WINDSOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ISSUES

WINDSOR-ESSEX BILINGUAL LEGAL CLINIC

DAVID DIMITRIE

ONTARIO BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION, WINDSOR CHAPTER

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND, ONTARIO DIVISION

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY, WINDSOR REGION

KEVIN MACGREGOR

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA, ONTARIO DIVISION

WINDSOR-ESSEX COMMUNITY ADVOCACY NETWORK FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

SURANDRA BAGGA

WINDSOR ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF

-------------------------------------------------------

Monday 3 December 2001 Lundi 3 d1cembre 2001

The committee met at 0900 in the Promenade C Ballroom, Casino Windsor Hotel,
Windsor.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2001
LOI DE 2001 SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAP6ES DE L'ONTARIO

Consideration of Bill 125, An Act to improve the identification, removal and
prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities and to make related
amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 125, Loi visant " am1liorer le
rep1rage, l'1limination et la pr1vention des obstacles auxquels font face les
personnes handicap1es et apportant des modifications connexes " d'autres lois.

The Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): Good morning, everyone. I would like to bring
the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to order. I would like
to point out that today is the International Day of Disabled Persons. Also, for
the information of the audience, we have copies of the bill available at the
back of the room in Braille, we have audiotapes, we have disks, we also have
the bill in the French version, plus we have copies in large print.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT COMMITTEE,
WINDSOR/ESSEX COUNTY CHAPTER

The Chair: Our first presentation this morning is from the Ontarians with
Disabilities Act Committee, the Windsor-Essex chapter. I would ask the
individual to state your name for the record. On behalf of the committee,
welcome. You have 20 minutes for your presentation this morning.

Mr Dean La Bute: Good morning. My name is Dean La Bute. I'm the chairman of the
Windsor-Essex chapter of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. On
behalf of the committee, I'd like to welcome you to Windsor today.

I have had a standing quid pro quo with government standing committees over the
years, and that is the following: that I would not make submissions in writing
to the standing committees until they provided to me the alternative format
that I required to access your information. I'm happy to say that this
committee and the government of the day have provided your bill, Bill 125, in
alternative formats to the disabled community. Therefore, in recognition of
that, you have before you printed copies in your format of our submission to
you today.

In addition to that, I have for Susan to pass on to you an audiotape copy of
our submission, a CD disk of our submission, a printed copy in 15-point print
-- which is the standard print by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind
-- and for any panellists who may be visually impaired, large 20-point print.
In addition to this, I also happen to have for the record a copy in Braille of
our submission today.

Once again, on behalf of the Windsor-Essex chapter of the Ontarians with
Disabilities Act Committee, I welcome this committee to Windsor. This is an
important day for this chapter, for we have worked long and hard for an
Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Our chapter was formed in November 1994, and
ever since the formation of this chapter, we have been most active in this
community and have had community support in our work toward a strong and
effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We have worked in conjunction with
our provincial chapter, headed up by David Lepofsky, in making a submission to
the government party and the opposition parties going back to April 22, 1998,
where we presented to the government and the opposition parties a submission
that we fondly refer to as the Blueprint for a Strong and Effective Ontarians
with Disabilities Act. It was within that document that we brought forward the
issue of inclusion of persons with all disabilities, including physical,
mental, sensory, visible and invisible disabilities. Those categories are
represented in the membership of our chapter in Windsor and Essex county.

As articulated in the brief before you, over the course of these six years we
have had many events staged in this community to bring forward to the community
the need for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. As
outlined in the document, we've had parades, we've had marches and we've had
educational seminars. We've had an extensive, close working relationship with
the media in this community where we have held town hall meetings on the issue
of the need for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We've been on radio
programs where we have literally had call-in shows for hours on multiple
occasions addressing the need for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

You will find that there is a continued commitment in this community for such
legislation that is not met by any other community. To quote David Lepofsky,
the best ideas, time and time again, have come out of the Windsor-Essex
chapter. Time and time again we have led the way in this province to bring this
issue to the forefront.

Our submission today, I would like to say, is on behalf of our members, their
friends and families and our community and, I would like to add, in the memory
of three members of our committee, who were integral to the success of our
committee, in that we've lost these members over the course of this past year.
That is the nature of disabilities. People with disabilities deal with many
things in their lives. Over the course of this past year, I must regretfully
inform you that we have lost Dr Sam Friio, who was our expert on the Americans
with Disabilities Act; Mr Graham Davies, a gentleman who worked very hard in
our committee, who represented well the HIV/AIDS community and who headed up
our newsletter and our Web page; and Mr Mike Lawson, who recently died, and was
chairman of our membership committee and, as the chair of the Windsor-Essex
injured workers group, had a deep devotion to the need for a strong and
effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Each of these gentlemen is truly
missed by our chapter and by our community and each of these gentlemen was
under the age of 50.

Our submission today covers six areas, followed by eight recommendations. The
areas we have identified in this brief we maintain will enhance Bill 125. We
readily acknowledge that this government and this minister have brought forward
in this country the very first disability act in Canada, and they are to be
commended for that. But we also maintain that this bill requires substantial
amendments to make it a strong and effective bill to meet the needs of more
than 1.6 million Ontarians.

As for the areas of our brief that are covered off today, they include the
demographics of Windsor and Essex county. They also include the issue of
mandatory versus voluntary barrier removal; the issue of resources; the role,
function and authority of the access advisory council; the private sector; and
last, but not least important, the role of the federal government. We've
clearly identified these areas because these are the areas that will enhance
this bill and impact upon the lives of persons with disabilities on a daily
basis.

The first component of that: the demographics of Windsor and Essex county are a
microcosm of the province of Ontario. You'll find in our submission that the
population of Windsor and Essex county is approximately 350,000. Of that
350,000, approximately 22% of the population are identified by the
Windsor-Essex United Way as seniors, those who are 55 years of age and older.
It is worth noting that 18.3% of the population in Windsor and Essex county are
people with disabilities. To reflect the ethnic diversity of Windsor and Essex
county, we rank third in Ontario, with more than 10% of our population
identifying themselves as visible minorities.

What is critical about these figures is the changing demographics within our
community, the province and this country. It is projected by both our Essex
county United Way and by Stats Canada that by the year 2015, one in four
citizens of Windsor and Essex county will have a disability. Another
interesting figure that will impact upon the need for a strong and effective
Ontarians with Disabilities Act is the fact that, according to Stats Canada,
Canada is unique in the world, where 34% of our population are baby boomers.
Baby boomers are those born from 1946 on through to the early 1960s. That first
wave of baby boomers has turned 55 this year, and if you think that we are
pressured now on the goods, services and facilities in this community required
to meet the needs of persons with disabilities in the area of health care, for
example, in the area of transportation, in the area of employment and training,
in the area of social housing, you haven't seen anything yet, because as the
baby boomers move along that continuum, it will only increase the demand for
strong and effective legislation. That is why we have brought to your attention
the demographics on Windsor and Essex county.

0910

As for the issue of mandatory versus voluntary barrier removal and the issue of
resources, our first recommendation of eight addresses this issue. Our first
recommendation is that the Ontario government must set forth in regulations
time limits for the development and implementation of plans for the removal and
prevention of barriers.

Recommendation number 2 calls upon the Ontario government to provide adequate
funding for those organizations identified in the act to implement their plans
for barrier removal and prevention. In our opinion, this is absolutely
critical. The fact of the matter is that those organizations identified in the
legislation require funding to assist them to implement those barrier removals,
to implement the plans for barrier removal and prevention of barriers. That is
why we are absolutely clear in our opinion that these recommendations must be
reflected in the amendments brought forward to Bill 125. As articulated in our
document, we clearly state the rationale behind this, and you may read that for
yourself in the document.

Our third recommendation addresses the access advisory council. It's our
recommendation that the government of Ontario give the access advisory council
the authority and mandate to (a) determine benchmarks and provincial standards
for barrier-free communities, (b) advise the Ontario government and its
ministries on disability issues and the development of regulations, (c) educate
the government and the general public on disability issues, (d) monitor the
implementation of guidelines and plans for the removal and prevention of
barriers and (e) advocate for a barrier-free community.

