Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with the third report of the select committee on the Ombudsman. It’s my understanding the first hour will be shared by cabinet ministers who wish to engage in the debate. I recognize the hon. Minister of Labour.

(Applause)

Hon. M. Stephenson: Oh, come on, fellows, we really don’t need that.

As the minister through whom the Workmen’s Compensation Board reports to the Legislature, it is my privilege to present this evening the responses of the board to the recommendations made by the select committee on the Ombudsman, based upon his second and third report. Since many of the recommendations contained in the third report were duplications of those in the second report, I think it advisable that I include both of the reports in my remarks.

In the second report, the select committee made several recommendations which I shall outline to you briefly, Mr. Speaker. The first recommendation made was that the Legislature require the Workmen’s Compensation Board to print the board’s pamphlet entitled “Information about the Appeals Procedure,” in the same five languages as its claims information booklet. I’m pleased to say that the board has prepared this booklet which describes the appeals procedures in five languages. A copy of this booklet has been filed with the committee by the board and a new five-language pamphlet has also been prepared to describe the revised appeals system, which I think is important in so far as some later recommendations are concerned.

The next recommendation made by the select committee’s review of the Ombudsman’s report required that the board prepare a separate booklet or information circular in the same five languages to be forwarded to all claimants at the time they receive the form H(l) letter, which is the letter notifying a claimant that his claim has been received and is being processed. The committee felt the receipt at that time of a booklet containing a description of the board’s appeal process would inform the claimant more fully about his rights under workmen’s compensation. That pamphlet has been prepared. It outlines in five languages the entire process of the claims procedure, including appeals, but the board has some concern about the recommendation that this booklet be distributed along with the form H(l)

In an added response to the recommendations the board revised the form H(l) letter, which indeed was a pretty cold document originally. The new one is a great deal warmer in tone, more informal and, I think, much more informative, not only on the face of the letter but on the obverse, in which the procedures to be followed in the establishment of a claim are outlined completely, albeit in English only. The booklet, however, has not been sent out routinely with this form letter because the board felt it might have a distressing psychological effect on the individual workman who is being notified, perhaps for the first time in dealings with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, that his claim has been received and is being processed, but who is also being told how to appeal whatever decision has been made when no decision has been made.

The board feels it would be much better to release that booklet more widely and more generally to those individuals for whom there is a fairly long procedure as far as a claim is concerned or where there may be an appeal process. That booklet, however, is ready and it is in the five languages as requested.

The committee recommended as well that the booklet or information circulars should contain a clear and obvious statement that if the claimant does not understand any matter of the process or the procedure, he or she should communicate with identified individuals within the board itself. I am very pleased that the revised pamphlet in the five languages does give the claimant that kind of specific information about the claims counselling service which is available at the board. It also includes the specific phone numbers of the workmen’s advisers, of the registrar of appeals, and it includes the registrar’s phone number as well.

The next recommendation which was made by the committee related to its policy regarding disclosure of its file to a claimant personally, with a view to amending the policy of complete and full disclosure to the claimant. This policy has been reviewed previously, and is at the present time being reviewed by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. It is of such import that the board has sought outside legal opinion on the potential effect of such disclosure.

The main problem with such disclosure is that if the claimant were to see the file, the rules of natural justice which govern all administrative tribunals such as the workmen’s compensation appeal process would demand that all other parties to the claim, such as the employer, could be given full access to the file as well. Therefore, the issue of disclosure probably transcends the individual information problem and becomes one of disclosure of very sensitive medical information particularly in the area of psychological evaluations, which frequently must be made in the event of terminal illness situations, and having that information revealed to third parties.

The board has advised the select committee on the effect of such disclosure and has, at the same time, taken steps to ensure there is full discussion of the potential effects of such disclosure with the relevant health associations, physicians’ groups and others including the Health Disciplines Board. At the present time, meetings are being held between the board and such groups in order to discuss in particular the impact on the quality and the substance of the medical reports which might be provided if their contents were routinely to be made freely available not only to the patient, but also, through natural justice, to third parties.

The Health Disciplines Act gives the patient the right to demand information from his or her physician and that right, of course, should be exercised. But the information is released at the doctor’s discretion and the doctor present can interpret or assist the patient in the understanding of those reports. The board’s strong feeling is that the decision to disclose full medical information to a claimant should be the decision of the physician involved rather than a decision for the Workmen’s Compensation Board to make.

I might mention that there has been a fair amount of representation from organized labour to the Workmen’s Compensation Board opposing the concept of full disclosure of the file. Organized labour apparently feels the present summaries that the board produces are really adequate and they are very concerned about the possibility of employer access to those files if the claimant is given such access.

However, the board is again examining in depth its position on the granting of access to files to qualified representatives and to bona fide representatives and others. It will be making its recommendations known to this House through the minister who represents the board in this House.

Further recommendations made by the select committee were those related to the development of discussions for the purpose of arriving at mutually satisfactory working relationships between the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Ombudsman and to making available Workmen’s Compensation Board documents and individuals for the purpose of providing information relating to any matter which is being investigated by the Ombudsman.

It pleases me to report to this House that the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Ombudsman have worked out such a procedure. They have, though agreement, adopted a mechanism and an arrangement whereby the information required by the Ombudsman and those individuals the Ombudsman feels would be most appropriate to the provision of such information, will in fact work together in a reasonably happy arrangement to solve the problems which arise.

In the third report of the Ombudsman, and in the select committee’s recommendations based upon that report, there was further recommendation regarding the information circular I mentioned earlier. This was expanded in the third report, as a matter of fact, to suggest the multilingual booklet giving the comprehensive description be distributed to all claimants immediately. I suggested before, the board had some reservations about this.

On second sober thought about that booklet, further reservations were added to the board’s position. They discovered the cost of such wide distribution of that booklet. Since there is probably something in the order of 150,000 to 170,000 claimants per year, and the cost of producing the booklet in five languages, I can tell you, is approximately $50,000 for 100,000 copies, it is obvious this is not going to be an inexpensive kind of activity.

The board is, as I said, deliberating about the most appropriate way in which to distribute this booklet which it feels is important for the purpose of those individuals who eventually may have to appeal a board decision.

The board is also considering whether indeed, if it accepts fully the recommendation which I have just mentioned, it should cease and desist from the distribution of its booklet entitled “Claims Information for Employers and Employees.” I guess when the decision is made about the distribution process for the previously mentioned booklet, the decision will follow about these claims information booklets as well.

At the present time, the board is attempting to consider the next recommendation of the select committee, which required that the board complete as quickly as possible its review of the policy regarding disclosure of files to the claimants. I have outlined earlier the concerns the board has expressed. Those concerns remain. Some of the information collected as a result of their discussions with other groups serves to substantiate the kinds of apprehensions which were mentioned by board members in their discussion of this subject.

Another recommendation of the select committee was that the board consider and report regarding the appropriateness of the amended appeal system, and report whether it would serve to satisfy the substance of the objectives intended by the board study group, that is, the one-level system which was recommended.

The board will certainly consider and report to the select committee on whether the revised appeal system will satisfy those objectives. The study did recommend the adoption of a one-level appeal system. Of course, the board has rejected that on the basis of their own deliberations, as well as on the basis of strong representation, primarily by organized labour. Organized labour felt a one-level appeal system was totally inadequate for the purposes of claimants to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. As you know, a revised system has been developed, but it is a two-tier system.

A further recommendation is that the board, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, cause an amendment to be tabled in the Legislature to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, specifically authorizing the board to recover or write off, as the case may be, overpayments made to workmen. At the present time, the board is considering this. When it has deliberated, it will be discussed with the Ministry of Labour. I would have to report at this time, the board is of the opinion it does have the power to recover overpayments. I believe the select committee agrees with this belief of the board.

The board also believes it has the power to write off overpayments, and I believe the select committee disagrees with that belief of the board. However, the board is on record as not opposing an amendment to the Workmen’s Compensation Act in order to ensure that for purposes of clarification it would be amended to ensure that they have the right to that write-off procedure. That will be discussed in the not-too-distant future.

[8:15]

The final recommendation of the select committee was to the effect that changes in procedures for the recovery of overpayments should be made and that those procedures should contain provisions wherein the particular circumstances of the workmen be considered in the arrangements for repayment of moneys, so that the repayment can be tailored to the specific workman’s particular ability to repay. I’m pleased to report the board has already changed its procedure for recovery of overpayments and that such changes were effected immediately after the select committee hearings.

Mr. McClellan: Could you detail those changes?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The new procedures are tailored to the ability of the individual recipient of overpayment to repay the board as recommended by the committee. If this is required in detail, I shall most certainly have the details prepared, ready for the members of the Legislature.

There were two subsequent recommendations made by the select committee and they were directed specifically to two decisions made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board in reference to complaints 135 and 136 of the Ombudsman’s report. In both instances, the board was requested to reconsider the decisions under section 75 of the Act. The board is doing that in both cases. I am pleased that the board has complied, I think almost totally, with the recommendations made by the select committee on the Ombudsman’s report and it pleases me very much to be able to state so in this Legislature.

Mr. Warner: The committee certainly cleaned up that mess. It actually made that board human.

Mr. Kennedy: In the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) I am pleased to join in this discussion this evening. There was a complaint of an injured child contained in both the second and third recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report. The second report on pages 562 and 563 gives details of it. A child at school had lost parts of three fingers and badly damaged a fourth.

The complainant was aware there was no negligence on behalf of the board. Unfortunately, the policy that is provided on a voluntary basis and made available to all students was not in place and so this coverage did not exist in this instance. This was the basis of the complaint. It was subsequently referred to in the third report of the Ombudsman as a follow-up. That’s the background of this one report that involves the Ministry of Education.

The Ombudsman suggested the ministry meet with the insurance industry and discuss the possibility of expanded insurance. I’m not quite sure what was meant by this, whether it meant a form of universality, paid for through taxpayers’ money through public funding, or an expansion of existing policies to provide for broader coverage. Certainly I don’t support the concept of another intrusion into the public sector for the funding of such coverage.

Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t be so hung up about it.

Mr. Kennedy: It is announced each fall or prior to the start of the school year that this coverage is available in three types of policies. One is just during school hours, one is a portal-to-portal situation, and the third is all-encompassing coverage. This is available.

