The committee met at 0904 in room 151.

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): If I can get your attention, I'd like to bring
the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to order. There are a
couple of items that I would like to point out for the record. Copies of the
bill are available in Braille. There are audiotapes, diskettes or disks and
large print copies. The bill is also available in French. They are located at
the back of the room.

This is the third day of the hearings. Tomorrow we will be meeting again in
Toronto. On Thursday we will be in Thunder Bay and on Friday, in Sudbury.

GREATER TORONTO HOTEL ASSOCIATION

The Chair: I would ask our first presenter this morning, the Greater Toronto
Hotel Association, to please come forward. Please state your name for the
record. On behalf of the committee, welcome. You have 20 minutes for your
presentation this morning.

Mr Rod Seiling: Good morning, Mr Chair. My name is Rod Seiling, and I am
president of the Greater Toronto Hotel Association. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you and your committee today and for allowing me
the time to speak to you about Bill 125, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

The Greater Toronto Hotel Association is the voice of Toronto's hotel industry.
It represents about 135 hotels with over 33,000 guest rooms and more than
30,000 employees. We were founded in 1925, and I am not going to bore you with
the rest of who we are. You can read just as well as I can.

From the outset I want to assure you that the GTHA and its members have
provided and continue to provide quality service to persons with disabilities.
We do it not just because it is the right thing to do but also because we
believe it is good business. Our members recognize that accessibility as it
relates to accommodations is a prerequisite to a healthy tourism industry. Our
destination marketing organization, Tourism Toronto, with the unanimous
concurrence of our members, has a stated objective of making Toronto the
destination of choice for persons with disabilities.

There are more than 100 million disabled persons in the United States, Europe
and Canada, Toronto's prime tourism markets. Approximately 25% of the disabled
population regularly travel for either business or leisure. A recent Royal Bank
of Canada study pegged the potential spending power of Canadians with
disabilities at $25 billion.
Americans with disabilities who will visit Canada will spend seven times that
amount, or $175 billion. That is $200 billion worth of spending power and, I
would suggest, it is a very powerful incentive.

It is estimated that there are approximately 1.5 million Ontarians with
disabilities. In addition, seniors, many of whom have or will soon require
similar service needs, form an already large and growing travel market. The
GTHA's members recognize the inherent value of these two large demographic
groups. These travellers expect, and are entitled to receive, services
appropriate to their need.

The GTHA supports the provisions contained in Bill 125 as they relate to the
private sector. We are confident they can and will work. In fact, we would
suggest that we are proof that the private sector can and will do the right
thing.

The GTHA has been working with the Ministry of Citizenship for some time in
this very important area. The work has consisted of both participating in its
ongoing consultations and as a partner in the development of programs to help
improve the quality of service we provide to all our guests. I might add that
we have worked with various disabled groups to develop these programs so as to
ensure we are delivering what they both expect and deserve.

I show you this binder here. I'm going to talk about it next. Guest Services
that Work For Everyone is a sensitivity training program. It's something that I
and our association are very proud of. It is the first step in our Enabling
Change initiative. This program is designed to raise the awareness of the needs
of persons with disabilities within our industry. The goal is to make all
employees comfortable in helping guests with visible and invisible
disabilities. We see it becoming ingrained within the corporate culture of our
hotels as they integrate it into their ongoing training programs.

The second phase of our Enabling Change project, again working in partnership
with the Ministry of Citizenship, is the hospitality checklist. The GTHA and
its members recognize that accommodation accessibility goes hand in hand with
service in order to create an accessible hospitality-tourism industry.

Our industry spends millions of dollars annually on renovations. To the dismay
of many hoteliers, despite their best intentions, these renovations do not
guarantee accessibility. Currently there are no standards on accessibility for
hotels in the province, with information scattered in many areas. I want to
point out that many hotels are already accessible. Nevertheless, they continue
to upgrade their services and facilities in order to provide an even better
product.

The objectives of this stage of the project are: (1) to provide the industry
with a self-assessment tool to evaluate the accessibility of a property and to
identify potential changes which will remedy barriers in order to increase
accessibility for persons with disabilities to hotel properties in Toronto and,
by extension, across Ontario; (2) to facilitate accessibility by providing
materials with clear, specific and easy to implement remedies and examples; and
(3) to provide information regarding cost and acquisition of products necessary
to create accessible premises.

The benefits of this program, I must point out, will not just accrue to the
hotel industry as the modular scope of the initiative will allow many
industries to utilize it. This means, for example, that restaurants can utilize
the food and beverage module. Health clubs, laundries etc will all be able to
utilize the respective module for their business.

0910

From the hotel perspective, we see a number of benefits. It will enable
hoteliers to be better able to respond to accessibility problems on their
properties. It will provide the tools and resources to hoteliers in order to
create more accessible facilities and better serve guests with a wide range of
disabilities. Persons with disabilities and seniors will benefit by
experiencing fewer barriers to access accommodation facilities. The industry
will benefit economically, as it will experience higher demand from the persons
with disabilities and seniors' market.

Retrofit is a very costly undertaking. We firmly believe that this method
produces a win-win situation for everyone. There is a business case to make for
sectors to become more accessible and, based on what we have witnessed to date
with our members, they will.

We fully expect to be setting targets and levels of accessibility. Stage 2 of
our Enabling Change project will provide us with the tools we require. Hotels
will be able to build into their capital improvement projects the changes that
are necessary. We have already made the internal changes, from an association
standpoint, as a result of the introduction of Bill 125. Accessibility, which
already was a priority issue, has been moved to our operations committee, where
it will now be actioned as soon as this legislation receives third and final
reading. This committee has already met to discuss the processes our industry
will undertake to implement Bill 125. We see it as an opportunity to maximize
the returns for our industry, as our industry is already implementing it.

In conclusion, I would say that we will not only talk the talk, but we will
walk that talk.

The Chair: Thanks very much. We have approximately three minutes per caucus.
I'll start with the government side.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Thank you, Mr Seiling. It's good to see you
again. It was pleasant to hear the comments and to hear about the initiatives
that have been taken by the accommodation industry. I was happy to hear that
this kind of legislation would really set a standard. Did I understand that
correctly?

Mr Seiling: As we read the legislation, what we are preparing to action is that
we will work our way through stage 2 of the Enabling Change project. We will
meet, and we will start to set levels of accessibility. We will gradually raise
the bar. We'll work our way through it and allow hotels to build on their
capital improvement program. As I said earlier, retrofit is a very costly
enterprise. But even more important, to the dismay of many hoteliers, is that
they try to do the right thing and find out after the fact that they haven't,
because the information wasn't available, the supplies weren't available, the
standards weren't there. We'll now be able to do that: set the standards and
raise the bar as we work through the project.

Mr Spina: One of the things we've been faced with from many of the proponents
and constructive critics of this bill -- because I don't know that there's
anybody who's really opposed to it -- was the phase-in time or the time frame
for implementation, and whether that should be in the bill.

With regard to your program that you talk about, the Enabling Change project,
do you have any time frames over the next two years, five years? Is there some
kind of a time frame or guideline that the industry is trying to work toward?

Mr Seiling: Our committee has already met. My committee chair, a hotel general
manager representing one of the larger hotel chains across the province, speaks
of being able to have some standards in place by the second year.