We feel that these changes must be implemented to strengthen the goal of the
access advisory council. Without these changes being brought forward and made
part of the act, it will be but an advisory council. Advice is good, but to
have credibility in the eyes of the government, to have credibility in the eyes
of the ministries, to have credibility in the eyes of the public and to have
credibility in the eyes of the disability community, this access advisory
council must have these authorities and mandates to be effective and to meet
the needs of 1.6 million Ontarians who demand that they be recognized under
law.

Over and above this, recommendations 3, 4 and 5 apply to the access advisory
council. The next recommendation is that the access advisory council must have
adequate resources to monitor the stages of implementation in communities
across Ontario with the full authority to issue a public annual report in
alternative formats on the progress of barrier removal and prevention. And
last, as it applies to the council, the membership on the council must be
representative of consumers and major disability advocacy groups in Ontario. We
feel that these recommendations 3, 4 and 5 will strengthen and enhance the role
of the access advisory council and in fact give it the ability to do its job
properly.

As for recommendations 6 and 7, they apply to the public sector, for in the
life of a person with disabilities our daily encounters in the community take
place principally within the private sector. It is not that often that we deal
with the government of Ontario or municipal governments, but rather on a
day-to-day basis we deal with the private sector. Therefore, recommendations 6
and 7 address the issue of the public sector. Currently, based upon our
briefings with the minister -- and I had the privilege of meeting with Minister
Jackson on a consultation on the bill -- it is my understanding and that of our
chapter that this bill will extend over a period of time to all sectors, which
would include the private sector, over the course of the next 10 years. We
acknowledge that. In our Blueprint for a Strong and Effective Ontarians with
Disabilities Act, we recommended that we did not want this to be brought about
within one week or one month or one year, but we acknowledged the need to phase
this in through the means of education over the course of time so that everyone
will be on board at the end of the day, and for us, the end of the day is no
longer than a maximum of 10 years for phasing in.

Therefore, the government of Ontario, by regulation, must develop guidelines
and timelines for the private sector for barrier removal and prevention.
Recommendation number 7 is that the government of Ontario must provide the
private sector with incentives, that is, financial incentives, to remove
barriers and for the prevention of barriers. This is absolutely critical. This
may be in the form of grants, tax credits. You are bright, articulate,
intelligent people. You can apply your own rationale as to how to bring this
about, but it must be done.

Recommendation number 8 does not apply to Bill 125, but rather we call upon the
Ontario government to demand a meeting with the government of Canada to
commence work on the creation of a Canadians with Disabilities Act. We feel
that this is critical to complete the circle so that it is totally inclusive in
the process of meeting the needs of persons with disabilities in the province
of Ontario. There is a term of "collateral benefits." By having the federal
government brought on board, it will act as a catalyst for the other provinces
in our fine country to follow the lead set by Ontario in bringing forward a
strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

We truly believe that with the incorporation of these recommendations into Bill
125, we will have an act that will meet the needs, now and for the foreseeable
future, of people with disabilities. We will settle for no less. It is
imperative that the federal government, as I've stated, be brought on board to
complete the circle. We are a growing legion of people in this community and in
this province. Our rights are guaranteed to us under the federal Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and also under the Human Rights Code. These are not
privileges we are requesting but rights we are demanding.

Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to say the ball is now in your court. We
have spoken. We now ask our government to state that you have listened, you
have heard what we have said and you have taken it with an open mind and an
open heart and will act on our recommendations to strengthen this bill. I'm
open for questions.

0920

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have approximately a minute per caucus and
I'll start with the government side for a brief question.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much for the presentation. I was
just wondering, with your recommendation number 8, to bring the federal
government forward to implement a disabilities act for all of Canada, is that
the answer for all of Canada? Do we need first one in each province and then
one nationally, or should we be working with the national one?

Mr La Bute: I'd like to answer that. As you may recall, in the United States
they have the Americans with Disabilities Act, but their structure is such that
what impacts on the day-to-day life of a person with disabilities in the United
States falls under federal jurisdiction. But, frankly, under the Canadian
structure what impacts on the day-to-day lives of persons with disabilities
falls principally under provincial jurisdiction. There are areas, such as
transportation and employment, that fall under the federal jurisdiction and
therefore it's imperative for the areas that fall under federal jurisdiction to
be addressed under a Canadians with Disabilities Act, to work in concert with a
strong and effective provincial law.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): An excellent presentation. Just a
quick question. As you said, the federal government needs to have a strong
role. This bill provides for municipalities to have a role, but only
municipalities with a population of 10,000 or over. I'm interested in your
comment on whether the municipalities should be separate in their efforts or
whether there needs to be strong provincial control for everyone in Ontario.

Mr La Bute: I look at it this way, Mr Parsons. The fact of the matter is that
each level of government has a role to play. It's like a fine symphony
orchestra. To have great music, you have to be working in coordination with one
another to bring forward the sound that the audience will enjoy. We need all
three levels of government to work in concert with each other to meet the needs
of the population of Canada.

Keep in mind that this law, Bill 125, addresses the needs of persons with
disabilities, but there's a residual benefit to this. Everyone in the province
of Ontario, everyone in this country, will benefit through the enactment of
such a law. It is not just the disabled who make use of ramps, but a mother
with a child in a stroller and one in tow certainly benefits from the ramp as
opposed to having to go up stairs. There are many other areas that we look upon
as having a revolutionary concept. It's called common sense, and I believe the
government members would recognize that. The fact of the matter is that what
we've put forward in our recommendations for enactment as amendments to Bill
125 are revolutionary in that it is common sense. Each one of them makes sense
and enhances the quality of the bill to meet the needs of the population of
Ontario.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you very much for your presentation
this morning and the obvious effort that has gone into this set of
recommendations. You have been working on this for the past six years, you
indicate, and obviously see the bill that has been tabled as having some
shortcomings. You've made, I think, six excellent recommendations --
Mr La Bute: Actually, Mr Martin, there are eight recommendations.

Mr Martin: I'm sorry. Yes, you're right, eight excellent recommendations. The
question I have for you is, if the government doesn't agree to these
recommendations, is the bill worth passing?

Mr La Bute: We have given this considerable thought and discussion and we are
of the opinion that the government of the day is open to recommendations, is
open to amendments. We call upon the government members and the opposition
members to work in unison to bring about these necessary amendments to the
bill. With these amendments, this bill must be enacted, and the sooner the
better. It is not to be withdrawn. If there are absolutely no amendments, we
still look forward to this bill being passed. But in all frankness, gentlemen,
we have been working at this for six years. We will continue to work at this,
be it with this government or the following government. We will not quit. We
are here for the long haul for a strong, effective Ontarians with Disabilities
Act. Whether this party, the government party, forms the next government or one
of the opposition parties, we will be knocking at your door to enhance, to
strengthen whatever legislation becomes law in Ontario.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your
presentation this morning.

Before I call on the next presenter I would remind members that checkout time
is 11 o'clock this morning. Also, instead of having a break, at 11:40 if you
could put on your agenda that the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, Ontario
division, will be making a presentation.

WINDSOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON DISABILITY ISSUES

The Chair: With that I'll go to our next presenter, which is the Windsor
Advisory Committee on Disability Issues. I would ask the presenter to please
come forward and state your name for the record. On behalf of the committee,
welcome.

Ms Carolyn Williams: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Carolyn Williams.
I am Chair of the Windsor Advisory Committee on Disability Issues. I just want
to start out by saying that our advisory committee fully supports the eight
recommendations that the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee,
Windsor-Essex Chapter, just put forward to you. We also are fully in support of
the complete package of amendments that David Lepofsky has, I believe, already
presented to you. Today I just wanted to talk a little bit about some personal
issues and some municipal issues.

I was on the Internet this week and I was looking at certain areas of the
ministry. I see that we have core business, with women's issues listed there;
we have core business, seniors' issues listed there; core business, citizenship
issues, during the 2000-01 budget. I see a lot of money allocated to all sorts
of issues: citizenship, $78 million; women's issues, $16 million; citizenship,
$35 million; seniors' issues, $2 million; regional services, $7 million; and
the administration of the ministry, $18 million. However, I don't see any money
allocated for disability issues. I'm sure it has come out of some pocket
someplace, but I don't really see where.

I'm not disappointed with the act as it stands. I think there is room for a lot
of improvement. I'm especially concerned about financing some of these changes.
Our small committee has been operating for 20 years. Our budget last year was
$29,000. Actually, we had $7,000 surplus, so it came in at $36,300. That's not
a very large amount of money but we've done quite a bit with it over the last
20 years. That money primarily pays for a part-time coordinator.