The specific recommendation of the Ombudsman as stated on page 57 of the third report suggested that “a policy be considered that would provide very substantial accident benefits on a lump sum basis, reasonably consistent with the kind of award that might be given by a court.”

They also recommended that the Ministry of Education pursue discussions with the insurance industry and other interested parties for the purpose of developing an appropriate indemnity insurance contract at a realistic premium which would adequately compensate a pupil for injuries sustained in the case of an accident as a result of participation in shop classes or organized athletic activities. This was taken up with the industry and the result was as we could forecast. There would be a significant cost either to the public Treasury or to the parents taking out the policy. In addition, this would not limit the right of parents to claim against the board of education through litigation.

In fact, a case such as this did occur in our Peel board, where there was an accident and the parents of the child sued the board for negligence because, as I understand the evidence, the child fell on a mat in the gymnasium and was injured. The child was covered and there is OHIP and medical coverage as well, but they went to court alleging negligence against the board and were awarded a sum of $64,000. This at the moment is under appeal. The board denies negligence, saying the equipment was of a standard approved, and this type of thing. Perhaps I’m slightly in the area of sub judice but the fact the award was made and is under appeal is, of course, public knowledge.

If this is an effort to move toward socialistic measures of insurance coverage I am certainly opposed to it. The private sector is doing a good job in this area.

Mr. Lawlor: Of suing the people.

Mr. Kennedy: No, they are not.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, they are.

Mr. Kennedy: They are doing a good job in this area.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, they are.

Mr. Kennedy: There is a good relationship with boards of education. One of the things which happened as a result of these discussions is --

Mr. Lawlor: Except for those horrendous premiums.

Mr. Kennedy: -- that they can re-examine this and determine if they want to go on broader coverage. But there is no way we want to go along with what you fellows would suggest and have everybody looked after out of the public purse because this is totally unrealistic.

Mr. Lawlor: You said that before.

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s a ripoff.

Mr. Warner: We don’t expect you to be progressive.

Mr. Germa: You are living on the public purse, what’s wrong with that?

Mr. Kennedy: Another point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make --

Mr. Germa: You are living on the public purse yourself.

Mr. Kennedy: The incident from which this complaint arose was an issue between a board of education and parents. It’s doubtful to me whether it’s within the area --

Mr. McClellan: They have colleges for ripoffs.

Mr. Kennedy: -- of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. As I understand it, though he can make recommendations to government in I presume many areas, this incident was between an insurance company and the parents of children.

Mr. Makarchuk: Just because it’s a grey area is no reason why we shouldn’t try to solve it.

Mr. Kennedy: It is not very grey. The case is very, very clear. There was no insurance coverage other than the medical and hospital expenses and so on being paid. There was no coverage.

Mr. Warner: You just send the insurance companies, go right ahead.

Mr. Kennedy: What I do suggest, Mr. Minister, is if in some board areas there is logic or reason to beef up or increase the awareness of parents and guardians of the availability of this coverage, this should be pursued. This is the response to this incident which was very unfortunate, and could impair the child’s future earning power.

Mr. Lawlor: That isn’t much of a response. You talk about $64,000 in one breath and you talk about the exorbitant premiums in the other.

Mr. Kennedy: That’s right. We know what court awards are likely to be and the suggestion here is that coverage be provided reasonably consistent with the kind of award that might be given by a court. This is a bit unrealistic. We should ensure that each parent or guardian knows what is available. The insurance companies should re-examine this to see if people or parents would be interested in broader coverage.

Mr. McClellan: You should take a lesson from the Minister of Labour and co-operate.

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) --

Mr. McClellan: He’s never here.

Mr. Baetz: -- I rise tonight to speak to those portions of the select committee’s report that concern the Ministry of the Attorney General. Only two of the committee’s recommendations made reference to this ministry --

Mr. Lawlor: Two too many.

Mr. Baetz: -- and our response will therefore be relatively brief.

[Applause]

I like to hear that. Thank you.

Ms. Gigantes: You have to come from Ottawa to know what “relatively” means for Reuben.

Mr. Warner: You have to do something Reuben, earn your extra five grand.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the interjections are equally brief.

Mr. Baetz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your support.

Mr. Makarchuk: Here comes a $5,000 speech.

Mr. Baetz: Are you listening with your ears or your mouths?

Mr. Warner: Both. Which are you talking with? Would you stop talking with your feet?

Mr. Baetz: Mouths, okay.

Mr. Makarchuk: Oh, you hit home, Reuben.

Mr. Baetz: The first recommendation was set out on page 89 of the report and it proposed: “The Ombudsman and his office define more precisely appealable decisions from governmental organizations, provide as many examples thereof as possible from the experience of the office to date to the Ministry of the Attorney General and thereafter conduct meetings with the Ministry of the Attorney General.”

The Ombudsman had recommended on page eight of his second report that the government should study cases where an appeal is permitted from a decision of a government organization, to ensure citizens are properly informed of their appeal rights. He suggested that legislation should be introduced requiring government organizations that make appealable decisions to inform citizens of those rights of appeal.

Although this idea may be seen by all of us as a laudable one, the select committee felt the recommendation was premature, because it presented certain difficulties.

Mr. Roy: That’s typical Tory. It’s “premature” if it’s difficult.

Mr. Baetz: Very practical and to the point. Not pie in the sky. Get down to the nitty-gritty.

Mr. Makarchuk: What word would you use if you didn’t have “premature”? No wonder Roy isn’t here.

Mr. Elgie: Menopausal, that’s what it would be.

Mr. Baetz: Roy’s okay. He’s a good man. For example, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what is an appealable decision.

Mr. Makarchuk: If it’s got skin it’s got to be appealable.

Mr. Baetz: I am sure members opposite could immediately define that. Was the Ombudsman’s recommendation intended to cover decisions of organizations governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act? The select committee asked the Ombudsman’s office to define the recommendations more precisely.

At the select committee hearings, the Deputy Attorney General expressed his willingness to co-operate with the Office of the Ombudsman on this matter. Once the Ombudsman has developed his recommendations and provided further examples from his office’s experience, the Ministry of the Attorney General stands prepared to meet with the Ombudsman to discuss thoroughly this proposal.

Mr. Lawlor: In other words, we don’t know what is appealable and what isn’t.

Mr. Baetz: We have finished with that. We are going on to the second point. You are a little bit behind here.

Mr. Makarchuk: You can’t slough it off like that. Don’t you know?

[8:30]

Mr. Baetz: You can read it in Hansard tomorrow.

The second recommendation of the select committee’s report concerned the suspension of licences for non-payment of fines. Recommendation 14 reads as follows: “That the Ministry of the Attorney General effect a centralized scheme whereby licences that have been suspended for the non-payment of fines may be immediately reinstated upon the payment of those fines.”

Mr. Kerrio: Is the hatchet man at it again?

Mr. Baetz: An interministerial committee has now recommended specific policy and systems changes designed to facilitate the speedy reinstatement of licences suspended for non-payment of fines. That is Progressive Conservative action.

Some hon. members: Boo.

Mr. Bradley: The member wasn’t even a Tory until the election.

Mr. Baetz: The member had better check that one out.

Mr. Bradley: We know. A closet Tory, then.

Mr. Conway: He read Marion Dewar’s speeches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, you shouldn’t have to buy that kind of stuff -- I won’t say it; you play it with dice anyway.

Mr. Baetz: An implementation plan has been formulated for the development of a central control and collection of fines unit within the Ministry of the Attorney General. This plan envisages the automation of files at the unit and the capacity in the unit for access directly to the automated drivers’ licence registration system at the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Kerrio: Does the Minister of Correctional Services believe that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I designed it.

Mr. Baetz: That again is progress. As soon as the requisite policy approvals have been received, the implementation plan will be put into motion.

Mr. Makarchuk: Is that the new economic policy?

Mr. Baetz: It will be a complex exercise.

Mr. Lawlor: Terribly complex.

Mr. Baetz: Maybe some members opposite would never be able to cope with a complex exercise.

Mr. Lawlor: Perfectly right, too complex.

Mr. Baetz: It will be complex, calling for a high degree of interministerial co-operation.

Mr. Warner: We’re used to dealing with simple things like the member.

Mr. Baetz: The end result will be the removal of existing major impediments to speed reinstatement.

Mr. Makarchuk: As opposed to speedy re-insertment.

Mr. Baetz: That’s progress.

Mr. Lawlor: A pox on progress. Is this sometime in the future?

Mr. Baetz: No.

Mr. Kerrio: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Warner: You move swiftly like a herd of running turtles.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa West has the floor. Would he please disregard the interjections?

Mr. Baetz: We hasten with people in diligent steps.

Mr. Kerrio: He didn’t make any more sense the last time he had the floor.

Mr. Baetz: The Attorney General has said he hopes to be in the House later, but in his absence he wanted me to say --

Mr. Kerrio: Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Mr. Baetz: -- how much he has enjoyed the excellent relationship with the Ombudsman’s office and his staff. He looks forward to a continuing good relationship in the interests of the public as a whole. He wishes everyone a Merry Christmas and all a good night.

Mr. Kerrio: We finally concur.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Durham West.

Mr. Bradley: The minister of municipal affairs.

Mr. Conway: How can the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) top this?

Mr. Ashe: I rise to speak on behalf of one recommendation contained in the third report of the committee. It is known as recommendation 34. It is relatively brief and I would like to read it. It recommends: “The Audit Act and the Financial Administration Act be amended to provide that when the Ombudsman, after all necessary and appropriate requirements of the Ombudsman Act have been adhered to, makes a recommendation to a governmental organization for the payment of a sum of money in the absence of any other express legal authority, and when the recommendation is entirely accepted by the governmental organization, a lawful authority is created for such money to be paid by the governmental organization out of the consolidated revenue fund.”

We’re very surprised that kind of a recommendation would come from an elected committee of this Legislature. As we perceive this recommendation, what would be happening is there would be an authority between two bodies that have no input or approval of this elected body or representatives on behalf of this elected body to pay out sums of money. We really feel there was a possible misunderstanding of what this recommendation was intending to do.

It would really go beyond and away from the established machinery. The elected representatives vote sums of money for particular purposes and the Treasurer of Ontario who, of course, has control over the consolidated revenue fund, makes disbursements. He reports back to this Legislature on those disbursements, and all of the control over these disbursements is directly and indirectly controlled by this elected body.

Mr. Kerrio: Hardly anyone has control over the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Ashe: Because you’re not involved in the approval process and you want to move away from your elected duties.