What we see as most advantageous out of this bill is not taking an American
disabilities act approach, where there was a large mandate and countless
millions of dollars and resources were wasted on legislation -- not only
legislation, but litigation. We see it as an opportunity. We believe the
business case is there, and we believe we're living proof, because our members
want to do it. We can't be the destination of choice for persons with
disabilities if we can't provide the service, if we can't deliver. So we intend
to be there. We believe, and have from day one, that there is a business case.
While you can't document it, because you can't take stats in this area, the
numbers I quoted are powerful incentives to want to do something. If we can
capture a fair share of that market, there's a huge return for us to be there.
It's a very competitive market and one that we certainly want to grab our fair
share of. We believe we can do that, but the only way we can do it is by
implementing and actioning.

The Chair: Now to the official opposition.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My first question is frivolous. Did
you play hockey?

Mr Seiling: I stand accused.

Mr Parsons: You probably don't remember when I played pro hockey.

Mr Spina: But you remember when he played.

Mr Parsons: Yes, I do. I applaud you for this action, both for the moral and
for the business. It's a great action. Where I'm curious is, your group is the
only group that has come forward in Ontario to voluntarily do it. In fact, it's
not the hotel industry of all of Ontario; it's the industry of Toronto. It's a
great thing. What caused your group to see the light and do it? Do you have any
sense of why the rest of Ontario is not voluntarily following it?

Mr Seiling: Very simply, we've said from day one that the best way to make
progress is to educate, not legislate, and education is part of making the
business case. I happened to witness yesterday, at the launch of the ministry's
new Web site, which I think is tremendous, that in there Bill Wilkerson has
published a document talking about the business case. Quite frankly, part of it
is for people to learn what business opportunities are there. The private
sector always reacts most positively to the opportunity to earn a return on
their investment. We believe there is an opportunity to do that and we're quite
confident that we can, at the end of the day, demonstrate that it isn't just
the right thing to do, but it makes good business sense to do it, and that's
why we're doing it.

In terms of across the province, I should point out that we work with the
provincial hotel association. They're following in our footsteps in these
projects. They are starting to move these across the province. They are
starting the training. It's a train-the-trainer program. This has been
basically through our hotels across the GTA now. It's starting to roll out
across the province, and they will be participating in stage 2 of the Enabling
Change project as well. I believe in this very much. We'll be speaking, and
have spoken already, to other groups because we believe it's the right way to
go. To coin a phrase, it's easier to catch flies with molasses than with
vinegar. We think we can show people that if you do the right thing, you'll
profit by it as well as feeling very good about it.

Mr Parsons: You're saying with hotel rooms there's a payback for people to
come. The challenge I'm hearing from the disability community is, ironically,
people in Toronto will be able to get into a hotel room but not into an
apartment. Apartments are running at less than 1% vacancy, so there isn't a
financial incentive for apartments to be made accessible, as opposed to your
industry, which has a lower vacancy rate and is astute enough to say, "We can
increase the usage." What would you say should be the proposal to apartment
owners to make their buildings accessible?

Mr Seiling: First of all, I wish we were running at a 1% vacancy rate. I'm not
qualified to speak on that. All I can talk about is our industry and reiterate
that I still believe there are ways and means, whether it's through incentive
or whatever; that we have watched and we have involved not only people from the
disabled community in coming to where we are, but we've also involved some of
our members who've had experience in the development of the ADA and who found
the negatives. We've learned from that and tried to incorporate that so that
what available resources there are, are put to a productive use rather than a
litigious use, where no one wins except the lawyers.

We believe very strongly that over the coming years we will raise -- because
we're going to set those target levels. My committee chair is already saying
that in two years he wants to have the first level set. What we need to do in
advance is to get out there and give people the tools so they can know what's
coming and build the changes in those capital programs, so they don't wake up
tomorrow and find they have this huge bill to pay, so they were building the
capital. People want to do the right thing, and it's much easier to get owners
to understand why they have to commit those dollars if they see that there's a
return for them in the long term.

0920

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you for coming this morning. I
appreciate the commitment you're making on behalf of your organization. I have
just a couple of questions. At the bottom of the first page, you say that you
support the provisions contained in Bill 125 as they relate to the private
sector. Many who have come before us have said that in fact there's nothing in
the bill that relates to the private sector; there's a lot of moral suasion and
wishing in the bill that relates to the private sector.

First of all, how much of what you're doing in the hotel industry is driven by
the Americans with Disabilities Act because you're part of a chain that has
headquarters in the US?

Mr Seiling: First of all, we're not part of a chain; we are a Canadian, Ontario
organization. We have no relationship, business or otherwise --
Mr Martin: You're a member --

Mr Seiling: I have some members who are. Many of my hotels are already
compliant, but it's not germane to the issue. I have a lot of Canadian members
who have no relationship. This is unanimous support for doing the right thing.
In terms of the reason to comply, it's our understanding that there are within
the bill provisions for review committees to look at it, and we believe those
groups which do not make some progress run the risk of having these groups go
back to the government to ask for certain levels to be set arbitrarily. Of
course, the ultimate is that this bill is up for review in five years. My
suggestion would be that those groups which don't do the right thing run the
risk of being mandated or legislated five years hence. I would think that
persons who think sanely and rationally will want to ensure that they don't get
that heavy hand thrown at them five years hence, that they will have moved
along in a fairly good way.

As I said earlier, we've seen, and have no reason to doubt, that people do want
to do the right thing. I said earlier I believe very strongly that when people
are presented with the information and the facts that show that there is a
business case to be made, it's much easier to get people to invest.

Mr Martin: I appreciate as well the comment that it makes good business sense
to be accessible to the disabled, and indeed it does. The other side of the
equation for me is, how much effort is being made in your organization? Do you
have any statistics to indicate employment of disabled people? What are you
doing to your workplace, because it is a significant workplace, for those who
are disabled so that they can come in and work for your members?

Mr Seiling: We're very proactive. Up until this year, we have run a program I'm
very proud of called HELP, the hotel employment leadership program. It dealt
with two specific areas; one was street youth and the other was persons with
disabilities. We ran it in partnership with the ministry and with the city of
Toronto. We were able to take individuals off the street, and also people who
had been left behind because they had a disability. It ran in partnership with
Goodwill and the Ontario Tourism Education Council. Goodwill gave them life
skills, OTEC gave them new specific skills and we guaranteed employment for
them in the industry for six months.

Unfortunately, due to the events of 9/11, we've had to cancel that program this
year because we've had massive layoffs. With the unionization of the industry
and the layoffs, we couldn't guarantee those jobs. But I'm hopeful that next
year, if things have turned around, we can reinstitute that program. We're very
proactive. As an industry that up until 9/11 had a severe shortage of labour,
we've now come to have an over supply. We looked at that as being a great
untapped tool for quality employees.

The Chair: I have to bring the debate to an end. On behalf of the committee,
thank you very much for your presentation this morning.

TOURISM TORONTO

The Chair: Our next presentation this morning is from Tourism Toronto. 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 Catherine Smart: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Catherine Smart. I am
the director of product innovation with Tourism Toronto, Toronto's convention
and visitors' association. It is a privilege to be invited here to speak today
on behalf of the tourism industry in Toronto with regard to Bill 125, the
Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

First, let me begin by congratulating both the ODA Committee as well as the
ministry for finally reaching a benchmark that will only become stronger as
time goes on. Bill 125 is good news. It represents a beginning for many who
have fought long and hard for equal access. It also represents guidance and
support for organizations and businesses that want to do the right thing, but
may not currently know how.

Tourism Toronto is the official destination, sales and marketing arm of the
city of Toronto. Tourism Toronto focuses on promoting and selling the city as a
destination for tourists, convention delegates and business travellers.
Officially operating as a not-for-profit agency, Tourism Toronto has more than
850 members in the greater Toronto area and is a partnership of the public and
private sectors. In other words, our job is bringing tourism to Toronto.

