman Act be amended to provide that the Ombudsman shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the address of the assembly only after a recommendation by a majority of the members of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, and that such majority shall include at least one member from each official party in the assembly.
Operation and management of the office, revision 26: We also agree with the change in revision 26 which gives the Ombudsman more importance by making it clear that it is the Ombudsman who brings forward the annual ombudsplan for discussion with the committee, rather than the committee discussing with the Ombudsman the annual ombudsplan.
Rules for guidance of the Ombudsman, revision 27: We actively support the move to increase the Ombudsman's participation in the rule-making process. As worded in the 1993 report, we also feel that the term "permit" is, quite frankly, condescending and should be replaced with the word "invite," as suggested in revision 27.
Recommendation-denied cases, revision 31: We support the view that in revision 31 the added words "that is, cases in which a tentative or final report is presented to a governmental organization," clarify the meaning of "formal recommendation" in amending the act to provide that the Ombudsman shall include in each annual report a description of each case presented.
Complaints about Ombudsman investigations, revision 34: We agree with the recommendation that the act be amended to provide for the disclosure of information which covers the Ombudsman's handling of an investigation, and as revision 34 suggests, this is solely for the purpose of assisting the committee in the formulation of rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman and to enable us to properly evaluate criticisms made by individuals about the service they have been provided. We feel that in this way the Ombudsman has some accountability to the public at large.
Change the composition of the committee, recommendation 42: We agree with the revision to delete recommendation 42 and leave the composition of the committee in its present form. The recommendation had good intentions. In practice, however, things are different and so the revision avoids putting the chair in an awkward position.
Debate of committee reports, revision 43: We find that the 1993 report was much too vague in terms of the actual time the reports of the standing committee on the Ombudsman shall be deemed to be adopted. It simply suggested "within a specified time." We agree with revision 43 which specifies this time as "the end of the session following the session during which the report is tabled, unless before that date a vote has been held on the motion to adopt the report."
Proposed terms of reference for the Ombudsman committee, revision 44: We agree that the standing orders be amended to provide that the standing committee on the Ombudsman shall have all responsibilities laid out in revision 44, with the most important function being "to provide a legislative link and sounding board for the Ombudsman, with a view to advancing the Ombudsman's fulfilment of his or her functions." We agree with revision 44, which moves this important function to the beginning of the list of the committee's responsibilities rather than at the end as was the case with the 1993 report.
Subject to any questions the panel may have, this concludes our submission.
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Good morning. Thank you very much for your presentation and the time you've taken to look over many of the recommendations that are before us.
I want to ask a little bit about the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. You state, "The Ombudsman has broad powers to investigate decisions, procedures and practices of the appeals tribunal." Is it more in practice that the Ombudsman would not so much focus in on the decision but rather that the practices and the procedures were correct, rather than going directly to the question of whether the decision was a good one or a bad one? Would you have any knowledge of whether she looks at procedures and practices only?
Mr Biggin: I think she's bound to determine whether there's been an error in law, and in order to do that, it is necessary to go over the procedures and the actual details of a case. What they do is really, in a sense, de novo review the whole history of that case and how it's been adjudicated, not only with the last level of appeal in the workers' compensation system but through the WCB as well.
Mr Hoy: You talk about awareness and accessibility. The Ombudsman probably would agree with you on those two issues. The current Ombudsman has stated that they try to accommodate people with the many languages that are spoken as a first language here in Ontario, trying to fulfil roles for people who don't have English as a first language. I think that certainly the committee wouldn't want to harness the Ombudsman from letting people know what their rights would be and how to contact that person and all those manner of things.
The "Ombudsperson" is something that I don't think the committee ever spoke of, and it's an interesting comment on your part.
Public comment, and this would be my last point or question: The Ombudsman historically has always worked hard to protect the confidentiality of all cases. The suggestion is that there be a special report made to the Legislative Assembly, which would be public. Once it is in the House here, that decision and the rationales would be made public. But you would like to see that even broader than that?
Mr Biggin: I think what we're talking about there is, and I want to speak to the question of accessibility as well, in no case would we advocate overruling the rights of the individual for anonymity or public disclosure. What we're talking about is that you can do a case description, the very facts of the case, without actually indicating who the individual is who is involved. This goes hand in hand with the question of accessibility.