Mr. Kerrio: What concerns me is the gallon of red ink you use.

Mr. Ashe: That’s your problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Ashe: I would suggest most members of this elected body are very involved in the process and the expenditures of funds.

Mr. Kerrio: To spend the way you do, you’d have to have a lot of people involved.

An hon. member: Including Idi Amin.

Mr. Kerrio: How could anybody do it on their own?

Mr. Ashe: We have to have a lot of people involved, because we handle the taxpayers’ funds so excellently.

Mr. Sweeney: You mean you’ve got a lot of shovels over there. Even the Girl Guides don’t believe you.

Mr. Haggerty: The hon. member for Durham West should get serious.

Mr. Cunningham: Is this the Treasurer’s night to play badminton?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt at all there was also reference within this particular recommendation related to the mechanism to create this lawful authority where, in fact, let’s say the minister, on behalf of this elected body, does not concur with the settlement that may have been reached between the ministry and the Ombudsman.

Mr. McClellan: Read the recommendation.

Mr. Ashe: What this recommendation would say is that without any approval whatsoever, a sum of money from the consolidated revenue fund could be disbursed and, in fact, there would be no action or reaction on behalf of any elected person.

Mr. McClellan: That’s a complete distortion of the recommendation.

Mr. Ashe: I don’t think that’s really what was intended, but that’s exactly what it says.

Mr. McClellan: Read what it says.

Mr. Ashe: That’s exactly what it says.

Mr. McClellan: No, you can’t read.

Mr. Ashe: If you can’t read it, I can. It does say if there is concurrence on both sides between a ministry and the Ombudsman, that authority would be deemed to have been approved to pay over moneys that may be involved. That does not say an elected person, in the case of the ministry, a minister, or the Treasurer on behalf of the consolidated revenue fund, would have any approval and, hence, recourse to this Legislature.

Mr. McClellan: There’s nothing about the minister there.

Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt that in the legislation that set up the operation of the Ombudsman, it was recognized there should be a procedure through the elected body.

If you recall, within section 22(4) of the Act, it is speaking to the fact that if it is felt on behalf of the Ombudsman a satisfactory and prompt reaction is not forthcoming from a particular ministry, there should be recourse through the Premier (Mr. Davis) and, in turn, if not satisfactory, through the Legislature itself. Obviously, the supreme beings in this regard are to be through the elected bodies.

Mr. Sweeney: Supreme being? Who’s claiming that? Who’s claiming they are supreme beings?

Mr. Ashe: I am speaking of this body right here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: He picked that up in Pickering in the same place as the Attorney General.

Mr. Sweeney: It was suggested but never claimed before.

Mr. Ashe: I might even point out that the select committee itself has recognized that the Ombudsman’s office has, from time to time, not taken the recourse through the Premier’s office. As a matter of fact, on page 30 and 31 of its report, the select committee did somewhat chastise the Ombudsman for not taking that due process recognized within the authority establishing the Ombudsman’s operation.

Mr. Kerrio: The Ombudsman’s taking a page out of the government’s book by operating just the way you are.

Mr. Ashe: We are responsible back to the elected body and to the people who elect us. It is quite obvious the people of Ontario recognize their expenditures are in good hands, have been for a long time, and will continue to be so.

Mr. Kerrio: No they don’t. You’re not responsible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Niagara Falls constrain himself and would the member for Durham West address his remarks to the Chair and ignore the interjections?

Mr. Kerrio: It’s easier said than done.

Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am always one to try to keep to the subject but it’s very difficult, when one keeps getting some of those interjections from across the way, not to react and give the truth from this side.

In summary, I would suggest to this House that on behalf of the Treasurer, as far as this recommendation 34 goes, we totally reject it. It is completely at odds with the parliamentary principle that money is only appropriated upon the recommendation of a minister and the Crown and with the concurrence, either before or after the fact, of this elected Legislature. On that basis, there is no doubt that another procedure within the existing legislation can be worked out and recognized that where a financial settlement has been agreed to by a ministry and the Ombudsman’s office, normal appropriations through Management Board or through a presentation of cabinet can effect that particular agreement and no amendment should be enacted to the Audit Act or to the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. Andrew-St Patrick.

Mr. Cunningham: Tell it like it is, Larry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I always do. I always do. Mr. Speaker, I have a few hundred thousand words to say on the general topic tonight --

Mr. Sweeney: You usually do.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why don’t you try something new?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- but I have chosen to restrict myself to the comments made in the second and third reports of the select committee on the Ombudsman with regard to my ministry. Those reports raised issues of concern to my ministry and I want to inform the House of the action taken to date on these recommendations and to assure the hon. members of the House of the continued concern of my ministry

At various times, the ministry has made its position clear on the issues raised. I would like to summarize the commitments we have made to the recommendations outlined in both the recent third report and the earlier second report of the committee which I was pleased to sign, I might add.

One major set of recommendations concerns changes to the Vital Statistics Act. My ministry has indicated it will proceed with amendments to the Act to allow for sex designation changes and also to allow parents the choice of order for hyphenated surnames for their children.

Mr. Kerrio: You will never catch up, Larry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Be careful what you are saying tonight. You will be sorry tomorrow. We feel this flexibility will deal with the concerns raised by the report and will assist individuals in having the records they desire.

Mr. Conway: Your tie is louder than your voice.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You will be sorry for what you said this afternoon.

A second area of recommendation concerns the provision of seven-year waiting periods for retention of credit information. Although we agree with the Ombudsman that the hardship was not sufficiently evident to change the Government Reporting Act, we will watch this matter carefully to ascertain whether or not this will prove to be a growing problem. We have made the commitment if it becomes a significant hardship, we will study the provision of the seven year waiting period with a view to adjusting it.

The final area of recommendation concerning this ministry relates to the safety of children in apartment buildings. The Ontario fire code advisory committee in addition to its regular duties, is looking into all aspects in this area that fall outside the national fire code and the Ontario Building Code, which came into effect at the start of 1976. The ministry has asked the committee to develop recommendations for mandatory installation of devices for buildings built before January 1, 1976. Until this committee’s recommendations are submitted early next year, this ministry supports the encouragement to municipalities by the very fine Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) to utilize their existing powers of authority to require the safety devices.

In all of the above areas, the ministry is adapting its policies and legislation to help meet the needs of the people concerned and will continue its monitoring role.

Mr. Kerrio: Great stuff, Larry. Where did you get that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Warner: At least this minister wants cheaper coffee, even if his buddy doesn’t.

Mr. Eakins: Tell us about the $10 million, Frank.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In fairness, don’t ask me, because it’s now up to 12.

An hon. Member: Frank for leader.

An hon. member: I think you might pay off that deficit at $1 million a month.

[8:45]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in the response of the Ministry of Correctional Services to the report of the committee, I would like to point out there were only two recommendations, and, quite frankly, were one to read the report of the committee, both of the recommendations were about 90 per cent solved by the time the report was written, and that is noted on earlier pages.

To be specific about them, one is concerned with the temporary absence program, or TAP, and the second concerns the internal discipline that occurs after there is disruptive behaviour. In the case of the latter, that has been absolutely resolved. In the case of the former it has been absolutely resolved as well. However, as I have frequently said, this is a ministry not like other ministries, because we do operate under the parameters of federal legislation.

Mr. Roy: And you’re a minister like no other minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You’re absolutely right.

Mr. Conway: He read the Catholic Register like the rest of us.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would find it extremely amusing if a number of people on my side of the House were reading the Catholic Register as weekend material.

Mr. Conway: How many votes do you think that’s worth? The centrefold in the Catholic Register?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It wasn’t the centrefold, it was the front page. You see, there’s always an area where a dumb reporter can make good.

Mr. Conway: You must shine in that cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just before I go on, last night in the --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the member that we are discussing the report.

Mr. Warner: Give him leeway, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House, through you, that both matters have been resolved absolutely. However, I want to go on. I want to anticipate what next year’s report probably will have to contain because I have instituted new programs.

Those new programs, quite frankly, reflect upon the efficacy of recommendation 21, which is the temporary absence program. The introduction of the work inmate program is going to put new pressures upon the office of the Ombudsman. Until now within the system, the inmate was confined, the inmate was in an institution, the inmate, whatever the grievance, real or imagined, was in a location and a structure whereby the grievance could be examined impartially within the fullness of time.

With the fact that I have introduced the road gang to Ontario, many inmates are going to be in a position where they are out of the institution, in small groups, with one correctional officer.

Mr. Kerrio: You better put strings on the inmates.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is going to put new strains upon my ministry because, quite frankly, it means that when we come down to a complaint or a grievance that is filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, it is going to be much more difficult for the Office of the Ombudsman to cope and to make an impartial evaluation as to the efficacy of that particular grievance. That is why I point out that the temporary absence program is not one where you have 10 firm guidelines.

The success of the temporary absence program in this province, as compared to the relative lack of success in other jurisdictions, is because the control of the decision concerning the TAP is left with the local institution, the superintendent and the on-line correctional officer.

As there are different areas in the province, there are different attitudes and there are different resources available in differing areas of the province. We intend to have as flexible a program as is possible within the limitations -- and the very proper limitations -- the public puts upon us. The most basic of those is the protection of the public.

Therefore, it becomes exceedingly difficult as a ministry which is obligated, unlike other ministries -- and I emphasize that -- to respond publicly to the Office of the Ombudsman. Because there is a similar institution in the parallel jurisdiction, which is that of the federal government, and it is very clear within the Penitentiaries Act, which is a federal piece of legislation --

Mr. Roy: You’re right there, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- that the reports must be within that jurisdiction made public. Unfortunately, their jurisdiction extends --

Mr. Conway: Blistering analysis.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- into ours because at the local jail level you certainly have alleged federal parole violators, who are being held while a hearing is being had as to what their ultimate disposition will be. You have other federal prisoners such as deportation holds, again, awaiting a determination by the proper authorities. You also have federal prisoners who are being boarded with us. I have about 35 of them in our system. They’re there for a reason.

Mr. Bradley: In your caucus.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They are going to testify in criminal proceedings against other inmates in the federal institution where they were committed.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s terrible.

Mr. McClellan: Put the back-benchers in the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The reason we have them in the Ontario system -- and being paid for entirely by the federal government -- is for the protection of the individual --

Mr. McClellan: What’s this got to do with the report?