Prior to joining Tourism Toronto one year ago, I spent the majority of my
career developing programs and providing services for persons with a
disability. Most recently I spent close to 14 years working with the Ontario
March of Dimes as the manager of recreation and integration services. It was
during that time I was presented with the opportunity to assist with the
development of the Guest Services that Work for Everyone training package,
which made me realize both the scope and potential of the tourism industry in
relation to providing equal access to persons with a disability.

My primary role as director of product innovation is to promote a barrier-free
city, both physically as well as attitudinally. Not only was this position
brand new to Tourism Toronto one year ago, but it was new to all convention and
visitors' associations across Canada. This is an important point to note in
that this role reflects both the commitment as well as the vision that the
tourism industry has embraced to further adopt accessibility as part of their
mandate.

SATH, which is the Society for Accessible Travel and Hospitality based out of
New York City, estimates that 39 million Americans have a disability and the
capacity to travel. The average income ranges from $19,000 to $38,000 US
depending on education. Since the inception of the ADA -- the Americans with
Disabilities Act -- American visitors arrive in Ontario with a certain
expectation with regard to access.

As Mr Seiling noted, over 15% of Canadians have a disability, and by the year
2010, 25% of the population will be over 65, otherwise known as the mature
traveller. These statistics clearly indicate the scope and potential business
that is and will be available to serve persons with a disability and seniors in
the years to come.

I would like to share with you some of the successes the Tourism Toronto
accessibility program has experienced over this past year.

The development and initial presentation of the Tourism Toronto Jeff Adams
Access Award of Excellence: this prestigious award is presented once a year to
a member who has demonstrated a sound commitment to providing increased access.
The first recipient of this award was the Toronto Hilton managed by Marilyn
Soper.

The development and distribution of the Accessible Toronto brochure: one of the
many things Tourism Toronto is committed to is providing up-to-date, accurate
information to tourists visiting this city. The Accessible Toronto brochure
lists accessible hotels, restaurants, tours, transportation and attractions.
This brochure is updated regularly and is also available on the Tourism Toronto
Web site.

There was the development of the product innovation accessibility committee,
which is comprised of persons representing many sectors of the disability
community. In addition, members also include individuals representing the
tourism industry as well as consumers who are committed to promoting an
accessible city.

We're a member of the Canadian Standards Association with the barrier-free
design and customer service for persons with a disability committees. Having
worked in the disability field for many years, the subject matter is quite
familiar. However, what is particularly important is to have a person
representing the tourism sector, therefore bridging a potential gap.

I share a few of the past year's successes with you to demonstrate just how
committed the tourism industry is to further promoting a barrier-free city.

The response thus far has been extremely positive. However, there is a lot of
work yet to be done. The current resources that are in place -- such as the
Guest Services that Work for Everyone training package, the Paths to Equal
Opportunities Web site, along with the upcoming Hospitality Checklist --
clearly provide the tools required to assist the tourism industry to embrace
accessibility as part of the fabric of everyday business.
Given that the current bill does not provide specific guidelines to the private
sector, there is little incentive for businesses to thoroughly embrace the act.
The fact that amendments are available is a positive step that could provide
opportunities for the government to consider programs to further encourage the
private sector to adopt barrier-free access as part of their mission. These
incentive programs could include financial support for pilot projects to
demonstrate success, or possibly a province-wide recognition program.

As previously mentioned, Tourism Toronto is committed to attracting tourism to
Toronto. Furthermore, Tourism Toronto is committed to attracting persons with a
disability, their families and friends to enjoy this fantastic city. What is
important for our organization and members is that we can promote our city to
the disabled community with confidence.

The announcement of Bill 125 is good news. Although not perfect, this bill will
pave the way for greater things to come for persons with a disability, both
living in and visiting Toronto and the rest of Ontario.

0930

The Chair: We have three minutes per caucus. We will start with the official
opposition.

Mr Parsons: I applaud you for it. I note that in the second paragraph you say
"reaching a benchmark that will only become stronger as time goes on." I
couldn't agree more. Every presenter to this stage has said there's nothing in
the bill, so anything, of course, will be stronger.

I note on your last page "does not provide specific guidelines to the private
sector." The comments we have heard to this time from the presenters have been,
not that they can't get a hotel room, not that they can't get in as tourists,
but that they can't get in the grocery store or they can't get to the doctor.
There's no one to interpret for them when they're at a doctor's or at a
hospital. They can't get a place to live.

You're actually the first group that's come forward -- it just strikes me as
ironic that what you're doing is great for the people from the US who are used
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clearly it must have worked for them
because they're used to it and they've found it everywhere. But for the
citizens of Ontario, the frustration is getting into the mall and getting into
an apartment building.

How do you see it being made so there is an assurance that a person can have
accessible accommodation or accessible doctor's care? I appreciate that your
industry -- and bless you for it -- has made the decision to go forward on your
own, but what would you suggest we do to make the rest of the private sector
follow?
Ms Smart: I think we're a really good role model. I think what we're doing, and
the more we do with regard to providing additional opportunities in the area of
tourism for persons with a disability, will only influence others around us.

Mr Parsons: What would your reaction have been had it been mandatory that your
industry be accessible?

Ms Smart: I feel it's really important to have choice and I really believe
there have already been, as Mr Seiling indicated, some tremendous success
stories out there, and the snowball is getting larger. I believe it's important
for our province and the people in our province to recognize the need rather
than being forced at this stage.

Mr Parsons: I also believe it's important that the community of the disabled
have choice, that they have choice whether to stay home and choice whether to
go to a doctor. They don't have that choice, and if the phasing-in takes -- I'm
coming on much stronger than I want to -- another five years, we're in fact
saying to some people, "If you can wait five years to get to a doctor, we might
have something available for you." That's the frustration we're hearing out of
the rest of the communities.

Mr Martin: Thanks for coming this morning. I appreciate the crossover in your
own experience from the March of Dimes to working for the private sector and
the sensitivity that would bring with it.

I want to focus for a second on your third-to-last paragraph where you, I
think, very frankly and honestly say that the bill doesn't provide specific
guidelines, so there's little incentive, and your hope is that there are
amendments that may come forward that would improve the bill. Also you speak of
incentives. Would you care to elaborate on what amendments and what incentives
you might be speaking of?

Ms Smart: Right. I think I mentioned actually, further down in that paragraph,
a couple of examples. As I mentioned earlier, they could include financial
support for pilot projects to demonstrate success or possibly a province-wide
recognition program. Given that there is a lot of volunteerism with regard to
this act currently, this industry may take note or may come forward with
greater impact if there was an incentive program included.

Mr Martin: Do you have any suggestions as to amendments we might make that
would improve the act and make business embrace it more fully?

Ms Smart: I would suggest that time frames are really important, in terms of
being clear, in terms of certain benchmarks that need to be put in place and
certain time frames that go along with those benchmarks, so there's a clear
vision for people to follow.
Mr Martin: I asked this of Mr Seiling as well. In terms of employment in the
industry, what's going on there and will this act make it more helpful to those
with disabilities to get employment within your industry?

Ms Smart: I absolutely think there are all sorts of possibilities. In terms of
possibilities currently, Tourism Toronto is setting the foundation with regard
to encouraging further access, both physically as well as attitudinally, with
current staff in the industry and with actual buildings. What will happen is
that there certainly will be a spinoff.

Having worked with the Ontario March of Dimes for years, I was very much
involved with the employment services program there and intend within the next
year to see if we can create some possibilities and some partnerships to
include tourism as a possibility for people going through that program.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much for the presentation. Just for
clarification, is Tourism Toronto an organization that is part of government in
Toronto or is it an association of the tourist industry?