One of the things we have found in our work over the years, and particularly more recently in the communities, is that there is a great deal of ignorance, and I don't mean that disrespectfully to people, but people just don't know what their rights are. I think this starts with the schools, because it's not being talked about there.
1020
We've done a project through our organization with health and safety in the communities, and we did it in the high schools and at the community college level. Even at the community college level, it's amazing how people don't realize what opportunities they have to appeal. In fact, if time limits are placed, are imposed, as certainly is going to be the case with Bill 99 if that is to pass in the Legislature, people would lose that right. So I think it's very important that the function of the Ombudsman be understood by people.
We've focused only on workers' compensation. The Ombudsman is of course much broader for all governmental agencies and how they deal with the public, but what we would like to see is a more public document that would make the Ombudsman a real, live entity in the community, not a document that says, "Mr Biggin, in a case before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, asked for entitlement for such-and-such a disability, was denied, and some of the procedures were not properly followed." We don't want that kind of public disclosure. What we want is something that assists the Ombudsman to go beyond -- making the presentation to the Legislature and to agencies like ourselves or social service agencies is still a very restricted group of people. We'd like it to move out and become a more public thing.
On the other hand, we don't want to see the Ombudsman's office inundated with frivolous cases. There has to be some kind of balance. So that's what we're talking about with that particular proposal.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much for coming forward with your excellent presentation to this committee. I'm sure a lot of your ideas and suggestions are going to be helpful in seeing how this committee works and the future duties of the Ombudsman or Ombudsperson, however the name may be.
I just wanted to go a little bit further. You've elaborated a little bit on finding ways and means of increasing public awareness and accessibility, and even more so in the area that I represent in northeastern Ontario where we have a lot of remote communities that are accessible only by airplane and by train or by water. There are no roads going into those communities, so a lot of people look to some way of resolving their grievances or this and that, and my office does a certain amount. I'm sure you have more ideas and suggestions on how we can increase public awareness and accessibility to this office without opening up the floodgates to a lot of frivolous complaints that could be handled in other ways. I'd just give you an opportunity to elaborate further on that.
Mr Biggin: Yes, and this can be done without increasing the costs of operation. I think in a long-term function we have to look at our education system, and in the curriculum of the education system there should be a component that deals with all the agencies of the government that people, once they graduate from school and start to work, or even before they graduate, would come into contact with. In the long term, there should be education utilizing the education system across Ontario. In the short term, it can be done through the volunteer sector, through community organizations, community groups, churches and other areas.
In every proposal, I know that cost considerations are at the forefront, but a lot of things can be done at a very low cost and can be done very effectively.
Mr Len Wood: Do you feel we should be using actual cases that have been resolved as an education, without using names? I'm not talking about using the names of people, but actually getting pamphlets out into the schools, to grades 7, 8 and 9. We're going to see a lot of them actually going into the workforce, because I understand with the changes to education it's going to be compulsory that they have a couple of years of part-time work in McDonald's or A&W or whatever in order to get their certificate to graduate from high school, and as those things happen, these people have a chance of getting hurt in the workplace. So should the education start at that level and continue?
Mr Biggin: Yes, I would think it should start, at the very latest, in grade 9. In terms of case studies, I'm not sure that would make very much of an impact upon my young fellows who are in school right now. You would have to broaden it and put a number of areas together so that the Ombudsman wouldn't be there just as a specific thing. It would be health and safety, health in the communities, workers' compensation, Ombudsman, employment equity rights, whatever, the whole gamut of that. In that case, I think generic examples would be very useful.
Mr Len Wood: With the amount of major changes that have happened -- mega-week started on January 13. They call it the spring sitting of the Legislature, but it's actually not spring here in Toronto, not this morning. With a lot of the changes that are taking place in the administration of welfare, social services, all of these services that people have looked to the provincial government to deliver, do you think the Ombudsman or Ombudsperson is going to be more swamped with complaints as things start falling through the cracks as the transfer takes place over the next nine or 10 months?
Mr Biggin: That's hard to say. I can just go back and give you an example. When we were talking about Bill 162 and workers' compensation, I can remember Greg Sorbara, who was then Minister of Labour, saying, "This is not going to result in a higher level of appeals," and we were just swamped about three years after that. Then we had Bill 165, which came in under the NDP government, and now there are appeals coming forth there and it's all backlogged. I think there would have to be a screening mechanism put into place whereby some determination is made very early on about the seriousness of the request.