I was fortunate to be able to go down and hear the reading of Bill 125 in the
Legislature. I was a little -- what's the word? -- offended, I guess, by the
partisanship that occurred during the reading. I have to tell you in all
honesty that disability issues are issues with respect to humanity and they
cross all partisan levels, all genders. It's a portion of humanity that, over
our world history, is at the bottom rung of the ladder. Even in Nazi Germany,
the first people they killed, before they killed the Jews, were disabled
persons.

0930

I feel I have a pretty good handle on the disability community just from
personal experience. I have a mobility impairment. I have a brother who is
currently living in community living. I have a niece and a nephew living on the
streets in Toronto, addicted to crack.

Our funding is really severely lacking in a lot of areas. Maryvale in Windsor
is a teen youth centre, and beds have been cut. When I was living in Toronto,
we tried to get help for my niece and nephew, from the ages of 12 on. My nephew
did go into Youthdale. I'm sure you're aware of what Youthdale is. It's a
crisis centre in Toronto. It has 11 beds. He was in there twice after he tried
to kill his mother, but it took that much to get him into that facility.

We're talking here about access, we're talking here about education. When I
came back from Toronto on the plane, when I was de-planing, I was literally
treated like a refrigerator. I was put on a dolly, flung backwards, not
strapped down. I became so frightened that I ordered the man off the plane. I
am going to be making a Canadian human rights report and I will take it to the
top. I'm just one person. I can think of half a dozen instances where I could
go to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Last year, I was fortunate to be presenting a brief to Minister Stockwell when
he was here for the Employment Standards Act. Within two or three moments of my
starting my report, he reminded me that I was talking to the wrong ministry.
Since when are disabled people who are seeking employment and go to the
Ministry of Labour not talking to the right ministry? I was so dejected as a
result of that comment that I never did submit the brief through the e-mail. I
did tell Minister Jackson about it. The time limit has passed to take that to
the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and I wouldn't do that, but I am going to
make the statement public today.

Our government, the people we elect, truly do need education, and there has to
be money in order to educate people. It's difficult to look a disabled person
in the eye and say, "I'm sorry, I haven't got money for you."

Assistive devices programs have been cut by your government. If you're using a
mobility device, you live in that device 24/7, except when you're in bed. Try
to sit in the same chair for five years and expect it to operate properly. I'm
sorry, it won't. The one I'm sitting in right now is held together with duct
tape. I can afford to put new tires on it every two years. Fortunately, I'm up
for a new vehicle and I'm hoping the repair costs won't be too high. These are
just personal issues.

I think with respect to the act that the municipal aspect of the act is
extremely important but it's going to need some money. Unfortunately, you've
kind of pushed the Trillium Foundation over to tourism, but that might be one
area through which financial help can come to the municipalities in order to
set up these advisory committees. We already have 19 advisory committees in
Ontario. Some money should possibly go to those committees that are already in
action to help disseminate the information to the other communities. Why
reinvent the wheel? We've already done a lot of work. We can share that.

I can't remember which minister or MPP mentioned smaller municipalities being
involved. I think that would have to be on an elective basis, but I do know
there has been a complaint from Parry Sound that they were left out. So I think
if there is any funding that comes out of this, municipalities that have less
than 10,000 people, if they choose to have an advisory committee, there should
be funding available for them.

I guess that's pretty well what I wanted to say. I just think it's extremely
important that members of the disability community educate one another on their
needs and that the government educate itself. It's very difficult to walk in
another person's shoes until you've lived there for a while. I appreciate that,
but I really believe we have to start our education process at the highest
levels and at the lowest levels of government.

The Chair: We have approximately two minutes per caucus and I'll start with the
official opposition.

Mr Parsons: I'm intrigued a little bit about your comment about smaller
municipalities. My sense was that the purpose of the ODA was to level the
playing field, that there be no barriers, regardless of whether a person has a
disability or not.

Following that line, just to clarify, I'm wondering if you meant that people in
smaller municipalities who have a disability -- should they not have the same
rights as persons in larger municipalities?

Ms Williams: Oh, definitely.

Mr Parsons: Because this act provides for exemptions for 10,000 and under.

Ms Williams: I viewed that specifically as being that that municipality may not
be able to afford it. That municipality may be in a demographic where getting
the volunteer staff to work on that might be difficult for them. Frankly, I
think there should be one in every municipality or there should be a person
involved in that municipality, responsible for disability issues expressly as
part of their job. Yes, it should level the playing field everywhere.

Mr Parsons: There should be the same access regardless of where a person lives.

Ms Williams: Regardless. All over Ontario and Canada, yes.

Mr Martin: Thank you for coming this morning. You list a whole lot of the
challenges that are faced by people out there across the province, and
certainly your own experience.

In your review of this act -- you've obviously taken some interest in it in
that you came to Toronto when it was tabled -- will it deal with, respond to,
answer, give you any sense of relief that those issues you have listed here
this morning will be dealt with because this act becomes the law in the
province?

Ms Williams: I can't give that an unequivocal yes, of course, because the act
clearly is deficient in a number of areas. I would have to say the Ontario
building code is revamped every three or four years, I believe, so I see no
reason why, if we don't get everything we're asking for right now, these issues
cannot come up in the future and be amended. We're all on a learning curve
here. If you go back in history, you'll find that community living -- my
brother was in an institution for the first 35 years of his life, and he's now
in the community participating in life skills classes. I'm sure that created a
fairly large savings for the government, because now the people are less in a
hospital environment and it's better for the community living persons.

All in all, I think there's a lot of room for improvement and, as Mr La Bute
mentioned, we won't stop until we get a level playing field.

0940

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Thank you, Ms Williams, for joining us. In
speaking with a personal friend of mine, Councillor Valentinis, he told me you
were a terrific person doing the work that you're doing, so I pass that
compliment along to you.

Ms Williams: Thank you.

Mr Spina: I quickly wanted to address two elements that you mentioned. One was
the funding issue and also the building code issue, and then I have a quick
question, so I'll try to get through this quickly in the time allocated.

The May 2000 budget does give a breakdown of some new funding for new
facilities for adults with developmental disabilities: $55 million more this
year and growing to nearly $200 million in the next six years; also $27 million
over three years to upgrade, renovate, build or purchase new facilities for
some community mental health organizations, for those disabled in that way.

The Web sites don't often give a breakdown of the funding budget within the
ministry, so your criticism is well taken. Out of the budget that you mentioned
for citizenship, I think it's $35 million that is for disabilities in various
ways, for children's treatment, respite, research and development,
transportation, special education, tax incentives, some income and employment
supports and so on.

Ms Williams: I'd like to see that on the Web site. I think that's important.

Mr Spina: Yes, it should be. I agree with you that it should be on the Web
site. Thank you.

Section 9 of the bill relates to the building code and it says, "If a project
relates to an existing or proposed building, structure or premises for which
the Building Code Act, 1992 and the regulations made under it establish a level
of accessibility for persons with disabilities, the project shall meet or
exceed that level in order to be eligible to receive funding under a
government-funded capital program." That is a specific clause in the bill, and
if you think that we could improve on that, we certainly would appreciate your
input on it.

Ms Williams: I'll look over that. I think the deficiency in the Ontario
building code to a great degree is that technology is surpassing the ability to
implement things. It's important to keep up with technology as quickly as we
can. There are things like voice chips in elevators. They are very inexpensive
and they really should be in every building, especially ones that have public
access. So it's not a big cost. As you go through certain markets, you have to
pass through a theft device. You have to make sure that that is an exit. I've
actually gotten my wheelchair stuck in between two of them because they didn't
treat that as an exit. So technology really goes too fast for our building
code.

Perhaps I could just mention two quick things, because I forgot to mention
them. I don't know what kind of programs we have in our schools that train
architects in barrier-free design, but that's something you may want to
consider, supporting a program like that. Also, we're very deficient in the
number of sign language interpreters that we have and that businesses can
access. Perhaps some sort of tuition rebate might be in order to try and bring
people into that field. There are a number of areas where we need the teachers.

The Chair: With that, we've run out of time. On behalf of the committee, thank
you very much for your presentation this morning.