Ms Smart: We're a not-for-profit organization that's an arm of the city.

Mr Hardeman: You have no connection with the city proper, government in the
city?

Ms Smart: That's right.

Mr Hardeman: As you will be aware, the act has advisory committees to advise
municipalities over 10,000 on suggestions, on approaches to meet the needs of
the disabled in the municipality. Could you give me some idea of how that would
work within your membership? Would such a committee be helpful or do you
believe your members are in a position to be able to do that for themselves? Mr
Seiling mentioned earlier that the industry itself was moving ahead, and likely
moving ahead faster than an advisory committee would ask that they do. Do you
see that the same with all your members?

Ms Smart: I do. We have representation from our board with regard to this
particular program and the board speaks to these issues regularly. Also, as I
mentioned earlier, I've developed a product innovation accessibility committee
that is quite proactive with regard to speaking to various issues that relate
to tourism and accessibility in the city. I'm not sure if I'm really answering
your question.

Mr Hardeman: Do you believe we need another body to help the industry achieve
the goals you've set? As an organization, do you do enough of that to make sure
all your members are moving along at the same speed and are going to achieve
the goal you've all set?

Ms Smart: I think we're actually doing a pretty good job currently. We send out
regular communication. We really encourage the membership via many means of
communication to get out and consider possibilities with regard to this
program. We also work very closely with the Greater Toronto Hotel Association,
which as you heard earlier is doing tremendous work in this area. So I feel
that at this stage of the game we're in a good position.

Mr Hardeman: The other thing coming forward quite strongly is that the
industry, because it's the good business thing to do, and obviously the
business of the disabled well warrants making business establishments
accessible to them -- what is it in this act that would encourage you to go
further? Obviously the industry is moving ahead with that because it's the
right thing to do, but also because it's the good business thing to do. What
will this act do that will make that move better or faster, or will it in fact
have an impact on the industry?

Ms Smart: I think this act is an historic piece. It speaks very clearly to our
province moving forward and providing opportunities for persons with
disabilities. It can only reinforce what we're already doing and will continue
to do. That's why this act is so important.

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

0940

TORONTO ASSOCIATION
FOR COMMUNITY LIVING

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Toronto Association for Community
Living. I would ask the presenter to please come forward. On behalf of the
committee, welcome. You have 20 minutes for your presentation this morning.

Mr Fred Peters: My name is Fred Peters and I am the president of the Toronto
Association for Community Living. I would like to thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to address this committee on Bill 125, the proposed Ontarians with
Disabilities Act.

The Toronto Association for Community Living provides supports and services to
over 5,000 individuals with an intellectual disability and, as well, to their
families.

We, like so many others, anxiously awaited legislation that would ensure
persons with disabilities have equal opportunity to full and meaningful
participation in all aspects of life in Ontario. We hoped the government would
take advantage of input from the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee,
from individuals with disabilities and from various agencies to effect
groundbreaking legislation that would significantly benefit persons with a
disability in this province.

Unfortunately, we were disappointed. The act, as proposed, falls far short of
providing the effective protections required by the disabilities community and,
in particular, those with an intellectual disability. The act does not ensure
the involvement of the private sector. It defines no timelines for prevention
or removal of barriers, and permits exemption in the government and public
sector without rationale. It establishes an advisory committee, but gives it
little opportunity to educate or to influence decisions around disability
issues. The act does not define timelines for prevention or removal of barriers
and provides for virtually no enforcement or penalty.

However, we feel that with appropriate amendments there is still opportunity
for Bill 125 to meet the expectations of the disability community. We would
suggest the following revisions:

(1) That the language in Bill 125 indicate a clear intent to effect change. The
11 principles developed by the ODA Committee and adopted by the Ontario
Legislature in 1998 contained strong, definitive language such as "ensure
that," "require that," "comply with" and "will mandate." This language has been
diluted with phrases like "shall have regard to," "shall seek advice from,"
"may establish" and "where technically feasible."

(2) That the proposed accessibility advisory committee have a mandate that not
only advises the minister, but also promotes the development and creation of
opportunities for greater independence for individuals with disabilities;
reviews policies and program issues on disabilities in government and the
community; identifies and addresses major issues related to disability in areas
such as health, education, and physical and attitudinal barriers; responds to
emerging issues such as lack of housing and employment opportunities; provides
advice or comment on specific matters affecting all persons with disabilities;
and provides representation to external committees, government or
non-governmental, on disability issues.

(3) That, if the committee is to be credible, at least half of its members be
appointed by the community, including the disability community. This
representation would also specifically include individuals with an intellectual
disability.

(4) That the bill include the private as well as the public sector. It is
unlikely that "encouraging" the private sector will be enough to ensure that
barriers are eliminated or prevented.

(5) That specific deadlines for identifying, removing and preventing barriers
be stated and that effective methods of compliance and enforcement be
established.
The ODA committee has developed a brief which includes a detailed set of
effective amendments which have wide support from the disabilities community.
We would encourage you to review these amendments and respond positively to
them.

The potential for Bill 125 is there. With the suggested changes, you have an
opportunity to enact legislation which allows Ontario to play a leadership role
in ensuring that persons with disabilities achieve full participation in
society and to fulfill the government's commitment of "a promise made, a
promise kept." Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have approximately three minutes per caucus.
I'll start with Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much for coming forward this morning and for the
obvious effort that went into putting together this brief.

As you know, this is our third day. We've been on the road for a couple of
days, and much of what you present we've heard from other organizations across
the province. You've stated I think very clearly here that your hopes have not
been met in terms of the bill and that it lacks in some very significant and
meaningful ways. However, you're not going so far as to say that this is a bill
that is completely unredeemable. Is that correct?

Mr Fred Peters: I don't recall having used the word "unredeemable." It seems to
me that I did make reference in my remarks to the extensive brief prepared by
the ODA Committee and to the 11 principles which were adopted by the
Legislature in 1998.

It seems to me that using those two documents as a reference point, suitable
amendments could be made which would satisfy the intent of the brief filed by
the ODA Committee as well as the 11 principles previously adopted by the
Legislature.

Mr Martin: If there are no amendments made, if no suggestion that has been
brought forward is accepted by the government as making an improvement to this
bill, how effective will the bill that's presently tabled be in achieving some
of what you had hoped and is needed?

Mr Fred Peters: It's difficult to forecast the impact of a bill yet to be
determined. Our view would be that the bill would not move the yardsticks far
enough down the field, as the 11 principles initially intended, that with the
amendments proposed, we think we would have a better piece of legislation that
would significantly improve the opportunities for the disabled community in
Ontario.

Mr Martin: This bill is being hurried through, as I think you can probably see.
It will be done, for all intents and purposes, by next Tuesday. We would have
preferred to take the time in the intersession, which is the normal way we do
things around here -- January, February, March -- to have full and
comprehensive hearings and to have the time to work together with all the
groups, including those who support this, to make necessary amendments. Given
the short timeline and the limited opportunity we will have on this side to
support and encourage the government in terms of amendment, what would be the
priority for you if change was to be made?

0950

Mr Fred Peters: I would think, in the first instance, move away from broad
statements of intent to specific desired outcomes. As I mentioned, in one of
the four proposed areas for amendment, the language had been moved and diluted
from rather strong, in my view, actionable statements to broad statements such
as "encourage the intent" and so on and so forth.

