REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

CONTENTS

Wednesday 25 June 1997

Review of the Office of the Ombudsman

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Chair / Président: Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)

Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)

Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)

Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East / -Est PC)

Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)

Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)

Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Franco Carrozza

Staff / Personnel: Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1008 in room 151.

REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Chair (Mr John R. O'Toole): We're going to proceed. We have a quorum, a majority of members. With respect to the discussion so far, just to bring you up to date, the intention today, with the assistance and cooperation of the committee, is to try to finish the review of the recommendations from the 1993 report.

We will start with recommendation 35, which deals with the annual reports. There are two or three outstanding recommendations that we have set aside until we have completed our full review. With that comment, I'll ask if there are opening comments by any of the members of the committee. Seeing none, we'll start with 35. Following the normal process, I would ask Andrew to read the recommendation, or whatever our process was.

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): We don't read it, but he gives you a briefing on it.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Andrew McNaught: I'm a little more up to speed this week, filling in for Philip. I'll just give you a very brief background on each recommendation. Would you like me to read the recommendation?

The Chair: Read the background or --

Mr McNaught: Recommendation 35 proposes "...that rules be established to guide the Ombudsman in the information to be presented in the Ombudsman's annual reports."

In 1993, the committee observed that neither the act nor the rules provide any guidelines on the kind of information to be included in annual reports. Moreover, there was no mechanism which allowed the Legislature to indicate to the Ombudsman the kind of information it would be interested in. The committee noted that this led to inconsistent reporting in the past. Some of the witnesses in 1993 complained that there had been a lack of meaningful information and a lack of statistics which would allow a comparison of patterns from year to year.

At the most recent committee hearings, the Ombudsman expressed a willingness to consult with the committee about the information it would like to see in an annual report but also expressed concern that the committee might attempt in some way to control the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion to determine what is reported in the annual report. That's the background to that.

The Chair: Three or four of the recommendations that are coming up all deal with the annual report, so with your indulgence --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Did anyone else comment on that issue other than the Ombudsman?

The Chair: No, not in the reports that we have been given.

Mr McNaught: According to the summary, no.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Very briefly, as mentioned already, I think the Ombudsman is willing to talk about what is in the annual report. She did caution that the committee should not be writing the report themselves. I don't think that's our intention. It's just a matter of exchanging information and deciding what we would like to know, what she would provide for us. I don't see it as the committee's intention to write the annual report, nor do I think we could. I think it's an information-sharing recommendation, and we'll support it.

The Chair: No further discussion? I'll call the question in support of recommendation 35. All those in support?

Mr Marchese: Sorry. I was reading what the Ombudsman was saying here, and what Mr Hoy says is slightly different from what she is saying. Mr Hoy was saying that the Ombudsman was suggesting that perhaps we would be the authors of the report. Obviously we don't want to do that. Her comments say, "It is not appropriate, however, for the committee to author the report" -- ah, that's part of it, "to author."

The Chair: That's right.

Mr Marchese: -- "or to attempt to control the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion to determine what is reported."

Mr Hoy, you're saying we don't want to author it, but in terms of direction to the Ombudsman, that's acceptable to you, obviously. Right? It is to me as well.

Mr Hoy: I don't see us as authoring the report, only giving some direction as to what we would like to see in it, but in a flow of information between the committee and the Ombudsman, whoever it might be currently and into the future.

We have been asking, as a committee, for certain information, improvements in reporting generally, and my only comment is that we may ask for certain information and a certain style of reporting, but I don't think it's our intention to actually write the report. That's not the way I view it.

Mr Marchese: I was agreeing with that, actually. It's not the intention of any one of us to do that.

The Chair: I fully understand, and I think that's the sentiment I'm hearing with respect to the comments in the 1993 report, "The Ombudsman would be pleased to consult with the committee about the information it feels should be included in the annual report," going on to say that the committee should not author, but she's willing to discuss and dialogue, which I think is very correct, to have some specific group responsible for responding to the report. In fact, informally, I think the Ombudsman would like to have a specific audience to address what needs to be in the report and let her write the detail.

With that, if there are no further questions, I'll call the question again on this. All those in support? It's carried unanimously.

We are on to number 36.