We've been blessed in our office to have received faxes from both sides. We're getting the people who are against the megacity and we're also receiving faxes through our office that are making the argument for these changes. So it's very complicated, and certainly the public hearings on this are going to be very important.
I don't want to try and play fortune-teller and say that a lot of things would be increased, because I don't want the committee to come away with the impression, "Maybe we should restrict the Ombudsman's or Ombudsperson's office even more." That's not what we want to see. We want it to be fiscally responsible, but we want it to be able to function there as the last court of appeal, so to speak.
Mr Len Wood: Just briefly, I wasn't necessarily thinking of the megacity legislation so much as taking the property taxes for schools off and adding on another $1 billion or $2 billion in services.
Mr Biggin: Downloading, yes; I understand.
Mr Len Wood: Thank you very much for your presentation. I was pleased to listen to you.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My apologies for not being here at the start of your presentation, but before I ask you the question, sir, are the members of your union injured workers who are working or injured workers who aren't working or both, to be members of your union? Just for my own mind. I don't know, so I'd like --
Mr Biggin: Our bylaws were just amended in November. Traditionally, to be a member of the Union of Injured Workers, you had to be injured on the job. You could be injured and return to work and then get re-injured and be a member of our organization, or, many of our members are permanently disabled and no longer able to return to the workforce.
In November last year we broadened that to include all members of the community because we have been getting people coming in mainly through our injured worker members who have problems in some area and have no mechanism of representation. We don't charge a fee for service. There's no charge for the service we provide, so it is a little broader now.
1030
Mr R. Gary Stewart: Okay. I didn't know, so now I know. Thank you very much.
Mr Biggin: We'd like to get everybody back to work. That's certainly our goal, but it's not really a possibility. There are always going to be those workers who, through no fault of their own, are so disabled that they can't go back to work.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: I appreciate it. The question I have is in regard to revision 34, and I was very interested in the last comment Mr Stewart made. The final line says, "We feel that, in this way, the Ombudsman has some accountability to the public at large." Do you believe that the Ombudsman should have accountability, whether it be to the public at large, in some small way to government, this committee etc?
Mr Maurice Stewart: All government agencies should have accountability to someone.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: One of the comments that might be made in this particular situation is that if there is information given to committees or whatever, possibly the cooperation between the Ombudsman and those particular people and that particular case may diminish. I'm trying to get to the point that the Ombudsman certainly is supposed to be an identity within themselves.
Mr Maurice Stewart: Yes.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: But when you're spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars, what I'm trying to get from you gentlemen is, do you feel that there has to be some type of accountability?
Mr Maurice Stewart: You just answered the question right there; you said, "When you're spending taxpayers' dollars." Why shouldn't they be accountable to the public?
Mr R. Gary Stewart: I can say that. I'd like to get other people to say the same thing if they're so inclined.
Mr Biggin: We're saying there must be accountability but that the accountability should not stop just with the committee or the government; it should be to the general public at large. As Maurice said, it's their money that's being spent.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: Great, that was my question. Thank you.
The Chair: Further questions from the government side? Seeing none, that just about consumes our half-hour. Mr Biggin, Mr Stewart, thank you very much for assisting in our process.
GEORGE AREGERS
The Chair: Our next deputant is Mr George Aregers. Welcome to the standing committee on the Ombudsman. Please start.
Mr George Aregers: My name is George Aregers. I've been living in this city all my life and I had conflicts with some of the politicians we've got in the southern part of Ontario. I would have a problem, I would go to them and they would totally ignore me, they would send me to the Ombudsman. That's where your problem is. The politicians aren't listening to the public. I'm not talking about now; I'm talking about 10 years ago, five years ago.
When I went to the Ombudsman I had a legitimate complaint. When I called to be on this committee, I was told this is not to bring baggage or something that I had a problem with, but I won't mention any names. My beef is that I've got five kids, and I bought a property and was continually pushed out of my property. I went to my politicians, asking them: "Hey, what's going on here? Once the government takes my land, it seems they can do what they want." Then the government set up certain little corporations that they can take the land and they're not accountable even to the Ombudsman, but it's a government agency.
