LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

ADVOCACY CENTRE FOR THE ELDERLY

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA, ONTARIO DIVISION

BLOORVIEW MACMILLAN CHILDREN'S CENTRE

MIKE COCHRANE

MILTON DEAF ACTION GROUP

ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO

CAROLE RIBACK

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE

MARCH OF DIMES

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS

ONTARIO COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

KATHRYN BREMNER

CANADIAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, ONTARIO DIVISION

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

Wednesday 5 December 2001 Mercredi 5 decembre 2001

The committee met at 0902 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.

LEARNING DISABILITIES
ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

The Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): Good morning, everyone. We're here to consider
Bill 125. Our first presentation this morning is from the Learning Disabilities
Association of Ontario. 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 Carol Yaworski: My name is Carol Yaworski. I'm the executive director of the
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario. I'd like to thank the committee
for the opportunity to present and also for scheduling me first thing in the
morning so that I have a better chance of your remembering what I'm saying to
you, because I imagine that by the end of the day it's all a blur.

To briefly speak about our association, we're a provincial association with
approximately 5,000 members across the province. That membership is comprised
of families and individuals and institutional organizations such as colleges,
universities, school boards and band councils.

Our primary role is to provide advocacy on behalf of individuals with learning
disabilities, and we do that on an individual basis across the province. We
have chapters in approximately 30 communities in Ontario, and I know that the
Chairman is familiar with our Lambton chapter. We also, at a provincial level,
make it our business to comment on pretty much every piece of legislation and
legislative change that takes place in the province. So as I'm sure you can
imagine, we've been a very busy group in the educational field in the last
several years.

In addressing the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act, I'm going to start
by giving you some history about our position on this legislation in its
previous two incarnations. We have advised this minister and previous ministers
that it is our view that unless a piece of legislation that had compliance
requirements and incentives was tabled, we would advise against actually
tabling the legislation, feeling perhaps that this is one promise that should
not be kept, but rather that the Ontario Human Rights Code, which is a piece of
legislation we have a great deal of faith in, be strengthened and that the
Ontario Human Rights Commission be provided with additional resources to make
the commission effective and timely in responding to complaints.
I will say that we have seen a substantial improvement in the work of the
commission in terms of timeliness in the last several years and I think that is
noteworthy.

However, given that the legislation has been tabled again and is going ahead,
what I'm going to speak to are specific concerns about the form of the
legislation that's currently before us.

In a previous submission -- this is all in the document I've provided to you --
we identified some specific expectations or suggestions we had as to what would
make such a piece of legislation effective. It's very important that something
like this, which substantially raises the expectations of people with
disabilities, have teeth to it. Our concern is that if it not be substantial in
nature, it creates a sense of complacency and overconfidence, especially for
individuals with harder-to-identify disabilities, such as learning disabilities
or mental health problems or brain injuries. For individuals like those we
represent, complacency is a very dangerous thing.

Our concern, first of all, was that the definition of "disabilities" in any
legislation be the one that is identified in the Ontario Human Rights Code.
That is certainly the case. We are pleased this proposed legislation does use
the code's definition.

Secondly, it's important that the goal of the legislation be to prevent and
eliminate discrimination for persons with all disabilities. Again, I'll
emphasize the problem associated with invisible disabilities.

It must complement and supplement the Ontario Human Rights Code, but also
reinforce the message that the Ontario Human Rights Code is the primary piece
of legislation. We feel this legislation in some places is not clear enough in
saying that the Ontario Human Rights Code overrides anything that is in this
act. Specifically, it's the statement, "Nothing in this act limits the
operation of the Ontario Human Rights Code." I think that could be a stronger
statement. In our meeting with the minister last week, we made a recommendation
to staff that that be strengthened.

Other aspects of legislation that we have felt would be important would be that
it spell out in detail both government's and society's expectations in terms of
access to goods and services and facilities for people with disabilities, and
accommodation of those disabilities.

For example, one of the recommendations we've made: we have a significant
problem in Ontario with access to books on tape. It's particularly a problem
for students in secondary schools with timely access to textbooks on tape.
We're recommending the legislation be amended to ensure that any private
business doing business with government -- in that case we would also include
transfer payment agencies such as school boards -- be required to have books on
tape that are texts immediately available, simultaneously available, when print
is available. With computer technology, there's certainly no reason why that
couldn't be done. I think it's an implied expectation, but it's one that we
would like you to articulate in the legislation.

There are two major concerns that we have about this legislation. One is the
absence of expectations around compliance. I think it is predicated on an
assumption that businesses and organizations will do the right thing, and
certainly in the public sector the expectations around doing the right thing
are higher, but I think there is an optimistic view that those organizations
and businesses that are not currently creating accessibility will do so.

This legislation requires some of them to create an accessibility plan. What it
doesn't require them to do is actually operationalize on a set plan. Maybe I'm
a cynical person, but I'm thinking that some of them are not going to do that.
We have great concern that in the public sector, for example, school boards,
colleges and universities will create very elaborate, substantial and
inspirational plans that never see their way off paper.

In the absence of both compliance expectations and some consequences for
non-compliance, and in the absence of incentives for compliance, I think we
could all end up with a province-wide library of very elaborate accessibility
plans that aren't actually operationalized. To me, that would be a tremendous
waste, because I think in some instances those institutions will convince
themselves that they've done what they needed to do and that that's sufficient.

0910

Our second concern, which is related to that, is a tremendous concern we have
that in school boards, for example, direct service dollars not be used to
develop accessibility plans. We're greatly concerned that special education
dollars, which are to provide direct services to students, will actually be
diverted to the expenditure of developing the accessibility plan. We know some
boards will do that. Some of them will not -- it's fair to say that -- but we
are absolutely certain that some boards will.

Hopefully regulations will address this, but there is nothing in this
legislation that would prevent a school board from taking service dollars,
special education dollars, and using those dollars to develop an accessibility
plan. We believe that situation also exists with colleges and universities. I
would certainly urge the committee to look at the concern that represents,
because we can see a lot of tax dollars intended to assist students directly
ending up creating accessibility plans that may or may not actually be
operationalized.

Those are my major points. I would urge you to read what we've provided. There
is a lot of detail there, but certainly those are the two great concerns: (1)
that these plans never actually come to life, and (2) that they will be
developed with direct service dollars.

The Chair: We have approximately three minutes per caucus and I'll start with
Mr Martin.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'd like to explore a little further with you
the first point you make, which is that your organization would not have moved
with this legislation. Instead, you would have beefed up the Human Rights Code
and perhaps given them more resources. I understand that if you give them more
resources, the backlog of cases before them would be cut down according to the
amount of resources they had. We have been looking for a more comprehensive
Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Given the principles that were laid out and
that are listed in your presentation here, if there was an act that covered all
those areas, would your position still be the same?

Ms Yaworski: No. If all these expectations were met, particularly the ones
around compliance, I think we would be in a very different position in terms of
our viewpoint. The concern we've had with this legislation from the outset is
that we understand it's the philosophical viewpoint of this government that
forcing the private sector into compliance is not something they're prepared to
do. We recognize that's the position. We've also seen, in our experience with
the Education Act, for example, that where you leave openings that create an
expectation that people do the right thing, they don't necessarily do that.

Our concern is that in the absence of compliance expectations, those companies
and institutions that are currently creating accessibility will continue to do
so and probably will do a better job of doing so, but those who aren't and
haven't, won't. So we feel we're going to be right back where we started,
although in the compliance, those organizations that do well with it will
probably do better. But certainly, if all of these expectations were met, we
could support the legislation.

Mr Martin: You also mentioned the issue of something stronger than the
statement, "Nothing in this act limits the operation of the Human Rights Code."
When we were in Windsor, the Windsor-Essex Bilingual Legal Clinic suggested
that, left as it is, this act could reduce the amount of protection and
coverage disabled people have. You're obviously saying the same thing.

Ms Yaworski: That's a concern we have as well, and ARCH, which has prepared a
document on this, an analysis of the legislation, has taken a similar position.
So yes, certainly that's a concern for us.

Mr Martin: Is ARCH coming before us, do you know?
Ms Yaworski: I don't know that.