Mr McNaught: Recommendation 36 is "...that the Ombudsman's annual reports provide statistics on complaint handling and outreach work, and in particular, that the statistics presented provide a clear picture of the nature of complaints, the effectiveness with which they are processed, and the nature of the outcomes achieved."

The 1993 report noted that there were three types of statistics the committee might be interested in: first of all, complaint characteristics, such as a profile of the complainant, the government organization involved and the subject matter of the complaint; the second type of statistic was complaint processing, for example, the length of time it takes to resolve a complaint; and third, statistics on the outcome of complaints, specifically what was the remedy and in whose favour a complaint was resolved.

The committee suggested that the specific data to be included in the annual report could be determined through discussions with the Ombudsman. At the committee's most recent hearings, the Ombudsman stated that her annual reports already attempt to reflect this type of information, but welcomed suggestions on improvement.

The Chair: Are there any further comments? I think that's pretty straightforward. The only response from the Ombudsman in the 1993 report was: "The Ombudsman's annual report currently attempts to reflect such information. Any suggestions for improvement are welcomed." That is the only comment.

Are there any further questions on 36? All those in support? That's carried unanimously.

Recommendation 37.

Mr McNaught: Recommendation 37, "...that the Ombudsman include in his or her annual reports the following information: (a) comparative data from the previous fiscal year, and (b) graphs which show the number of complaints brought against a particular governmental organization and the stage at which those complaints were resolved."

This recommendation simply reflects something the committee has been calling for since its 19th annual report in 1991 in an effort to develop a standardized format for the presentation of statistics. At the most recent hearings, the Ombudsman stated that she would welcome an opportunity to hear the committee's comments about the statistics contained in her latest 1996-97 annual report.

I had a quick look at that report yesterday and it does include a lot of the things the committee has been asking for, although I didn't see any information on the specific type of remedy that had been arrived at in particular cases. It simply said "resolved" or "not resolved," but didn't describe the type of remedy, and I didn't see any statistics on the length of time to resolve complaints.

The Chair: Any comments from members of the committee on recommendation 37 dealing with audits and statistics? No further questions? I'll call the question. Those in favour of recommendation 37? That's carried unanimously.

Section 38 deals with audits.

Mr McNaught: Recommendation 38 reads "...that the Provincial Auditor conduct value-for-money audits of the Office of the Ombudsman on a regular basis."

The 1993 report notes that the committee's intention here is not to have a comprehensive value-for-money audit of the Ombudsman's office or of its entire operations on a regular basis; rather, to have certain aspects of the Ombudsman's operations selected and examined so that over time there is a consistent review of the efficiency of the office.

The Ombudsman has expressed some concern about the resources that might be required to carry out these audits if they were to be conducted more than once every five years.

The Chair: There doesn't seem to be opposition even from the Ombudsman's comment, just as it was explained by Andrew. Any further questions on recommendation 38? Then I'll call the question. Those in support?

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): If I might, would we not have to define "regular basis"?

The Chair: A value-for-money audit, I think, could be determined by any group, by the government itself or by this committee, saying, "Isn't it about time we looked at" -- in the context.

Mr Pettit: It could be, but it isn't. So at what point would that arise?

The Chair: The clerk advises me that the Provincial Auditor does have a definition of a value-for-money audit.

Mr Pettit: As to how often it should occur?

The Chair: It's a guideline.

Mr Pettit: And what might that be?

Clerk of the Committee: I am not sure of the details. I could find out for you.

Mr Pettit: All right. I would think this is a little open-ended here. We may want to define "regular basis."

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I just want to remind the committee that this document is a report; it's not legislation. I don't know that we need to get into the fine detail of definitions at this point, with time lines and schedules and that sort of thing. This document is intended to address certain concepts and principles and it could be left for another day in another forum to get into the kind of level of detail that Mr Pettit is driving at.

The Chair: A nice piece of instruction there.

Mr Marchese: Even for another day, I am not sure we would want to define "regular basis." I think the auditor does that however regularly he does them, some at times probably more regularly than others. But I don't think we want to fix a date, whether it should be every year or two. It's something the auditor would do, obviously.

1020

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Could I just ask the researcher to bring back those remarks about every five years in regard to this?

Mr McNaught: The Ombudsman was concerned that there might not be sufficient resources to allow an audit on more than a once-every-five-years basis.

The Chair: It was her comment.

Mr McNaught: She doesn't seem to be objecting to once every five years.