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- so that the court hearing will be able to go on by virtue of the fact that there is a witness alive and willing to testify as to what went on.

Mr. McClellan: Is this in order, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Really, I don’t mind interjections, but when I want to talk about a very serious matter that affects a great number of people, and their rights as Canadian citizens, I don’t really think that I have to put up --

Mr. McClellan: Make a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- with the rather strong abuse --

Mr. McClellan: No, you don’t.

Mr. Roy: Abuse?

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- of certain commodities that are available for sale in this province. I would just like to continue uninterrupted for a moment, while I make the point.

Mr. Conway: You’d better explain that last part.

Mr. Sweeney: What commodities?

Mr. Roy: I apologize, Frank. I’m sorry. He doesn’t have to put up with such --

Hon. Mr. Drea: The difficulty in responding in this situation, in an absolute manner, is that we have to take into account within our ministry, the flexibilities and the impositions that are imposed upon us from other institutions, or other jurisdictions, and from places over which we have no control. It may be that the bench -- over which we have no control -- may very well impose a stricture, as a part of a sentence, that a temporary absence will not be granted.

Mr. Deans: They can’t do anything about that, can they?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The bench takes the convenient way out that it is only a recommendation, even if the five-letter word “order” is used. That makes it extremely difficult for us, because people only pass into our custody and our control, at the direction of the bench. It makes it exceedingly difficult in terms of a temporary absence to have to deal with it.

Mr. Roy: You could change the law.

Hon. Mr. Drea: As I said, the difficulty and really the comparison between ourselves and the federal institutions -- is that we, fortunately, are flexible in the TAP because it is locally controlled by the superintendent in the particular institution upon the recommendations, or the lack of recommendations, by the on-line staff.

In the federal jurisdiction it has become so rigid that it is virtually automatic, you either get it or you don’t after a certain period of time. This has led to the gravest of difficulties within that system. It has led to complaints by the public that it is too rigid a procedure, that it is being followed by rote regardless of the individual or the special circumstances surrounding the inmate, the institution or the particular community where the inmate will go on a temporary absence program.

With the introduction of the mandatory work programs for sentenced inmates, which again come to this ministry beyond our control, the federal government has chosen to change the Penitentiaries Act. There is no more statutory remission. It is now earned remission.

There is going to be, and quite rightfully so, a concern as to who decides just how productive the inmate has been at his work, just how rightfully the achievements or the productivity of that work program have been recognized by the parole board. We are dealing with a very fundamental issue in this because it is remission. That means the door is opened earlier for some than for others.

Certainly in our society the ultimate penalty, indeed, is the loss of freedom. The restoration of freedom, therefore, becomes the greatest incentive of all. What I am saying to you, in essence -- and I am reminding the committees of the future, perhaps I am forewarning them -- is that as long as we had a structured institutional ministry, determinations on such things as temporary absence programs and other concerns of inmates and staff and the public were relatively easy to determine, to put through the legislative model that has been established for the Office of the Ombudsman.

But with the full support of this Legislature and with the full support of the public we are moving into different areas. It is going to be difficult to assess. The time factor is not with us because I deal with short-sentenced inmates. We are not dealing with the 25-year man. We are not dealing with the four-times-life for four-times-murder man. There are decisions that are going to have to be made almost overnight. They are going to have to be made on the basis of the information available, quite rightfully. If there is a complaint it is going to have to be judged by the Office of the Ombudsman and forwarded to the ministry and ultimately to the Legislature, and it, too, is going to have to be done almost overnight on the basis of the information available.

What I have been trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that I can give a guarantee under recommendation 21 on page 94 that within the existing structure -- and that is all I can speak for at the moment -- this concern of the Office of the Ombudsman has been met and settled absolutely and finally. But what I am also saying, Mr. Speaker -- and I am also warning the Legislature, the future committees, and indeed, the Office of the Ombudsman -- with the new change in structure we are going to have to develop new models, new evaluation procedures, and that what is absolute today because the structure is in place today will not be absolute tomorrow. The structure very simply, after the first quarter of next year -- by the fact that the laws have been changed, and not by me, and not by this Legislature, but by the House of Commons -- this whole structure will have been changed.

It has always been my policy that the Office of the Ombudsman is extremely essential to the one ministry that does have direct, absolute and total control over human behaviour far more than anyone else. I welcome their comments. I welcome their positions before the committee. I also welcome, at any time, the concerns of the committee of the Legislature because without it there cannot be any public participation, any public protection in an extremely sensitive field concerned with human beings, and that is correctional services.

[9:00]

Mr. G. I. Miller: It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight and speak on behalf of one of the members of the select committee on the Ombudsman, which was selected last July 20. When the committee was struck, I thought it was an insignificant committee and that it perhaps would be a dull summer. It proved otherwise, and has come to be very controversial, to say the least.

It has been an experience, in my short political career, to be part of this committee. We have many good members, such as our chairman, Michael Davison, and Marg Campbell, John Eakins, Robert Elgie, Patrick Lawlor -- he took the place of Jim Renwick whom we certainly hated to see resign because of health conditions; he was a valuable member -- Ross McClellan, myself, George Taylor, John Turner, and Ossie Villeneuve. It has been a good committee to work with, and it has been a real experience. John Bell was counsel for the committee. He, along with our clerk, Alex McFedries, has done a tremendous job.

I would like first to point out that we had a report to the standing general government committee, and at that point I was a little disappointed in our chairman. He gave a report which in my opinion, was not representative of the feeling of the committee as a whole. I would like to put that on record at this time. Any chairman of a committee should represent the feelings of the committee as a whole. He presented figures to the committee that we did not have access to, and he presented his view. But he didn’t present the views of the committee as a whole. I am concerned with that, because I think he indicated we were split. I don’t know if we were split or not; I don’t think we were.

We were concerned with the expenditures of the Ombudsman. We were concerned they were escalating to a degree we should show some concern about. Consequently, we felt recommendations should go in to this effect: he was dealing with problems not within his jurisdiction. With all due respect to the Ombudsman, he indicated he was going to use and give advice wherever possible.

I respect the Ombudsman. I respect what he is trying to do. I respect his staff. I have volume three -- “Details of expenditures for 1976-77 for Ontario.” It gives all the staff wages for every ministry. When you look closely at it you see the wages paid to each individual on the Ombudsman’s staff don’t compare with any other ministry. I want to make very clear that, for the calibre of people he has to provide, he is not overpaying his staff. I would like to come to his support in that he is trying to do a job. He is dealing with highly paid staff who are very professional. I would like to make this point clear in the very beginning.

We went over the report very thoroughly. We spent many weeks debating it. But the Ombudsman’s select committee really does not have any authority. We can make recommendations to the House but that is as far as it can go. I would like to think, and I know we recommend strongly, that the Ombudsman should be separate from the political aspect. He should have the right to operate without political interference. He was set up to assure the average citizen he had some place to go to get justice.

There’s nothing wrong with the principle. When the Ombudsman was selected, he was supported by all three parties because it was felt he was needed. In my humble opinion, he was needed because we’ve had a Conservative government for 35 years.

Mr. Van Horne: That’s 36 too many.

Mr. G. I. Miller: No, I will give them credit. They’ve done a good job over the years, although I would question that fact during the last X number of years. It’s important that we make the democratic system work in Ontario, to get a government that’s responsible to the needs of Ontario.

Mr. Bradley: This must be your Christmas generosity.

Mr. G. I. Miller: In the last election on June 9, the Liberal Party had the philosophy, but the people of Ontario weren’t ready to accept us or trust our philosophy. Consequently -- maybe that’s getting a little political and I don’t really want to do that.

Ms. Gigantes: Heaven forbid.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I’m ready here to put forward my views as a member of that select committee on the Ombudsman. I want to speak on his behalf because we’ve had the opportunity to look closely at his operation, although we’ve only been in operation since July, not even six months.

Mr. Bradley: You’re being watched, Gordon. You’d better be careful.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Okay, I’m being watched. But I still want to be responsible to my people in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk along with the rest of the people in Ontario, and it’s a serious concern, in my opinion.

As far as my use of the Ombudsman is concerned, I have had to utilize him in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk on a major occasion, perhaps one of the most expensive. It had to do with the Ministry of Natural Resources. The fishermen in my riding, particularly Port Dover and Port Maitland, but perhaps all the fishermen on the lake were concerned they weren’t being used fairly. They’d been to the ministry and in their opinion they weren’t able to get a fair decision.

Consequently, they went to the Ombudsman and he not only dealt with my area, he also dealt with the ones of my colleague, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) at the other end of the lake because he had concerns. He came back to us with a report, which in my opinion, could affect the industry as a whole; it could affect the harvest of that lake for many years to come. He came back with a detailed report, with some recommendations that are going to affect the future of that fishing industry for many years. I thank him for that.

When he got into that, of course, he didn’t realize what it was going to cost. He had no idea. It cost more than he anticipated because the Ombudsman has only just been set up. This is his third report and he hasn’t been in operation three years. It’s difficult to come up with a budget. There’s no one in this House more concerned with the expenditure of funds than I am because we have to be responsible to the taxpayer. We have to be responsible to the people of Ontario. We want to have value for our money.

Another instance was the Pickering housing situation. We had many people who weren’t satisfied with the settlements they received. They came to the Ombudsman for help and consequently, investigated it and went to the Minister of Housing. They haven’t come up with a solution yet, because I don’t think the Minister of Housing really wants to come to a final solution.

It’s important that we have an answer, because when North Pickering is dealt with, we have another problem in South Cayuga, which happens to be in my riding where people are dissatisfied with the purchase of that property. They would like to have a hearing and he is dealing with that situation. Until he gets the Pickering problem resolved, how can he go on and resolve the problem in South Cayuga for the people concerned there?

Again, it points out very clearly to me: how can you estimate the cost? How can you estimate what it is? If the minister doesn’t want to co-operate, you can prolong the hearing. It all costs money. So how can you project and budget?

I think that’s where the Ombudsman’s committee can come up with a recommendation. Again, it should be set up in such a way that it’s as non-political as possible, particularly with the minority government. It can be set up that way. With a majority government, of course, it’s going to be more difficult. That is a problem we have to find a solution for so we can keep the political aspect out of his function as much as possible.

