A n n u a l R e p o r t 1998/99 MESSAGE
As we near the end of the n i n e t i e s
  in public service in Ontario it is appropriate to
r e f l e c t ,
to evaluate and to set
  a clear course for the future.
  ROBERTA L. JAMIESON
   
  OMBUDSMAN'S MESSAGE
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
THE END OF THE 1990s
Presents an opportunity to examine the
state of public service administration in
Ontario. As this moment coincides
with the approach of the end of my
ten-year term as Ombudsman, it is
appropriate to reflect on the changes
we have witnessed, to evaluate their
impact and to begin the work of
outlining a clear course for the future.
The past decade of governance in
Ontario has been a period of unprece-
dented and unending change, marked
more recently by an agenda of self-styled
revolutionary change. We continue to
be swept up in the tremendously sig-
nificant phenomenon of globalization.
Dramatic shifts in population demo-
graphics and immigration patterns,
sharp challenges to economic competi-		 tiveness, widening disparities between
the rich and poor in our own communi-
ties and globally, and rapidly expanding
communications technologies are among
the defining features of this phenomenon.
At the same time, not incidentally, there
has been an increasing awareness of the
need to safeguard human rights and
promote accountability as essential
characteristics of our democracy.
The prevalence and intensity of
change as a constant factor has had a
profound impact on the administration
of government and on the relationship
between the governed and those who
govern. As Ontario's Ombudsman,
someone who occupies a space directly
between the government and the people,
I have observed both the process and
the impact of these changes from a
unique vantage point.		 Addressing Historic
Disadvantages
In the early nineties the broad public
sector began to pay increasing attention
to those whose voices had not been
heard before, to those who did not
see themselves reflected in the public
sector workforce and who could not see
their diverse needs taken into account
in the development or delivery of gov-
ernment programs. Responses were
initiated to address the lack of mean-
ingful participation and representation
by groups who were seen as vitally
important in regenerating core values
of public service: racial minorities and
people of colour, people with disabili-
ties, gays and lesbians, Francophones,
people who are economically disadvan-
taged or marginalized, First Nations
and aboriginal people, consumer/sur-
vivors of psychiatric services, among
  Next Column. Next Column. Next Page. Top Page.
Page 2 MESSAGE
   
  others. Government policies were
directed toward a proactive approach
to ensure equitable delivery of services
and programs to everyone entitled, and
to remove barriers to careers in the
public service for those whose voices
and presence had been largely ignored
or neglected.
Service delivery concepts emphasizing
equal treatment for all were challenged
on the demonstrable grounds that
standardization, uniformity and same-
ness in policy and practice were hardly
adequate as governing principles.
Demands were made for flexibility and
creativity, for individual needs and cir-
cumstances to be addressed appropriately,
for systemic change to enable the public
service to respond more effectively to
the real circumstances of Ontario's
diverse population. Legislation was
passed to create agencies such as the
Pay Equity Commission, the Employ-		 and indeed to our collective and indi-
vidual attitudes toward client service.
Many other public service organizations
adopted similar commitments, reflecting
a move toward greater sensitivity and
built-in measures to ensure accountability.
In later years governments in all
jurisdictions became preoccupied with
what is seen as the primary challenge
associated with the forces of globaliza-
tion, an ever expanding and increasing-
ly competitive marketplace. As a result,
in Ontario, the focus shifted to debt
and deficit reduction and defining the
overall goal as achieving fiscal health
through measures designed to promote
competitiveness. Emphasis was placed
on re-shaping a leaner public service,
one that would not only cost less to
administer, but would also be able to
deliver a higher standard of service.
Expectations about the quality of
service to which the public is entitled 		moting improved "customer" service.
The highest value was placed on
achieving efficiencies. Public service
agencies were required to review core
responsibilities, to identify discretionary
areas, and to cut spending radically.
Ministries were merged and centralized,
substantial program areas were trans-
ferred to municipalities, whole sectors
previously regulated by government
became self-regulating, public servants
were laid off by the thousands and
regional and local service delivery offices
were closed throughout the province.