The Chair: No further comments? No one's opposed to the concept, so I'll call the question. Those in support of recommendation 38? That's carried unanimously.

Recommendation 39, any comments or questions? All those in support? It's carried unanimously.

Recommendation 40. These are all dealing with the audit section. We'll just have a brief --

Mr McNaught: Recommendation 40 is "...that the Ombudsman Act be amended to provide that the Office of the Ombudsman shall be required to adhere to Management Board of Cabinet's Directives and Guidelines. The act should further provide that rules may be established to provide for the non-application of the Directives and Guidelines where the committee determines that their application would be inappropriate."

This arose out of concerns expressed by witnesses in 1993 about some of the administrative practices of the Office of the Ombudsman. The committee noted that at that point the Ombudsman was able to set her own administrative standards. She wasn't required to adhere to a set standard.

The Ombudsman's main objection to this recommendation is that by making her office subject to the government's operating policies, that is, the Directives and Guidelines, this could create an impression that the Ombudsman is also subject to the control of the government and therefore not independent.

The Chair: Any questions or comments on number 40, dealing with under what sort of governance the office operates? Good argument in that. No further questions and comments? I'll call the question on recommendation 40. All those in support? It's carried unanimously.

Recommendation 41.

Mr McNaught: Recommendation 41 is "...that the Provincial Auditor report the results of audits of the Office of the Ombudsman to the public accounts committee, which shall refer them to the standing committee on the Ombudsman."

The position of the Ombudsman has been and continues to be that the Board of Internal Economy should continue to have the sole responsibility for considering audits of her office since this procedure "demonstrates the Ombudsman is not a civil servant and is not a part of the government bureaucracy."

However, the committee noted in the 1993 report that it had concerns about whether the board has the resources to allow it to fully consider the contents of audits, and also noted that there isn't a procedure in place that allows the board to review and report to the assembly on audits that it receives. It also noted that the board's hearings are held in private.

I also note that the committee didn't share the Ombudsman's concerns that having the audits referred to the committee might compromise the Ombudsman's independence, since the act clearly defines the Ombudsman as an officer of the Legislature.

The Chair: Any questions or comments on recommendation 41? I think it's a central issue. There being no further questions, I'll call the question. Those in support? It's carried unanimously.

Recommendation 42 has a revision. I would ask that we address the revised recommendation, and in that aspect, the report we're dealing with -- this is the working paper document -- indicates that recommendation 42 was or should be deleted. Would everyone take a couple of minutes and read it. It was to be deleted "...that the standing orders be amended to provide that the membership of the standing committee on the Ombudsman shall consist of six government members and five members drawn from the two opposition parties. The standing orders should also provide that the Chair of the standing committee on the Ombudsman shall be a government member."

I don't see what's wrong with that. That's what exists, as I understand. The recommendation before us is to delete recommendation 42 from the 1993 report. All those in support of the deletion? That's carried, so it's deleted.

Recommendation 43.

Mr McNaught: That reads "...that the standing orders be amended to provide that the reports of the standing committee on the Ombudsman shall be deemed to be adopted at 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."

The Chair: You're reading the revised --

Mr McNaught: Sorry. Yes, that says "revised."

The Chair: Okay. This is revised from the working paper. Mr Marchese?

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I just wanted to read the original versus the revision for a second.

The Chair: Okay, let's take a moment. They're both in the working paper report.

Mr Hoy: This recommendation 43, I believe, just simply gives a time frame. It's a housekeeping recommendation.

The Chair: I agree. Any further comments on recommendation 43? All those in support? I declare the motion carried unanimously.

Recommendation 44 also has an amendment to it. I'd ask staff to address the amended recommendation from the working paper.

Mr McNaught: Recommendation 44 is that the standing orders be amended to reflect the new terms of reference for the committee. I think the amendment is simply that the first term of reference was originally at the end of the recommendation and now it's at the beginning, simply to reflect the importance the committee attaches to this issue, and that specifically is "to provide a legislative link and sounding board for the Ombudsman, with a view to advancing the Ombudsman's fulfilment of...her functions." That's now at the start of the recommendation rather than at the end.

The Chair: Anyone have any comments or questions on recommendation 44?