My second view would be that there should be specific outcomes which should be
mandated. There should be obviously a way of measuring those and there should
be some compliance and enforcement mechanism.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much, Mr Peters, for your presentation. Just very
quickly -- my colleague Mr Spina wanted to ask a question too -- in number 2 of
your presentation, things the advisory committee would have a mandate to do
beyond what is suggested in the bill, I think about the second and third
bullets, "identifies and addresses," and the other one is "responds to emerging
issues": I wonder if you could tell me how you would see the ability to
address, as a committee, problems that would be identified in the community. Do
you address by mandating that they could force others to do it or that they
would actually be in the business of doing it?

Mr Fred Peters: My sense would be that the advisory committee is that, an
advisory committee, but yet, as it became aware of issues, it should bring that
to the attention of the government through its mandate as an advisory
committee. Advisory committees traditionally have not enjoyed any legislative
authority but they have been very effective, at least in my experience, in
bringing issues to the government and in some cases providing suggested
remedies to the issue. So I think it would be more in the context of being able
to respond to issues in a local community that in their judgment affect those
Ontarians with disabilities --
Mr Hardeman: So you're inferring that it should be a very good communications
system between the appointer of the advisory committees and the advice they're
giving.

Mr Fred Peters: And my sense is that the advisory committee would provide, in
this case, the minister with informed advice on what would be an appropriate
response to an emerging issue. I think that's the context in which that comment
was made.
Mr Spina: Thank you, Mr Peters. What I wanted to bring to your attention, and
it's a brief question, actually, that you referred to in the third element on
your fourth page, is that if the committee is to be credible, it would
specifically include individuals with an intellectual disability. That falls in
line I think also with the other definitions of the number of disabled people
who ought to be specifically identified.

Also, with respect to Mr Martin's comment, we fully anticipate that we should
have some 75 personal presentations to the committee over these six days of
hearings, and probably we'll have doubled that just with submissions that have
been sent to us. From that, we will be making amendments, likely, to the bill.

But they make it sound as if, once the bill is passed, everything is done and
that's it, which is not the case, in fact, because with any legislative bill
there are regulations that are to be created afterwards to implement the bill.
We just have to make sure that the clauses in the legislation allow those
regulations to be created. We've been assured by the minister's office that
there will be stakeholder consultation in the creation of those regulations so
that items like timelines, the adoption of codes, contents of the plans and
policies and criteria to identify agencies preparing some of the accessibility
policies can all be laid out in the regulations. The stakeholder groups will
have a further opportunity to input to the minister's office at that point. I
guess I'm asking, what group would you recommend to be consulted as part of
that regulatory process?

Mr Fred Peters: I think the very various groups that have come before this
committee would be an ideal group of agencies and individuals from whom to
solicit comment and/or participation on the drafting of appropriate
regulations.

I would, though, like to respond to one point that you made in your remarks,
that clearly one cannot do by regulation that which is not allowed by the act.
So the act obviously provides a statutory framework which governs the drafting
of regulation. It seems to me, for the sake of discussion, that if the act
contains broad-based statements that, while encouraging, do not speak to
outcome or result, including a timeline enforcement penalty, then by definition
the regulations will be equally high-level and will probably, I would think, be
more process-based around how these certain activities will take place as
opposed to saying that the act allows for the imposition of a penalty for
non-compliance against a mandated service. A penalty could be established by
regulation. So while there's obviously a proud history in Ontario of developing
regulation through a broad-based consultative approach, the content of the
regulation is informed by what's in the statute. If it's essentially a
process-based statute, then by definition the regulations, however broadly
based in terms of consultation, will not solve the problem at least of some of
the issues I have raised in the brief.

Mr Spina: Thank you. We appreciate that.

The Chair: I have to go to Mr Parsons.

Mr Parsons: Yes, you're quite correct: the regulations cannot change one bit of
the bill. There is a craziness in that the consultation on the bill has been
very hurried and we're hearing from people who simply weren't able to get a
presentation in place, yet there may be a much longer consultation on the
regulations, which can't change the bill.

You're an optimist and I admire you for that, but I guess the concern I've
heard so far, and a concern I have personally, is that the government could
have chosen to follow the 11 principles and did not. The government could have
chosen to incorporate the private sector and did not. They could have chosen to
put funding in for this and they did not.

If in the very short time allowed the government does not allow any of the
amendments or suggestions that you've included, if they do not include one of
them and simply pass the bill as presented or with some very minor things, does
it then help the community you work with or does it hinder, by giving the
appearance to the public, "There's now a bill; what's the problem?" Is a
non-amended bill a good thing or a bad thing?

Mr Fred Peters: That's a rather difficult question to answer. Clearly, the
government has decided that the area requires some legislative intervention. In
our view, the 11 principles adopted by the Legislature in 1998 established a
conceptual framework which in our judgment should drive the drafting of the
legislation.

The government has chosen a different way. My sense, to be frank, is that
legislation of this type deals with rights, so any legislation that begins to
reinforce or expand the rights of the disabled community I don't think in
fairness can be described as a hindrance. My only view is that it is not, as it
should be, to fully establish those rights in what I would define as a
well-understood and integrated system of statutory provisions governing access
and accessibility issues for the disabled. As I mentioned in my remarks, the
bill can be improved and we have proposed areas where in our judgment,
consistent with the 11 principles, amendment could be made I think without any
particular danger.

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

1000

CANADIAN NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind. I would ask the presenter to please come forward and state her name
for the record. On behalf of the committee, welcome. You have 20 minutes for
your presentation this morning.

Dr Penny Hartin: Good morning. My name is Penny Hartin and I'm the executive
director for the Ontario division of the CNIB. Don't worry, this isn't as long
as it looks. It's very large print.

The Chair: You have 20 minutes.

Dr Hartin: Yes, that's right. There are only four words per page, so it should
be fine. I have provided you with a copy of my document but I'll just review it
with you, if I might.

As the principal service organization providing a wide range of specialized
rehabilitation and support services to some 50,000 blind, visually impaired and
deaf-blind Ontarians of all ages, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind
would like to thank Minister Cam Jackson, Minister of Citizenship, and the
government of Ontario for the initiative you have taken to begin to remove the
barriers faced by persons with disabilities in Ontario.

The introduction of the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act, Bill 125, is
an important first step in the identification of barriers and the development
of measures to remove and prevent new barriers. We feel that the bill in its
present form does have a number of shortcomings. However, we also believe that
an effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act, together with some of the
excellent programs that are already in place, such as the assistive devices
program, will position Ontario as a progressive leader in addressing access
issues faced by persons with disabilities in this country. Of course, we would
also want to ensure that present services and programs are maintained and
enhanced as part of the process of achieving a barrier-free Ontario.

The CNIB acknowledges that some helpful measures are contained in the proposed
legislation that have the potential to address many present and future issues
in the identification, removal and prevention of barriers, such as the
requirement for published accessibility plans, the creation of advisory
councils and the commitment to ensure that all new government facilities will
be accessible.

Our agency does, however, have some significant concerns that we believe need
to be addressed as amendments to the legislation in order to ensure that the
bill will address the needs of persons who are blind, visually impaired or
deaf-blind. Some of our concerns relate to how the legislation will identity,
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 these cases we will
offer wherever possible suggestions for changes or amendments that we believe
would strengthen the bill's effectiveness.

We also wish to express our support for the ODA coalition, of which we are a
member and have been an active participant. While our CNIB submission will
focus primarily on our specific comments and recommendations, we share the
concerns and endorse the proposed amendments that have been set out in the ODA
coalition brief.

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 a staged approach
to implementation would be more effective. It is, however, important to ensure
that these changes and amendments that are necessary to address both short- and
long-term issues with the bill are incorporated into the legislation.