Ms Williams: Thank you. I'm just going to leave this with you. I did not have
as many copies as I would have liked. It's a copy of our 2000 annual report.
It's my personal copy, so there are a few highlighted things in there, but it
might be interesting to look at.

WINDSOR-ESSEX BILINGUAL
LEGAL CLINIC

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Windsor-Essex Bilingual Legal
Clinic. I would ask the presenter to please come forward and state your name
for the record. On behalf of the committee, welcome. You have 20 minutes for
your presentation this morning.

Ms Stephanie Spiers: Good morning. My name is Stephanie Spiers and I'm one of
three lawyers who work with the Windsor-Essex Bilingual Legal Clinic. We are
part of Legal Aid Ontario, one of 70-odd clinics across the province that
provide free legal services to low-income individuals. As such, we have a lot
of interaction with members of the disability community. We're also a member of
the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, Windsor-Essex chapter, so we
also have that connection to this issue.

We witness daily barriers faced by persons with disabilities in obtaining
employment or accessing education and other services. Today we want to talk
about some of the shortcomings that we see and problems posed by the bill, and
we're going to be quite specific about the interaction between Bill 125 and the
human rights legislation that's currently in existence, the Ontario Human
Rights Code, and where there may be some potential that the act could actually
detract from the code. That's one of our concerns, and we'll be talking about
specifically some definitions in some key sections.

Basically, we'd like to start by saying that Bill 125, in our view, is about
the creation of accessibility plans by various public sector entities. It's not
really rights legislation, and we would like it to become more of a rights
piece of legislation. There are no new rights for persons with disabilities
with respect to accessibility. There are no legal procedures or enforcement
mechanisms under the act. There's no mechanism for independent review of the
activities taken pursuant to this legislation, nor is there independent
interpretation of provisions. That means that any interpretation will have to
come through court challenges, which I believe we all understand can be costly
and time-consuming, and it's very difficult to access the courts for many
people and for many organizations.

It appears from the reading of the legislation that the bill is not intended to
interfere with the present human rights regime in Ontario. It explicitly
recognizes and affirms the legal obligations of the government which exist
already with respect to the provision of access for persons with disabilities.
That's subsection 3(1). You'll note that the definition of "disability" is
lifted right from the code, minus some changes of terminology.

However, one of the problems we see with this is that the definition of access
and the notions of access have evolved with time. As recently as last year, the
Human Rights Commission reissued its Policy and Guidelines on Disability and
the Duty to Accommodate, which in some cases provided for higher levels of
planning and accessibility than we currently see in the bill. The problem with
this is that a failure to incorporate that particular policy guideline or to
allow for its interplay may cause interpretations of both the Human Rights Code
and this bill that would provide for a lesser level of accessibility than we
currently have in the province.
We do see that the bill provides that nothing in the act limits the operation
of the Human Rights Code, and it would be hoped that this would be interpreted
broadly. However "limiting the operation of" could be interpreted quite
narrowly and it could be used, as I stated earlier, because we don't have any
interpretative body that's connected to the bill, to actually take away from
existing legal rights of persons with disabilities and also to interpret the
Human Rights Code less broadly than it has been currently interpreted. For
example, right now there's a notable difference in language between the bill
and the code in that the planning initiatives are to, in the language of the
bill, "have regard to" accessibility, which is not very specific. The code
requires accommodation up to the point of undue hardship. This has been fleshed
out through the courts; it's been fleshed out through the commission itself. We
have a very specific understanding of what that means. So we're looking at the
possibility of having a lesser standard.

0950

I would like to talk specifically about some of the actual sections and how we
feel they could be somewhat improved, some of the problems.

The definition of "barrier" does appear to be quite inclusive, and we're
pleased that it provides for many kinds of barriers, including attitudinal
barriers, communication etc. There are three problems that we see could occur
with the definition that we'd like the drafters to address when looking at
providing for a final draft of this legislation.

First of all, the definition says -- let me just read from the act --
"`barrier' means an obstacle to access for persons with disabilities that is
not an obstacle to access for other persons." In a sense, this creates a
disability-exclusive or the potential for a disability-exclusive interpretation
and definition. The fear here, or the potential problem here, is that it may be
that when non-disabled persons encounter the same barrier, it will not meet the
definition or the test of this definition; it will not meet the definition of
"barrier." An example may be persons who require flex time. A person with a
disability may require that to deal with transportation problems or to deal
with fatigue or whatever; flex time may be needed for many reasons. This may
constitute a barrier. However, other persons who are not disabled may also
require flex time to deal with child care arrangements, to deal with caring for
an aged parent, whatever the reason. This could be used to determine that this
is not a barrier. So this is just a possible problem from a legal perspective.

Also, it refers to "persons," in the plural. We would ask that it would refer
to "person" so that it could take an approach that would not allow a barrier to
exist even if it was only affecting one person. This is the approach adopted by
the Human Rights Code.

We'd also like to note that the interpretation of the Human Rights Code has
developed so that we do have acknowledgement of barriers that may not be
obvious on their face; they're adverse-effect barriers. Adverse effect has not
been taken into consideration in this particular definition, and we would ask
that it be considered.

Another important term that has been defined is "disability." As I mentioned
earlier, it's lifted from the Human Rights Code. Of course, the word "handicap"
has been replaced with "disability" in the code, which is a positive step
forward. One of the shortcomings of this definition is that persons with
perceived disabilities, who are included under the Human Rights Code, have not
been specifically addressed or included under Bill 125. It's not clear why this
has been done, because we see that attitudinal barriers are specifically
recognized, and these two, of course, go together. So this may have been an
oversight, but we would ask that this be taken into consideration.

I would like to go on and talk about a few of the provisions.

The duties of the government of Ontario as set out in sections 4 to 10 provide
for planning etc. However, it is unclear what impact these particular
obligations that are set out there will have on the much stronger steps that
are set out, as I mentioned earlier, in Policy and Guidelines on Disability and
the Duty to Accommodate, which was published in 2000 by the Ontario Human
Rights Commission. So we see this as a major potential drawback in that it
might actually limit what is currently being required under the human rights
regime.

One of the examples is with regard to standards under the building code.
Section 4 does deal with this, and one thing that is problematic is that there
is no requirement that there be guidelines for retrofitting structures. So it's
not a step up, as far as we can see, from what's currently in the building
code. This is, however, an obligation that is generally imposed on governments
and others who provide services to the public under the Human Rights Code, so
we don't understand why this has been exempted from this particular
legislation, which should deal with exactly this issue. The duty under the
code, of course, would be the standard of undue hardship, so we certainly feel
that Bill 125 should deal with, or at least consult with, the existing regime
with regard to retrofit guidelines.

I'd also like to address section 8 for a moment, responsibility toward
government employees. This provides that government employees will have their
accessibility needs accommodated "in accordance with the Human Rights Code";
then it goes on to say, "to the extent that needs relate to their employment."
This qualification is new language that's not in the code. It may be applied
very narrowly so as to exclude the government's obligation to provide certain
things that are now required under the code with a standard of undue hardship;
for example, providing attendant care or accessible parking. It may not be the
intent of the legislation, but we query why the legislation would have used
such broad language when we do already have existing measures that would
provide for greater standards. So one of the major changes we're asking for is
that these definitions be carefully looked at and the wording tightened up to
at least meet the standard of the Human Rights Code.

Of course, one of the major problems, which we're not going to deal with in the
oral presentation today, is the lack of enforcement mechanisms. Our written
paper will address further that one of the things that we're asking, as the ODA
committee has already requested, is that there be greater enforcement measures
in the act so that the statement of policy set out in the preamble, that all
Ontarians with disabilities can enjoy and fully participate in life in Ontario,
could actually be realized. That's not going to happen, we submit, without
stronger enforcement measures.

That's all we have to submit to you orally today.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have a minute and a half per caucus, and
I'll start with Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Good morning. This is indeed an interesting presentation. Up to this
point, we've heard very clearly from several groups that unless there are
changes made to this act, it really isn't going to be helpful; it's not going
to make much difference in the life of the disabled citizen in this province.
But what you're saying to us this morning is that it's not just a factor of it
not making a difference; you're saying that it could in fact take away rights
that are already there, particularly under the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
What you're saying to us is that if the bill is passed as it presently
presents, this is a net loss to the disabled community. Is that correct?