Mr Hoy: One of the recommendations within recommendation 44 is for the general rule-making. I think in the past the Ombudsman has stated that if we're going to have rule-making provisions, we should have some guidelines prior to that. This came up earlier in the report under another section. I just wanted to bring to the committee's attention that her recommendation was -- well, in general terms, I don't think she cared for rule-making, but if we were to adopt a rule-making procedure, we should have some guidelines before that.

Also, one of the recommendations is "to review and alter, as it considers proper, the estimates presented by the Ombudsman...." I haven't read the whole section, but that first line. I would think the Ombudsman would have some difficulty with the words "alter, as it considers proper, the estimates...." Reviewing, I think, is clearly acceptable, and at some stage after this report moves forward we might want to have fuller discussion on the word "alter." I think it's significant wording within this recommendation. This is probably one of the longest recommendations and has many parts to it. Those are two comments I wanted to make on recommendation 44. As I said, it is quite a lengthy recommendation.

The Chair: I agree. I concur that recommendation 44 is very substantive, but it's almost a balanced recommendation because it talks about more of a directional role for this committee, but it also talks about more of a partnering role with the Office of the Ombudsman. Setting up the guidelines, I suspect, for the functioning of the office and this committee is really central to what that whole report is about.

If there are no further questions, I call the question on recommendation 44. All those in support? That's carried unanimously. Thank you very much.

I believe that takes us to the end of the report, is that not true? We still have three recommendations: 7, 13 and 18. We'll go back to recommendation 7 and we will have a little chance to look at the working papers and anything you can add on that. We'll deal with the revised recommendation from the working paper.

Just going by the clerk's advice here, Mr Parker, the former Chair of this committee and an eminently respected member of this committee, wanted to reserve time to comment further on recommendation 7. Now is your opportunity.

1030

Mr Parker: Thank you for the description of me as eminently respected. That in itself does not distinguish me from any other member of this committee, least of all the current Chair.

I forget at the moment what my thoughts were on this point. I think we were getting hung up on something, and rather than get bogged down at the time, my feeling was that we should just move on and come back to this after we had dealt with the rest of the report. I think that's why I asked for it to be stood down, not because I had any specific comments in particular. But maybe if you just bear with me, I'll review my notes on this and see what I might bring to bear on the subject, but don't hold up the discussion on my account.

The Chair: Are there any other further comments?

Mr Hoy: I wonder, Mr Parker, if it wasn't that you wanted to return to the original recommendation 7. It was one of the comments I took down from the last meeting, but I don't know, quite frankly, whom to attribute it to. I knew you did want to stand this down. Is it a possibility that you wanted to return to the original recommendation?

Mr Parker: I honestly don't think so. I think it was just that we were spending considerable time on this provision and I thought it might be useful to set it aside and come back to it after we had done the others.

The Chair: If I may interrupt, Mr Parker and Mr Hoy, just to clarify, the intent of recommendation 7 was to permit the public comment of the Ombudsman's office, rather general. The revision has a section which says, "by means of a special report to the assembly," which would more or less structure the ability of the Ombudsman's office to respond publicly. That's the subtlety here; it's whether or not this committee is directing the manner in which the Ombudsman's office reports on public issues that arise and the others, but neither case limits the ability to respond.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I am just trying to recall exactly the reason why "by means of a special report to the assembly" was put in there. I believe it was the feeling of the committee over the last three or four years we've been discussing this that we wanted the Ombudsman to be able to make public reports rather than just an annual report. But the way of doing it was to allow her to make a special report to the assembly and bring concerns she might have out in the public. I believe that's happening now.

The Chair: As opposed to a press conference.

Mr Len Wood: Yes.

The Chair: Any other comments? It could be, but again it's a recommendation of this committee, and I think it's not limiting the power of the office to publicly comment but more structuring it. Any further questions or comments?

Mr Parker: Mr Chairman, I just want to register the comment that I support recommendation 7, as amended.

The Chair: Okay, we're going to be voting on that.

Mr Parker: I think the rationale for that has been well articulated in this group already. I don't know if there's any suggestion that we should pursue another course, but if the committee is inclined to vote on the point, I am happy to go straight to the vote.

The Chair: For clarification, we're voting on recommendation 7, as amended. Those in support? That's carried unanimously. Thank you.

We had number 13, if I may draw your attention, dealing with jurisdiction, a schedule of organizations. It's a pretty straightforward one.