If you can just bear with me, I made some quick notes this morning, and I apologize that I'm not a professional in coming up in front of people. I'll try to go through these notes as quickly as I can. They were done this morning. Before I go I'd like to thank this committee for providing the notes, the pamphlets, whatever the hearings were. I just came from a meeting the other night regarding my problem and I was told that if I wanted to make a deputation -- this was in municipal -- for about 50 pages I had to pay $107, just for the notes. What I'm thanking you people for is that I didn't have to pay for the notes, and I think that is a step forward. This committee is open. There are the notes, and I took time to read them. But one thing I found about them is that it's too legal-worded in there, that it's not simple, basic. I hope that possibly my notes could be of some help to this committee.
What we need an Ombudsman for, I feel, is where legislation is not applied equally to everyone. It should be applied equally. Why do we need an Ombudsman? Like I said before, politicians ignore their constituents and rely on the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman should have the power to expose incompetent politicians in the Legislature. I say "incompetent" when a constituent has to call, send letters, dozens, and all this politician does is just send it to a department head. We don't need politicians like this. I'm not saying it's anyone who is here. I'm talking about where I live. It's not just one party. It's apparent that many people are confronting the Ombudsman's office because of these politicians.
Should this Ombudsman have accountability to this committee? It should have accountability to everyone. That's what it gets paid for. If we had a proper system where the people can go and complain -- I assume you are all politicians. We wouldn't need the Ombudsman if it were like in the 1960s when the politicians on a weekly basis had their offices open, "Come on in," and you talk to them. You don't have that any more. What we've got is politicians hiring all these staff, and their role is to get rid of these people.
I would like to see in this Ombudsman thing simple language where an individual such as I or others can look down this list and say, "My problem is -- yes, the Ombudsman can help me." There's nothing in there that I could see.
When you confront the Ombudsman you are assigned an inspector or whatever. I'm a public servant myself and I find, working a lot with my colleagues, the problem is that people don't know what I'm supposed to do for them -- if people knew that when I get a complaint, when they approach me this is what I do, that this is how to resolve your thing, and if I don't do these things you could go and complain about me.
When I went to the Ombudsman -- two, three years, nothing. You call them up, "Oh, I'm working on it" -- nothing. Is this what we pay all these public servants for? It's frustrating and this is why we're here today.
1040
I noticed in the pamphlets that were given to me that we decided to have a committee to choose the Ombudsman. This is fine, but I know that in Mississauga and in Etobicoke we had these committees set up for salaries of the trustees or whoever it is. Lo and behold, we found out that it sounds great on paper and that the committee members were chosen by the mayors, whoever they were, to suit their purposes. No wonder we've got $100,000 and $150,000 salaries given to a lot of these people.
If we're going to have committee members, why doesn't everybody who's put a complaint to the Ombudsman in the past five or six years send a letter to these individuals and say, "Hey, we're going to choose the committee members," and the potential candidates for the Ombudsman are going to come in and ask for their vote? Let the people challenge them. Let these people say, "Hey, you didn't do anything for me last year" or the year before.
I find that where politicians choose individuals, even in my department -- let's just give an example of principals in schools. Sure, we've got a problem there. They're teachers. What you need is that the principal should not be a teacher; he should be a businessman, proven capabilities of a businessman.
I apologize if I'm going to offend anyone here, but it just struck me that when we chose the Attorney General, I think it was, the first headlines after the individual was chosen -- the individual's concerns were two things, "That's what I'm going to get done." That's wrong. They were children's and women's issues. We've gone through 10 to 15 years of using children to push certain agendas. This Ombudsman has to be for all people, and I'm getting tired when it's a white male. I've lived here and I've got five children and I treat all my children equally. I expect the Ombudsman, whoever is going to choose them, to treat everybody equally.
The powers of the Ombudsman: Does it have sufficient teeth or is it just a symbol? Is it something where a constituent who has a problem can go and just tell his frustrations and is forgotten about and just sent away?
What should happen is that it is confirmed in a certain length of time, say six months, three months. When a complaint comes to the Ombudsman there should be a limit that he has to act on it, when it's investigated it should go directly back to the local politician and the politician himself should take it to the Legislature. If it hasn't been resolved by the Legislature, I think the Ombudsman should issue some type of certificate to say that this person has been wronged and that there should be sufficient funds so this person can challenge it in court.
I don't know if I'm correct. Before it was just a fine. How could you fine a department $1,000 or whatever it was? I'm going back five years, whatever it was, whatever penalties there were. Even the staff of the Ombudsman told me it's just a farce.