Ms Spiers: That's the potential through the interpretation of these various
sections, yes. That's right. That's what we're saying.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): Thank you, Ms Spiers, for your
presentation. I have just a clarification. You mentioned an adverse-effect
barrier. Can you give an example to explain what you mean by that?

Ms Spiers: The courts have dealt with the concept -- I'm going to give the
example in discrimination, and I'll try and make the parallel to barrier --
where there may not be a perceived discrimination, but the effect of a piece of
legislation may discriminate. There have been countless examples, but I'm just
going to think of one in which a piece of -- I can't remember the exact case,
but it had to do with pregnant women. The idea is that the effect may create a
barrier, or in this example may create discrimination, although on its face it
is not discriminatory. It is not saying, "We exclude pregnant women," but the
effect is that, because pregnant women must take time off and the legislation
didn't allow for time off, it therefore had an adverse effect --
discrimination.

1000

The same parallel works with a barrier. On its face it may not appear to be a
barrier, but because of a certain limitation of a group of persons -- I wish I
could come up with a good example for you right now. Let me see if I have one
in my material. Does that provide any clarification? I can provide a proper
example for you in written form.

The Chair: I'll have to ask you to do that because we are running out of time
and I have to go to the official opposition.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I want to see if in the time we have, which is
limited, you could elaborate on this statement you made that there could be a
lesser level of accessibility -- I think those were the words you used -- by
this act. Could you give us some examples of where that might be a problem?

Ms Spiers: One example I talked about was that right now there's been a policy
guideline put out by the Human Rights Commission requiring that certain
government bodies implement plans to accommodate. We're concerned this
legislation will not even meet that level. Another example is that the Human
Rights Code touches on the private sector and requires that accommodations be
made to the point of undue hardship in the private sector. As you know, this
legislation does not touch on that sector really at all. There again, we will
have a lesser standard. Does that somewhat answer your question?

Mr Crozier: Thank you.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your
presentation this morning.

DAVID DIMITRIE

The Chair: Our next presentation is from David Dimitrie. On behalf of the
committee, welcome. You have 15 minutes for your presentation this morning.

Mr David Dimitrie: My name is David Dimitrie. I have a mental health
disability. I was diagnosed with manic-depressive disorder 15 years ago.
Several years later, I was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder and
severe sleep disorders due to a head injury sustained during a bicycle accident
as a teenager.

I have been working for the passage of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act for
the past three years. I'm very disappointed with Bill 125, the proposed
Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Bill 125 makes scant mention of the barriers
people with mental health disabilities face in trying to live as active
participants in our society. The only mention of mental health disabilities is
in the definition of "disability" that comes directly from the Human Rights
Code.

Bill 125 makes no mention of the social, educational, employment, health and
human rights barriers that persons with mental health disabilities face daily.
The bill focuses narrowly on the barriers of one segment of the disabled
population in Ontario. It was always my understanding that the ODA Premier
Harris promised in 1995 would provide legislation that tears down the barriers
that confront all persons with disabilities in Ontario.

It is unacceptable to me that the government has disregarded the needs of
persons with mental health disabilities. In a letter sent to me by the
Honourable Cam Jackson, MPP, he states that he believes employers want to do
the right thing. If this is the case, why are 52% of employable mentally ill
people in Ontario unemployed, languishing on tiny disability pensions? The fact
is that employers have always been and remain reluctant to hire a mentally
disabled person because of unwarranted fears or prejudice. Let's not kid
ourselves.

Let's have a look at the types of barriers persons with mental health
disabilities face on a daily basis in Ontario. Access to employment for
mentally ill persons is probably the greatest barrier facing persons with
mental health disabilities. Statistics Canada states that 52% of employable
persons with mental illnesses are unemployed in Ontario. Even persons such as
myself with post-secondary degrees and diplomas face a high rate of
stigmatization in the search for gainful employment.

I'm a qualified elementary French teacher in Ontario. In addition, I'm a
graduate of George Brown college in the field of graphic arts. I'm fluent in
English, French and German. I also depend on a very small disability pension to
make ends meet.

The main reason I have not been able to obtain and retain employment in any of
the fields in which I am qualified is that employers either refuse to consider
mentally ill persons for employment during job interviews, or they refuse to
provide workplace accommodation once they hire a person who discloses his or
her disability after being hired. I know this because I have been forced to
file human rights complaints against employers in the last three years. Two
were related to discrimination during job interviews. The third occurred due to
the failure of my previous employer to provide workplace accommodation to me
after I had been hired and been told my work was excellent. Two of these cases
were settled during mediation and one is still pending after nearly two years.
I was fired from this job two days after filing the human rights complaint
against my previous employer.

The net result of this discrimination is a 52% unemployment rate among mentally
ill persons who are capable of working either full- or part-time. These people
are stuck living at or below poverty levels on inadequate disability pensions.
It's my contention that most people with mental illnesses would like to earn
part or all of their income. I believe they would like some freedom from the
shackles of dependency on disability pensions.

Is there an answer to this dilemma? I believe there is. The human rights
legislation already enshrined in the Human Rights Code is adequate in providing
legislative protection for mentally ill persons. It fails in its application. A
human rights complaint can take anywhere from one to seven years to adjudicate
by using the current process. The current process is quasi-judicial in nature
and in many respects mirrors the adversarial nature of civil litigation.

I am proposing an amendment to Bill 125 that would transfer human rights
complaints based on the grounds of employment due to disability to the
Employment Standards Act. The entire process could be satisfied by including
the right to workplace accommodation in the Employment Standards Act.
Complaints could be investigated and decisions rendered by the Ministry of
Labour officials in weeks or months instead of years. Both sides would be
forced to submit to binding mediation where all complaints are aired and a
mediator would make a binding decision. If either side disagreed with the
decision, they would have to appeal the decision through a judicial review or
through civil law actions. The decision of the mediator would be enforced
immediately.

The major benefit of transferring disability complaints related to employment
to the Employment Standards Act is that of fairness. The complainant would not
have to twist in the wind for years while the complaint is adjudicated in the
current process. The respondent would not have to spend large sums of money on
legal fees, which the current process necessitates. In Mr Jackson's letter, he
stated that one third of the complaints to the OHRC are currently related to
disability on the grounds of employment. These cases need to be adjudicated in
a swift, fair fashion. The current process is unfair to both sides of the
issue. My proposed amendment would benefit both the complainant and the
respondent in cases related to employment discrimination due to disability.

Next I would like to comment on the social and human rights barriers that
mentally ill persons face. I'd like to focus on the common slurs and defamatory
language related to mental health that are routinely found in newspapers, on
television, on radio and in popular culture. I have included an appendix in the
package provided to you, labelled appendix 1, that lists common slurs related
to mental illness that I compiled while watching television, listening to the
radio, observing public conversation and reading newspapers over a one-month
period. These slurs hurt. They marginalize mentally ill persons and lower their
worth in the eyes of society. In order for a person to make a complaint about
these slurs, they must run a gauntlet of press councils, editors, human rights
officials and news directors.

I have made complaints regarding these types of slurs. I have included a copy
of an article, labelled appendix 2, that I felt was defamatory and promoted
hatred and mistrust of mentally ill persons. The author is a published poet and
a librarian and is more than capable of using the English language
appropriately. I tried to settle the dispute with my local newspaper, to no
avail. I then submitted the complaint to the Ontario Press Council, which
refused to adjudicate the complaint. I am currently in the process of drafting
a formal complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

1010

The complaint process causes my mental health to suffer. The stress is immense
and many mentally ill people simply choose not to fight back against such
discrimination. This creates a learned helplessness among mentally ill persons.

As is the case with educational barriers, part of the solution here is more
education and a stronger enforcement mechanism within the OHRC against this
type of hate language that is so common in everyday speech and in the media.

It's counterproductive to the health of mentally ill persons to get involved in
such long and drawn-out conflicts with people who have much more influence and
power than they do. Bill 125 must include better enforcement mechanisms to
protect mentally ill persons against hate speech and hate literature. Hate
speech, hate literature and slurs that denigrate mentally ill people lower the
self-esteem of mentally ill people and lower their worth in the eyes of other
Ontarians. This increases their chance of being physically or emotionally
victimized. These barriers are more subtle and less visible than the other
barriers I have spoken of, but they are equally pernicious and damaging.