Again, I think concern was pointed out in the standing general government committee. We had a hostile debate. I don’t know where all the television and media people came from that morning but they certainly cropped up. They must have sensed something was going to develop because there was a real discussion. I think, again, our chairman supported it as he had every right to do, because he is elected as well as I am. He had a right to project what he felt was right but he was expressing his own concerns. They weren’t mine.

I indicated to the Ombudsman that Arthur Maloney is capable of taking care of himself. He had to answer to the criticism. I think he’s capable of doing that. Hopefully, he’s clever enough, and he’s a very clever man. I think he’s clever enough to sense that maybe he is overspending.

There was an article in the Toronto Star on Sunday, December 11, if I’m not mistaken, which was very critical of his function. He did go first class. But criticism does not hurt anyone and if he is functioning properly, he will react to the press. They can influence and, hopefully, the Ombudsman will take into consideration what we are trying to say, and what the public is trying to say. He will take those expenditures into account so we are assured, and the people of Ontario are assured, our money is being spent wisely and well and justice might prevail, as far as the average individual is concerned.

Mr. Bradley: You’re going to be assured of a job if you ever leave the Legislature, if you keep up those compliments.

Mr. G. I. Miller: As I said, I don’t know where my friend, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) is tonight. He indicated to me one night, when I had a chance to speak and there weren’t many in the House, I only spoke about the fishermen. I might look a little sleepy, but I’ll say I’m here to represent the people of my riding. I’m here to represent the people of Ontario, to the best of my ability and I intend to do that.

Mr. Conway: Do you mean you’re not going to talk about the yachtsmen?

Mr. Germa: It put me to sleep the last time he spoke.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I know we only have a certain amount of time and there are nine or 10 members on the committee. They all want to speak tonight, and I want to give them that opportunity.

I want to leave with these thoughts. I think the Ombudsman is effective. I think he is especially well talented for the job but he has to listen to the people.

Mr. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I would rise to offer, if I might, some small contribution to the debate as chairman of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

The House has before it what I consider to be a most excellent report from its select committee. I think the report before the House stands as evidence of the desire of all parties in this House to make the office of the Ombudsman work as well as it possibly can for the benefit of all the people in Ontario.

I think the report of the select committee shows what men and women of this House, with goodwill, can do. Sixteen of the recommendations of the 42 referenced in this third report of the select committee addressed themselves specifically to the Ombudsman’s office. They are, I believe, strong, sound and constructive suggestions to the Office of the Ombudsman, which if implemented by the Ombudsman will serve to improve the service he gives to the people of the province of Ontario. A number of the recommendatiens were addressed to the various ministries of this government and tonight we heard responses from a number of those ministers.

[9:15]

I would suggest to the ministers and parliamentary assistants who participated in the debate this evening that if they could expand somewhat on their replies in a written fashion and give them to the committee, it would help the committee a great deal in its future deliberations. I would also suggest that replies are especially needed from the ministries that were unable to, or did not, respond tonight, particularly the Ministry of Government Services, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Housing. I think those would be invaluable reports to the committee.

In regard to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and his comments, I would remind him in connection with the question of jurisdiction that he may find it of some interest to consider the implications of recommendation 36 of the select committee report which refer to the position of the ministry on a question of jurisdiction. It might be a useful thing in the future for your ministry to bring up jurisdictional questions earlier in the process.

Mr. Kennedy: Page 36?

Mr. Davison: No, recommendation number 36 in the select committee’s report. I think you will find it interesting.

In regard to the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer, who has since left the House, what the select committee was trying to do was to facilitate natural justice and to provide some sort of legislative rationale for a process of payment. In response to his criticism or answer to the committee, I would say to him, with the greatest of respect, that the minister is, in fact, the person of the ministry and the minister has the kind of authority we have talked about.

In regard to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I hope the minister, when he responded favourably to recommendation number 18, understood the committee’s concern about the proposed legislation and the possible consequences of creating a third category of people in the province. When he responded favourably, I hope he responded with that in mind.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Have we ever let you down before?

Mr. Davison: In response to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea), I very much appreciated his response to the committee in regard to the temporary absence program.

There was another recommendation of some concern to the committee, and that was recommendation number three which dealt with the Ombudsman’s Correctional Services report. I guess because the minister didn’t raise that recommendation with us tonight, it might not be unfair for me to assume that in keeping with his earlier statements on the issue, he will indeed make the report public as soon as he receives it and, therefore, it can come before the committee.

I would like to thank the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) most sincerely for her response to the nine recommendations of the committee in regard to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. It seems there’s still work for the committee to do in convincing the minister of some of them; but on the whole I think the minister made a fair response, and I believe that some of those recommendations, when they are adopted, will provide for injured workers in the province of Ontario a better service from a more sensitive Workmen’s Compensation Board.

The select committee’s first recommendation, to which the government has not responded tonight, concerned North Pickering, as my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) pointed out. It is a situation that concerned the members of the committee deeply, as I think it concerns all of us in this House.

The select committee put forward this recommendation as the only viable alternative we could see that would provide all the parties involved with some justice. We believe the present commission looking into North Pickering, simply because of the events of the past year cannot possibly write a substantive report that will be of any real assistance to the House or to the government in solving this problem; we therefore have made this recommendation. I would, as a personal note, urge the government to respond, and to respond favourably and quickly, on that recommendation, so we can get on with North Pickering.

Six of the committee’s recommendations dealt with the question of the management study. It is a study, I believe as an individual, that is badly needed for the Ombudsman’s office. I think members should recall the board did, in fact, ask the select committee to look into this and make some appropriate recommendations; this the committee did.

I think it was unfortunate in the extreme that the board went ahead and made its decision without having the benefit of the committee's recommendations, because I believe the recommendations are well thought out. I would urge the board to reconsider the question of the management study from the point of view of the six recommendations of the select committee.

The select committee also recommended that its orders of reference be expanded. It had two recommendations. One would allow the committee to sit concurrently with the Legislature. Because of the ever-increasing workload of the committee, and because of the extended and longer sessions of the Legislature, it is more and more difficult for the committee to find time to deal with this important task before us.

The second was the estimates of the Ombudsman be transferred to the select committee on the Ombudsman, and that the select committee on the Ombudsman have the authority to make recommendations in regard to those estimates. While that may not be a perfect solution to all of our problems, I think it will go some distance in solving the kind of problems, those that perceive at any rate, with the current process for handling the estimates of the Ombudsman.

I must say that it was an honour and a privilege to table this report for consideration in the Legislature. I would like to associate myself with the comments of my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk in regard to the other members of the committee and the staff of the committee for all of the hard work they did. I would like to thank all of the people who played a role in making this report the fine report it is.

Finally, the recommendations and comments in this report speak to real issues, issues that have substance. I am very pleased I had the opportunity this evening to participate in a debate which could perhaps bring substantial change to the way things operate in Ontario.

Mr. G. Taylor: I would like to concur with my colleagues on the other side of the House who have suggested this is a fine report and that we have worked many hours in producing it; that we have.

Mr. Peterson: The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) can stop banging his head on the desk; it will hurt the desk. Don’t bang your head on it.

Mr. Conway: I thought for a moment there was a television camera spying on the hon. member for Fort William.

Mr. G. Taylor: It is unfortunate we do not have a longer time to debate this subject which is such a controversial one. We have now had two reports from the Ombudsman and three from the select committee. It is unfortunate we do not have longer than two and a half hours to discuss and debate the issues contained in the reports; to put this matter on at the nadir of this session is unfortunate scheduling.

However, I compliment the House leaders that we did at least get two and a half hours of this Legislature’s time to discuss it. Possibly, it could be of prime concern to the House leaders, come the spring session, that this be given further time for discussion.

The Ombudsman has made this office second to none in the world inside of two years. He has done a fine job, and his staff is an excellent staff. We were able to associate with them and hear from them during the select committee’s duration. The one area that has perplexed me is the area of jurisdiction. Over 64 per cent of the complaints the Ombudsman’s staff deal with are outside their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman himself is looking for increased jurisdiction. He bases his theory on the fact that these areas need to be served. In the debates in the House when the Office of the Ombudsman was set up, it was said he should not leave anybody unserviced and that he will guide and work for those people until he is guided otherwise by this Legislature. He is asking this Legislature for assistance.

Mr. Kerrio: Give him a couple more years and he’ll have enough staff to serve everybody in Quebec too.

Mr. G. Taylor: He is looking at such areas as municipalities, universities, in some respect private individuals, the courts, the judges, the federal government and bodies financed wholly or partly by provincial funds. That would be an enormous increase of jurisdiction; it would give this Legislature a great deal of concern to give him that jurisdiction.

Mr. Peterson: Why not just give him a blank cheque?

Mr. G. Taylor: What I found throughout many of the cases we studied was that because of the lack of guidelines for the Ombudsman he would try to interpret the statute as best he could and would also exercise discretion and expand his jurisdiction at the most opportune times.

Take the situation of the Correctional Services institutions. That was probably the largest single area in which the Ombudsman worked. It started out with a few trivial complaints and some very serious complaints, but it has developed into a full-scale study of the Correctional Services system of the province of Ontario. If one extends the definitions in the Act and gives it broad definition, one might be able to extend it to that full latitude, however I do not believe when the office was set up in this Legislature that on his own motion, arising out of a few complaints, the whole Correctional Services system should be studied.

Again, on the South Cayuga land assembly, which will appear in the report; he wanted to embark there on a very large-scale investigation. Many pieces of correspondence went between the Ombudsman and the Premier (Mr. Davis) and other people concerned and it was decided he would follow the normal manner of investigation. That is the one complication with this present Act, has he followed the normal manner?

There is a prescribed statute, the Ombudsman Act, which is a code, in a sense, on the way he should be conducting his office. Similarly, if he’s investigating the government there are certain prescribed rules, regulations and administrative policies that he must follow. If he is going to investigate them, he and his staff in the Office of the Ombudsman must also follow the prescribed code set out in the statute creating that office. Recommendation 24 of the select committee is asking for increased jurisdiction and there is to be a further study on that as to whether there should be increased jurisdiction.

I will take a few more examples from the report. The parliamentary assistant has commented upon case 47 involving the Ministry of Education. It was a situation where the local board of education had an insurance problem. The Ombudsman could not investigate it because it was outside his jurisdiction, it was a local board situation. However, having been sent a letter by the person saying he was not covered by insurance, the minister dealt with it, therefore making it a provincial matter and extending the jurisdiction to cover an area which was not covered directly. Again, indirectly he had a jurisdiction where he did not have it directly.