The question I want to ask is why in Canada, and let's say England or the States, is our system working but in other countries, Third World banana republics, it's not working. I think the reason it's working is we've got a supposedly good judicial system. Other countries don't have it, but I noticed that we're getting to be like the Third World banana republics, but we've still got the system. Where I'm going to connect it to the Ombudsman is that when I want information, I could go to the courts, they're open. I could go to the courts and ask for whoever is suing who. This is all open and available to the public.
Why is the Ombudsman so secretive when I go to them and say, "I want to know how many other people have complained on the same issue as me"? I called last week on this issue and the person who was an inspector for the Ombudsman said, "Oh, we keep everything confidential." I said: "Wait a minute. There's something wrong with that." If you want the system to work, let's make it open. I'm getting tired of this freedom of information, which is a lie. Just because there's a name attached to it, you're not allowed to see the documents. Why? What are we trying to cover up?
If an individual comes to the Ombudsman, there could be a form there: "Do you want this information divulged?" If the person says, "I don't want anybody to know," fine. But let's have the system open to the public. When you walk into the Ombudsman there are all kinds of files there on what the Ombudsman has done, what the complaint is. I would like to ask any of you people here today, what is it that could get someone into trouble if his name or his problem is divulged to the Ombudsman? What problems could it cause? I could go today for anyone here. If you had a divorce, I could go to 145 Queen Street and I could look up your whole file, even your medical problems, psychiatric problems. So I don't buy this thing that somebody's going to get hurt.
What has been happening for many years is departments in Ontario have been hiding the information to suit themselves so the public don't know how competent they are. Please, let's have it open. When I'm told that thousands of people have complained to the Ombudsman about how the conservation authority has been stealing people's lands and the Ombudsman never did anything, it hurts me. I want to know if these other people have been complaining about what I've been complaining about.
I think again that the Ombudsman should have a form such as this so that the people who have applied for help could ask questions. That's it. Thank you very much for listening to me.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about five minutes per caucus, beginning with Mr Wood.
1050
Mr Len Wood: Thank you, George, for coming forward with your suggestions and ideas on how we can make better recommendations or revisions to the reporting of the Ombudsman. The 1993 report was used as a way of doing it, and it's unfortunate that this is taking as long as it has because we should actually be dealing with the report of 1996, now that we're in 1997, the way it stands right now.
From your presentation I take it that you're following along the same lines as the previous presenters were: There should be more public awareness of what the Ombudsman is doing and how many cases they're resolving and the accessibility to the Ombudsman and have more of it out in the open. This is the impression that I'm getting to a certain degree.
Mr Aregers: It's no good to go to a lawyer, Len, and ask him, "I want to see how good you are in court or how many cases you were successful in." This is what the Ombudsman is hiding and a lot of other departments. If you call that accountability -- it's no good to have thousands of people complaining about the same thing and the Ombudsman hasn't done anything. That should be available to the people. Why do we hide?
Mr Len Wood: This is the reason we're having the hearing right now, to try to get ideas and suggestions and ways and means of making people more aware of the Ombudsman's office and what type of reporting should be done: if there are 5,000 complaints that go in a year, whether the complaints are about my office or whether they're complaints about government members, whatever, and how many of these cases have been resolved. There's 5,000 complaints put in and 99% of them have been resolved just by the fact that people have gone to the Ombudsman. This is what we as a committee are looking at to see how we can get better reporting and these reports more out to the public so that people feel that they're getting their money's worth of these offices that are set up throughout Ontario representing the Ombudsman.
Mr Aregers: Let's not forget what I said a little while ago, and I hope you don't forget this. What I find out is that in the past 20 years the politician, I mean every time I go to him, he says, "Go to the Ombudsman." This is what the biggest problem is. For some reason politicians in my area are always busy. They can't see their constituents. Where are they?
Mr Len Wood: I can assure you that it's not happening in my area because I have, as I said earlier, a number of remote areas, and just the first week of January, which was the coldest week there was, I chartered a plane to go into to some of these communities to take their concerns. I never told a single person there that they should see the Ombudsman. I said, yes, I will resolve your issues and I will bring it back and I will put pressure on the government to try to act on some of the concerns that they had there.
This is my job as a politician, whether I do it by phone call when the Legislature's sitting or whether I do it on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays out of my office or around the kitchen table. This is the job that I've been doing over the last seven years trying to fulfil that commitment to the people.
