The Quebec Ombudsman Responds to EnDroit.ca

On April 30, 2026, EnDroit.ca submitted six specific questions to the Office of the Quebec Ombudsman, focusing on the gap between the institution’s official communications and its actual capacity to intervene. A few days later, the institution provided a serious, detailed and formal written reply. The reply confirms certain findings, contests others, and provides important new data on visits to correctional facilities. Here is the full reply, alongside our point-by-point analysis — in a spirit of institutional dialogue.

By Maxime Gagné — EnDroit.ca · Published on May 6, 2026 · Investigation Follow-up · Right of Reply · Quebec Ombudsman · 14 min read

On April 30, 2026, EnDroit.ca published an investigation titled « The Quebec Ombudsman: a Symbolic Role? », based on the analysis of official texts, critical reports from independent organizations such as the Ligue des droits et libertés and Alter Justice, as well as six documented requests submitted to the institution between 2022 and 2025. The article concluded that, despite its reassuring communications and a recommendation acceptance rate of over 98 %, the Quebec Ombudsman remains an institution with essentially non-binding power, whose mandate excludes a wide range of conflict situations Quebecers face when dealing with the State and its institutions.

In keeping with our editorial commitment, we sent on the same day, by email, a request for right of reply to the Office of the Quebec Ombudsman, structured around six specific questions. The reply, signed by Carole-Anne Huot, Media Relations Officer of the Citizen Experience and Communications Branch, was sent to us a few days later. It is reproduced here in full, in the order of the questions submitted, alongside our analysis of what each reply reveals, confirms or qualifies.

Methodological note

The Quebec Ombudsman’s replies are reproduced in full, without cuts or rewording, as they were transmitted to us by email. The original reply was issued in French; the English translation in this article is faithful to the institution’s wording. Our analysis, presented separately after each reply, reflects the views of EnDroit.ca alone. The purpose of this article is to allow readers to judge for themselves the scope of the replies provided, in light of the findings set out in the original article.

We wish to acknowledge from the outset that the quality, precision and seriousness of the reply received deserve clear recognition. The replies provided by Ms. Carole-Anne Huot cover all six questions submitted, cite the relevant legal provisions, provide recent figures — some of which appear in no official communiqué — and openly state the institution’s position on structural issues. In a Quebec media landscape where many public institutions limit themselves to acknowledgments of receipt or no response at all, the approach taken by the Office of the Quebec Ombudsman stands out. The analysis that follows is critical on substance, but it unfolds in a spirit of respect for the institution’s work and of institutional dialogue.

Tracking the implementation of accepted recommendations

Question submitted. The 98 % recommendation acceptance rate is regularly highlighted in your communications. How does the institution measure the gap between formal acceptance of a recommendation and its actual implementation by the bodies concerned? Does it maintain a public register tracking these implementations?

Our analysis. The reply confirms a central point of our investigation: follow-up on recommendations exists, but it is confidential. The institution writes explicitly that « all our follow-ups are documented in our intervention files, which are confidential ». For the citizen or journalist who wishes to verify whether an accepted recommendation has actually been implemented by a ministry, no public register can be consulted.

The reply also confirms that no sanction mechanism exists in cases of inertia by a body. Where no satisfactory measure is taken « within a reasonable time », the Ombudsman may, in order: notify the government in writing, mention the case in its annual report, or report it in a special report. None of these steps is binding on the body concerned. The leverage remains, in every case, media and political pressure.

Finally, the follow-up on recommendations in the annual report is a chronological follow-up, not a public dashboard tracking the actual state of implementation: each report presents new recommendations and certain reminders, but no public document consolidates, in a single overview, all the recommendations accepted in recent years together with their actual implementation status.

The 2011 special report on mental health in correctional facilities

Question submitted. Several major recommendations issued by your institution — particularly those of the 2011 special report on mental health services in correctional facilities — have still not been implemented 15 years later, while 74 suicides were recorded in provincial prisons between 2014 and 2024. How does the institution explain this prolonged inaction?

Our analysis. This reply deserves particular attention because it directly contests a significant finding of our original article — a finding we had supported with the investigation published by Le Devoir in November 2025. The Ombudsman states that the « flagship recommendation » of the 2011 report — the transfer to the Ministry of Health and Social Services of responsibility for care in correctional facilities — is now implemented.