Then there was the Ministry of Housing, case 81. The Ontario Home Renewal Program, administered by the province, gave jurisdiction to the municipalities so that they could deal with the funded money. There was a complaint that had something to do with a municipality, yet it was investigated thoroughly by the Ombudsman, albeit extending his jurisdiction again outside what was prescribed by the statute.

To give an example of the stir those complaints cause to the ministries involved when they do go outside the jurisdiction, a 17-page report was put together by the Ministry of Housing explaining why they lacked jurisdiction and why this could not go further. So when the Ombudsman extends his jurisdiction, it increases the work load of the province of Ontario and the government of Ontario.

[9:30]

The member for London South (Mr. Walker) spoke of the situation in Kingsville, another case where the extension of jurisdiction was carried out. Out of a suggestion by the fishermen in the area that they were being harassed by the Ministry of Natural Resources when actually the ministry was applying rules and regulations that had been in existence for some time, came the third largest report the Ombudsman created, studying the entire fishing industry of Lake Erie and the Kingsville area, to the point that it was most likely a duplication of the program already embarked upon by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Similarly, where we get down to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, case 132: There were overpayments to recipients under the Workmen’s Compensation plan. It was discovered, as a result of investigation that there were many overpayments but he did not bother to find out why these overpayments were not recovered. Indeed he did not go further into the Workmen’s Compensation Board and say here is a very difficult problem, and we should make recommendations that no overpayments be countenanced. So it works both ways; if he is going to investigate those where somebody is oppressed surely where the government is spending large sums of money illegally or without jurisdiction he should proceed there. But again, it was not proceeded with.

This increased jurisdiction again comes up where you have governmental organization, a very wide and broad term which can include anything. Therefore the Ombudsman can again investigate anything. I would suggest when the statute is looked at, and this is debated further, that the jurisdiction should be defined to set out precisely those governmental organizations which the Ombudsman can investigate and should work under.

Municipalities I am sure are not concerned to have the Ombudsman deal with them. Most of the municipalities I canvassed in my riding do not want the Ombudsman in their jurisdictions. Primarily, they feel the aldermen, being very close to the situation, the mayor and the councillors at those local municipalities, can handle the situation quite precisely without the need of an Ombudsman.

Again, we had another problem on case 91 involving the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission. There it was resolved because of the comfortable working relationship between the Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman. They would not define what the legal position was of the Ombudsman, whether he was superior to the Human Rights Commission or the Human Rights Commission was superior to the Ombudsman. That is not good enough for two bodies that are created by statute. They must define who is paramount, who can investigate which body, or indeed the comfortable relationship should not continue because depending who the participants are it could become uncomfortable.

There is also another problem, Mr. Speaker, with what we might consider to be informal recommendations or suggestions, a very loose relationship albeit at times convenient, between the ministries and the Ombudsman. I would suggest that these loose, informal recommendations or suggestions should not be proceeded in the future by the Ombudsman because it confuses both ministries and Ombudsman. The matter should be precisely set out in letters so that both the ministry and the Ombudsman know what they are reacting to and the problem that has resulted in a complaint.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there is one area that would help the Ombudsman greatly, and that is his blueprint. It was promised in the first report. It was promised in the second report. It still is not there, yet the Ombudsman comes forth asking for a management study, which was not proceeded with because of the Board of Internal Economy and its financial requirements. If this blueprint is prepared, it should form the basis of that management study, should it ever be proceeded with. Without that, the Ombudsman cannot increase his jurisdiction.

I differ with the suggestion made by the chairman of our committee, in that I would not like to see the Ombudsman’s estimates go before the same body that is reviewing the report of the Ombudsman -- that is the select committee. I believe it works as a very good checks-and-balance system now. It probably could be improved upon, but the select committee dealing with just the report and the functions of the office make it far superior to one that is going to deal with both the money and the report.

In conclusion, the Ombudsman and his staff have done a superior job in the short time they’ve been there. They have come before the select committee to ask for guidelines and this Legislature should give them. We should set upon the task early in the spring session, because the Ombudsman and his staff are looking for those guidelines. After two years, the fledgling operation should now be given some permanence and structure, so he knows where his limits are, the Legislature knows where his limits are, and his staff know where they are.

Mr. Bradley: Sounds like the Globe didn’t make a mistake, George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address myself to this report, I would like to point out that an important aspect of the overall report is that it has been objective. I believe this is the function of the Ombudsman’s committee: to view the operation overall, to make recommendations, to commend where commendation is indicated, and to be critical of those procedures which are not up to what we believe the operation ought to be, within the meaning of the Act.

I am rather saddened tonight that once again on a Thursday night, we see so few of the cabinet in the House. I would like to commend those who have appeared and taken an interest in discussing the report. The Minister of Labour gave a very comprehensive answer, and I was rather pleased with the way in which she chose to review the situation.

As far as the Minister of Correctional Services is concerned, I have only to commiserate with him, because he is going to have to review his procedures, having in mind the legislation in Ottawa over which he has no control. But within those restrictions, in my opinion he answered very well.

One of the things we felt in this report is that Pickering, perhaps by reason of the fledgling operation at the time, did not proceed with the type of investigation we feel is important in such a major issue. You will note, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations with reference to the establishment of the commission, the commission itself and the fact that this committee is of the opinion the government should seek that report as quickly as possible, since the surrounding circumstances caused it to be largely abortive as a fact-finding body.

It is very important, as we see it, that the Ombudsman should operate within the meaning of his Act, and that he should spell out clearly, as we have said, what the complaint is and what his recommendations are in precise terms in the section 19 (1) letter to the ministries, or to those agencies which come within his jurisdiction. It is difficult for the ministries to respond when the recommendations are vague and general in their wording; and I would like to say that I feel that the ministries, by and large, have responded, have tried to respond even to informal recommendations. and I would commend them for that attempt.

I am somewhat saddened when I hear a ministry raising the point of jurisdiction at a late stage in the proceedings, and I was interested in what was said on behalf of the Ministry of Education tonight when there is a question of jurisdiction with reference to the case which was under discussion. It seems to me that if the ministry felt that way they should have raised the issue ab initio and not at such a stage as this.

It is important that we give guidelines to the Ombudsman, and as you are aware this is part of our function. In this report we have indicated the areas of our concern and the way in which we are leaning, at this point in time, in trying to accommodate to those guidelines as we see them.

It is impossible for me to proceed with the kinds of comments I would like to make since we are very circumscribed as to time for the discussion of this, to me, very important report. There is no question that every member in this House supported, and supported strongly and warmly, the establishment of this office, and for the reasons which were quite apparent. It is important, it seems to me, that all members of the House review this report with care, and that they understand the processes which the select committee are going through in trying to come up with guidelines which will not inhibit the work of the office unduly, but which hopefully will indicate areas where there can be great improvement.

There is no doubt, of course, that there is a concern in the Ombudsman’s operation about the purpose for which the office was initiated. We have not, in this report, recommended at this time the enlargement of jurisdiction, and it is important to understand that this is not a suggestion of trying to inhibit the work. But when the Ombudsman himself has asked for a management consultant, notwithstanding what was done by the Board of Internal Economy, there is a strong indication that we should at least pull together the operation as it is and ensure that it is working efficiently before we move further in a direction of increasing jurisdiction. It only seems to me to make very good sense.

[9:45]

I hope the members will review the report and that we can work together in the future to try to effect those necessary changes while still giving to the Ombudsman’s office the full opportunity to exercise his purpose for his function.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bellwoods.

(Applause)

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You’re all very kind.

Mr. Conway: It sounds like a call to leadership.

Mr. Bradley: Are you running now?

Mr. McClellan: I’m pleased to join the debate this evening. I want to speak briefly on the report and make a couple of observations. I don’t intend to take very much time.

I thought the first hour of the debate was enormously interesting. I think a theme or a process seems to be emerging, having to do with the attitude of government towards the Office of the Ombudsman which I think is quite fascinating. It’s clear to me that there are some ministries in the government that take the Ombudsman’s office as seriously, I think, as most of us do on this side of the House. They take it seriously; they treat recommendations of the Ombudsman with respect to their ministries seriously and they make an honest and serious effort to respond to those recommendations.

Mr. Haggerty: Can you name one?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, I will.

On the other hand, there are other ministries that are quite deliberately obstructionist with respect to the Ombudsman’s office.

Mr. Haggerty: Can you name one?

Mr. McClellan: I will name names. For the first time since I was elected, I want to compliment the Minister of Labour. I was enormously pleased with her response here this evening to the recommendations in the third report.

Mr. Deans: She obviously thought about it.

Mr. McClellan: She obviously thought about those recommendations seriously, took them seriously and is making an honest attempt to deal with them. I think all of us are enormously pleased with that kind of response.

Let me contrast that with the attitude of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), who didn’t even deign to shown up tonight.

Mr. Deans: He is an arrogant man.

Mr. McClellan: His ministry is the subject of the first recommendation of the report. His ministry is the subject of the North Pickering issue. I see a certain consistency in the attitude in the Ministry of Housing, by way of illustration or example, that speaks to an erroneous and regrettable attitude towards the Office of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Warner: He should resign, he really should.

Mr. McClellan: I would hope that he would take an object lesson from the Ministry of Labour, or perhaps even from the Ministry of the Attorney General, which indicated a desire to co-operate with the Ombudsman.

Mr. Bradley: Where is the chief government whip (Mr. Maeck) when we need him most?

Mr. McClellan: I can’t remember who else; maybe it is a short list of ministries that are interested. The Ministry of Correctional Services, let it be said, has been quite consistently co-operative with respect to the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Mr. Haggerty: He’s saving $1 million a month.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, $10 million a year.

I want to dwell on the North Pickering recommendation. I must say, it is a source of some regret to the committee and we have said it, that because of the failure in the early stages of the Ombudsman’s operation to adhere rigorously to the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Act, their investigation was not adequate. I myself feel their conclusions were probably solid, but because of the failure to adhere to the requirements of the Act and to follow each of the stages set out in the Act, it is probably fair to say the first North Pickering report of the Ombudsman would not have stood up in court as a bona fide report of the Ombudsman.

That has been the source of an enormous difficulty ever since. If there is any consistent theme to the deliberations of the select committee since I have sat on it, it has been a fairly tough-minded insistence on the part of the select committee to the Ombudsman that he and his staff adhere in the most rigorous possible way to the requirements of the Act in the course of his investigation and the development of his recommendations.