Mr Aregers: Yes, but you and I know I work as a public servant. There are some who are very lazy, and what I'm trying to say is, let's not use the Ombudsman as, you know, the one responsible and just throw it on to this position. All I'm saying is there should be something in this document to say that the politician in the area is responsible.
Mr Len Wood: While they're here they should do their job.
Mr Aregers: Yes.
Mr Len Wood: Thank you.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. Am I hearing that you feel that maybe the Ombudsman's department, whatever you wish to call it, is the wrong process for the public to have complaints and investigation done? The concern I have -- and most ministries now have commissions set up that are supposed to assist the public in their own way -- is whether the process of the Ombudsman as it sits now should be changed.
Mr Aregers: Yes, it should, totally. My feeling --
Mr R. Gary Stewart: I know you had a lot of instances. I was going to read you a section in here where you were saying that you couldn't understand something. I've been reading it over for the last couple of months and I really can't understand it either. I'll just read it: "...at the end of the session following the session during which the report is tabled, unless before that date a vote has been held and the motion to adopt the report." Can you tell me what that means?
Mr Aregers: No.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: Thank you, sir. Just asking a question. Tell me, first of all, is the Ombudsman necessary as it sits now? Should it be appointed for nine years, as it has been? Should there be time limits for complaints? Should there be a different type of investigation? Should there be cost limitations and on and on and on? It doesn't appear, in your case, that it worked.
Mr Aregers: It didn't work, no.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: How do you see it being set up with more accountability to the people, more accountability totally, to get the job done and to allow investigations and complaints to be dealt with in a fair and equitable fashion and dealt with in a timely fashion, which probably is more important?
Mr Aregers: I agree with everything you said here, but it's not happening. I work with legislation myself --
Mr R. Gary Stewart: You're saying change in that department is very --
Mr Aregers: There should be change, there should be some type of accountability. If you've got an inspector, that individual should have criteria so that the person he's interviewing who's complaining knows the steps he's going to take, what limits there are and what happens at the end. It shouldn't take two to three years and he still doesn't know.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: And a few hundred thousand.
Mr Aregers: That's right. I still think 20 or 30 years ago we didn't need the Ombudsman, because in the area where I am, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, my MPP's door was always open. You could go to his house. His name was Pat Lawlor -- I don't know if you people remember him, or Ken Robinson. These are the type of people we had. But then all of a sudden we had them replaced by a person by the name of Ruth Grier. My God, you could never speak to her. I'm sorry I've given names here. But this is the kind of politician we've got in our area.
If these people would do their job, we wouldn't need an Ombudsman. We don't have to spend all this money. If you all had people work to make sure that every politician each week had an area, an office area or the public hall, where people could come to them and express their problems, you wouldn't have to waste all this money. Did I answer your question?
Mr R. Gary Stewart: Yes, sir.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I probably only have a little time. Thanks for your presentation. Maybe I'm wrong, but a lot of what you're saying stems from your own case. Without really getting into what your situation was, I'm trying to find out exactly what you want to see done or what your final recommendation is, what your bottom line is. In your earlier comments when you started out you said the politicians were not listening.
Mr Aregers: That's right.
Mr Froese: Then you said you went to the Ombudsman and her staff wasn't listening or she wasn't listening. I've heard you make comments to Mr Stewart, but what would you like to see on how to handle those situations? The Ombudsman definitely has a role she plays in complaints, and it is confidential, and I've heard your comments with respect to that. What would you really suggest happens if you feel politicians don't listen, if you feel the Ombudsman's staff doesn't listen? What do you really want done? What avenue will satisfy a case like yours in a situation where all this has happened?
Mr Aregers: The problem we've got here is that the politicians I had dealings with seem to use the Ombudsman to get rid of the constituent, the complainer. They know that nothing is going to happen, so they're using this individual as a tool to shut the person up.
I understand what you're saying right now is that maybe I'm sounding like a complainer. But you've got to look at it as, 20 or 30 years ago this province was run nicely, like a nice clock. We don't need the Ombudsman. What we need is this criterion that the politicians, like the good politicians here, see their constituents, not certain groups. You know what groups I'm talking about: tree-huggers and all this, environmentalists. It should be open to everyone. If the legislation says, "This legislation applies to everyone," it should. I come to the Ombudsman and I say, "Look, this law is not applied to everyone," and provide photographs, reams and reams, and you've got 50 people going to him as a group, and he doesn't care.