On this point, there is therefore a substantive disagreement between two sources: on one side, Le Devoir‘s investigation of November 2025 documenting that the main recommendations of the 2011 report — and those of the Coroner’s Office — have still not been implemented; on the other, the Quebec Ombudsman’s official position stating that the flagship recommendation is implemented. This disagreement cannot be settled by our analysis alone. We invite readers to consult both the 2011 report and Le Devoir‘s investigation to form their own opinion. The figure of 74 suicides in provincial correctional facilities between 2014 and 2024, however, is not contested.

The reply also confirms a key point of our investigation: for systemic recommendations, the Ombudsman explicitly acknowledges that they may take « several months or even years to materialize », and that its only recourse in case of blockage is to « issue reminders » in the annual report or « inform parliamentarians ». No capacity to enforce implementation. This is exactly what the original article documented. The announcement of an upcoming investigation into complex mental health cases is a development worth following.

Confidentiality of investigation reports

Question submitted. Investigation reports following individual complaints, as well as visit reports for correctional facilities, remain confidential — including for the media. This opacity has been publicly denounced by the Ligue des droits et libertés and Alter Justice. Does the institution plan to review this confidentiality policy, or to propose legislative changes to that effect?

Our analysis. The reply provides important clarification on the legal framework: this confidentiality is not a discretionary internal policy but a statutory requirement under the law that governs the institution. On this level, the legal rigour of the reply is undeniable.

The question, however, addressed another dimension: does the Ombudsman, as an institution, wish to see this framework evolve? On that specific point, the reply cites the legal provisions without taking a position on their desirability. The Ombudsman, which has an explicit power to propose legislative changes under section 27.3 of its enabling Act, signals no initiative in that direction. Without a clearer institutional position, the status quo remains.

One important detail: section 27.4 states that the institution may publicly comment on an intervention « where it deems it of public interest to do so ». A power of transparency does therefore exist, partially, in the law. It depends on the institution’s discretionary assessment. The question remains open: on what criteria does this assessment rest, and could it lead to more regular transparent disclosures?

Visits to correctional facilities

Question submitted. According to public data reported by Pivot.quebec, the number of visits to provincial correctional facilities went from 14 in 2015-2016 to only 2 in 2021-2022, for 17 prisons. What is the institution’s position on these figures?

Our analysis. This is, without any contestation, the strongest and most important reply the Quebec Ombudsman provides to our investigation. It deserves clear editorial credit. The situation described by the 2021-2022 data (two visits for seventeen prisons) no longer reflects the reality of 2024-2025.

The figure of 14 inspection visits in 2024-2025 brings the institution back to the activity level of 2015-2016. This is, factually, a return to the highest standards observed in the last decade. On this specific point, the finding set out in our original article — although factually accurate at the time Pivot.quebec published its investigation — calls for an update. The COVID argument for 2021-2022 is also valid: virtually all independent inspections in Quebec were suspended during this period.

However, two points are not resolved by this reply. First, the question also concerned the « minimum one-visit-every-four-years per facility » plan presented in the Ombudsman’s 2023 report — the institution does not address this directly. Second, the content of the visit reports remains confidential: we now know that visits take place, but the public and the media still do not have access to the findings drawn from them.

The redirection mechanism for files

Question submitted. When a citizen brings a complaint that does not fall within the Ombudsman’s mandate — for example concerning a lawyer, a judge, a police officer, the DPCP, a municipality or an elected official — they are systematically redirected to another body, which may itself declare itself non-competent. Is there any tracking of what becomes of the redirected files?

Our analysis. This reply provides a major data point for understanding the institution’s operations, and we thank the Office of the Ombudsman for sharing it with such clarity.

First factual element: 12,242 grounds received in 2024-2025 concerned bodies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Of the 28,210 grounds processed in total that year, this represents nearly 43 % of total volume. In other words: nearly one citizen out of two who contacts the Ombudsman is directed to another resource without an analysis on the merits being conducted by the institution.

Second element: the institution states honestly that « we cannot follow up on redirected requests ». This rests on an understandable structural logic — the Ombudsman, having no jurisdiction over the bodies to which it directs citizens, cannot legally or technically ensure such follow-up. But this raises an important public-interest question: for these 12,242 files — for the year 2024-2025 alone — no independent authority knows what becomes of citizens once redirected, nor whether their request reaches a satisfactory outcome with the recommended resource.