Mr Martin: Do you have a copy of that document?

Ms Yaworski: I do.

Mr Martin: Can we get a copy of the document they have prepared?

Ms Yaworski: I have it here.

Mr Martin: Could you give it to the clerk? Perhaps, if we don't have it
already, it might be a helpful document for each of us to have.

Ms Yaworski: I think it would be.

The Chair: I have to go to the government side.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you for the presentation. I want to quickly
touch on the Human Rights Code. The intent of the legislation is definitely
that the supremacy of the Human Rights Code is recognized in this legislation.
Your suggestions will be looked at, and if that's not what it does, then it
would need to be amended to make sure it does, because that is definitely the
intent.

Along with that, I have some concerns. We've heard very little from presenters
or very few presenters have put forward the position that nothing is better
than this legislation. I think that's because most of the presenters feel that
the barriers to disabilities are generally not covered by the Human Rights
Code. So strengthening that would not do anything for the majority of people
who want an Ontario Disabilities Act in order to restrict the creation of new
barriers and to remove the existing barriers. Is it a reasonable assumption
that your association has different requirements or different problems than the
average presenter who has presented to us?

Ms Yaworski: I think that's true. In a forum I participated in last week with
the minister, for example, a substantial amount of the time was spent
discussing municipal compliance regarding accessibility existing in new
buildings. Certainly, while we think that's a very important issue for people
with physical disabilities, that's not a discussion that is particularly
relevant to our population.

The issues for our population with regard to accessibility relate to things
like adaptive technology and access to that, accommodations within the
workplace that don't create undue hardship for employers but that are often
abstract and very difficult for the employee to explain and to get across.

In terms of your previous reference to the Human Rights Code and the fact that
this creates accessibility and addresses the issue of barriers, I think our
recommendation that the code be strengthened to address the accessibility issue
would get at that absence that currently exists in the Ontario Human Rights
Code, and you're certainly right about that. The difference would be that the
commission that administers the code actually has some enforcement capacity
that this legislation doesn't have. This relies tremendously on good faith.

The Chair: I have to go to the official opposition.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Thank you for the presentation.
You're speaking on behalf of a group of people who have some unique challenges.
I taught at a community college for many years. It's my experience that a
student coming into college with a mobility issue was obvious, of course. For
students who had learning disabilities, not only was it not obvious but they
didn't want to be identified in some cases.

Ms Yaworski: That's right.

Mr Parsons: They would deny. So homework would not be done or tests would be
done very poorly, which I would initially attribute to their not having done
their homework. They are a group you have to pursue to find out what the real
issue is. It requires them usually to sign a consent to speak to their high
school to get that background. So you're trying to serve a group that at times
doesn't want to be served but desperately needs it. Without your amendments,
does the bill, as tabled, do anything?

Ms Yaworski: Not much. As I said, we're very concerned about protecting special
education dollars and direct service dollars in post-secondary with regard to
the development of accessibility plans. That's a tremendous concern for us,
because we believe that tens of millions of dollars will get spent on that in
the absence of some sort of financial assistance to those institutions to
develop the plans.

0920

Mr Parsons: Money is going to come from somewhere to develop the plans, but the
plans may not be implemented, they may simply be developed.

Ms Yaworski: Yes.

Mr Parsons: I'm trying to find the wording. That's got to be terrible, to build
up expectations. I'm thinking with parents or with the individuals themselves,
the expectation is, here is a plan; when does it start?

Ms Yaworski: Especially if, as the government hopes, parents and other
stakeholders will be involved in the development of those plans, you're right.
If they're developed but they never actually take life, then I think the words
you're looking for are that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I
think that people will hide behind that plan and say, "We've done what we
needed to do." And in fact, they have because there is no expectation. There's
an expectation but there are no conesquences.

Mr Parsons: There's no requirement.

Ms Yaworski: Or no incentive.

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

ADVOCACY CENTRE FOR THE ELDERLY

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. I
would ask the presenter to please come forward and state your name for the
record. On behalf of the committee, welcome.

Mr George Monticone: Good morning, Mr Chair. My name is George Monticone. I am
a lawyer with the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. I thank you and your
committee for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly was founded in 1984. We're a legal clinic
that serves low-income seniors in the greater Toronto area. We have throughout
the years worked with many seniors who have disabilities. We've seen at first
hand the accessibility problems encountered by these seniors.

While it's possible to use existing legal mechanisms such as the Human Rights
Code to remove barriers, this process is a long and painful one. Some persons
faced with these difficulties don't have the strength and energy to see a legal
action through to a successful conclusion. Some, because of serious illness,
don't have the time to challenge the existence of barriers. Others may not have
access to affordable legal assistance. And even if successful, the removal of
one barrier may not be helpful if in the meantime several others have been put
in their place.

For these reasons, legislation is needed which grapples systemically with
accessibility problems. Whatever its shortcomings, the Ontarians with
Disabilities Act, 2001, acknowledges this fact by its very existence. We
congratulate the government for finally putting the issue on the public agenda
by introducing Bill 125. We hope that the debate and discussions prior to third
reading of the bill will strengthen that bill.

One year ago yesterday, a group of women representing the largest seniors'
organizations in Ontario held a press conference in this very building calling
for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This fact is noted
in Hansard for December 4, 2000. The organizations represented at that press
conference include the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, Canadian
Pensioners Concerned, Care Watch Toronto, Older Women's Network, Ontario
Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the United Senior Citizens of
Ontario.

The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly does not speak for these seniors and their
organizations. They certainly are very capable of doing that for themselves.
However, we wish to remind the committee and the Legislature that these
organizations, representing thousands of seniors across Ontario, have been
heard from and some very clear messages came through at their press conference.
I've included for your perusal the press release and fact sheet from that press
conference. Three points were made there.

(1) Legislation must be introduced that ensures no new barriers are put in
place in the future in Ontario.

(2) Legislation must be introduced to ensure that the principles of universal
design are followed in products, communications and the built environment.

(3) Legislation must be introduced to ensure the removal of existing barriers.

I want to take those three points as a way of looking at Bill 125 and ask the
question, does it satisfy those three demands of the seniors' organizations?

Let's take the first point: Does Bill 125 ensure no new no new barriers will be
put in place in Ontario?

We have to say no to this. Only the government of Ontario is placed under an
obligation to ensure no new barriers, by section 4. Even this requirement has
problems, but if we let them pass, it has to be said that other entities such
as municipal governments, agencies, organizations and private businesses are
not placed under a similar duty to comply. With respect to everyone else in
Ontario other than the provincial government, new barriers may be put in place
with impunity.

Surely the seniors who spoke at that press conference did not intend to exempt
all of the private sector and municipal governments. To do so, after all, is to
exempt most of what each of us encounters every day. So Bill 125 must be
amended to include these sectors to ensure no new barriers in the future.

Even if we look at the requirements placed on the provincial government, there
are problems in Bill 125. I cite in my paper a number of sections of the bill
that say that the provincial government must do particular things in relation
to the design of environments in relation to publications, Web sites and funded
capital projects.

Do these requirements, taken together, amount to assurance of no new barriers?
What happens if a new barrier is put in place, or one of these requirements is
not met? What can a person with a disability do under such circumstances? I
think you search Bill 125 for an answer in vain.

There is an old maxim quoted in many legal texts: "There is no right without a
remedy." This means that any law purporting to advance the rights of someone
that does not give that person a means to redress their situation is, in
effect, an empty law. Bill 125 is such a law. There is no list of offences or
penalties and there is no right of appeal or complaint to an independent court
or tribunal, so a person with a disability who encounters a new barrier or a
violation of one of the provisions of this bill has nowhere to go. The only
thing they can do perhaps is what they can already do, which is to take the
matter to the Human Rights Commission.

It should also be noted that in section 18 of the bill, the government is
permitted to exempt anyone from the requirements of the act if it so chooses.
There is no right to challenge such an exemption.

This total lack of remedies in Bill 125 isn't good enough. It doesn't enhance
the rights of persons with disabilities. The bill must be amended to clearly
state that specific actions, such as establishing a new barrier, are illegal,
and it must provide those affected by such actions with the means to challenge
the illegality. There must be a right to bring the matter to a newly created
tribunal, a court of general jurisdiction or an existing tribunal.