1100
Try to understand. What I'm trying to say is that the law is there. I'm not saying break the law, but let's make it equal. If the law is not applied equally and it's used to take people's lands, there should be some recourse, accountability of the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman goes to the Legislature or goes back to the politicians and says, "Hey, do your duty," gets in front of the Legislature and says, "Hey, what's going on here?" and if that's not resolved, a certificate should be issued to the individual to say: "Yes, the legislation or the province of Ontario is acting improperly. You've got a right to take it to court." A fine should be placed on the ministry, whoever is responsible, for compensation. You've got to have some teeth in it so that the politicians -- the lazy ones, I'm talking about -- can't use the Ombudsman as a shield.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I enjoyed your presentation very much. I think you made a number of suggestions and I'd like to identify some of those so that I'm clear on your understanding.
Off the top, I appreciate your comment about the MPPs' role. I must tell you that often when I speak with people they say: "What the hell do you really do? What is it that you do?" I say there are a variety of things we do, but one of the things I find I do in my own riding overall is that I feel like I'm an Ombudsman. I'm always dealing with situations of people who fell through the cracks or can't get through to the bureaucracy or the service doesn't fit them, even though there's an obvious need, and someone has been unjustly dealt with. I think a lot of the MPPs feel that way, that indeed that's the kind of role we play.
In one sense I suppose your observation is the growth and the complexity of government and how you get to them. In five and a half years, I can't recall ever having referred anybody to that office, because I think that's my job. If I see there's an injustice -- and I can identify with the conservation authority issue of someone taking over someone's land because of a wetland issue or whatever it is -- then I go to the Ministry of Natural Resources and I say: "What's the story here? What's your policy? What's it based on in terms of legislation etc?" We dig it out there and follow it up. My staff might do the follow-up, obviously, because I can't do a lot of the legwork on this. But your point is well taken.
If there wasn't an Ombudsman's office, the question that perhaps needs to be addressed is what structure of investigative initiative would take place to dig into some of these things, if you didn't have the capacity within, say, some of the MPPs' offices? If it didn't exist, do you think you would need some other kind of vehicle?
Mr Aregers: I would love to have you as a politician in my area, but still, let's wake up, let's go back. Let's have the politician take the time, an evening, advertise, talk to him -- you've got a problem? -- in front of people. What's happening when the individual comes into their office or speaks to their secretary is that there's no one there to witness it if the person is thrown out. But if it's done in a town hall meeting or when other people are there, the politician is going to be on his best behaviour. That's what has happened.
This is why we're having problems in Ontario. Let's go out and talk to the people as a group. Have your office open, and then we can weed out the bad politicians and we don't need the Ombudsman.
Mr Patten: You identified two things -- I know I don't have too much time -- which I thought were positive suggestions. One is that there should be an understanding on the part of the office -- it would seem to me to be pro forma anyway -- that when someone calls to say, "What's happening with my case?" I think it's incumbent upon whoever that is, or somebody, to be able to explain to you, "Well, here's where we are at the moment and here's our expectation and here are our next steps," and not just say, "We're working on it." I don't think that's good enough.
Mr Aregers: That's what's happening.
Mr Patten: I think as a committee we should perhaps note that point and pass this along to the office.
The other one that you made was the nature of the reporting from the Ombudsman's office in terms of when you ask a question, "How many cases come forward of complaints against conservation authorities?" I think that's a good question. I think the office should be able to report on a profile of: "Listen, we're getting all these cases from this area," which must indicate, or probably indicates, that there's a problem and there's something the committee should review or explore further and bring forward some recommendations for changes to the legislation or to the operations of that particular ministry, or whatever it may be.
I think that's a good suggestion that you had, some kind of profile of the activity, like who's coming to you, what are they asking and who's illustrating what? That, in and of itself, should say something about some of the areas that need some rectification.
Mr Aregers: But let's say I do find out -- like a friend of mine, John Anga, has a similar problem. I want to go to the Ombudsman and check and see what they've done. Why is it so confidential? I like to see if they've done their work. Why is it so secretive?
Mr Patten: I think there should be that accountability: "Here's what we have done on your behalf."
Mr Aregers: No, but still, don't you agree that if there are another 10 or 20 people, what is wrong with my looking at the file? I mean, why?