Mr Hoy: I'll go back to the comments I made prior, before this recommendation was stood down, that there is a danger, or some feel there is a danger, about making lists and then having an incomplete list of agencies. That is one concern. As governments create certain bodies and evolve over time, a list could be incomplete. It's something we should be aware of. We certainly wouldn't want the public to be shortchanged or omitted from anything the Ombudsman might look at, as a court of last resort.

My recollection is that we had quite a discussion on recommendation 13 at our last meeting and this question of list omissions, what is the scope or what should be the scope of a list as it relates to changes in government agencies, boards or commissions. We have to be very careful not to have omissions to a list.

Mr Parker: The rationale for this recommendation is well expressed in the 1993 report. It has been the observation of previous ombudsmen that unnecessary time and effort has been spent in trying to determine whether a particular agency belongs within or outside of the general description contained in the act. The recommendation came forward that in order to eliminate confusion or debate in those areas, the government has the option of just listing certain agencies so that it's clear those agencies are in.

I appreciate Mr Hoy's concern that by listing agencies that may be in, you may create the risk that an agency may be deemed to be off or out of the category if it's not included in the list. That's only if the items on the list must be read ejusdem generis -- and I'm looking at the Hansard reporter as I say that -- with the other elements on the list. I'm suggesting that is not necessary, given that there is a general category set out in the act already. It's not suggested that the list would replace the general category; it would exist to give greater particularity. It would be in the sense of, "Agencies would include but not be limited to the following," with the clear indication that there is the potential that an agency, although not listed, may still fall within the category.

I appreciate the concern Mr Hoy raises, and it's appropriate that we be alert to that concern. I think that concern is adequately addressed by the fact that there is a general description still in the act, and it's not suggested to do away with the general description, merely to supplement it by a list in order to remove any ambiguity at all about certain identified agencies.

I think the recommendation as it stands is a good one. I think it's there to avoid confusion and to help the process. I think it is satisfactory in its current form.

1040

Mr Len Wood: I'm looking at some of the notes here. When the original recommendation was brought forward, we weren't faced with a lot of the privatization that is taking place now. Is the Ombudsman still going to be able to look into these areas? I'm talking about the privatization of jails, the privatization of the summer and winter maintenance of highways and roads and privatization of a lot of other organizations, even though they're being paid 100% by taxpayers' money. Do they still come under government agencies for the Ombudsman to look into?

When you see that the government could be privatizing 50% of their operations that were not privatized before, where does the Ombudsman stand if there are complaints coming forward from MTO, the jails and a lot of other organizations that the government is leaning towards privatizing, even though they've backed off on some? They backed off on the liquor stores because of the huge profit that is being made from them, but there is still TVO and a number of others that people are very nervous about, whether they're going to be privatized and whether the Ombudsman will still be able to look into these agencies. Those are the notes we have had, because we have had different members from our caucus sitting on the committee.

The Chair: I think it's a good debate so far. Recommendation 13 really is intended, as Mr Parker has suggested, to clarify. How best that's done could be left to further refinement or definement.

I think the intent is purposeful, because there are exclusions today, ie, children's aid societies, hospitals and municipalities. As opposed to having a schedule of those included, it might be easier to have a list or schedule of those excluded. Any further questions or comments?

Mr Len Wood: You mentioned municipalities. There has been some concern over the last four or five years that there should be an ombudsperson, especially for municipalities. Maybe these are areas where another office should look after just the privatization, because municipalities are going to be privatizing as well. Work that was normally done and paid for by taxpayers is still going to be paid for by them. I just wanted to get on the record that maybe this is an area this government or another future government should be looking into.

The Chair: Just responding, it is the advice from the clerk that discussion has been held, and today, as it exists under the Municipal Act and other governance laws, the municipalities are quite able to institute that kind of role in the municipality today. Someone is paying, and I suspect it's the same person.

Any further discussion on recommendation 13? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried unanimously.

I've got one more here, recommendation 18.

Clerk of the Committee: We set that aside because of 44.

The Chair: Okay, 44 being an all-inclusive recommendation, number 18 is really similar. Any questions or comments on recommendation 18? It refers to recommendation 44, which we have already passed unanimously. Any further questions or comments on recommendation 18?