The last barrier I will speak of relates to the difficulty that mentally ill
persons have in obtaining health services. Much is made in the media and
popular culture of the refusal of mentally ill persons to take their medication
and manage their health. The first barrier mentally ill people face is finding
a psychiatrist. There is a shortage of psychiatrists in Ontario and it's not a
high priority when our health system is debated. Bill 125 must ensure the
right, for every mentally ill person in Ontario, to the services of a
psychiatrist. The psychiatrist is the lynchpin in managing the health of
mentally ill persons. Other forms of treatment are also effective, but the
availability of psychiatrists to mentally ill persons is absolutely necessary
for mentally ill persons to maintain their health. Bill 125 should include an
amendment that guarantees every mentally ill person in Ontario the services of
a psychiatrist on a timely, regular basis. The current state of affairs leaves
many mentally ill persons relying on general practitioners, walk-in clinics and
emergency rooms to maintain their mental health. This situation virtually
guarantees that mentally ill persons will not be able to maintain mental health
stability.

The fact I have focused my presentation on mental health does not mean I am not
sympathetic to the needs of Ontarians with other disabilities. I have done so
in order to raise awareness of the barriers facing persons with mental illness.
Traditionally they have received little attention when disabilities are
discussed. Many people would look at me and listen to me and say I don't have a
disability. Hidden disabilities need to be brought out into the open.

I'll close my presentation with accounts of two incidents that occurred in
Ontario in the last few years that scream out for an ODA that has real
enforcement mechanisms, and not just advisory committees and future plans for
accessibility in unspecified time frames.

Recently, M. D. Horton of St Thomas, Ontario, wrote a letter to the editor in
the London Free Press. She discussed the experience she had while attending a
funeral in London. She mentioned she had attended funerals at this facility
three times in as many years. Her husband is confined to a wheelchair. Each
time, her husband was forced to use the coffin elevator as the only means of
entrance into this building.

Bill 125 makes no requirement that private businesses must retrofit their
buildings within a reasonable period of time in order to make them accessible.
Is this the Ontario we want to live in? Is it fair this disabled man must enter
a funeral home via the coffin elevator? How would you feel if you had to do
this? Bill 125 needs more teeth and fewer advisory councils that have no strong
enforcement mechanisms.

The next incident occurred in Kinmount, Ontario, on January 4, 2001. A
paraplegic man got stuck in the snow in his wheelchair and froze to death. This
death was reported on CityTV's CablePulse 24. I witnessed similar encounters
last winter in London where persons in scooters and wheelchairs got stuck in
the snow on sidewalks and needed a push to get moving.

Bill 125 must include an amendment that sidewalks on major thoroughfares are
sufficiently plowed within a reasonable amount of time. In addition, bus stops
should be plowed within 48 hours of a major snowfall so that disabled persons
can get on to buses. It took the city of London two weeks to clear two-foot
snowbanks at bus stops last year. I realize these are municipal matters.
However, because of the subordinate relationship municipalities have with the
province, laws can be written to force municipalities to serve the needs of
their most vulnerable citizens.

Thank you for allowing me the time to address you. I travelled from London at
my own expense to make this presentation. It was worth every dime. Please
consider my proposals for amendments. I've spent a great deal of time
considering these issues to find solutions that are fair to everyone involved,
and I believe I have succeeded. I'll now be pleased to answer any questions.

The Chair: We have one minute per caucus and I'll start with the government
side.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm somewhat intrigued
or at a loss by your presentation defining the relationship between the
disabilities act and the Human Rights Code. My understanding in the past has
always been that discrimination is what the Human Rights Commission looks
after, and that the disabilities act, in general terms, is to remove physical
barriers to the disabled. Could you help me out with defining how you would not
remove mental disabilities from the Human Rights Code, but also put them in the
disabilities act and make them both work?

Mr Dimitrie: This is my point and this is my frustration. Mental health
disabilities and hidden disabilities such as autism, epilepsy, brain injuries,
any of these disabilities are equally as valid to be included in the Ontarians
with Disabilities Act as any physical disability. The ODA, as it is written, is
not limited to physical barriers. The ODA includes mentally ill persons in
their definition. It's their fault that they drafted legislation that only
dealt with physical barriers. That's my point. The Human Rights Code deals with
both physical and hidden disabilities. The ODA should do the same thing. To me,
it's a crock to say that you're going to create some kind of act and not
include developmental disabilities, mental health disabilities, epilepsy,
autism, all these disabilities that don't have physical barriers.

Mr Parsons: Many people in Ontario think there already is an act. Those who
didn't realize that are now saying, "Thank goodness they finally introduced
one." I found your presentation extremely informative. I guess a difficult
question to you is, given your presentation, is your preference that this act
not pass if there are no amendments, or that the act pass and you view it as a
first step?

Mr Dimitrie: The act should pass, period.

Mr Parsons: As it stands.

Mr Dimitrie: The act should pass as it stands and I will keep on fighting. I've
got maybe another 40 years or so on this earth and I'll keep fighting for my
rights and those of other disabled persons to improve that act.

Mr Parsons: I have to ask then, what does this act do for you in its present
form?

Mr Dimitrie: Nothing. Absolutely, positively nada, nothing. That's why I'm
here.

Mr Martin: Thank you for coming today and making the effort and for your three
years of work on this piece of public policy. You suggest an amendment to the
Employment Standards Act that would deal with some of your concerns.

Mr Dimitrie: Yes.

Mr Martin: Are there other amendments you think we could be entertaining that
would be helpful? Do you have them documented anywhere so that we could put
them forward?

Mr Dimitrie: Other amendments relating to other barriers?

Mr Martin: Yes, some of the things you mention in your --

Mr Dimitrie: The other amendment, and I maintain this and I have it in the
paper that the clerk passed around to you, is the right to have a psychiatrist.
My psychiatrist is currently in his seventies. He's a wonderful man and cares
for me greatly, but he'll be retiring soon and I don't know who I'm going to go
to next. I may end up in a walk-in clinic myself managing my mental health
disability. I don't think it's a lot to ask the ODA to say that mentally ill
persons have a right to see a psychiatrist on a regular basis. If society is
going to demand we take our medication, then they better provide psychiatrists
to monitor us.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your
presentation this morning.

1020

ONTARIO BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION, WINDSOR CHAPTER

The Acting Chair (Mr Carl DeFaria): We now have the Ontario Brain Injury
Association, Windsor chapter, Janice Kominek. I welcome you to the committee.
If you could state your names for Hansard, then you can proceed with your
presentation. You have 20 minutes.

Ms Janice Kominek: My name is Janice Kominek and it's an honour to speak before
the committee today on a subject that is very important to our entire
community. I am here representing over 18,000 Canadians, one third of those in
Ontario alone, who receive an acquired brain injury each year. I'm president of
the Ontario Brain Injury Association and executive director of the Brain Injury
Association of Chatham-Kent.

I also have with me here today Nancy Nicholson, who is a survivor of acquired
brain injury and a member of the board of directors of the Brain Injury
Association of Windsor-Essex County.

I'd like to first of all just give you a few facts about brain injury. Acquired
brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability in Ontario for those
under the age of 45. A brain injury doesn't heal like a broken arm or leg; the
results may last a lifetime. So if you consider the thousands injured each year
and you consider even the last 20 years, you begin to get an idea of just how
many people live with these effects every day in Ontario.

Brain injury may occur as a result of motor vehicle collisions -- in fact, over
half of brain injuries are as a result of motor vehicle collisions; falls,
particularly among the elderly and toddlers; assaults; near drownings; diseases
such as meningitis or brain tumours. Brain injury does not distinguish itself
by age, gender or socio-economic status. It could happen to any of us here in
this room, at work, on the playing field or even as we drive home from this
meeting today. Chances are that at least one person that you work with, know or
love has experienced the effects of this injury, and the effects are
devastating.

No two brain injuries are exactly alike and they range from mild to severe.
Brain injury cuts across all disability groups because our brain controls all
of our functioning. People with brain injury may have visual impairments,
hearing impairments, speech impairments or mobility difficulties often
requiring the use of wheelchair or walker. The most difficult impairments for
family members, friends and employers to understand, however, are the
personality and behaviour changes and the effects that make it difficult to
organize thoughts and remember things that once came easily. These invisible
changes present the most difficult challenges to the survivor of acquired brain
injury.

Who is the Ontario Brain Injury Association? We were formed in 1986. Currently
we are linked to 24 community groups across the province with memberships
totalling in the thousands. Our 20-member board of directors is made up of
survivors of acquired brain injury, family members, professionals, service
providers and business people from every part of the province.

Why are we here today? We are here today because we are deeply concerned that
all Ontarians have the opportunity to participate as fully as possible in all
aspects of life in Ontario. Like many other individuals and advocacy
organizations, we would have been much more comfortable with an ODA that laid
out explicit timelines for the removal of specific barriers. It would also have
been comforting to have assurance that these timelines would be effectively
enforced. It is also imperative that the terms of reference for the advisory
councils address the following: representation from a full range of
disabilities, length of term of service, a requirement that all reports be made
public and that the advisory councils be given authority to identify any and
all barriers. However, our principal reason for being here today is to focus
the committee's attention on barriers that are faced by the thousands of
Ontarians who are living with the effects of acquired brain injury.

Brain injury is a unique disability category. It is not limited to one specific
kind of impairment. People with acquired brain injury can live with physical,
sensory, cognitive and emotional impairments and in some cases may live with
all of them. Accordingly, we urge the committee to recommend that acquired
brain injury be included in the definition of "disability" in the act.

People with physical impairments must contend with limited access to public
buildings, businesses, transportation and recreational facilities on a daily
basis. These barriers are readily identifiable. The proposed Ontarians with
Disabilities Act attempts to address these issues of physical barriers.
Similarly, barriers for those with sensory impairments such as vision and
hearing are addressed in the act through the use of alternative formats.
However, the barriers that are faced by people living with cognitive and
emotional impairments are much more difficult to identify and to address. We
speak of attitudinal barriers that often exclude those living with these
challenges, leaving them isolated and open to ridicule and abuse. We recognize
that it's impossible to legislate attitudes and values, but it is possible to
have an ODA that encompasses a comprehensive program of public awareness and
education that could move society toward understanding, acceptance and
accommodation of people with cognitive and emotional impairments.

Just to illustrate some of the attitudinal barriers, in my own family my
father-in-law sustained an injury some seven years ago after falling off a
ladder. He was in a coma for three days. If you were to meet him now, he seems
normal in every way. However, as a family member, we see some subtle changes in
his personality. He has difficulty with memory. You try to leave a message with
him and he maybe forgets to pass it on. I know one time, getting into a
vehicle, we were on our way to a restaurant and he took a wrong turn. My
mother-in-law of course starts saying, "No, that's not the way to go," and he
kind of tried to hide it by saying, "Well, I'm just taking a different way."
These kinds of things drive my mother-in-law crazy: "Why is he doing this to
me? Why is he acting this way?" He is often fatigued and she just doesn't
understand that.

So even among family members and close friends, this kind of misunderstanding
with the effects of acquired brain injury, resulting in isolation often
devastating the person with brain injury, is not uncommon. There are dozens of
other instances of misunderstanding that impact daily on the lives of people
living with these effects. These misunderstandings effectively limit the
disabled person's participation in family life, community activities and
employment opportunities.

At this time, I'd like to introduce you to Nancy Nicholson, who is a survivor
of acquired brain injury. She'd like to just tell you a little bit about her
story and some examples that she's faced in terms of barrier.

Ms Nancy Nicholson: I'm a brain injury survivor. Until a little over five and a
half years ago, I led a very different life. I had a good business law
practice. I was a partner at a prominent Windsor law firm. I was a community
leader. I was a well-known fundraiser. I was politically active. Three weeks
before my accident, I attended a legal conference in Cambridge, England, at
which notables such as the chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada and
the Supreme Court of the United States, and the late Pierre Trudeau attended.
Three weeks later, my life changed radically. I no longer practise law. I can
no longer drive a car. I can no longer participate in all those activities that
I formerly did. My life was very much like yours.

I would like to provide you with three of what I think are pretty good
illustrations of what my life is like. My difficulties relate to the speed with
which I process information and my ability to handle external stimuli. I
require an assisted ticket to ride the train. I boarded the train in Windsor
heading for Toronto. I had to make a change; I was going on to Brockville. The
train pulled into Toronto, the conductor came up to me and said, "You look
fine. You have an assisted ticket. What's wrong?" I said, "I have a brain
injury and I have difficulty coping with stimuli."

As you recall, when you get off the train you get on to that level, there's a
lot of noise from the steam from the engine, people coming and going, and it's
a different type of light environment. I got off the train on to that level
platform. The conductor went over to the porter, he pointed to me and he did
this. [Gestures.] I'm not mentally ill, and because I'm not mentally ill I'm
not covered by your current version of the act. He assumed that I had some sort
of mental illness. I'd had the inability to get through the station and change
trains. The porter took my bag, put it on the next train and they left me
standing there. Because of my inability to process quickly, I could not get his
attention nor communicate to him that I needed assistance. Fortunately for me,
not a minute later a blind man got off the train and the porter escorted him
through the station. I followed him; not with the assistance that VIA purported
to provide and which I've attempted to utilize in subsequent visits but have
been unable to do so because it's just not really there. They say it is, but it
isn't.

A second occasion: boarding the city bus. It was very crowded. I get on the
bus. I don't know how to put the ticket into the machine. The bus driver,
fortunately, gave me some time and said, "You put the ticket in the machine.
You put the ticket in the machine." I have five university degrees. It's a very
humbling experience, I can assure you.

1030

A third and perhaps more important area to deal with is that there are a great
many of us out there. We have volatile tempers, many of us, because of the
nature of our injury. When you go into a store and people expect rapid
responses, the situation can quite quickly deteriorate into a very bad
situation. The public is unaware of the nature of a brain injury, and the
legislation doesn't help them become any more aware, because it doesn't even
acknowledge its existence. We don't have a mental health problem in many cases.
I don't speak for the man who spoke before us. What we have is a change in the
wiring in our brains.

Brain injury survivors have enough to deal with -- cooking, getting groceries,
riding a bus -- without having to educate the public as well. This is an
overwhelming task to impose upon us. We ask that you take that on as part of
your role and help us to ensure that the public doesn't treat us with anger and
resentment but, rather, understands why we're a little quick to anger in the
grocery store when the environment is loud or when we're dealing with a long
voicemail.

Just one concluding remark: I notice that you have a screen here and a signer
for people who have other disabilities. You're in a wheelchair-access building.
But I had to walk through a casino, with an abundance of noise and flashing
lights, and past a very loud waterfall. For me, that is a very hard task. You
were very knowledgeable and conscious of other disabilities. You were
completely unaware of mine. I would encourage you to support the Ontario Brain
Injury Association's recommendations.

Ms Kominek: We recognize that there are no simple or quick solutions to
removing these attitudinal barriers. However, since they are barriers for
thousands of Ontarians, not only those living with an acquired brain injury but
also those with developmental impairments and those who experience mental
illness, it is imperative that the government, through the ODA, provide the
will and the resources necessary to develop effective public awareness and
education.

In summary, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act attempts to address physical
barriers faced by those with disabilities but falls short on its goal of
supporting the right of every person with a disability to live as independently
as possible, to enjoy equal opportunity and to participate fully in every
aspect of life in our province through the removal of existing barriers and the
prevention of further barriers.

We have not had enough time to fully analyze this bill and consider all of its
implications, but after our preliminary consideration, we can recommend the
following: that the definition of "disability" must include brain injury in its
description; that explicit timelines be prescribed for the removal of specific
barriers; that the bill have an effective mechanism for enforcement; that the
role and authority of advisory councils be defined, the reports made public and
that the disability community have meaningful input; that the bill make
provisions for the allocation of resources to raise public awareness and
education about the issues faced by those with disabilities in order to further
foster a greater understanding and influence attitudes, working toward the
reduction of attitudinal barriers.

A barrier-free community is a minimum goal to the full participation of the
disabled in society. Through effective regulation and mandating co-operation
with the private and public sectors, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act could
help deliver broad public awareness and understanding of cognitive and mental
disabilities and eliminate all other barriers for disabled persons in every
part of Canada's richest province. The Ontario Brain Injury Association, along
with many similar disability organizations, stands prepared to assist the
government, through the advisory councils outlined in the ODA, to develop the
ways and means necessary to remove attitudinal barriers. We look forward to
this challenge. The disabled of Ontario are looking for leadership on this
issue. Please don't let them down.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have a minute for each
caucus. The Liberal caucus will go first.

Mr Crozier: Good morning, and welcome to the committee, Ms Nicholson and Ms
Kominek. Someone I love dearly and live with every day has an acquired brain
injury, through an aneurysm. Thanks to tender loving care and good medical
facilities -- it would be considered mild compared to yours, Ms Nicholson, but
I can understand the concern you have from the standpoint of the family issues.
I understand the short-term-memory issue, as well as that sometimes in
conversation the wrong word comes out.

But my point is this: I understand, too, the attitudinal problems you have. The
Ontario Brain Injury Association, I could say, is not very well known on the
scale of disability. How is it that you treat these attitudinal problems
vis-"-vis the public and how could we do even more to help you with that?

Ms Kominek: Through both the local community associations as well as the
provincial association, there is a need for more education. Locally, through
associations such as the Head Injury Association of Windsor and Essex County
and the Brain Injury Association of Chatham-Kent, which we represent, we
attempt to do as much as we can in public education. We provide community
activities that deal with the prevention of injury as well as public speakers
and so on who would come in and try to address those public issues. However,
we're all very much volunteer-run organizations, many of which don't even have
staff. They don't have the resources to spread the word across the province. As
Nancy mentioned in her talk, people with brain injuries have enough to deal
with, without also having that burden of doing the public education themselves.
What we do need are the financial and human resources to be able to carry the
word, to be able to educate not just family members but also employers so that
when people return to work they have an understanding of what this injury
consists of and how it may affect their work. We need both human and financial
resources to be able to do that.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much for coming today and for your presentation. It
certainly has been enlightening. We've asked the government to slow this down
and to take the time that is necessary to understand the very complicated and
involved piece of public business that this is. As you know, it was introduced
a week ago. We're into public hearings now, and it will be done by next
Tuesday. We're not sure they're going to capture some of the stuff you're
putting on the table here this morning. That worries us, because if they don't
capture it now, my concern is, when will the next time be and who will deal
with that?

You raised the issue of resources so we can do public education. You raised the
issue of including all disabilities in the community advisory councils. We're
not sure that's going to happen, because ultimately, on the advisory councils,
our understanding is that they will be appointed by order in council and that
it may not in fact include everybody.

Given the speed at which we're moving and the very obvious need for something
in here to reflect that we understand the issues of the people in the community
that you speak about, what would be the biggest priority?

Ms Kominek: I think the biggest priority we had identified is the public
education and awareness. In terms of timelines, yes, you're right, everything
is going very quickly, and we'd certainly like to be involved in recommending
amendments to that. In terms of people with acquired brain injury, there is a
real need to educate the public and employers as to what this disability is
about and how they may be able to be accommodated within society.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you for your presentation this morning. In
Ottawa last week we heard the same concern about the attitudinal barriers,
which are kind of like the invisible barriers, as you've appropriately defined.
I am completely sympathetic to what you say. Minister Jackson released a
working paper on October 23 entitled Reclaiming Our Roots. I'm sure you're
aware of it. It was about developing strategies for public education and
awareness, specifically in the area of mental health. There is a pilot testing
and evaluation process going on as we speak. I'm not sure, but I think it's
like this bill. I think you've made a very good point here in your ongoing
advocacy role. Educating the public is part of that advocacy role, and I think
it would be appropriate for all governments, of whatever stripe, to listen.

Mr Dimitrie earlier made the same point, that the invisible barriers are really
important. I hear your message clearly about public awareness and education,
and I'm sure there is more that can be done. But there is a strategy in our
area -- I met with the mental health strategy people -- which is community
resources in mental health. I think that probably is a result of a lot of the
advocacy that has gone on. Do you wish to respond?

1040

Ms Kominek: I know Nancy wants to respond to this as well. First of all, brain
injury is not a mental health issue; it is a cognitive impairment. It may have
mental illness associated with it, but not always.

Mr O'Toole: I apologize; I'm not familiar with the jargon. But I meant the
emotional barrier as you described. Yours was more the transformation from a
person who was, like you said --

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, I would request the response from the presenters,
because we are running out of time.

Ms Nicholson: The wiring in my brain has changed. I cannot react quickly. It is
not just emotional. If something like this were to happen in the middle of the
street, a car could strike me. You're not going to have that problem with a lot
of other disabilities. It has to do with your brain wiring. It can spill over
to emotional issues, but it is not a mental health problem. The nature of the
attention that you're describing does not begin to address it, because we are
not in that category at all.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your
presentation this morning.

CANADIAN NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND,
ONTARIO DIVISION

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind, the Essex-Kent chapter. I would ask the presenter to please state
your name for the record. On behalf of the committee, welcome. You have 20
minutes for your presentation this morning.

Ms Arlene Bailey: Arlene Bailey, district manager, CNIB.

Good morning, Mr Chairman and members of caucus and the committee. I first want
to offer a few words of congratulations to our local ODA committee for all the
hard work they've done over many years to get the voice of people with
disabilities out to be represented as part of the ODA committee and ODA
legislation. I want to congratulate and commend the leadership of Dean La Bute
and also consumers, of various disabilities, who have come out to be
represented and have a voice. I want to recognize also the community agencies,
my colleagues, which have represented the needs at the ODA. Especially I want
to take a minute to thank my peers, those who are visually impaired, blind or
deaf-blind throughout all of Ontario who have taken the time to show up and to
be a part of the ODA, to have a voice in shaping the legislation.

I'm here today to present the official position of the CNIB, Ontario division,
on the ODA. I do want to take a few minutes to basically let you know that the
Essex-Kent district of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind represents
Chatham, Kent, Windsor and Essex. We serve approximately 2,100 individuals who
have varying degrees of vision loss. I'll get into reading this document.
You'll have to bear with me. There is no correction for my eyesight. I'll
proceed.

At the outset, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind would like to
congratulate and thank Minister Cam Jackson, the Minister of Citizenship, and
the government of Ontario for the initiatives that they have taken to begin to
remove the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in the province of
Ontario. The introduction of the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act, Bill
125, is an important first step in the identification and removal of barriers
and in preventing new barriers. We believe that an effective Ontarians with
Disabilities Act, together with excellent programs such as the assistive
devices program which are already in place, will position Ontario as a
progressive leader in addressing access issues faced by persons with
disabilities in this country.

While the CNIB acknowledges that a number of helpful measures are contained in
the proposed legislation, which have the potential to address many present and
future issues in the identification, removal and prevention of barriers, our
agency does have some significant concerns which we believe need to be
addressed as amendments to the legislation in order to ensure that the bill
will address the needs of our consumers. Some of our concerns relate to how the
legislation will identify, remove and prevent barriers for our blind, visually
impaired and deaf-blind consumers. We will deal with these first in our
submission. We will then bring forward some general concerns about the
legislation in terms of its mandate, coverage, implementation and overall
effectiveness. In both cases, we will, wherever possible, offer suggestions for
changes or amendments that we believe would strengthen the bill's
effectiveness.

Clearly we understand that it is neither possible nor practical to present
legislation that purports to remove all barriers in all sectors immediately or
even in the short term. There are many factors that dictate that a staged
approach to implementation would be more effective. It is, however, important
to ensure that those changes and amendments that are necessary to address
current issues with the bill are incorporated into the legislation.

Proposed amendments that would improve removal of barriers for persons who are
blind, deaf-blind or visually impaired: it is important to recognize that the
accommodations that remove barriers for persons who are blind, visually
impaired or deaf-blind can vary depending on the nature and degree of visual
impairment or deaf-blindness. As a consequence, it is important to consider the
different, as well as the common, needs of each of these groups when
implementing solutions. For example, signage needs to be both highly visible in
terms of the size and the contrast and it also needs to be tactile, ie, in
Braille, so that it may be accessed both by persons who are blind and visually
impaired. Furthermore, the removal of barriers for persons with vision
impairments is only partially addressed by the removal of physical barriers.

Access to information in the delivery of goods and services is of equal
importance to persons with vision impairments. Such access to information will
be manifested in a variety of ways, including intervention services for persons
who are de