The Chair: That effectively fills out our half an hour. Mr Aregers, thank you very much for assisting in our process.
Mr Aregers: I'm sorry I have to leave, but I've got to go back to work.
The Chair: That concludes the presentations for this morning.
CASE OF MS C
Consideration of the Ombudsman's case report in the matter of Ms C and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Chair: We now move to the next item on our agenda.
Andrew McNaught has prepared his report and it's been circulated to the members of the committee. I propose now to open the floor to discussion of that report, if there are any comments, and the appropriate motion in respect of the report as soon as anyone feels prompted to make such a motion. I'm happy to open the floor to discussion.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: Yes, I guess somebody may as well start it off. If you look at what has happened over the number of years by reading both the whole case study and so on and so forth, and after being able to get a little bit more information from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, it came to light, as I understand it, that when somebody goes in to apply for family benefits, the head of the family is decided by the two people and the head of the family is asked to sign the application that he or she will be responsible to accept the cheque or to --
The Chair: Mr Stewart, loath as I am to cut you off, I'm going to suggest that we're not here to reargue the case, but to consider the report per se.
The case has been argued and decided, and the purpose of the report is to reflect and then summarize the hearings and the result. I'm looking for comments indicating whether the members are satisfied with the report as it stands, given that's the purpose of the report, or if there are any thoughts, concerns, submissions or recommendations concerning what the report should reflect.
Mr R. Gary Stewart: I guess what I was leading up to, in a long way about it possibly, is the fact that I believe the situation stands as it says now.
The Chair: Any other comments?
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I don't know if I would be out of order, but after we left the other day and also after reviewing the report, of which I'm in complete favour -- it's exactly the discussion we had -- I was wondering if the ministry would have the ability or the resources, whenever there's a complaint launched to the ministry office that the women were not getting their share or the husband was receiving -- in 72% of cases it's the husband who receives the cheque at the present time and there's no way I can see that we could split the cheque, because there are other complicating factors we could be faced with.
I was wondering, if there's a complaint lodged with the office of the ministry, if the ministry could not put in place a type of investigation so that we could go on and investigate, and if it was true, in the future the cheque would be made to the wife instead of the husband. They would be advised that in the future they would be allowed to have the cheque issued to the wife instead of to the husband.
I don't know if you understand what I'm getting at. At the present time there's no system in place -- when the cheque is issued to the male or to one member of the family, you have no choice; it goes there unless the people are aware that they can sign a form that the cheque will be issued to the woman instead, to the wife. In this case, if there was a complaint, the ministry could investigate and then if it was found to be true, from that point on the cheque is issued to the woman instead.
The Chair: I was seeking some guidance from the clerk. I'm going to rule, with all respect, that comment is out of order in this discussion.
Mr Lalonde: I was expecting that.
The Chair: That discussion didn't comprise part of the decision. It may be a recommendation that arises out of the decision and you may wish to pursue that, or this committee may wish to pursue that, but that is not part and parcel of what was heard and decided in this particular case.
Mr Jordan, I saw your hand.
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I was just going to make the point that there is the opportunity, if both are entitled to benefits, to have it divided. That is there now.
Mr Lalonde: To have the cheque divided?
Mr Jordan: Yes. That's my understanding.
The Chair: I saw Mr Wood's hand.
Mr Len Wood: We had this debate the last day and I came to the conclusion that I was not going to support the committee as a whole. My argument was that where there is one case of discrimination, it shouldn't be allowed to happen. This was the argument from the Ombudsman. I supported her in her argument that if we allow one case of discrimination to continue, it would be one too much, and I voted against the recommendation of the committee. I think this is what we're actually dealing with.
The decision was made, and whether everything is covered in this report that was discussed around that issue, the vote was taken. I forget what it was, how many, but there was one vote against it. I think we should proceed on that, and if there's anything else that has been forgotten in here -- I don't see anything, but if there was something it could be added in. Other than that, we've had the full discussion and the debate and I don't want to go through all the issues again.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Would anyone care to put forward a motion?
Mr Froese: I move that the report be adopted and that the Chair be authorized to present the report to the House.
Mr Lalonde: I'll second that.
The Chair: Mr Froese has moved adoption of the report. Any discussion on the motion? I'll call the vote then.
All in favour? Any opposed? Carried. Thank you all very much.
This meeting is now adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1115.