Mr Parker: I'll just venture the comment that at present this committee, I think all of us, labours under a bit of a difficulty in that the provisions in the standing orders relating to this committee are not mirrored in the Ombudsman Act, and that creates the inherent ambiguity as to the authority of the standing orders. I see this recommendation as a means of addressing that ambiguity and clearing it up so that there is full consistency throughout. I think this is a helpful measure.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments as we conclude the discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in support of recommendation 18? It's carried unanimously.

I have a couple of other items of business I'd like the committee to consider. I believe each member has a copy of this on their desk. The first one is to continue the review, which we've just completed, and I thank you for that.

Item 2 is a series of proposed recommendations. "If the committee completes the writing of the report today, the committee should consider the following motions," which I would ask you to review. There are four of them in front of you, giving the subcommittee authority to finalize the wording of the committee report and send it to be printed.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): So moved.

The Chair: Recommendation (a) moved by Mr Murdoch. Any questions or comments on that? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in support? It's carried unanimously.

Motion (b) is the same but to do it in French.

Mr Pettit: Moved.

The Chair: Moved by Mr Pettit. All those in support? It's carried unanimously.

Motion (c) --

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): So moved.

The Chair: -- moved by Mr Carroll. Any questions or comments? All those in support? It's carried unanimously.

Motion (d) is that the Chair be authorized to schedule the review of denied cases presented, and this would be the next meeting.

Mr Pettit: Moved.

The Chair: All those in support? That's carried unanimously. I'd like to thank the members of the committee.

We have one more order of business. The clerk is helping us along here, as usual. In the interests of time and input, we have a series of reports, most importantly the 1993 report, also the working report and the March report, which we have been using exclusively during these discussion. Previous committee members have spent a lot of time, in all respect, very productively and well intentioned, coming up with a consolidated, unanimous report. What we're trying to do is title or frame the report which we're intending to present to the Legislature from this committee in August. Is there any comment or input? I believe the covering document should clearly respect the work that has been done by previous committee members. A lot of work went into this, and I mean that sincerely.

Mr Parker, as former Chair of this committee, do you have any proposal or recommendation for the direction of the clerk and researcher to frame this final report? Would you like the word "final" in it? I would.

Mr Parker: I have no specific recommendation, but I am supportive of your suggestion that whatever title we have, we acknowledge the work that's gone on over the years in achieving the document we have now approved. This is not just the work of the members of this group; it's the work of the members of this committee throughout this parliamentary term, and more than that, the work of the previous Parliament. I think it's appropriate that be recognized in whatever final title we arrive at.

The Chair: I'll make a suggestion, with the permission of all three parties. I wouldn't mind the listing of members who participated in this process inside the covering report, which would cover that. I mean that complimentarily, because the intention is well argued that this is a positive report to be a partner with the Ombudsman's role. With that suggestion, the researchers can probably -- yes, Mr Wood?

Mr Len Wood: I would go along with that as well, because it's over four years now, two years that the previous government struggled with the 1993 report and now two years with this government, and we have finally got it concluded. A lot of members put a lot of effort into it. I'm talking about all three political parties, where there was a majority for a couple of years from the NDP and now from the Conservative caucus, and we see changing faces even with this government over the last couple of years, as in the two years previous, as well as the Liberal caucus. I agree that all the people who have been involved in the committee and struggling with this should be named in the report.

The Chair: We're going to pursue that.

Mr Hoy: The subcommittee has been given authority as to the finalization of the wording of the report, but I agree with what has been said here, that we should include all reports, working papers, listing of names of persons who came before the committee as well, similar to what's in the other report, and that we actually did have a full hearing on prior considerations of the Office of the Ombudsman. I concur with you, Chair, that we have a full accounting of what we have done. I agree with you in general terms, and I think the subcommittee can work out the final wording, which will include much of what we believe we want here today.

The Chair: I think we've matched that well. Great, we've got some direction. Is there any date we'd like to meet with the subcommittee? It will be in August. We won't be convening over the summer if we can avoid it. We have other business to attend to.

Mr Len Wood: We're not meeting next week? Nothing next week?

The Chair: No. We are in hopes that next week we'll be working towards the --

Mr Marchese: I came to extend this to 12 o'clock.

Mr Ouellette: I move that we adjourn.

The Chair: Moved by Mr Ouellette that we adjourn. All those in support? We're adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1051.