Some of our proposed amendments that would improve the removal of barriers for
persons who are blind, visually impaired or deaf-blind: it's important to
recognize that 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 differences 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 size and contrast, as well as tactile or Braille so that it
can be accessed both by persons who are blind as well as those who are visually
impaired.

Furthermore, the removal of barriers for persons with visual 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
deaf-blind, or the provision of materials in the alternative format of the
person's choice. It is important to understand that formats required will often
depend on the extent of vision and/or hearing loss.

We believe it is crucial that there is an understanding of these issues and the
factors, including degree of vision loss and/or deaf-blindness, demographics,
availability of technology, geography and so forth, that must be considered in
accommodating the unique needs of persons who are blind, visually impaired or
deaf-blind. We believe this is critical because these factors will need to be
considered when plans are developed and implemented to remove barriers in
buildings or in accessing goods and services. It is the position of the CNIB
that the removal of barriers must include the removal of physical barriers that
impede access for blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind persons, as well as
the removal of barriers to access goods and services.

The following are some specific concerns and/or suggestions for changes.

In section 2, dealing with the definitions for Ontario government publications,
we are concerned about the restrictions implied within the definition, that
publications of a "scientific, technical, reference, research, or scholarly
nature" would not be included in publications that would be available in
alternative formats if requested.

It is our view that government publications that would be made available to
members of the general public should also be made available to persons with
vision impairments, if requested, in the format of their choice. Given what
technology will now allow, virtually all documents would be technically
feasible to be produced.

In section 4, government buildings, structures and facilities, we believe that
"regulations" would be stronger than "guidelines" in terms of their
enforceability. Also, given that the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992, is
seriously lacking in its provisions for accessing the built environment for
persons who are blind, visually impaired or deaf-blind, we would recommend that
the new CSA standard B651 -- to be released in June 2002 -- be used as the
minimum standard, as it addresses much more effectively the access issues of
persons with vision impairments.

In section 4, dealing with new leases, we're concerned that government
departments need only have regard to the building's accessibility when making a
decision to occupy the building. We believe that compliance with the
regulations, or at a minimum a plan for renovation so that the building is in
compliance, is critical if new barriers are not to be created.

1010

In section 6, government Internet sites, the act requires that "where
technically feasible," government Internet sites be made accessible. In fact,
guidelines for the design of Internet sites now exist that make it technically
feasible to make all Internet sites accessible. Therefore, the words
"technically feasible" should be removed and it should be required that all
government Internet sites be made accessible. Indeed, it's our view that this
requirement would be appropriate for other sectors as well, including the
private sector, since the technology now exists to do this at reasonable cost.

In section 7, government publications, we believe a specified time frame should
be set for the provision of publications in alternative formats, say, 72 hours.
The term "reasonable time" could have many interpretations. We are also
troubled, as I mentioned before, with the qualification that materials would
only be made available if "technically feasible." Since most materials are now
produced on a computer, the production of alternative formats is now much
easier than in the past. The expectation should be that exclusions would be
based on clear criteria established in the regulations with the standard based
on undue hardship.

The sections dealing with "Duties of Municipalities" and "Duties of Other
Organizations, Agencies and Persons": there are no provisions in these duties
to require that publications be made accessible in alternative formats and
there are also no provisions that require accessibility of Internet sites. Both
of these issues are important to the removal of barriers for persons with
vision impairments and should be incorporated into the legislation.

In section 14, public transportation organizations, within the development of
their accessibility plans, public transportation organizations in partnership
with municipalities should be required to develop strategies to address
transportation issues in non-urban centres, as lack of transportation is a very
significant barrier for persons with vision impairments who live in the rural
areas of the province.

In section 29, the Municipal Elections Act, while the proposed changes are
helpful in ensuring that polling stations will be physically accessible and
that voters will receive assistance, there is no provision to deal with the
accessibility of the ballots themselves. Given that during the last municipal
election persons with vision impairments were not able to vote independently
and secretly due to the unavailability of accessible ballots in most
municipalities, an amendment should be included that requires ballots be
accessible and understandable to persons who are blind, visually impaired or
deaf-blind. This in fact is the case for both federal and provincial elections
where the balloting is now accessible.

I have some general comments I'd like to make regarding provisions in the act
and suggested amendments. While Bill 125 has made some important strides in its
recognition of barriers that exist and in developing measures that should
assist in the removal of these barriers and the prevention of future barriers,
we believe the bill would be stronger and more effective with certain
additional amendments.

Purpose of Bill 125: we believe the stated purpose of the bill should be the
removal of all barriers for persons with disabilities in Ontario to enable full
participation. While we recognize this cannot be achieved overnight, and will
require long-term commitment from all sectors, we should still maintain that
ultimate goal.
Applicability of the bill: while we understand it is the government's intent to
make the bill applicable in all sectors over time, this is not clear in the
proposed legislation. The bill would be strengthened by specifying time frames
for the inclusion of the various sectors.

Accessibility plans: we believe the development of these plans is a good step
in helping to identify barriers and action plans to address these. We are
concerned, however, that measures are not included to ensure these plans are
implemented. Amendments should be included to address implementation and
enforcement.

Government power to exempt organizations: while we recognize there may be times
when it will be appropriate for the government to exempt organizations if they
can demonstrate undue hardship, this should be a very rare occurrence and
exemptions should be time-limited. Consequently the legislation should be
amended to include strict parameters regarding the rationale, process and time
frame for the granting of exemptions.

Participation of persons with disabilities: the creation of provincial and
municipal advisory committees is a good step in ensuring input of persons with
disabilities in the process. We believe it is important that the individuals
selected to serve on these committees represent groups of or for persons with
disabilities, and that there be a requirement they consult with their sectors.

While the legislation states that a majority of members must be disabled
persons for the provincial advisory council, this is not specified for the
municipal councils, nor is there a provision for representation from the
various disability sectors on these councils. We believe this broad
representation is important, given the committees' potential involvement in
advising on guidelines, standards, plans and so forth, and that the needs of
persons with different disabilities can be diverse. We also believe the role of
the provincial advisory committee needs to be clarified in terms of its scope,
mandate and authority.

Prevention of new barriers: a fundamental objective of the Ontarians with
Disabilities Act has been to ensure that no new barriers are created. We
believe provisions in the bill need to be strengthened so that this objective
may be upheld. This should include new capital projects, leases, purchase of
goods and services, and exemptions to be granted only when undue hardship can
be demonstrated.

The foregoing comments and suggestions for amendments are intended to assist
the government of Ontario in enacting legislation that we believe, if amended,
would have the potential to make a significant difference for disabled
Ontarians. Persons with disabilities have a wealth of skills, expertise and
enthusiasm that they are eager to share with the government and with their
fellow citizens of Ontario. By enacting strong and effective legislation, the
province will be providing the impetus, the vision and the tools for Ontarians
with disabilities to take their rightful place as fully participating citizens
in the life of the province.

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

Mr Spina: Thank you, Ms Hartin; we appreciate it. On page 7 of our copy, you
indicated that you recognize that the aim of removing all barriers "cannot be
achieved overnight, and will require long-term commitment." There is no
question, I think we all agree that we should maintain that ultimate goal. Do
you have an opinion on the time frame for implementation? It can be simple
enough to say, "Every building built from here on out should have
accessibility," but what about a time frame for implementation of retrofits or
something like that?

Dr Hartin: I think it would depend on the sector. Clearly the government sector
should show leadership, and then municipalities. The private sector will be
later.

It's important to recognize that it isn't just building retrofits; it will also
be the provision of goods and services. It will be ensuring that application
forms are made accessible or, for example, that university calendars be made
available. It's not just the building, the physical accessibility; it's also
ensuring that other barriers to access be looked at as well.