In conclusion then, Bill 125 doesn't ensure the provincial government will not
create new barriers for those with a disability. New barriers may be justified
as an exemption under section 18. Moreover, no mechanism is provided to
challenge a new barrier that may be in violation of the law.

Let's look at the seniors' second point. Does Bill 125 ensure that the
principles of universal design or any other standards are followed with respect
to products, communications and the built environment to ensure accessibility?
I've included for your reading in appendix 2 the seven principles of universal
design. I'm not here to defend them today. I don't even particularly want to
talk about them, but I think they are very interesting and may serve as the
basis for standards in legislation.

0930

The point I want to make today is that seniors' groups represented at that
press conference said they wanted to see some standards adopted in legislation.
It may be universal design standards, it may be some others, but Bill 125
doesn't do any of this.
Section 4 requires the adoption by the provincial government of "barrier-free
design guidelines," which guidelines are to be developed in consultation with
persons with disabilities and others. It specifies that these guidelines are
not regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act. Bill 125 doesn't set
any time limits on when these guidelines must be adopted, and it doesn't set
any time limits as to when they must be implemented.

It's understandable the Legislature would not want to tackle the difficult job
of specifying detailed standards; however, this doesn't justify a completely
open-ended approach which sets no time limits and which only insists on
"guidelines" which don't have the force of law. Such details as are required
here are typically reserved for regulations under a statute.

Therefore, we recommend Bill 125 specify that standards of design be developed
in consultation with persons with disabilities and that they be set out in the
form of regulations. In addition, we recommend Bill 125 set clear time limits
as to when these regulations are to be in place and time limits as to how long
those bound by the regulations have to comply with them.

Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the standards set in regulations should
apply to municipal governments and the private sector in addition to the
provincial government.

Finally, I'll turn to the third point made by the seniors at that press
conference I referred to: does Bill 125 ensure the removal of existing
barriers? I think the answer, very simply, is no.

Bill 125 is at best a planning bill. It requires the provincial government,
municipalities over 10,000 persons, public transit organizations and other
scheduled organizations to develop an annual accessibility plan which includes
measures to be taken to identify, remove and prevent barriers. While there is a
requirement of a plan, no time limits are set as to when, if ever, such a plan
is to be implemented. There are no penalties if the plan fails to address what
it should or if the plan is not implemented. Bill 125 does not give persons
with disabilities any remedy by which they may address these sorts of failures.
No sector, including the provincial government, is required by Bill 125 to
actually remove existing barriers.

Now, this is a hard issue, removing existing barriers, and that's because it's
costly sometimes. Bill 125 fails to prevent the implementation of new barriers,
so it's not surprising it wouldn't deal with this much more difficult issue of
removing existing barriers. A real commitment to a systemic solution to this
problem requires the commitment of provincial funds to assist where the cost of
barrier removal or renovation is high or prohibitive. Bill 125 provides no
funding for this purpose; therefore, once again the only recourse for persons
with disabilities faced with existing barriers is to initiate an individual
challenge under the Human Rights Code.
In conclusion, while the existence of this bill does advance the public debate
a step further about removal of and prevention of barriers to people with
disabilities, it doesn't give us much in the way of substance to address
existing problems and prevent future problems.

Just to very quickly summarize. The scope of this act should include private
businesses and organizations, municipalities as well as the provincial
government. There should be no possibility of a permanent exemption from the
requirements of the act as is currently found in section 18. Standards of
design and related requirements to prevent barriers must be incorporated into
regulations to be passed, in consultation with persons with disabilities and
others, and reasonable time limits must be set in the act as to when these
regulations should be passed and as to when there must be compliance. The act
must specify offences and provide remedial mechanisms to those who wish to
challenge violations of the act. Finally, the act must ensure that no new
barriers are put into place.

Those are my comments.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have one minute per caucus, and I'll start
with the government side.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Thank you for bringing the perspective from
your particular group.

You talked about compliance and I guess kind of a phase-in period. I'm just
wondering if you had any recommendations as to what kind of a phase-in period
it might have for compliance and whether you felt, or your group felt, that
from your perspective the private sector should be the priority versus the
government leading the way. We had one advocate in here, for example, saying,
"You know, I need to get to my doctor. I don't care about city hall," kind of
thing.

Mr Monticone: In terms of time frames, I know other organizations who will be
appearing before this committee have suggestions of six months and so on. I
frankly don't have a precise suggestion. I think compliance must be within a
time frame. There should also be a mechanism to permit an extension in
particular circumstances. That would require access to a tribunal and the
possibility of hearings, I suppose, to give to organizations who may, for some
extenuating circumstances, not be able to meet a firm deadline. So I think that
should be considered if firm deadlines are set.

I do believe they should be set. You have the difficult task of deciding what
the proper time limit should be. Six months doesn't seem out of line.

The Chair: Thank you very much. The official opposition?

Mr Parsons: What I'm going to say is pretty deep for an engineer, so forgive me
if I phrase it wrongly, but there is the sense to me that there is a "them" and
an "us" in this bill. "Them" are the people with disabilities; "us" are the
people that don't have them yet.

This bill, to me, rather than saying, "them is us," says, "OK, we're going to
identify, we're going to label. We're not going to bring you into our world,
but at least we've labelled you under this bill." But I don't see any effort
for a bridge to be built to bring the two groups together. Because really, in
effect, we are one group. We are one group and should be one group.

So I see the bill as putting a label on a group but not actually doing anything
to remove the barriers. Is that a fair comment?

Mr Monticone: I think that's a fair comment. I didn't read you part of my
paper, but I invite you to have a look at page 2 in here. I engage in a little
bit of philosophy there, and really I think it's supporting what you're saying,
sir. Those of us who may be fortunate enough to not have a disability may think
of "them" and "us," but the reality is that we don't know what our future
holds, any of us, and any one of us could suffer an injury or have some problem
develop which results in a disability. Any one of us could have that, or those
of us who even have a disability now could have a different one in the future.
We don't know.

I invite you as legislators to think about that fact very hard and invite you
to design your legislation in such a way as to ensure that if you were one of
those people in the future governed by it, who had a disability, it would be of
assistance to you, you would see it as being of value. So I invite you to adopt
that framework when you're thinking about this bill.

The Chair: Mr Martin?

Mr Martin: Thank you for coming this morning. I reference your comment on page
4, which says that in fact this is an empty law. I'd suggest, from comments
that have been made by others and just a brief look through the document we
just received from ARCH, that it's actually not an empty law, and if we're not
careful it could be a law that takes away from disabled people some protections
they already have under the Human Rights Code. Have you done any analysis of
that sort with regard to the bill?

Mr Monticone: Well, no. There is that possibility inherent in the bill, in
terms of standards being set. We see in the bill that the standards can be as
low as what the building code requires, and those standards may not go any way
toward addressing a serious accessibility issue. So yes, you're right, there is
that possibility inherent here, and that should be addressed.

0940
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY
OF CANADA, ONTARIO DIVISION

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of
Canada, Ontario division. I would ask the presenters to come forward, and could
you state your names for the record, please. On behalf of the committee,
welcome.

Ms Kris McDonald: My name is Kris McDonald. I'm with the Multiple Sclerosis
Society of Canada, Ontario division. I'm a member of the social action
committee. I am also a person with multiple sclerosis. I work part-time as a
disability consultant providing consulting services to the MS Society on
insurance, and to individuals with disabilities in my own community.

Ms Deanne Groetzinger: I'm Deanne Groetzinger, vice-president of communications
with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. I work very happily with Kris,
who is one of our lead volunteers.

Ms McDonald: The MS Society of Canada is pleased to be able to provide input to
Bill 125.

The MS Society is a national organization with regional divisions. An estimated
50,000 Canadians have MS, with approximately 18,500 in the province of Ontario.
MS is a disease of young adults. It is the most common neurological disease
that affects Canadians. It generally strikes between the ages of 20 and 40, so
it is hitting people at the prime time of their lives, when they are creating
careers and families. Its disabling effects can vary. In each of the briefs we
presented to you, we also gave you a green sheet that includes the primary
symptoms of multiple sclerosis. It's an excellent graphic -- the graphic
designer should be given some kind of award -- because it lets you see exactly
what the symptoms of MS are.