I have every confidence this will be done. It’s unfortunate that the royal commission that was appointed on North Pickering took the course and the shape that it did. It was a royal commission with a commissioner who lacked certain graces, let me say, and who refused to appoint commission counsel. A royal commission without commission counsel is no royal commission. What is the point of a royal commission when the commissioner acts as though he were a judge, rather than as one who is investigating all aspects of the situation in coming to a determination on his own?

Because of the refusal of the commissioner to operate in the traditional manner of a royal commission and because of his manner and of his procedures, we made the recommendation we did that an additional inquiry has to be established, consistent with the order in council and consistent with the order in council as interpreted by the court of appeal.

I would have thought the Minister of Housing would have had the decency to show up here tonight and indicate to us his position.

Mr. Kerrio: He was here, he has gone.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t think he was here.

Mr. Warner: He was never here tonight.

Mr. McClellan: I am not sure whether he was at the press gallery at the Christmas party or not, but I do not recall seeing him here in the House.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: He was here earlier when the member was at the press gallery.

Mr. McClellan: Before the session ends, I hope the Minister of Housing or his parliamentary assistant will indicate to us what his intentions are with respect to the first recommendation of the third report of the select committee.

I would like to take a swipe, in passing, at the Workmen’s Compensation Board. It remains the largest source of cases, not only for us as MPPs but also for the Ombudsman. There was some initial reluctance on the part of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, I think, to co-operate with the select committee and with the office of the Ombudsman as well. I detect a significant change, a significant evolution in the attitude of the Workmen’s Compensation Board towards both the office of the Ombudsman and to the select committee. I am pleased to note that development and I hope that evolution continues in the current direction. In recommendation 11, of the third report of the select committee, we have included a fairly detailed recommendation with respect to the manner in which we would like to see the Ombudsman make his report on cases to the select committee. I want to draw attention to that.

We spent an enormous amount of time in committee trying to determine, through questioning, the various stages and processes undergone in the course of an investigation of a complaint by the Ombudsman’s office. It is our feeling that there needs to be a different format by the Ombudsman for reporting cases to the select committee.

The format up to this point has been something in the order of a public relations format, which hasn’t been all that useful in enabling the select committee to work through the complexities of issues involved in each particular case, and to come to a determination or conclusion with respect to any particular recommendation of the Ombudsman.

I think all of us on the select committee hope very much that the procedure under recommendation 11 is adopted by the Ombudsman’s office. We think it will enable us as a committee to be more effective in working with the Ombudsman with respect to recommendations, or illustrations of his work, that he brings to the committee.

I want as well to focus on recommendation 41, the recommendation that the estimates of the Ombudsman’s office be brought to the select committee. One of the sources of difficulty that has plagued us with respect to the Ombudsman’s office over the last couple of weeks has been the jurisdictional confusion surrounding the office of the Ombudsman. I suppose that is natural. The office is still evolving and each of us in the Legislature is trying to work out procedures on what is largely uncharted ground. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction has been split among the select committee, the Board of Internal Economy, and the standing committee on general government which looked at the Ombudsman’s estimates. In the roundelay of jurisdictional overlapping much trouble was quite unnecessarily caused. Recommendation 41 addresses itself to that particular dilemma and would go a long way toward ensuring a less acrimonious resolution of the Ombudsman’s estimates and issues related to the Ombudsman’s estimates.

That concludes the brief remarks I wished to make this evening. I want to stress again an overwhelming impression I have emerged with from the work of the select committee over the last six or seven months, and that is the absolute necessity of the Ombudsman’s office adhering rigorously and scrupulously to the provisions of the Ombudsman Act. One of those provisions must certainly be that in the exercise of his ultimate sanction, the Ombudsman must not short-circuit the step of bringing a recommendation to the office of the Premier. He must follow the provisions of the Act that require him to first bring a recommendation denied by a ministry to the attention of the Premier and the Premier’s office before he brings it to the attention of the Legislature via the select committee.

[10:00]

We have taken the position on the committee that we are not willing to deal with recommendations in the exercise of the ultimate sanction until the route prescribed by the Act has been followed. We have taken that position for purposes of the third report, and as far as I’m concerned -- and I believe I speak for all the members of the committee -- we will continue to take that attitude and will insist that in the exercise of the ultimate sanction the route of appeal to the Premier’s office be taken before a denied recommendation is sent to the select committee.

As well, I stress again, each and every one of the steps required by the legislation must be followed rigorously, scrupulously and methodically by the Ombudsman and his staff in the course of an investigation. To do otherwise is to jeopardize the whole function -- to lead us back into situations like the North Pickering report. We don’t want that to happen.

All of us on the select committee have a deep commitment to the success of the Ombudsman’s office and the Ombudsman’s operation in this province. We have produced a report which is in many respects critical of some aspects of the Ombudsman’s operation. But we have made those critical comments in the most constructive way conceivable, out of the very deepest conviction that the Office of the Ombudsman is something to be cherished in this province and something which all of us in the Legislature want very badly to succeed and to be as good as it can possibly be.

Mr. Eakins: I would like to speak for a few moments because my friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) is hoping to get on, and I’m going to try to accommodate him here tonight.

Mr. Kerrio: I’d like to have one member who is not on the committee speak up.

Mr. Eakins: I would like to express briefly a few of my own opinions -- opinions as I see them as a member of the select committee, and certainly not in the way that others might see it or would like me to see it. I hope everyone will take the opportunity of reading this report and the recommendations which have been made. I feel that recent discussions on the Ombudsman’s estimates have been very healthy ones indeed; strong opinions have been expressed, both by the members and in the press.

I can recall some years ago, when I was first contesting a seat in the Legislature, the former Premier of the province, the late Hon. Leslie Frost, saying there was no need for an Ombudsman in Ontario for we had 117 of them. We know the bureaucracy has grown since that day, and I certainly associate myself with the need for the Ombudsman and for the work of the Ombudsman in Ontario.

This discussion has brought into the open, perhaps for the first time, some of the problems and the growing pains of the Ombudsman’s office. The Ombudsman’s office has only been in existence for something like two years. I think we must be fair to the Ombudsman and his operation and give his office an opportunity to search out its work and to get to know some of the areas of the province in which it must deal. His office must be free from political interference -- and I say that very strongly; they must not have interference politically.

I think it’s important, initially, that the Ombudsman’s office has gone out across the province. I certainly appreciate that the representatives of the Ombudsman have been in my riding. They have been good public relations people. I was encouraged to see the large number of people who turned out to bring their concerns to the Ombudsman. I was very encouraged by the dispatch and courtesy with which these people were treated and their concerns dealt with.

There has been a lot of discussion as to the amount of money expended by the Ombudsman’s office. A logical system of accountability has to be developed. The Ombudsman, along with other ministries, should live to the best of his ability within the funds allotted.

With respect to overexpenditures, I don’t think we can simply point the finger at the Office of the Ombudsman. We have, for instance, a citizens inquiry branch which spends something like $13 million, and very few people even realize it is in existence. We have to be fair in our criticism, because many of the ministries are expending millions of dollars. Minaki Lodge, under Industry and Tourism costs $1,000 a day to keep closed. We should be just as concerned about these expenditures as we are about those of the Ombudsman.

One area I would like to touch on briefly concerns the non-jurisdictional work of the Ombudsman. I would like to see some system of dealing more quickly with non-jurisdictional complaints. There are those people, including members, who feel they should not even be dealt with. I think we should be giving credit to the Ombudsman’s office; they have been able very quickly to help many people dealing with other jurisdictions such as the federal government. In doing so they have been very helpful to many people indeed.

There has been some discussion of new jurisdictions, or appropriate time to look at increased jurisdiction of the Ombudsman’s office. I believe it is on page 14 of the report that the Ombudsman has recommended his jurisdiction be expanded to cover complaints respecting local or municipal governments. I look forward to the day when the Ombudsman will cover this particular area. As one who has in the past been involved in municipal government, I know the many problems which people have in the municipal jurisdiction. Many people have brought them to me. Unless you can get through to the ministries, you are lost as far as helping the people is concerned. I find many occasions when the Ombudsman’s office could be very helpful in municipal jurisdictions. I believe the report shows 11 per cent of complaints closed by the Ombudsman’s office as of March 31 were within this category.

However, I do agree with the report, if the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction were expanded a very great effect on the Ombudsman’s office as presently constituted would result. This is one particular area I am very interested in. I also strongly support the committee recommendation that we defer any formal comments and recommendations on this matter to the Legislature until such time as studies of the operation and organization of the Ombudsman’s office are completed, and until the committee has had an opportunity to study in person other jurisdictions which have for a number of years processed complaints in this category. After two years of operation it is most appropriate the committee take a look at other jurisdictions, and the only way you can do that is to go out and meet people in other jurisdictions which have had a number of years of experience in this particular field and look very closely at their operation.

I want to say I am appreciative of what the Ombudsman’s office has meant; I am appreciative of the work of the staff. I certainly support the Ombudsman very much in his operation.

There are some areas of concern which I have. I have expressed some of these and we certainly do not have time this evening to go into others. I think we have to deal with these in a spirit of working together through the select committee. I am going to do my part to put forward the views and the feeling I have in regard to the various jurisdictions.

I appreciate the opportunity of speaking briefly in regard to the Ombudsman’s report.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to get involved? The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Mr. Deans: There is a point of order I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker. The House leaders agreed today, on behalf of the parties, to break up the time as follows: one hour for the ministers to respond and the remaining hour and a half to be divided equally among the three parties.

I would like to suggest to you that the Liberal Party have now used 32 minutes of the half hour that was allocated to them. I did not want to interrupt the member in all fairness. The first speaker, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), spoke for 15 minutes. The second speaker, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), spoke for 10 minutes and the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) has just spoken for almost seven minutes.

Mr. Roy: Who kept the time?

Mr. Deans: I did. In addition to that, the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. Davison) spoke for 11 minutes, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) for 15 minutes and the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. Taylor) on behalf of the Conservative Party for 12 minutes. Unfortunately, probably due to an oversight, the member for Niagara Falls, whom you have just recognized, doesn’t have any time left according to the agreement that we reached.

Mr. Roy: if there are no other speakers, he can speak.