A Feeling Of Betrayal
Many of the ground-breaking initiatives
directed toward equitable service taken
by government in the early 1990's were
found not to meet the test of core
responsibilities. Instead they were
regarded as frills or add-ons, and many
were summarily terminated. This was

  "Service delivery concepts emphasizing equal treatment for
all were challenged on the demonstrable grounds that stan-
dardization, uniformity and sameness in policy and practice
were hardly adequate as governing principles" 		seen as not only the right thing to do
in terms of saving money, but also was
promoted as a correction from what
was sometimes described as a policy of
"reverse discrimination" that catered to
"special interest groups." Somehow there
  ment Equity Commission, and the
Advocacy Commission, organizations
created to address historic disadvantages
suffered by groups of people as a result
of their gender, race or disability.
My own office adopted a clear
mission to serve people equitably, justly
and fairly. We committed ourselves
publicly to a service concept where
people would be treated according to
their social location and individual
circumstances. This required dramatic
change to our policies and procedures, 		were raised, and at the same time a
pledge was made to transform the
public service in record time to meet
these expectations.
Government required a more
"business-like" approach to service
delivery and began to change its
language of operation to reflect this
requirement. Ministries were obliged to
consider "alternative service delivery"
models that included "partnerships"
with or transfers to the private sector,
and other privatization initiatives pro-		 was still an emphasis on doing more,
and to a higher standard, with less.
For the last several years, as I have
outlined in successive annual reports,
my office has witnessed the impact of
these changes on the every-day lives of
Ontarians. The public served by my
office is by definition in close contact
with government. Many are directly
dependent on its services and programs
for their well-being, and include the
people whose voices were given some
measure of recognition in an earlier
  Next Column. Next Column. Next Page. Top Page. First Page.
Page 3 MESSAGE
 
  period. Among those who were active
in pressing for the changes that had
been adopted as a new hallmark of
public administration, the hope and
anticipation from these struggles has
more recently been replaced by a
feeling of abandonment and betrayal.
They have been told that hard decisions
must be taken to preserve today's
standard of living for our children's 		grow and people can be expected to do
whatever is necessary to ensure that
government pays attention to them. In
some circles there is a tendency to rely
on the pejorative "special interest
groups," as a strategy to deflect con-
cern. In reality what is being talked
about are sets of interests that arguably
comprise those in the majority of the 		ment's restructuring initiatives and cuts
in spending. They are today, in many
cases, waiting longer for services to be
provided by fewer public servants
working to a lower standard, one that
is less than what they were told by gov-
ernment they could expect.
  tomorrow. But from the voices I hear,
there is neither satisfaction with today's
standards, nor a belief in the promise
of tomorrow, either for themselves or
their children. Instead, they see all
manner of critical services dramatically 		"The fact is a demonstrable lack of resources has led to an
inability to provide acceptable levels of service, and senior
government officials have failed to take adequate steps to
address the problem"
  cut back, from social assistance rates to
eligibility requirements for disability
benefits. They see an unwillingness on
the part of government officials to
make real change to serve people with
disabilities appropriately. They see
closed offices and overburdened public
servants too busy to take the time to
treat them with dignity and respect.
They see an inaccessible and down-
sized public service, no longer a sector
striving to remove systemic barriers.
As the province's Ombudsman, it is
my job to be aware of any deficiencies
in the administration of public service.
From my point of view, it would not
be an overstatement to say that public
service administration in Ontario is in
a state of crisis. It is one thing to con-
clude that people whose voices are no
longer being heard by government are
not being served appropriately. But
there is another aspect of the current
reality - these inadequately serviced
people are here to stay. If their needs
remain unattended, desperation will 		population. In any case, there is noth-
ing to be gained by encouraging the
use of divisive epithets to dismiss legiti-
mate claims for fair and equitable treat-
ment by public institutions.
It has become clear that efforts to
effect a wholesale transfer of a private
sector approach to the provision of
public service has been a failure. This
should not be surprising, given that the
bottom-line dictates of the business
world do not include the well-being of
people. The people who come to my
office do not see themselves as cus-
tomers, or as shareholders. In my expe-
rience they see themselves as unique
individuals with a responsibility to
contribute to society according to their
special talents from their particular
locations, and they expect that govern-
ments will ensure their needs are met
by serving them fairly. It has also
become clear that it is quite simply not
possible to do more with less. On the
contrary, people are painfully aware of
the dramatic effects of the govern-		 A Fundamental Contradiction
I reported last year on a number of key
program areas which were the subject
of complaint to my office and which
prompted me to initiate broad systemic
investigations. In human rights
enforcement, court-ordered support
payments, birth relative searches, the
processing of injured workers claims,
social assistance appeals and other
important areas it had become clear
that the new, leaner public service was
not able to deliver an acceptable level
of even the core services they were
obligated by legislation to provide. At
that time, the government ministries
involved provided assurances they would
take the necessary steps to address
unacceptable service levels. Regrettably,
a number of these same agencies were
the subject of Final Reports tabled with
the Legislature this spring. These reports
were the last step in the Ombudsman
investigation process, where I call upon
the Legislature as a whole to address an
unacceptable situation the government
  Next Column. Next Column. Next Page. Top This Page. First Page.
Page 4 MESSAGE
 