As previous speakers have said, we view Bill 125 basically as a beginning
point, a framework. As it stands, it's only a first step. It's a framework for
us to build something truly remarkable. It could be thought of as the framing
for a house, and the comments and suggestions that people are bringing forward
during these hearings will provide the details of what the house should look
like when it is finished. We hope these public hearings will be digested by you
and utilized. Our concerns with the legislation involve, as was said by a
previous speaker, the possibility of a reduction of rights. We have included
wording in our brief for the definition to change so that the rights of
individuals under the current legislation, the current system, would not be
abridged.

Now we would like to make some recommendations. First, as the previous speaker
said, we would like it extended to the private sector. Going to a city council
meeting is a very good idea, or coming to this exalted body is exceedingly
delightful, although I'm not sure if there are mice in Queen's Park, as the
bread crumb trail I left to get out of here may not be available when I go
back. I hope the janitors of Queen's Park have controlled the mouse population
so I can find my way back out of this building.

What we would like to see is a widening of the purpose of the legislation, and
perhaps this wording: "The purpose of this act is to achieve a barrier-free
Ontario for persons with disabilities guaranteed under the Ontario Human Rights
Code or under any other act or regulation in Ontario." As we say, barriers are
not necessarily only physical. If you notice on the various symptom notes,
vision impairments are part of the inclusions, so that the Building Code Act,
1992, which seems to be the primary framework of this legislation, is not the
only means by which the rights of the disabled can be entrenched. Yes, it's an
interesting use of the building code, making it regulate that barriers are not
constructed, but that's not the only source of barriers for some people. For
example, a blind person trying to figure out if an elevator is going up or down
if there is not one bell for up and two bells for down, or hearing when an
elevator arrives if you have a hearing impairment, are difficult things to do.
So in the design of buildings, the government has given itself a loophole. We
would close that loophole and also extend the legislation to the private
sector.

The private sector is really the place where I live, the place where I exist. I
need to get to the grocery store and be able to purchase groceries for my
family, not just come to Queen's Park and make a presentation to the
government. So for barriers in buildings, particularly for small businesses
that don't have access to large amounts of money, the government needs to
provide some sort of sustenance, because they can't afford or can't access my
consulting to tell them the less expensive ways to make their buildings
accessible. It doesn't always take thousands of dollars to make a building
accessible. Sometimes it can be done with just a cement mixer and the building
of a ramp in the proper place or the moving of some furniture.

The view of the world becomes entirely different from this vantage point, from
this seat, rather than standing or walking around. That's the interesting thing
that most people don't recognize until they're in this thing. I know what my
disability is. You and most of the population of Ontario don't necessarily
know.

In our brief we have given specific areas of the present bill that can start it
on the way, but our strong belief is that what is needed is the inclusion of
private sector and broader public sector compliance requirements. So if an
organization doesn't make a building accessible, I don't have to go to the
Human Rights Code and complain. If they don't comply within an established time
frame, then they have a problem with the legislation; I don't have to complain
to the Human Rights Commission. Many people who are physically or emotionally
challenged do not have the mental capacity or the financial resources to
complain through the Human Rights Code process.

0950

The other thing is timelines. If the organization that needs to make their
building accessible has plans to do it but never accomplishes it, it's a very
lovely idea but it's not going to happen unless I go and complain. So there
should be definite timelines in the legislation requiring compliance within a
period of time and a remedy structure for people who want to make this
legislation work. The concept that businesses will get in line or follow the
spirit of the legislation without requirements is not necessarily there.

I hope that our presentation has been helpful. I think reading our brief, which
goes much more into specifics on the legislation, will give you some of our
specific critiques.

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

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I have one question. My
stepmother has MS. Luckily for her, she's been in remission for a long time,
but I very much appreciate your words. I'm interested in knowing, when this
bill was first presented, was your first opportunity to examine the contents of
it provided by media coverage of the bill's presentation or actual
consideration of the legislation?

Ms Groetzinger: I'll take that, because I'm the technical assistant. We did
have an opportunity to meet with the minister, I think it was back in May, to
sort of provide our basic requirements of what we thought would make an
effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Prior to the introduction of the
bill, we did have a small opportunity to meet again with the minister in some
of the consultation groups he had set up. While not at that point having access
to the actual wording of the legislation, there was a feeling at that time,
even when we heard the wording, of some of the concerns Kris had, and those
were basically the seeming lack of enforcement and the timelines.

I would only reiterate some of the things Kris has said in terms of it being
all very well and good to make plans, but if you have no mechanism for ensuring
that those plans are enforced and you just go on making the same plans year
after year, I think people who have disabilities are going to be very
disappointed.

Mr Smitherman: A very quick follow-up to that: one of the things I've heard
from some people who were here in the chamber on the day the bill was
introduced and who read the media coverage of that introduction was that they,
and in fact Ms Yaworski, who spoke earlier this morning, were concerned that
some of the media stories might have created an artificial sense of expectation
among disabled people, that the quality of the communication on the day of the
event far surpassed the content of the bill in terms of its meaningful impact
on lives. Did you go through any of that emotional reaction?

Ms Groetzinger: I think our organization was disappointed, and I would think it
would go back to the vision statement that was signed by Mr Jackson and Mr
Harris, which is wonderful. I love the vision statement that was unveiled on
November 1 at the Easter Seal Society building. Unfortunately, when we actually
saw the wording of the bill, it did not live up to that. I would urge this
committee to go back to that original vision statement and try to put into the
existing bill some wording that would actually capture the goal that is in the
vision statement, which Mr Jackson so eloquently presented at that time.

Ms McDonald: Along that line, my comment to the committee that the view is very
different from down here -- perhaps the reporters who said terrific things
about it extemporaneously were standing up a little higher. The view is
different from down here. Getting into a building -- for example, there was a
restaurant where the only entrance that was accessible to my scooter forced me
to enter through the kitchen, by the garbage cans. That was the only accessible
entrance to the restaurant. That restaurant has since gone out of business. I
won't necessarily tie those two items together; however, they certainly lost my
business at that point.

The view is a lot different for people with disabilities. I'm not trying to
make business for myself, but the advice and counsel of people with
disabilities to people like yourselves is critical: ask us to go in to check a
washroom and see if I can get into it with my scooter.

Mr Martin: On page 3, you mention no reduction of rights, something that has
come up on a few occasions this morning. Just in case people are not
understanding what we mean here, in this ARCH Alert document, on page 3, it
says, "A notable difference in language between Bill 125 and the Human Rights
Code is that the bill directs that various planning initiatives are to `have
regard to accessibility,' a somewhat vague direction, while the code requires
accommodation up to the point of undue hardship."

Ms McDonald: We have suggested, in our brief, wording to add an amendment to
the legislation as it presently stands, for a way to clean that up. So Deanne
has provided you with the tool to correct that deficiency in this bill.

Ms Groetzinger: Just a comment on the words "have regard to" -- I've talked to
a number of people in various jurisdictions about this. The language they are
using is rather odd language to use. It might be an opportunity at this
committee level to clean that up a little bit, so we don't get into the issue,
which several people have raised, that this bill might actually have the
not-intended effect of reducing the existing rights of people with
disabilities.

Ms McDonald: "Have regard to" is magic loophole language.

Mr Martin: Yes. I think it should raise a red flag for all of us in terms of
what other things might be in here that might give people the wrong impression
or lead us down a path that would.

Mr Hardeman: I too have MS very closely in my family, so we thank you very much
for your presentation.

I want to assure you that there's definitely no intent in the legislation in
any way to take away the rights the disabled community presently has in the
Human Rights Code. If that is what the appearance is, then I can assure you we
will be looking at that to make sure that's covered off. We very much
appreciate your comments and suggestions as to how that might be done. So we
will take it under review.