Mr. Deans: No, it’s an equal division of time. One uses it or one doesn’t.

Mr. Kerrio: The Speaker just asked for any other speakers.

Mr. B. Newman: There’s plenty of time. We’ve got another 20 minutes.

Mr. Kerrio: I don’t care to argue. I think the member is perfectly right, but if others do not want to speak, I am prepared to.

Mr. Deans: On the point of order, it is not a matter of whether they want to use it or not. We don’t need to use our time and we have a half hour. The Liberals don’t have any more time. They have used their time.

Mr. Roy: Do they have any more time?

Mr. Speaker: The agreement was that we would have one full sitting for the discussion of the report of the Ombudsman. One hour was allocated for the ministers or their delegates. The remaining hour and a half was to be used among the other three parties. I have just heard a member from the Liberal Party. I will recognize a member from the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party. If they do not wish to use the remaining time, and there are 17 minutes, I will recognize the hon. member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: It is my pleasure to join those who would debate this particular issue tonight. I am pleased to see the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) with us tonight.

It would seem this chamber can become so insulated from the outside world that we forget we have a serious responsibility here. In that responsibility I would refer to the responsibility of spending the tax dollars in a way that would make us responsible members of the Legislature.

The Ombudsman’s office has been talked about tonight, in its many facets, but I would like to bring into play one area I feel is very significant. There has been much discussion about what has happened in this office. The need for the office is without question. But I would like to suggest with regard to what we do in this Legislature, whether it relates to the Ombudsman’s office or it relates to any other thing we do in the Legislature involving any other ministry, unless we are prepared to set the kind of budget that it is within our ability and the ability of the taxpayers to pay, we shall never balance the budget, we shall never be responsible to the citizens of Ontario.

I would like to suggest, in my way, that the Ombudsman should be put under the same kind of restraint that any other ministry or what have you should be put under, if we are ever going to get this thing on the kind of basis that would make some kind of sense to those people out there who pay the tax dollars.

[10:15]

We talk about it and we shift the responsibility from hither to yon, but no one is willing to stand up and suggest that everything we do has a price -- a reasonable price, yes, and reasonable areas of jurisdiction -- and I think the Ombudsman should be so directed.

We cannot and should not allow blank cheques to be written on the account of the taxpayers of this province. The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) will never in God’s world ever balance the budget if we continue to do what we’re doing within this particular issue or on any other issue we might talk about on the floor of this Legislature.

It just so happens that I come from that very real world in the contracting business, where you bid a certain amount of money and you produce within the limits of that amount of money. Unless we’re willing to address ourselves to that kind of performance here on the floor of this Legislature, we shall never be responsible to the people of Ontario.

We can talk about rhetoric. We can do everything we want. If the Ombudsman wants to take those people who are going to investigate and report on the Ombudsman’s office to Israel or wherever the hell he wants to take them, he should do it within the limits of the kind of money we’re prepared to pay to perform that function. I say with respect to everybody sifting in this Legislature, unless we’re prepared to do that in every ministry and in everything we take on to do, whether it be Minaki Lodge, Ogoki Lodge, the Ministry of the Environment or anything else we might do here, unless we’re prepared to bite the bullet, we shall never bring responsible government to the people of Ontario, no matter what we all say here. Sitting in this Legislature is not going to do it.

The people out there can produce so many dollars. We should be responsible to spend them in a responsible way. All the rhetoric that’s spoken here is never going to change any of that.

Mr. Lawlor: Including your own.

Mr. Kerrio: In summation of the point I’m trying to make here, whether it be the Ombudsman or whatever we do here, we should live within the limits of responsibility to the people who pick up the tab.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Before I begin, my sympathies go out to the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). I understand the anguish he must go through in trying to consolidate agreements.

Mr. Roy: He is out of order.

Mr. Warner: It’s unfortunate that he’s been saddled with that task.

I have raised a certain matter before with the Ombudsman and I would hope, as the operation unfolds, that he and his staff have an opportunity to take a look at what in the very broadest context is called consumer protection. We know, by the definition of the Office of the Ombudsman, that he is restricted in the operation. The select committee is taking a look at the guidelines for the Ombudsman’s office. Broadening the jurisdiction is obviously a possibility by extending it into municipalities and other areas that previously have not come under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman’s office.

I would suggest that one of the things that is needed, somewhat similar to the expected report on Correctional Services from the Ombudsman’s office, is a report or a look into the whole area of consumer protection in the province of Ontario. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government of this province has made a distinction between consumer protection and consumer relations. The government has decided, of course, that we should have what it calls consumer relations; that is, the settling of disagreements in some sort of amiable fashion, trying to get both sides to agree. But if they don’t there isn’t anything they’re prepared to do. That’s very much different from consumer protection.

Obviously the area leaves itself open to wide investigation. For example, should it not be that articles and items are tested beforehand, guaranteed to be safe et cetera, before they are introduced into the market and not the reverse process, which is what we have now? At the present time, articles can find their way on to the shelves, be sold and be found to be dangerous before action is taken.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) himself presented one of those items the other day, I recall. It was something about little toy robots that threw things.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Here they come now.

Mr. Warner: They’re hiding in the minister’s office.

It seems to me that kind of item should have gone through some sort of test beforehand and had been proved before it reached the marketplace. What I’m suggesting is that entire area could be the subject of reporting by the Ombudsman. If I understand the rules correctly, it is not within his jurisdiction at this point to take a look at that kind of business, but it should be --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should be like the Ombudsman, and do it anyway.

Mr. Warner: -- because we do not really have consumer protection in the Province of Ontario. What we have, of course, is consumer relations -- the idea of settling arguments among relatives, and we know how successful that usually is.

Mr. Deans: In fact, it’s getting worse.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you think so?

Mr. Warner: Certainly it is. The member for Wentworth points that out.

Mr. Deans: The insurance companies run rampant. The coffee companies do what they please.

Mr. Warner: He is really the minister of corporate protection.

I’m surprised, for example, that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations didn’t personally say to the Ombudsman: “I can’t handle this problem. Maybe you should be investigating the coffee prices.”

I appreciate the interest that the Ombudsman’s office has shown with respect to the correctional institutions. I hope we will see an in-depth report on that whole system and how it can be humanized -- how the rights of people can be protected even when they have been incarcerated. That area of jurisdiction is well within the purview of the Ombudsman and I would expect a comprehensive report -- the sooner, the better.

Mr. McClellan: Why is the minister laughing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ve heard it before.

Mr. Warner: It’s extremely important for all of us in this assembly to keep in mind the perspective that the office has not been in operation for a very long period of time. We are dealing in a province of eight and a half million with a very complex kind of society -- an industrial society, for the most part. I think it is totally unreasonable to put the office into place and expect it to operate perfectly within a couple of years.

There are going to be problems. The previous member has a concern, as all of us do, about spending -- some of us perhaps more than others, witness the government record, but none the less all of us have a concern. Surely, we don’t want a gold-plated office operating in a platinum fashion. None the less, the office itself, the concept of having an Ombudsman’s office which operates in a functional way, is extremely important.

In the justice committee the other day, when we were dealing with the bill on Thunder Bay, someone took my comment to be somewhat facetious; but it wasn’t. The city of Thunder Bay presented to the committee a very imaginative scheme for a portion of their downtown where they are enclosing a couple of the streets into a mall.

I suggested, because of the climate in Thunder Bay and this imaginative project, which is going to be very large in scope, that this enclosed mall would be a perfect place for the Ombudsman to locate an office. In fact, if the government could understand that the world does not begin nor end in the city of Toronto, perhaps Thunder Bay would be a good place for the Ombudsman to have his central office located. It might be a progressive step toward decentralizing and creating an understanding that this province does not begin and end in Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t give him any more ideas.

Mr. Warner: He might find a new and imaginative way to travel from Toronto to Thunder Bay. heaven only knows. Nonetheless, I think it is important to decentralize.

Mr. Roy: How about a Lear jet?

Mr. Warner: It’s important that the Ombudsman be in the community and be meeting people where they live. If there are ways to decentralize. all the better. He must surely take a special kind of approach to northern Ontario, not just Thunder Bay, but obviously beyond there. He must have a way of communicating.

The Ministry of Colleges and Universities has a plan, which I have always applauded, whereby some of the northern colleges will actually send their personnel out into the far-flung communities. They will get there by canoe in some cases. They go along the shore of James Bay and meet the residents in the communities. I suggest that the Ombudsman is going to have to do that sort of thing if he wants, first to understand northern Ontario, and second, to be able to help the people who live in northern Ontario. He has to get out there and do the job. I would far sooner see him in a canoe than in a rented Cadillac down in the streets of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion --

(Applause)

Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t know what you have done to provoke them.

Mr. Warner: I thank members for energetic enthusiasm. I know the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations wants to take out a party membership in my riding. I appreciate that.

I have always supported the notion of having an Ombudsman in the province of Ontario.

An hon. member: Is that the best support the member for Wentworth could get?

Mr. Warner: I hope we will move forward constructively so that the people will be served in the way in which they should.

Mr. Van Horne: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I rise in defence of our House leader, the hon. member for Kitchener.

Ms. Gigantes: He was not attacked, he was supported.

Mr. Van Horne: I would like to carry on, Mr. Speaker.

Insofar as agreements to split time are concerned, I would point out to the members of the third party that in the estimates of the Ministry of Education, at the request of the third party, the time was split evenly. I would refer the hon. members to page S-23 of Hansard. We did agree that the hours be split evenly.

Mr. Deans: What has this got to do with this debate?

Mr. B. Newman: It shows you how you play ball.

Mr. Van Horne: In the summary, on page S-272 the chairman remarked that the time at that point had been used up as follows: eight hours and 28 minutes by the NDP and five hours by the Liberal Party. We did not complain. In defence of our leader, I would suggest that the third party is out of order.

Mr. Deans: All I can tell the member is that wasn’t the House leaders’ agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That concludes the debate.

Ms. Gigantes: They had every opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Before adjournment, can we have unanimous consent for the hon. Member for Etobicoke to bring in a report from one of the standing committees?

Agreed.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the rest of the Justice policy secretariat be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Justice policy program.........................$468,000.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the resolution be concurred in?

Mr. Roy: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the report being concurred in will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Mr. Roy: It is a useless ministry and shouldn’t exist. I will vote against it for the time I am here.

Resolution concurred in.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grossman, the House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.