  has failed to correct. In each of the
cases I reported the public servants
involved were not at fault. Generally
speaking, they are committed profes-
sionals dedicated to serving the public
to the best of their abilities. The fact is
a demonstrable lack of resources has
led to an inability to provide acceptable
levels of service, and senior government
officials have failed to take adequate
steps to address the problems.
As Ombudsman I have witnessed
the development of what I can only
describe as an atmosphere of fear
among public servants, where senior
officials are afraid to question the wis-
dom of the government's approach for
fear of reprisal or loss of reappoint-
ment. As a result, many of the values 		the Family Responsibility Office going
out of its way to indicate the total
amount of money being delivered in
support payments, or the Ontario
Human Rights Commission emphasiz-
ing the number of cases being closed,
as if these figures serve as an accurate
reflection of overall service quality.
It has been my experience in recent
years that there is a fundamental con-
tradiction between promising higher
standards of service on one hand and
on the other, systematically underfund-
ing those agencies mandated to deliver
the service. This contradiction becomes
more acute as the gap between the rich
and the poor widens and there is
a greater need among the population,
especially those most vulnerable, for 		service administration. Strategic and
decisive action must be taken to re-
position and equip the public service
and to imbue its administration with
the values of fair and equitable treatment
for all people in Ontario. To accomplish
this, deliberate steps must be taken to
train and reinvigorate the public service
and to provide it with the necessary
tools to implement this vision.
This does not imply a return to
another time, or a rejection of new
ways of delivering service. Rather, in
my view, what is required to meet
today's challenge is the adoption of
new definitions of service standards.
Concepts of adequacy should include
that which is necessary to provide for
the well-being of people. Efficiency
 
"If the decline in our public institutions is to be arrested
and the crisis in everyday survival which real people are
experiencing is to be eradicated, we must have the courage
to re-vision the responsibilities of government in public
service administration." 		should be measured by including long
term social costs that accompany new
service arrangements, and at a minimum,
standards must require that people be
treated with respect and dignity. Among
other things, this requires that govern-
ment demonstrate its commitment to
  upon which the public service has his-
torically relied, including the obliga-
tion to "speak truth to power" even
when the truth is unwelcome have
been seriously undermined. I have also
observed a not unrelated trend as some
senior officials become unwilling to
admit their inability to deliver ade-
quate service. Instead they offer reas-
surances that despite evidence to the
contrary, all is well, things are getting
better, and improvement is just around
the corner. I have received a number of
such responses this year to investigative
findings. These often include statistics
taken out of context, as in the case of 		Fair and equitable treatment by govern-
ment. The result of this tension
between expectations and reality is a
public service in serious decline and
increasing numbers of people in crisis.

Re-Visioning Public Service
The challenge awaiting government for
the next decade and beyond is the
imperative of addressing this contradic-
tion. If the decline in our public insti-
tutions is to be arrested and the crisis
in everyday survival which real people
are experiencing is to be eradicated, we
must have the courage to re-vision the
responsibilities of government in public 		the protection and enforcement of
human rights by taking decisive steps to
eradicate systemic discrimination within
the public service itself Action must
also be taken to address the longstanding
ineffectiveness of the Ontario Human
Rights Commission, an agency whose
credibility among the public has been
seriously damaged by its repeated pat-
terns of delay and poor management.
We are at a crossroads in Ontario
where there are choices that must be
made. We can decide to stay the course
and hope that those who reassure us
things are getting better are right.
There are, however, consequences to
  Next Column. Next Column. Next Page. Top This Page. First Page.
Page 5 MESSAGE
 
  such a decision, particularly in light of
warning signals that have been evident
for some time. We cannot ignore the
very real prospect of a further decay in
public administration as the lineups for
service become longer and our ability
to keep up with demand is diminished.
There is no doubt that in this direction
lies a further loss of basic service,
including the protection of human
rights. And as one consequence leads to
another, we can expect increasing dis 		terms of governments from three dif-
ferent political parties. We have
endured tremendous change both
internally and externally and have
matured as an organization with pride
in its ability to adapt to changing cir-
cumstances. We have also struggled to
maintain our commitment to equitable
service in the face of funding cutbacks.
We were forced to close four of ten
regional offices and layoff more than
25% of our staff, reducing our ability 		accountability and transparency in gov-
ernment must be regarded as part of
the very fabric of our democracy. But
these principles must also be guarded
vigilantly if they are to remain so. They
cannot be taken for granted. As part of
this vigilance we must ensure that the
institutions which we have created to
protect these values are kept strong and
healthy. For the Ombudsman's office this
means a continuing commitment to
safeguard its independence from gov-
  plays of desperation, anger and hostility
among those who feel they are being
ignored or silenced.
The road I am advocating is not a
simple one to chart, particularly to re-
direct our energy toward fundamental
values where the bottom line focuses
on the people on the receiving end of
"We are at a crossroads in Ontario where there are choices
that must be made. We cannot ignore the very real
prospect of a further decay in public administration as the
lineups for service become longer and our ability to keep
up with demand is diminished."
  service delivery. Neither will results be
achieved overnight. However, setting
such a new direction is necessary to
allow all Ontarians to see themselves
and their needs reflected in their public
service and it will allow all of us to
move forward together. It will also
mean that we re-affirm a commitment to
fair and equitable treatment for all, to
the central mission of advancing
human rights in public administration
and to the promotion of a willingness
by government to be held accountable
for its actions.

Independence is Cornerstone
of Ombudsman's Credibility
At the end of my term as Ombudsman
I have been able to reflect on a full
decade of public administration in
Ontario, during which I have been
privileged to lead my office through 		to conduct outreach and public educa-
tion, while making it harder to service
a continuing high volume of com-
plaints. Within this context we made
many adjustments and restructured our
operation in several critical areas,
including: the creation of traveling staff
representatives to hold local intake
clinics; the opening of a province-wide
client access centre with rigourous
standards for service, including staff
contact within 24 hours and a tele-
phone program providing access to
interpreters in 110 languages; the
publication and wide distribution of
newsletters; and an investigative focus
on systemic complaints.
I have always believed in modeling
the Ombudsman office as an organiza-
tion that sets standards others can fol-
low. The concepts of equitable treat-
ment, respect for human rights, and 		ernment and the political process. This
independence is the cornerstone of
credibility for the Ombudsman's office
and it must be assured as the appoint-
ment of my successor is considered.
The process for appointing the Ombudsman is not a transparent one.
It remains something of a mystery as
there are no clear criteria for selection.
I am recommending the government
and the Legislature establish a public
and transparent process of appointment
to ensure the office of Ombudsman is
accessible to any who might seek it. In
addition, a special committee of the
Legislature should be created comprised
of one member from each of the recog-
nized parties and chaired by the Speaker
to oversee the appointment process.
The successful candidate should have
the approval of all members of the
committee. With such an appointment
  Next Column. Next Column. Next Page. Top This Page. First Page.
Page 6 MESSAGE
   
  process, the Legislature would reaffirm
its commitment to ensuring the
Ombudsman office remains indepen-
dent, effective and relevant for future
generations of Ontarians.
I have been immensely honoured
to have had an opportunity to fulfill
this role for the past ten years. It is one
I could not have carried out without
the support and guidance of so many
people. I would like to pay tribute to
the people of Ontario who have
worked with me every day to improve
public administration in our province
by speaking out whenever they experi-
ence unfairness. I gratefully acknowl-
edge the staff of Ombudsman Ontario,
with whom I have been privileged to
work as colleagues in moving forward 		the impetus for positive change, and
I wish to thank the dedicated public
servants upon whose cooperation in
resolving complaints we depend.
Finally, to my entire family and in par-
ticular to my partner Tom and daugh-
ter Jessica, who have sacrificed so much
at a personal level and whose love and
support have enabled me to serve in
the capacity of Ombudsman, I express
my love and appreciation. Nya weh.
Thank you.



Roberta Jamieson, Ombudsman 		 
Next Column.  
   
  OMBUDSMAN'S RECOMMENDATION
-----------------------------------------

The Government and the Legislature establish a public
and transparent process of appointment to ensure the
office of Ombudsman is accessible to any who might
seek it.

A special committee of the Legislature should be created
comprised of one member from each recognized party
and chaired by the Speaker to oversee the Ombudsman
appointment process. The successful candidate should
have the approval of all members of the committee.
Top This Page. First Page.