I just want to go to the purpose of the legislation. You reworded it. I'm
having trouble trying to find out the differences between the purpose as
written in the legislation and your suggestion as to what it should be. To me
they seem to be quite similar. Could you just help me with what part of it is
the significant difference? You suggest, "The purpose of this act is to achieve
a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities through the identification
and removal of existing barriers and the prevention of new barriers with the
significant involvement of persons with disabilities. Currently it says,
"improve opportunities for persons with disabilities and to provide for their
involvement in the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to their
full participation in the life of the province." It would seem to me that they
are almost identical, except that they're worded differently.

Ms McDonald: It's kind of the tone. I don't want you to take care of me; I want
you to allow me to live as full a life as I can.

Mr Hardeman: I guess that's really why I asked this question. It seems to me
that the present purpose says we will create an Ontario that allows for the
full participation of people, where yours says we shall create a barrier-free
Ontario. It just seems to me that relating it to the individuals is more
appropriate than what you will create. We will provide the ability for the
disabled community, to create for themselves full participation in our society.
I guess that's really why I question that.

Ms Groetzinger: I agree with you. Those are nuances and if we were all lawyers
we could spend the rest of the day arguing, which I suspect we don't want to
do. I think our intent was there could be some -- if one takes the current
language of the purpose and tried to create opportunity, it's sort of doing it
in a two-stage manner. We thought that a different, more direct language might
get to it faster as opposed to, "Well, we're going to create this opportunity,
but we're going to do it in an almost arm's-length way." Unfortunately then,
with some of the other things that Kris was mentioning, then it's coupled with
the fact that it really only talks about public sector involvement initially,
in terms of municipalities and the wider public sector; it talks about
basically filing plans. Then we do actually worry about the purpose of the act.
I think that perhaps that might be more directive too. I think it would be
something that we could probably live with if there were more teeth in the rest
of the act.

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

1000

BLOORVIEW MACMILLAN
CHILDREN'S CENTRE

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Bloorview MacMillan Children's
Centre. I would ask the presenter or presenters to please come forward. If you
could state your name for the record, please. On behalf of the committee,
welcome. We have 20 minutes for your presentation this morning.

Ms Sheila Jarvis: Good morning. I'm Sheila Jarvis, president and CEO of
Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre. On my immediate left is Greg Contaxis.
Greg is a young person who has used services at Bloorview MacMillan Centre. He
is currently a volunteer in our organization and a mentor for many of our youth
at the centre. On Greg's left is Cal Millar. Cal is the parent of a young girl
who uses services at Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre. Cal is also a
member of our board of trustees. Thank you very much for allowing us to come
this morning and share with you some of our remarks on this important
legislation.

We have just circulated to you a folder of material which contains our speaking
remarks this morning as well as our position paper on this legislation.

Staff, young people and families at Bloorview MacMillan have expressed strong,
unanimous support for an effective, comprehensive and enforceable Ontarians
with Disabilities Act. This legislation is viewed as a key instrument in
enabling children and youth with disabilities to achieve their personal best.

We wish to congratulate the government of Ontario for releasing its Vision for
Persons with Disabilities. This declaration truly confirms 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.

We also wish to congratulate the government on introducing Bill 125, which we
see as an important first step to working with every sector of Ontario society
to move toward a province in which no new barriers are created and existing
ones are removed.

Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre believes that, by strengthening this
legislation with certain amendments, the government of Ontario, with the
disability community, can begin to achieve the important principles that are
stated in Ontario's Vision for Persons with Disabilities.

Our comments and recommendations today focus on a few areas important to
children and young people with disabilities and their families.

Definition of "barrier" and "municipal services": children and young people
with disabilities and their families regularly experience barriers that prevent
them from participating in many parts of their lives. These obstacles exist in
education, recreation, housing, public transportation, employment and health
care services, and they result in many types of discrimination. More
information on these barriers can be found in our position paper on the
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, a copy of which you have in your package.

Because of numerous barriers, children and young people with disabilities and
their families are disadvantaged in several ways: socially, vocationally,
economically and educationally. Not as obvious but equally significant is the
emotional and psychological toll these barriers take.

Therefore, Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre recommends that the purpose as
stated in section 1 be consistent with the government's Vision for Persons with
Disabilities and that the definition of "barrier" in subsection 2(1) be
expanded to include education, recreation, housing, public transportation,
employment and health services.

In addition, Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre recommends that subsection
12(2) require municipal councils to seek advice from accessibility advisory
committees on the accessibility for persons with disabilities to buildings and,
importantly, programs associated with municipal services, including recreation
facilities such as swimming pools, skating rinks, libraries and all of the
programs within.

Definition of "disability": in order for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act to
be effective, it must contain a clear, comprehensive definition of
"disability," so that all children and youth, regardless of disability, derive
equal benefit from the law.

Among its many clients, Bloorview MacMillan serves more than 200 infants and
up-to-18-year-olds each year who have experienced a severe brain injury from
trauma, tumour, stroke or other illness. While brain injuries aren't always
noticeable, their impact can be complex and permanent. People of all ages with
an acquired brain injury may experience emotional, learning, physical,
psychological and social difficulties.

At Bloorview MacMillan, we enable children and youth with severe acquired brain
injuries to reintegrate into their homes, schools and communities. Including
people of all ages with an acquired brain injury in the Ontarians with
Disabilities Act will support these people immensely. Therefore, Bloorview
MacMillan Children's Centre recommends that the definition of "disability" in
subsection 2(1) be broadened to include acquired brain injury.

Now, over to Cal Millar.

Mr Cal Millar: As she alluded to, my name is Cal Millar. I have an
eight-year-old daughter named Samantha who first attended Bloorview MacMillan's
school in what is called the IET program, or integrated education therapy
program. She's now in her second year at her community school, which is grade 3
for her, and it's a publicly funded school close to our home.

Samantha uses a special computer in order to communicate with us and the
outside world. She requires classroom support in order to learn, in the form of
a full-time attendant. Like other parents of children with disabilities, I'm
constantly required to advocate on my daughter's behalf for her right to get a
proper and full education. An Ontarians with Disabilities Act should put an end
to our constant struggle and provide all children with disabilities with the
education they need and deserve.

While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees people with
disabilities equal protection and equal benefit of the law, and while the
Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination because of a handicap, in
several areas numerous barriers continue to exist.

An example of this is Ontario's Education Act, which was amended in 1989 to
guarantee every child an appropriate education. The interpretation of
"appropriate education," however, varies from community to community. This,
coupled with a lack of funding and support, means that although more children
with disabilities now attend their publicly funded local school than happened
10 years ago, many of Bloorview MacMillan's children and their parents and
families say that an additional key step needs to be taken: the inclusion of
students with disabilities in community schools close to their homes must be
made law.

1010

I would also like to add that although brain injury is the leading cause of
acquired disability in Ontario children, with more than 6,000 sustaining such
brain injuries each year, Ontario's Ministry of Education does not have an
acquired brain injury designation in the categories it uses to identify
exceptional students. This is why many students with an acquired brain injury,
or ABI, are misidentified and don't qualify for the classroom support they
need. An Ontarians with Disabilities Act that includes acquired brain injury as
a disability and education as a barrier would enable students with a brain
injury to attend their local public school and get that education.

Bloorview MacMillan parents also believe that including students of all
abilities in classrooms and all school events is the key to breaking down
barriers and building positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities
across every sector of our society. Students in inclusive classrooms, of which
my daughter Samantha is one, learn to appreciate, support and care for people
of all abilities. It works both ways: the children with a disability learn how
to interact with their peers, and conversely, those we consider "normal" in
some way. We welcome the government's commitment to a public education campaign
to contribute to overcoming attitudinal barriers in this province.

Therefore, Bloorview MacMillan's Children's Centre stresses the importance of
expanding the definition of "barrier" in subsection 2(1) to include, among
other areas, education, and broadening the definition of "disability" in the
same section to include acquired brain injury.

I'm going to turn it over to Greg.

Mr Greg Contaxis: Good morning. As Sheila said, my name is Greg Contaxis. I'm
going to talk about a barrier-free Ontario and what it's like to go shopping.
On a couple of occasions I had the experience of going shopping as usual. Twice
in the past -- last week as a matter of fact -- I went to a Radio Shack store
and I knocked over two toys, two games. I had to say, "Sorry." That's
unacceptable, because the aisles should be wider so I can get easier access. I
believe that if the people who work there can listen to us, then we can make
suggestions.