Reforming the mandate

Question submitted. Are reforms to the Quebec Ombudsman’s mandate — including the granting of binding power over the implementation of recommendations, or the expansion of the mandate to municipal police forces and professional orders — being considered or sought by the institution itself?

Our analysis. This is the most politically loaded reply of all. It does not say yes, it does not say no — but it states an institutional positioning that, in practice, amounts to a categorical refusal of any reform. Three points are worth highlighting.

First, the institution explicitly refuses binding power. The phrase is clear: « Coercive power would move us away from the role of an ombudsman. » The Quebec Ombudsman therefore does not merely note that the law does not grant it such power — it states that it does not want it. This is a deliberate position. This settles, at the institutional level, the question raised for years by the Ligue des droits et libertés and several jurists: binding power will not be requested by the institution itself.

Second, the institution rules out any expansion of the mandate. The question included extending the mandate to municipal police forces and professional orders. The reply does not even address these points. The silence amounts to maintaining the status quo.

Third, and perhaps most striking, the Ombudsman itself cites a judgment that confirms the finding of our original article. The judgment Rouleau v. Placements Etteloc Inc., rendered in 2000, establishes that the Ombudsman « is not a sort of investigative arm of the courts » and that it « is not made available to litigants ». Yet that was precisely the central point of our investigation: for the majority of injustices a Quebecer suffers at the hands of the State or its institutions, the Ombudsman is not an effective recourse. The Ombudsman does not contest this. It confirms it, by citing case law.

What the Ombudsman’s reply reveals

What the reply clarifies and improves. On visits to correctional facilities, the Ombudsman provides important data that updates our original investigation: 14 inspection visits in 2024-2025, with 12 facilities visited by name. This is a return to the level of 2015-2016, and it is a positive development that we acknowledge without reservation.

What the reply confirms. Follow-up on recommendations exists, but it is confidential — no public register allows verification of whether a recommendation accepted at 98 % has actually been implemented. The power remains exclusively persuasive: no binding measure exists in case of inertia by a body. The institution does not seek binding power — the position is clear, deliberate, and means that no internal pressure will come from the institution to make the system evolve. 43 % of files received in 2024-2025 are redirected without follow-up. And the Rouleau judgment cited by the Ombudsman itself establishes that the institution is not a recourse for citizens in judicial litigation with the government.

What remains contested or unanswered. The 2011 report on mental health in detention: the Ombudsman states that the flagship recommendation is implemented; Le Devoir, in its November 2025 investigation, states the opposite for the main recommendations. This factual disagreement is not resolved by this exchange. The confidentiality of reports: the institution cites the law but does not say whether it wishes to see it evolve. The minimum-one-visit-every-four-years plan and the expansion of the mandate to municipal police forces and professional orders are not addressed.

Our conclusion after receiving the reply

The reply from the Office of the Quebec Ombudsman is, by its quality and seriousness, exactly the type of institutional dialogue every citizen-driven platform in Quebec should be able to engage in. For this, we wish to sincerely thank Ms. Carole-Anne Huot and everyone within the Office who contributed to the preparation of this detailed reply.

On substance, the reply does not change the fundamental conclusion of our original investigation. It enriches it, refines it on certain points, and confirms it — in the institution’s own words — on others. The Quebec Ombudsman is an administrative ombudsman with a precisely defined mandate, equipped with non-binding power of recommendation — a function it fully assumes and that it does not wish to see evolve into a coercive power. Nearly half of the files it receives are directed to other resources without possible follow-up. Its investigation reports remain confidential under the law that governs it. Its relationship with the bodies concerned rests on persuasion and cooperation.

Ultimately, the exchange between EnDroit.ca and the Office of the Quebec Ombudsman has yielded something valuable: obtaining, in the name of the public’s right to information, concrete data that enriches the public debate on the architecture of accountability in Quebec. For this, and for the transparency the institution has demonstrated, we are grateful. The debate on the possible evolution of the Quebec ombudsman’s role remains open — and it is precisely the kind of public debate that should take place calmly, on the basis of precise data such as the figures this reply has helped bring to light. EnDroit.ca will continue to document it, with respect for the work of the institutions concerned.