Duelling ombuds the one big flaw in Ontario accountability bill: James

Thestar.com
April 8, 2014
By Royson James

Ontarians welcome the accountability legislation that is to get first reading at Queen’s Park Wednesday.

The new rules are part of the premier’s stated goal to open up government to scrutiny and transparency. Measures would require all MPPs to post online their expenses incurred for out-of-riding travel, hotels, meals and hospitality. Attendance records of cabinet ministers would be posted. The law would prohibit the willful destruction of public records. All good.

More strikingly, new rules would empower the province’s accountability officers - ombudsman, integrity commissioner and advocate for children - to investigate, review and resolve complaints in areas that avoided such scrutiny: cities and towns, hospitals, public agencies, schools and universities.

It would be all good news if the legislation did not over-reach so foolishly in one high-profile area.

It seeks to have the provincial ombudsman duplicate the role of the Toronto ombudsman - playing the role of appeal body and the right to conduct investigations already within Toronto’s jurisdiction.

It’s tough to figure out the government’s motivation.

An ombudsman is a court of last resort, like the Supreme Court. When other initiatives fail, when there is no redress, when citizens butt up against an unyielding bureaucracy, the ombudsman investigates and rules. End of story.

There is no need for a second ombudsman to offer a second opinion. If so, why not have a federal ombudsman to second-guess the Ontario ombudsman as he conducts an appeal of the Toronto ombudsman?

Fiona Crean, Toronto’s first and the province’s only municipal ombudsman, nailed it when she criticized this provision as it was launched last month.

“Reviews of reviews are surely not a valuable use of public resources - to say nothing of red tape run amok, and the likelihood of wasted money,” Crean said.

Apparently, for nearly 30 years the Ontario ombud has been lobbying for an expansion of his powers into jurisdictions that lack oversight. The new bill gives the office more than it needs.

In 2006, the same provincial Liberal government, under Dalton McGuinty, gave Toronto special powers under the City of Toronto Act. One measure was the ability to appoint an auditor general, integrity commissioner and an ombudsman. Toronto did just that. And those three officers have served the city well - so much so that other municipalities are following suit.

Has the current Toronto political administration tried to belittle and intimidate the city’s accountability officers? Yes. But the appointed watchdogs have not cowered. They have not wilted. And the vast majority of city councillors have been openly supportive, to the point of putting steel in the spine of Jeff Griffith, Janet Leiper and Crean.

The Toronto experiment, less than a decade old, is being adopted by other municipalities. Mississauga has an integrity commissioner, as do Parry Sound, Vaughan and St. Catharines.

In fact, if the province is concerned about the lack of oversight in cities and towns across Ontario (Toronto is already addressed) the remedy might be to add them to ombud Andre Marin’s already too onerous workload.

A better solution might be to require regional ombudsmen, so that, for instance, Peel or York or Durham Regions would be required to have one for their respective jurisdictions.
The worst possible remedy is to add Marin’s oversight on top of Crean’s oversight in Toronto, when Marin can’t adequately cover all his domain.

Provincial staff say Toronto is included because they did not want to treat Toronto as a special case. Duh. That ship’s sailed.

This government considered Toronto special enough to give the city its own act. It made Toronto the only city that must have those integrity officers. The preamble to the act acknowledges Toronto as a “government that is capable of exercising its powers in a responsible and accountable fashion.”

When critics suggested Premier Kathleen Wynne intervene to clear out Mayor Rob Ford and his sullied reign, Wynne rightly said:

“It’s not the provincial government’s role, nor its intention, to impose its preferences upon that government.”

That’s because the city is grown up. It’s a mature order of government. It has its own ombudsman to provide oversight. It doesn’t need an ombudsman for its ombudsman. This will only confuse citizens, add bureaucracy, cost and duplication.

This provision unnecessarily erodes the credibility of the entire bill. The Toronto clause should be excised as redundant and wasteful.