Also, I was in a department store over a year and a half ago, and I knocked
over a whole display of china because the aisles were not wide enough for me to
get around. I offered to pay for it and they said, "No, it's OK. You don't have
to pay for it." I asked, "Are you sure?" They said, "Yes, that's OK, sir." That
really bugs me, because they say it's accessible. But I drive with a head
control, and it's a bit difficult for me to drive with a head control because I
need to keep turning left and right, and that made me knock down the display in
the china store.

On transportation: I travel on Wheel-Trans quite a lot. I know there are
accessible subways and buses as well. That's all fine and dandy, but I have a
very severe eye problem as well, and for me and others too, it's not very
feasible. The other reason I say this is because when there's a really bad
snowstorm in the city, the regular subway system won't be able or offer to take
us to the front door, so that's a barrier in itself.

I have to plan my things one day in advance. That's not acceptable because,
number one, I thought we were supposed to be spontaneous. I thought we were
supposed to be willing to work for the disabled, for everybody. It doesn't
prove to me that this is working for the disabled. When I have to call
Wheel-Trans to cancel my trip, even though I'm sick, then I get penalized. If
you get more than six cancellations, you'll be suspended for two days if you
don't appeal it. I don't find that acceptable because, number one, as I said,
we're allowed to be spontaneous and we are allowed to have the freedom and all
the spontaneity we want. I'm suggesting that with all the rules and regulations
we have to build with, I want my young adult friends and I to have the
spontaneity to do whatever we want, just like Vancouver, where you book seven
hours in advance and that's all it takes. Do you know what you're doing from
day to day? No, you don't.

Those are my points.

Ms Jarvis: Thanks, Greg.

Therefore, Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre recommends that subsection
4(1) require the government of Ontario to work with persons with disabilities
to develop barrier-free design standards for all existing and new buildings in
Ontario, including shopping malls and other places attended by young people
with disabilities and their families.

Last, but not least, accountability: laws are only as effective as their
accountability mechanisms. Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre believes that
the Ontario government must take a leadership role in ensuring compliance with
the Ontarians with Disabilities Act by including accountability mechanisms in
the legislation.

Therefore, Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre recommends that subsection
20(2) specify a role for the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, in
consultation with the Accessibility Advisory Council of Ontario, in holding the
government of Ontario accountable for the effective and timely implementation
of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

In conclusion, staff, clients and families at Bloorview MacMillan Children's
Centre believe that, in addition to making good social sense, an Ontarians with
Disabilities Act also makes good economic sense. Such legislation will be
instrumental in creating an Ontario where everyone belongs. This will save
taxpayers money in expenses resulting from the unnecessary dependency and
non-productivity of persons with disabilities. As one of our parents said, the
way things are now will cost society so much more in the future. The Ontario
government is better off spending money now, as it will be saved tenfold in the
future. Thank you very much.
1020

The Chair: Thank you. We have approximately one minute per caucus and I'll
start with Mr Kormos.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Thank you, folks, for coming. Mr Contaxis
asked whether people here know what they're doing from day to day. If he joined
me at a House leaders' meeting on Thursday mornings, the answer would be very
obvious to him.

The point raised about the private sector and access within the private sector,
and the private sector especially as it holds itself out to be public, and
we're talking about retail stores, we're talking about everything from movie
theatres, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission has had to deal with some of
them -- one of our great concerns is that there is nothing in this bill that
puts a clear responsibility or obligation, an enforceable obligation, on the
private sector to ensure accessibility. That's one of our great concerns, among
many. So I'm simply acknowledging your comments in this regard, the validity of
those comments, and hoping they will prompt support for amendments that put
some clear obligation on the private sector. We can't wait. It's silly to
suggest that we're going to wait. People have waited far too long.

Ms Jarvis: We would certainly agree with that. I think there are ways we can do
it in terms of a phased-in approach with appropriate accountability built into
it. Certainly, when young people like Greg and parents like Cal raise issues
with the private sector about physical accessibility, attitudinal barriers,
difficulties with employment, there is quite an interest in the sensitivity
there, but a huge amount of awareness I think needs to take place in the public
sector about simple things they can do to actually make their businesses much
more publicly accessible to everybody. So we would agree.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you very much for your presentation and thank
you, Greg, for making us aware of how difficult it is to be spontaneous. As Mr
Kormos said, sometimes spontaneity here isn't very positive either.

There are three points. I certainly hear the definition issue and I sometimes
question, because it is to some extent two parts of the bill, section 2 and
section 26, that try and define it. Perhaps it doesn't specifically address
acquired brain injury, but the words it uses, "an injury or disability for
which benefits were claimed" etc are certainly something I want to make sure --
we've heard it before.

I would also say, Mr Millar, with respect to special education, I'm surprised,
really. I was a school trustee and was on special-ed advisory committees etc.
The full model today is funded on an integration basis. It used to be a
segregated model. Now it's mandatory integration. From what you've said, you're
very supportive of that, and that's what I heard as a parent and also as a
trustee, that integration was the preferred option for first educating the
general public about the barriers. My only question is, if there's anything in
what you've said re the accountability mechanisms, the five-year review and
other kinds of review with the directorate that's to be set up, I think I would
take that advice and try to move forward with it.

Ms Jarvis: Even with the Education Act and the amendments that were made, which
we of course fully support, there are still obviously a lot of day-to-day
barriers in terms of young people like Samantha Millar getting a good
education. It's not just in the classroom, but field trips and things like that
are usually not available for kids with special needs. So it has gone a long
way, but if there were a better definition built in here, I think when we look
at plans for the ministry and schools to work toward greater accessibility, we
could then enforce it.

Mr Smitherman: Greg, I want to say to you that the power of your presentation
will be in my mind as I make up my mind about how I'm going to vote on this. At
this moment I'm opposed to this legislation because the problems that you speak
to are not addressed.

My question is to you, Ms Jarvis. You use in your presentation the words
"important first step," and in an answer to a question you used words like
"phased in" and "seeking to see some enhancements." I'm a gay man and I have
been involved, along with my community, in the struggle toward full equality. I
will tell you that although from time to time I am somewhat happy that progress
is being made, every day that I do not have full equality is a day that I am a
second-class citizen. This is a difficult question to ask, but I'm wondering if
people who have the responsibility to be advocates on behalf of disabled
people, to speak on their behalf, have not become part of the problem when they
use language which is in my view, in response to this bill, rather inadequate.

Ms Jarvis: I guess we do see, though, this bill as a very good first step. I've
used that term and I've also used the term "phasing in." We have to begin
somewhere. If this is something that is achievable in the short term, we
support that. We have had great debate internally with our clients and families
about that very issue: should we say no or should we suggest that we go
forward, make as many amendments as we can to strengthen it today and work with
it? It does, I think, put in place mechanisms that will make it better. It
still won't be perfect, but I think there are mechanisms there that we can work
on in order to make significant improvements. We see it as a vastly better step
than what we have today, which is really no legislation at all.

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

MIKE COCHRANE

The Chair: The next presentation is from Ricketts, Harris. If the presenter
could please come forward and state your name for the record. On behalf of the
committee, welcome.

Mr Mike Cochrane: My name is Mike Cochrane. I'm a lawyer in Toronto with a firm
called Ricketts, Harris. The reason I am here today is that I have about 300
clients right now who are disabled. They are deaf students who went to three
schools in Ontario: the Sir James Whitney School for the Deaf in Belleville,
the Ernest C. Drury School for the Deaf in Milton and the Robarts School for
the Deaf in London, Ontario. It may shock you to hear that I've got 300 clients
from those schools, but some of your colleagues will tell you that I appeared
before the standing committee on justice and social policy back on October 30
to talk about a problem I've had and that my clients have had for the last
seven years in Ontario trying to get the government to listen about problems
that occurred in the schools for the deaf in this province.

Just before I go into the details of that, I should probably point out that
with me today are Bill Conley and Maggie van Vorst, who are two of my clients.
They are both students who went to schools for the deaf in Ontario and they
deserve a lot of the credit for me, as just a regular practising lawyer who
knew nothing about the deaf community in Ontario, getting immersed in a bit of
a nightmare that was going on in our schools for the deaf. Bill and Maggie
really, as I said, should get a lot of credit for sticking with it and making
sure that people heard about what happened at the schools and for telling their
own stories about physical and sexual abuse that occurred in our schools for
the deaf.

I've mentioned to you that I told the standing committee on justice about these
problems. I also want you to know that I've met twice with the Premier's office
on this subject. I've met with the Ministry of Education numerous times. I've
met with the Ministry of the Attorney General numerous times to talk about it.
It's kind of incredible that it remains a secret, that nobody talks about it.
I've met with Mr Parsons, and his colleague Michael Bryant, the critic for
justice issues in the Liberal Party, and even today it was pointed out to me
that this newspaper that serves the deaf community, called Silent News --
that's what it looks like. It's a paper that gets pretty much North American
distribution. This is their issue from December 2001 and inside is an article
that refers to Mr Parsons's comments in the House: "Canadian Ministry Blasted
over Handling of Sexual Abuse Allegations." That article refers to Mr Parsons
following up on a meeting with me about the way deaf people were not being
listened to by this government in relation to allegations of physical and
sexual abuse that happened at these schools.

1030

I would suggest to you that you call up the Hansard with my remarks to the
standing committee on October 30. I'll tell you exactly what I told them. In
1994, Bill and Maggie showed up in my office in Toronto saying that there had
been physical and sexual abuse at a school for the deaf in Belleville. I got in
touch with some former colleagues of mine at the Ministry of the Attorney
General for Ontario. They agreed to come down to my office and they met with
students. They brought interpreters with them and they were interviewed. We all
came to the conclusion that something pretty serious had happened at the
school, that it seemed there had been physical and sexual abuse. There had been
criminal charges laid against teachers and staff. There had been convictions.
The more we looked into it, the more students we met who made the same kinds of
allegations. We went from having about half a dozen people in my office to my
having about 300 names of students who had the same or similar allegations.
I'll give you the abbreviated version of this.

As a result of non-stop pressure from myself, Bill Conley and Maggie van Vorst
and others, we eventually persuaded the Ministry of Education to create a
system for inquiring into these allegations at Sir James Whitney and doing
something about it. This usually comes as a bit of a shock to people, but as a
result of that investigation and inquiry, a private compensation system was set
up where deaf people who alleged that they were physically or sexually abused
went to tell their story to an investigator, the investigator would do some
work and their case would be sent to a private arbitrator. The private
arbitrator was Sanda Rodgers, who at the time was the dean of the University of
Ottawa law school. She conducted the arbitrations, and 185 people who went to
Sir James Whitney received a total of $8 million in compensation.

In December 1999 the Ministry of Education said, "We've had enough. We're not
going to listen to any more claims," and they slammed the door on the deaf
people who had not even heard yet that there was a compensation system in
place, because the government had not publicized the fact that they were making
this compensation, or even this process, available for deaf people. That meant
that 185 people who live in Ontario -- and I can tell you, probably the vast
majority of them are on Ontario's disabilities support program -- received
their compensation, but the people who hadn't got their claim in by December
1999 got nothing. I can tell you that in some households, the husband got his
claim in on a Monday and the wife got her claim in on a Tuesday; the husband
received an opportunity for compensation but the wife did not, because an
arbitrary deadline was set, a deadline that nobody even knew about. The
government simply decided they weren't going to have any more compensation
claims considered from Sir James Whitney school.

The people who missed the deadline -- we've been trying for years, and this is
why I've had these meetings with the Premier's office and his staff and with
Janet Ecker's staff and with, when he was Attorney General, Mr Flaherty and his
staff. They know all about this. Mr Parsons raised it in the House. Everyone
knows about it and no one is reconsidering opening the door so that the balance
of these students can come forward and tell their stories and have an
opportunity of compensation the same way as everybody else.

The reason I mention all this in the context of this legislation is that it
came as a bit of -- I got the kit like everybody else. It's pretty nice. It
even has references to deaf people on it. On the back, there's some signing
across the top, images that are put right on the brochure. I don't know if
anybody knows what that means. There's no translation for it. It says
"Ontario." Down at the bottom it has some deaf people signing. What they're
signing is "I love you." On the inside, there's another deaf image of somebody
saying "love" in the sign for embracing. But inside the kit itself there's no
mention of deaf people. There's nothing in here for deaf people that I can see
and there's certainly nothing in here that would be of any benefit to any of my
clients.

That causes me concern because, even if you go through some of the highlights
in the explanatory notes for the legislation, number 3 says, "Where technically
feasible, the government is required to provide its Internet sites in a format
that is accessible to persons with disabilities." I would assume that includes
deaf people. In my case, it involved hundreds and hundreds of people who live
in the province now and need to communicate with the government now, never mind
Internet sites. They weren't even told that there was a multi-million dollar
compensation plan available for them that they should apply to and have
investigated.

The same applies with number 4, where it talks about government publications
being available in a format that is accessible to the person. Many deaf people
can read. Lots of deaf people can read. Many of them can't read very well. Many
of the ones I've met are illiterate, in my view, because of the education they
received in schools for the deaf. They don't even get the publications. They
don't even know that there's a publication available for them, never mind being
able to read the ones that are available.

I was concerned when I saw this kit and I thought it would be worthwhile coming
back to tell the committee about how deaf people in Ontario are actually being
treated. I didn't know any deaf people before I had this case. I've met
hundreds since then. I've driven all over the province, in many cases at my own
expense, because the government was not interested in paying the legal fees for
a lot of the people who were involved in these cases. I've driven to many, many
small communities and learned that what has happened is that deaf people in
many cases got a very bad education in our schools for the deaf and graduated
pretty much illiterate, without skills, and they kind of drifted into many of
the smaller communities where they can eke out a living receiving disability
benefits and really trying to keep to themselves pretty much. We haven't made
it easy for deaf people to participate in Ontario society or to have the
opportunities that are referred to on the cover of this brochure: "Independence
and Opportunity." That's a cruel joke for many deaf people in Ontario.

I would urge your legislative research person, Mr Rampersad, to inquire into
how many people who are receiving Ontario disabilities in this province are
deaf and how many of those people went to the schools for the deaf. I was in
shock when I saw the number of my clients that were receiving disability
benefits.

The reason I appear here today -- and I want to be able to take questions but I
just want to tell you a little bit about these cases. Here's the really hard
part: the government has closed the door on the people from Sir James Whitney.
There are two more schools. I now have dozens of clients from Ernest C. Drury
School for the Deaf in Milton who make the same allegations, because when they
opened E.C. Drury, in some cases they moved staff from Whitney to Drury. Now I
have six clients from the Robarts school in London, six girls who were sexually
assaulted by the same teacher, who went to trial and was convicted, received a
sentence, has served it and is back out in the community. After they gave their
evidence at that criminal trial, those six women filtered back into the
community, no one ever telling them that there was a possibility of receiving
compensation for the harm they had suffered at this teacher's hands.

1040

The sorry part of this whole story is that there are many allegations, there
are many charges that have been laid against teachers and staff, there are
convictions and there are investigations ongoing. As a matter of fact, when I
made my presentation to the standing committee on justice, there was a
preliminary inquiry about to start the next day in Belleville related to
criminal charges against another teacher from that school. So this problem is
nowhere close to being dealt with, and I would suggest that if the government
is really enthusiastic about going forward with legislation that is supposed to
increase the independence and opportunity of people with disabilities, they
should take a look at cases and situations that you have right in front of you,
where people and lawyers and others have been knocking themselves out trying to
get these people some help. They wouldn't benefit from this legislation, even
if it was passed tomorrow. But you could do a lot to help deaf people in
Ontario simply by dealing with the problem that is very much in front of you
right now.

I just want to conclude by saying this, and this may sound strange coming from
a lawyer dealing with these cases. Where people in the government aren't going
to talk to me, I'm just going to sue. We tried to avoid it; I'm just going to
sue. We'll have hundreds of lawsuits and we'll let the courts and the justice
system and the budgets for the Attorney General swell to deal with the hundreds
of cases that will go into our justice system. That's what I'm going to do.