I suppose that within the development of the accessibility plans, it's a matter
of looking at what could be done quickly in terms of retrofit at relatively
minimal cost and then putting the plans in place.

We're probably looking at a time frame of five to 10 years, I would think, to
have incorporated all the measures that need to be in place to ensure the full
removal of barriers.

Mr Parsons: You've obviously spent a great deal of time going through this
bill. The title of the bill says it's An Act to improve the identification,
removal and prevention of barriers. In your first perusal of this bill, could
you identify immediately barriers that you could see that this bill, as it now
stands, would remove for visually impaired, blind and deaf-blind individuals?

1020

Dr Hartin: Certainly the commitment to make government Internet sites
accessible was a good step, as well as making sure that most publications would
be accessible, although, as indicated, we have some concerns with the
qualification.

Mr Parsons: There weren't a lot that jumped out at you?
Dr Hartin: To be honest, it was rather confusing when talking about building
accessibility, because it tended to focus on physical accessibility issues,
whereas persons who are visually impaired require a range of accommodations. It
could include features such as the lighting, the signage and markings on steps
as well as some of the other physical barriers. It wasn't clear that the
regulations would be broad enough to ensure those barriers would be
incorporated as well.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much for coming this morning and for your very
detailed presentation. As you're aware, the government is intent on pushing
this bill through before Christmas. As a matter of fact, it will be virtually
done by next Tuesday. The obvious required amendments that are necessary if
we're to respond to the people we've heard from over the last couple of days --
and I'm sure today, tomorrow and for the rest of the week -- indicate there is
a whole lot of work needed to make sure this bill actually does what the
minister claims it is going to do.

You've laid out quite a number of very important amendments that need to be put
in place. What would your priority be?

Dr Hartin: I think it's important to ensure the legislation be effective and
strong. If that means we need to take some additional time to ensure the
amendments that are appropriate get inserted into the bill, then I think that
should be the priority.

Mr Martin: That we should take more time, that we should take whatever time is
necessary or required to make sure we do this right?

Dr Hartin: Yes.

Mr Martin: I'm not sure that's going to happen. I am heartened somewhat that
the parliamentary assistant is claiming there will be consultation with the
various communities on the regulations. If that's the only opportunity that is
provided, I would suggest that you and your group and others make sure the
government lives up to that commitment. We've heard it on a couple of occasions
here over the last two or three days. We're hoping it's not just more of the
platitudinous weasel-word type language that we see in the bill and that has
obviously guided the government to this point. I would guess that your
organization would be willing to participate with the government in the
drafting of regulations, if asked.

Dr Hartin: Our organization would be very happy to provide any assistance we
could to assist the government in ensuring that the legislation is strong and
effective and that it would address effectively the needs of our consumers.

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

ONTARIO BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Ontario Brain Injury Association.
I would ask the presenter or presenters to please come forward. On behalf of
the committee, welcome. You have 20 minutes for your presentation this morning.

Mr Howard Brown: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen,
my name is Howard Brown and it is an honour to speak before the committee today
on a subject that is very important to our province. I'm here representing over
18,000 Canadians, one third of them here in Ontario, who receive an acquired
brain injury.

I am chair of the government relations committee of the Ontario Brain Injury
Association. I am pleased to have with me John Kumpf, the executive director of
the Ontario Brain Injury Association, and Helen Sieber, whose son Steven is a
brain injury survivor who today is on life support at Humber River Regional
Hospital here in Toronto.

A few facts about brain injury: acquired brain injury is the leading cause of
death and disability in Ontario for those under 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, you begin to get an idea of just how many
people live with these effects every day in this province. Brain injury may
occur as a result of motor vehicle collisions, falls, assaults, diseases, brain
tumours, aneurysms. In fact, motor vehicle collisions are the cause of
approximately half of all brain injuries and falls are particularly evident
among the elderly and toddlers.

Brain injury does not distinguish itself by age, gender or socio-economic
status. It can happen to any one of us here in this room -- at work, on the
playing field or even as we drive home from this meeting. Chances are 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 may range from very mild to very severe.

Brain injury cuts across all disability groups. Because our brain controls all
of our functioning, people with brain injury may also have visual, hearing or
speech impairments. They may have mobility difficulties requiring the use of a
wheelchair or walker. It is very hard for family members, friends and even
employers to understand the personality changes that make it difficult to
organize thoughts and remember things that once came so easily. These invisible
changes present huge challenges to the survivors of acquired brain injury.

The Ontario Brain Injury Association was formed in 1986. Today, 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 corner of the province.

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 groups, we would have been
much more comfortable with an ODA that laid out explicit timelines for the
removal of specific barriers. It would have been comforting to have assurances
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,
obviously; the 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.

We would also recommend that local advisory councils include in their annual
reports the barriers they have to achieving their goals. If additional
supportive housing or home care or Wheel-Trans are the identified needs of a
community, there should be an ability for municipalities to say the lack of
funding is preventing them from implementing their plan. Do municipalities have
the ability to fund additional home care, additional supportive housing or
additional Wheel-Trans? That is a question that needs to be addressed before
elaborate plans become another disappointing intergovernmental funding
squabble. The challenge of dealing with communities with populations under
10,000 could be addressed on a regional basis.

However, we want to focus the committee's attention on the barriers faced by
those living with the effects of acquired brain injury. Brain injury is a
unique disability category. It is not limited to any one specific kind of
impairment. People with acquired brain injury can live with physical, sensory,
cognitive and emotional impairments; in some cases, they may live with all of
these. 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 ODA attempts to
address the issue 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.

1030

However, the barriers that are faced by people living with cognitive and
emotional impairments are much more difficult to identify and 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 is very difficult -- I'm not sure 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
would move society toward understanding, acceptance and accommodation of people
with cognitive and emotional impairments.

I have a few other comments, but I'd first like to turn over the mike to Helen
Sieber to tell the story of her son Steven.

Ms Helen Sieber: Good morning. My son Steven was 21 and a half years old in
June 1977 when he was hit by a car while crossing the street to catch a bus. He
was in a coma for three and a half months in Humber Memorial and Queen
Elizabeth hospitals. When he awoke from the coma, he was transferred to
Baycrest Hospital for rehabilitation, where he spent two years.

He was going into third year at the University of Toronto in computer science.
He had a summer job at Solway's hot dog factory in North York. His brain injury
has affected his speech, personality, temper and balance, and he still cannot
stand or walk. He lives on the income from the insurance settlement which will
totally run out in about two and a half years. His father is 75 years old and I
am 67 years old and arthritic.

For the last seven years, Steven has lived on his own in a self-contained,
non-profit disabled apartment. He got around on a scooter. Steve is now 45. For
the last couple of years, his lack of balance has caused him to fall a great
deal. Last Thursday was the worst. He had agreed to come and speak to this
committee. He never got a chance.

We had arranged for him to have a homemaker who comes in once a week to clean
for him. She found him on the bathroom floor, face down, unable to move,
slurring his words very badly to the point that no one could understand him.
The right side of his face was terribly swollen and his right eye totally
closed. An ambulance took him to Humber River Regional Hospital, where he is
now.

Yesterday, he was having trouble breathing and last night he was put on life
support. If he survives, he will not be able to live on his own any longer. He
will need 24-hour assistance and should be placed in a group home, or whatever
they have for people like him.

Up till now, he was able to do his own banking, shopping and heating up of his
own food, but that will not happen now. All I want to know is, can we get him a
place to live with the support and care he needs? He's too young for Baycrest.
Westpark Hospital is totally rehabilitation, so they won't take him. I don't
know where to turn. I laughed when I heard the only specific regulation in the
ODA bill was an increase in fines for disabled parking spots. I can tell that
won't do much to help my son.