But one thing that's become very clear to me, just as a regular citizen dealing
with these people, is that something very serious needs to happen in the area
of education of deaf people in Ontario. One thing that I would put before you
-- if I could make any amendment to this legislation, this would be it: I think
that Ontario has an opportunity to really lead the way in Canada by creating
Canada's first university for deaf people. When deaf people graduate from our
schools, they go to the United States to get any post-secondary education.
There's really nothing for them here. They go down to universities that we've
heard about like Gallaudet. Mr Conley actually went there. I think that part of
the reason that Bill Conley is such a with-it participant in Ontario society
today is that he went to Gallaudet University in the States and he knows how to
speak up for himself and how to speak up for other people in his community. Why
we don't have that kind of opportunity here in Ontario, in Canada, is a mystery
to me. At a time when we want to do things for the disabled community, this
would be a fabulous thing that would be of benefit to deaf people, first and
foremost in Ontario, but to deaf people across Canada, and it would be good for
Ontario. If we're open for business here and we want business, let's open a
university that helps deaf people.

Those are my remarks. The only thing I really ask of you is to go back to your
respective caucuses and ask them questions about the treatment of deaf people
in Ontario in particular, in these cases that are pending right now from our
schools for the deaf.

The Chair: Thank you. We have one minute per caucus, and I mean one minute per
caucus.

Mr Hardeman: First of all, I wanted to say that the issues of the situations
that you've described in the different schools I don't think are acceptable to
anyone. I appreciate the fact that you mentioned that you'd talked to a number
of people in government, and I hope that there are solutions found to deal
fairly with those people.

But I do want to point out, in the definition of "disabilities," in fact it's a
degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation and disfigurement, and
then near the end, impediments, deafness or hearing impediments, muteness or
speech impediment or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal. So in
fact, the deaf are specifically mentioned in the definition of a disability. I
think as the whole bill relates to disabilities, it includes, contrary to your
comments, the deaf.

The Chair: To the official opposition, Mr Parsons.

Mr Parsons: I write a lot of letters to ministers on issues regarding my
constituents. Interestingly, this is the only topic where in the last two years
I've not had an answer to one single letter from the minister regarding that,
or any reaction out of the House. So I can understand the frustration that the
individuals you represent are bringing forward.

The justice system is difficult for anyone to access. It appears to be almost
impossible for the individual who is deaf. What would have to be in a real ODA
to level the playing field so that an individual hearing-impaired or deaf or
deafened could have equal access to the justice system?

Mr Cochrane: I would say the one change that could be made specifically for the
deaf is to do something on the interpretation in the courtroom itself. There
was one trial related to allegations against a teacher at Sir James Whitney.
It's not an exaggeration to say the women who came forward to testify were
subjected to a very tough cross-examination, and there were problems, and the
problems related to the difficulties around interpretation of what these women
were trying to say had happened to them. There were acquittals as a result. So
if something ends up in the legislation that reaches out into the justice
system to improve interpretation in the courtroom, real time or actual
interpretation like we're receiving today, that would be a big help for deaf
people.

Mr Martin: This government has obviously made some choices. One of the choices
they made was to give tax breaks to corporations and other individuals in our
community. To do that, they had to find the money somewhere. The money is money
that's not available for deaf interpretation, it's not available to solve the
problems that you've put on the table here this morning and it won't be
available to open up a university for the deaf in Ontario and it won't be
available to support any of the legislation that they're putting before us
today, because there is no reference to any resources. So if I were you, I
wouldn't be holding my breath.

Mr Cochrane: I can tell you, I'm not going away and neither are these deaf
people. One way or the other, it's going to be dealt with, if it's in front of
a judge or it's in front of committees like this. I've been on this thing since
1994, and I've told everybody who will listen we're not going away.

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

MILTON DEAF ACTION GROUP

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Milton Deaf Action Group. I would
ask the presenters to please come forward and if you could state your names for
the record. On behalf of the committee, welcome.

Mr Vance Youngs: My name is Vance and I'm representing the Milton Deaf Action
Group. I'm from the E.C. Drury School for the deaf.

Ms Tanya Sturk: I'm Tanya Sturk and I'm also representing a group at the Milton
school for the deaf, the Milton Deaf Action Group.

Ms Jessamyn Roach: I'm Jessamyn Roach, and I'm also a representative with the
Milton Deaf Action Group. I'm also a student at the Milton school for the deaf.

Maybe I'll begin with my comments. For hearing people in the province,
students, 75% of them have employment, and I'm just looking at teenagers. If we
look at deaf people, only 25% of them have jobs in Ontario. We need to look at
that and say what's wrong with that. If we go in to apply for jobs, we have
great resum1s with all kinds of experience and a hearing teenager goes in and
has nothing on their resum1, they get hired over a deaf person. I think that
hearing employers look at us and don't feel that we can really do anything as
employees.

I worked at Chudleigh's and when I was hired there -- I guess I was hired there
in the fall, in September, and I worked there all the way until October 31 and
I worked there every weekend. I'd be there 9:30 to 5:30, eight hours, working
my shift. I'm able to run a cash register, to be a cashier. I had done that
before. I'm able to use some of my speech and able to hear people OK, but they
told me that I couldn't. They had me cutting apples. So I would cut apples for
eight hours a day at my shift. I was really bored. There was no challenge in
doing that. I'd see some of the other people and they could do a variety of
different jobs, but I had to stay there and do this one job, over and over. I
had to do this. After about two months of cutting apples, I looked at that and
I said, "There's no challenge in this for me to do that."

1050

I don't think it was fair, because deaf people have capabilities. You see deaf
people working at McDonald's, where they're cleaning the floors, but they could
be the people who are doing the cooking. Hearing people put a lot of barriers
in place for us. To be here in a hearing world, we need to have those barriers
removed. So I hope that would happen.

Ms Sturk: My comments have to do with communication and safety. If we look at
going to movie theatres, there's no excuse for there not being captioning of
movies in movie theatres. We realize that money is an issue, but if you look in
the States, there's captioning there. If they can afford it, we can afford to
do it too. They've got first-run movies that are out with captioning. I go to a
movie and there's no captioning. Why shouldn't there be? Why shouldn't there be
options in place for us for that sort of thing? Why should we be limited by the
number of movies that are captioned at all?

Why shouldn't there be some kind of discount as well for people going into
theatres who can't hear? I asked for a discount at a movie theatre and I was
told no. I was with a group of friends of mine who are hearing and we went to
the movie theatre. When I asked for a discount for admittance, because all I
can see is the visual part of the movie, they said no. I said OK to that and I
went in, but friends of mine saw a girl there in a wheelchair and she was given
a discount, a half-price admittance. I don't understand that, because she could
understand everything in the movie. She was in a wheelchair, but she could
still understand the movie, and I would be there paying the full price and I
can't understand all of it. So that's not really fair. Those are real barriers
in movie theatres. If you want to go to the movie, you can't. You have to wait
until it comes out on video.

Then, when it comes out on video, a lot of the movies don't have
closed-captioning on them. They used to, but there's less and less. If I go to
the movie and there's no captioning on it, there's no point in that. So it's
very frustrating and anger-making. You want to go and see the movie in the
full-sized theatre. Then when it comes out on video, there's no captioning on
it either. These are movies from 1999 that I've rented. All movies should have
captioning on them now. There was a law that more and more of them did, but it
seems now there's less and less of them. That's really very frustrating.

The TTY pay phone is something I want to talk about. If you look at Ontario,
there are six pay phones with TTY in Ontario. In Buffalo, at the one airport,
they have 15 TTYs in place, but if you look at Ontario, there isn't one
anywhere. You have to go to the States if you want to use a TTY pay phone; 15
at one airport and we have six across Ontario. That's really embarrassing and
it's a real barrier for deaf people. If I need to contact my parents at home,
if there's an emergency or something, I can't contact them. And if I get home
late, I get in trouble because I'm not able to use a TTY pay phone to call them
to let them know I'll be late.

The Milton mall has one TTY, but there was no help from them in that. We had to
take that on ourselves. We had to raise over $1,000 in ord