I wish you luck in your deliberations. It may be too late to help Steven, but I
hope my words will inspire the committee to do some serious thinking about how
the ODA could be amended to truly meet the needs of disabled people in this
province. I hope the municipal and provincial committees will have the ability
to address the long-term well-being of disabled people.

Mr Brown: I think what Helen said helps put a picture to the words. There are
many issues that brain injured people live with every day. In Steve Sieber's
case, living with such a severe injury illustrates his need for appropriate
housing, home care and support. For many others, their disability is not so
obvious, leading to misunderstandings that impact daily on their lives. They
effectively limit the disabled person's participation in family life, community
activities and employment opportunities.

We recognize that there are no simple or quick solutions to removing these
attitudinal barriers.

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act attempts to address physical barriers faced
by those with disabilities. It falls short of 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
through the removal of existing barriers.

As a preamble, the ODA would be wise to include the 11 principles set out by
the ODA Committee as goals of the act. We have not had enough time to fully
analyze this bill and consider all of its implications, but after preliminary
consideration we can recommend the following: (1) that the definition of
"disability" must include brain injury in its description; (2) that explicit
timelines be prescribed for the removal of specific barriers; (3) that the bill
have an effective mechanism for enforcement; (4) that the role and authority of
the advisory councils be clearly defined, its reports obviously made public and
that the disability community have real, meaningful input; and (5) that the
bill make provisions for the allocation of resources to raise public awareness
and education of the issues faced by those with disabilities. The goal would be
to foster greater understanding, influence attitudes and work toward the
reduction of attitudinal barriers.

A barrier-free community is a minimum goal to full participation of the
disabled in society. Through effective regulation and mandated co-operation
with both the private and public sectors, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act
could help deliver broad public awareness, understanding of cognitive and
mental disabilities and eliminate barriers for disabled persons in every part
of the province.
The Ontario Brain Injury Association, along with many other 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 Chair: We have one minute per caucus, and I'll start with Mr Parsons.

Mr Parsons: I'm trying to find the right words to phrase this and be sensitive.
I guess my question to Helen would be, as a parent, one of your greatest
concerns, if not the greatest, must be that if you and your husband go first,
your son have the highest-quality life possible for him.

Ms Sieber: Exactly, yes.

Mr Parsons: Does the bill, as presented, give you some assurance that that will
happen or not?

Ms Sieber: I don't know. I really don't know. I have not had that much time to
think about it because we're so concerned with him right now. I'm going to the
hospital from here. So I don't think I can answer the question.

As far as my husband and I are concerned, that is a great worry with us: if we
go first, what will happen to him? The government will have to take over
somehow.

Mr Parsons: The government has to meet the incredibly high standard of
parenting that you have established.

Ms Sieber: That would be nice, yes.

Mr Parsons: I don't think it should even be nice; I think it should be an
obligation on the part of the government.

Ms Sieber: Yes.

Mr Parsons: I personally am concerned. My wife and I are in a situation
somewhat similar to yours. The number one concern is what happens when we're
gone. I need the assurance, and you need the assurance that your son will be
looked after.

Ms Sieber: Yes, that's correct.

Mr Martin: I have to tell you, I'm struggling with this bill and why it is that
the government, on one hand, would say such wonderful things and lead us to
believe they were going to do some things that would provide the kind of access
and opportunity that it indicates it wants to, and, on the other hand, not put
specific timelines and requirements in the bill. The only thing I can come up
with is that because in either the public sector or the private sector the
bottom line seems to be money, will there be the resources available to
actually meet the timelines or the specific requirements?

Trying to put this in some context, we have a government here that is bound and
determined to deliver corporate and personal tax breaks to people, and we know
that every time they do that, they take money out of the public pot that could
be going to providing the kind of housing and support services that your son
needs and that so many of the brain-injured across this province need if
they're going to participate in as fulsome and complete a way as possible. If
you had an opportunity to speak to this government, as you have this morning,
around that issue, the provision of resources, and they're making a decision
now as they move toward a budget for next year whether they actually give more
tax breaks to corporations and people or put more money into the provision of
public services for some of the people you represent, what would your
recommendation be?

1040

Mr Brown: I'd like to hear from John. John has had the chance to travel the
province and talk to families, but I think generally our constituency would say
let's put it into the resources we need for supportive housing, home care,
Wheel-Trans, whatever, to make sure these things are addressed. I know it's not
addressed in the act, and it is of great concern to us. I don't think you'd
have a lot of arguments from our constituency that that's where they want the
money to go. Maybe, John, you could comment on it as well.

Mr John Kumpf: Certainly. As I travel around the province and talk to survivors
of brain injury and their families, we know there are an awful lot of people
who are still looking for treatment. They are still looking for services. There
are long lines waiting for services, particularly where those services are only
available through the CCACs.

I think the issue Mr Parsons has brought up about aging caregivers is one in
which we are seeing an absolute explosion in terms of the numbers of calls
we're getting to our office from people who are saying, "We are just preparing
our will and it suddenly dawns on us, what happens to Bill, what happens to Joe
when we are gone?" For some of them, I ask, "Are you connected and getting
services through a CCAC?" For those who can answer positively, you at least
know there is somewhere that person is appearing on someone's radar screen.

For a great number of them, I have to tell you that they have been looked after
in their homes for years, and dozens of years, by caring parents and they say
to me, "What's a CCAC?" They are getting no services. There is a great
population of disabled people out there who've been cared for by loving
families and they're going to become someone else's responsibility in a very
short time. It's a major issue that is not addressed either by this bill or in
any other way that we can see.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think it is a major
problem, particularly for a mother coming forward, speaking about a son with
the problem. I would say that isn't a problem just for the brain-injured; it's
a problem for all adult children who have aging parents. When they were young,
we all thought we would live forever, and all of a sudden now that's not the
case. I think that's also why the Minister of Finance put a considerable sum of
money -- and I don't have the numbers here -- in the budget last spring to try
and deal with adult children of aging parents. We hope that will assist in
dealing with that issue for Steven.

I want to say, in my community we have similar problems with adult children,
one whom I've been quite actively involved with just recently, and I know it's
not an easy problem.

We've had a number of presentations from the Ontario Brain Injury Association
in previous hearings and the one item that comes forward every time is the
definition of "brain injury" in the act, and it makes a lot of sense. My
question on that one would be, can we define it? As you mention in your
presentation, there are so many affiliated or associated problems that could
exist with it where they would fit another category. Can you define "brain
injury" as a category of need as opposed to a contributor to a category of
need?

The Chair: Question? We're running out of time.

Mr Hardeman: The other question is, how would you put forward the communication
to try and get the public to understand this as a medical problem as opposed
to, as you almost indicate, shunning the issue? How would we go about doing
that in legislation?

Mr Brown: John, do you want to take that?

Mr Kumpf: I think, first of all, we have the accessibility advisory councils.
These councils could be given some scope to devise these things, with input
from specific organizations such as the Ontario Brain Injury Association. But I
would suggest to you that it's a much broader question than just brain injury
when we're trying to attack attitudinal barriers. I think people who are
concerned about mental health, people who are concerned about developmental
issues and so on, all face the same kind of attitudinal barriers, and until we
remove those, ladies and gentlemen, the removal of physical barriers is going
to be a very limited response to the needs of the people of Ontario who are
living with disabilities, particularly those that are cognitive and emotional
in nature.

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

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND: ADVOCATES FOR EQUALITY

The Chair: Our next presentation this morning is from the National Federation
of the Blind: