TRACY HURLBERT

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY, THUNDER BAY REGIONAL OFFICE

DISABLED WORKERS' COMPLEX CASE NETWORK

THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS' SUPPORT GROUP

HANDICAPPED ACTION GROUP INC

OPSEU DISABILITY RIGHTS CAUCUS

PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF-HELP IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO INC

THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS' SUPPORT GROUP

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

DAVID SHANNON

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

Thursday 6 December 2001 Jeudi 6 decembre 2001

The committee met at 1140 in the Victoria Inn, Thunder Bay.

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

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

The Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): Good morning, everyone. I'd like to bring this
committee to order. We're here this morning to consider 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.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to apologize for being late. Due to
the weather conditions, there was nothing we could about it, but I appreciate
your understanding and we apologize for the delay this morning. We'll try to
catch up over the lunch hour so the people making presentations this afternoon
are not jeopardized with regard to their timelines.

ONTARIO BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION

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

Ms Alice Bellavance: Good morning. My name is Alice Bellavance. It is an honour
to speak before the committee today on a subject that is very important to our
entire community.

I am representing 18,000 Canadians, one third of those in Ontario alone, who
are living with the effects of an acquired brain injury each year, so it's
cumulative over time in terms of the numbers we are adding to our ranks. I am a
member of the Ontario Brain Injury Association and represent northwestern
Ontario on their board of directors. I am also a member of the local
association.

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

Brain injury can occur as a result of a motor vehicle collision, which
represents approximately half of the acquired brain injury individuals in this
province according to the Ontario trauma registry; falls, particularly among
the elderly and toddlers; assaults; diseases such as meningitis and
encephalitis; and brain tumours. There are other sudden-onset medical diagnoses
which leave individuals with similar effects.

Brain injury doesn't distinguish itself by age, gender or socio-economic
status. It can happen to any of us in this room. It can happen at work, it can
happen at play, or it can even happen on our way home from the meeting today.

Chances are that at least one person you work with, know or love has
experienced the effects of this type of injury, and the effects are
devastating. No two brain injuries are exactly alike and the range may be from
mild to severe.

Brain injury cuts across all disability groups. Because the brain controls all
of our functioning, people with brain injury may have visual impairments,
hearing impairments, speech impairments, or mobility difficulties often
requiring the use of a wheelchair or walker or other mobility device.

The most difficult impairments for family members, friends and especially
employers to understand are the personality changes and cognitive changes that
can occur to the ability to organize their thoughts and the ability to remember
things that used to happen quite easily.

One thing I need to remind committee members of, because I know you've been
hearing from members of our association at the various sites where you've been
having these hearings, is that a number of the individuals we work with may
visibly not appear to have any impairments at all, and their long-term memory
is intact so they remember that they used to be able to accomplish specific
tasks around their jobs or in school. However, now, subsequent to their injury,
they may not be able to complete those tasks.

The Ontario Brain Injury Association was formed in 1986. We currently are
linked with 24 community groups across the province, with total membership in
the thousands. We have a 20-member board of directors made up of survivors,
family members, professionals, service providers and business people from every
part of the province.

We are here today because we are deeply concerned that 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 like to be
very much more comfortable with an ODA that laid out explicit timelines for the
removal of specific barriers. It would also be comforting to have some
assurance that these timelines would be effectively enforced.

It is also imperative that the terms of reference for the advisory groups
address the following: representation from a full range of disabilities, length
of term of service, a requirement that all reports be made public and that
advisory councils be given the authority to identify any and all barriers.

However, our principal reason for being here today is to focus the committee's
attention on barriers that are faced by the thousands of Ontarians who are
living with the effects of an acquired brain injury.
Brain injury is a unique disability group and is not limited to any specific
kind of impairment. People with brain injury can live with a combination of
physical, sensory, cognitive or emotional impairments, and sometimes they have
all of the domains affected. Accordingly, we urge the committee to recommend
that acquired brain injury be included in the definition of "disability" in the
act.

People with physical impairments must contend with limited access to public
buildings, businesses, transportation and recreational facilities on a daily
basis. These barriers are readily identifiable. The proposed ODA attempts to
address this 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.

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
impossible to legislate attitudes and values, but it is possible to have an ODA
that encompasses a comprehensive program of public awareness and education that
could move society toward understanding, acceptance and accommodation of people
with cognitive and emotional impairments.

Let me illustrate some instances of attitudinal barriers. After a recent
presentation about acquired brain injury to a Rotary Club in a small Ontario
town, a man of about 50 from the audience approached the speaker and remarked
that the presentation had left him feeling very uncomfortable. He said that he
was one of four brothers, one of whom had sustained a brain injury eight years
earlier as the result of a motor vehicle crash. Prior to the crash, the
brothers had regularly worked and played together. Following the crash, the
injured brother was withdrawn, often complaining of fatigue. The others saw
that claim as a lame excuse to just avoid them. In turn, they cut the injured
brother out of aspects of their family life. He ended his story by saying that
the speaker's statement that fatigue was a common symptom of ABI made him
recognize that his brother was unfairly isolated. Even among family members and
close friends, this kind of misunderstanding of the effects of an acquired
brain injury results in isolation, often devastating the person with the brain
injury, and this is not uncommon.

Many of the individuals I work with daily in my gainful employment with Brain
Injury Services of Northern Ontario have that isolation and disconnectedness
from their family, because their family does not understand the impact of the
brain injury because it's quite invisible in many cases. What we find is that
individuals are estranged from their families. Brain injury doesn't happen just
to the person; it happens to the whole family. When we start talking about
funding our acts, we need to make sure that it's inclusive, not specifically
just to the individual but to all the individuals involved in that person's
life.

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

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

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

1150

A barrier-free community is a minimum goal to full participation of the
disabled in society. Through effective regulation and mandated co-operation
with the private and public sectors, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act could
help deliver broad public awareness and understanding of cognitive and mental
disabilities and eliminate other barriers for disabled persons in every part of
Canada's richest province.

The Ontario Brain Injury Association, along with many other similar disability
organizations, stands prepared to assist the government through its advisory
councils outlined in the ODA to develop 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. Don't let
them down.

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

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Alice, you've very quickly summarized in
a few words some of the concerns we have with the bill around the lack of
timelines, the lack of enforcement, the lack of resources to support it and the
fact that even when it comes to the requirements for ensuring that new building
is accessible, there's no clarity that those are actually going to be made
regulatory requirements as opposed to guidelines. It's something you didn't
mention specifically but we have a concern about. So I guess my question will
be to take you back to the issue of the definition. I suspect people might feel
as though someone with an acquired brain injury is caught with the definition
that's in the bill. Could you tell us how somebody with an acquired brain
injury could be missed?

Ms Bellavance: If they don't have any visible signs of impairment or don't have
any support requirements for the sensory impairments that they may have, such
as a visual impairment or hearing impairment, then you wouldn't know that they
had a disability.

Mrs McLeod: So they wouldn't necessarily be caught by a medical model
definition?

Ms Bellavance: That's right.

Mrs McLeod: One of the areas I don't think you touched on was the fact that the
bill does not extend to private sector establishments, businesses.

Ms Bellavance: That's correct.

Mrs McLeod: I would think that would be pretty limiting for people with
acquired brain injury in terms of the sites that they would particularly want
to access.

Ms Bellavance: I think that would apply to all groups of disabilities when it
involves the private sector, and that's why we made a comment that at some
point there needs to be some collaboration between both the private and public
sector in terms of how they're going to address the requirements.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Maybe I'll use my time to say
to the members of the government that I hope when we have the clause-by-clause
process on Tuesday, December 11, I believe, where amendments will be brought
forward, that at the very least they would accept an amendment whereby the
definition of "disability" includes acquired brain injury people as well.
Obviously we want to see more amendments than that, but that's one that I think
is very signifycant, and I would hope that the members of the government would
support that.

Ms Bellavance: Thank you.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you for coming this morning. It's good
to be here in Thunder Bay, the great northwestern Ontario. You have raised in
your submission some of the things that we've heard over and over again over
the last week as we've heard from people: the fact that the definition include
everybody who is disabled, the issue of timelines, the issue of enforcement,
the role of the advisory committees and that they be made public, and of course
the big question of resources to make all this happen.

In northern Ontario -- and we flew over a big chunk of country this morning
getting here.

Ms Bellavance: That's right.

Mr Martin: There are a lot of small communities, most of them under 10,000 in
population. This legislation doesn't cover them. How many of the people you
deal with or are connected with in any way in terms of brain injured would live
in smaller communities in northern Ontario?

Ms Bellavance: Northern Ontario, and this is my little soapbox that I always
get on, represents 90% of the land mass, but we only have 10% of the population
and it's pretty sparsely scattered about. We also, unfortunately, in northern
Ontario have the highest incidence and prevalence of acquired brain injury in
the province. We have an incidence, just in the district of Thunder Bay, of 397
per 100,000; the average is about 200.

Interjection.

Ms Bellavance: It's 397 per 100,000 versus 200 per 100,000 in most other areas.
That's primarily because of the geography, the climate, the distances we have
to drive, the conditions of the roads that we have to drive on, the nature of
the work that we do in northern Ontario -- mining and forestry. There's a much
higher incidence and prevalence. So there's a large number of people living in
all the communities, including the small northern, remote reserves that are
only accessible by air.

Mr Martin: So it's not possible for them to, on a regular basis, get into a
place like Thunder Bay to get --

Ms Bellavance: If they need really specialized services, they actually have to
relocate to a city like Thunder Bay to get the services, because we can't
deliver it in those smaller communities.

Mr Martin: So this legislation won't in any effective way help them?

Ms Bellavance: No.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you, Ms Bellavance, for your presentation.
You're right. A number of things are having a recurring theme to them and the
attitudinal barrier is probably the most obvious one. I think all of us have to
be educated. The biggest barrier is just knowledge or experience.

Ms Bellavance: That's right.

Mr O'Toole: I'd like to acknowledge there are two things you've mentioned
specifically. I read the definition as far more inclusive, perhaps, than you
think of it. If you look at section 2, you'll see that it says "a condition of
mental impairment or a developmental disability." It also goes on to say "an
injury or disability" which will benefit from other -- like an accident injury
that's recorded. But I do hear that. I'm not sure if you have something in
specific language.

But the one I'm quite supportive of, I want to put on the record, is in the
reports. The ODA's mandate: it says sort of at the will of the minister, that
it would report. But I kind of support the idea that the report of the ODA
annually be made public or tabled in the Legislature. Then it becomes a
reference point so that issues could be brought forward, discussed, and
government or whoever it is would have to respond in some way. I hope that by
my saying that -- I'm a member of the government. I'd like to see the report
mandatorily tabled in the Legislature and, as such, to be responded to.

Do you have any remarks? Is that strong enough? Right now, it is empowered to
examine accessibility issues and the elimination of barriers. There are a lot
of mandates within the definition: the council shall advise the minister on a
number of things and make an annual report directly to the minister. What's
missing is the report being mandated into the Legislature. Any responses?

Ms Bellavance: I think it needs to be public, it needs to be tabled, but there
also needs to be a mechanism to respond so that if any further amendments need
to be made, there's a mechanism to do that.

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

I forgot, and it must be because of my age, but I want to let the audience know
that the bill is available in Braille. We also have audiotapes, disks,
large-print copies, and the bill is also available in French. It's on the table
to my left.

CITY OF THUNDER BAY

The Chair: With that I'll ask the next presenter, from the city of Thunder Bay,
to please come forward, and if you could state your name for the record. On
behalf of the committee, welcome.

Mr Ken Boshcoff: My name is Ken Boshcoff. I'm the mayor of the city of Thunder
Bay. Don't worry, it will not take 20 minutes.

I would like to thank you and the representatives here today, particularly the
provincial government, for holding a hearing here in Thunder Bay in order that
the people of northwestern Ontario could have a say before Bill 125 becomes
law. The Honourable Cam Jackson, the minister responsible for the disabled, has
done an admirable job in forging this legislation and working to ensure that
the people of Ontario have input prior to third reading.

In May 2000, two meetings of the mayor's round table on disabled issues arrived
at a conclusion that for disabled issues to gain momentum, the most immediate
need was to have a disability act in our province, one that will have political
partisanship set aside in order that we may achieve the best legislation
possible.

1200

Shortly thereafter, a resolution was passed unanimously at Thunder Bay's city
council which was further endorsed by both the Northwestern Ontario Municipal
Association and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The minister did indeed hear the concerns of many constituencies besides those
of Ontario's municipally elected representatives. Our local members, Lyn McLeod
and Michael Gravelle, have assisted greatly in raising the level of awareness
and helping us through the process.

Thunder Bay, as a community, is very proud of a myriad of initiatives for
accessibility and inclusion. Our new community development plan, Fast Forward
>>, is quite specific with goals that we will become known for our leadership
in municipal disabled programming. Our parks and recreation divisions, our
engineering, planning, building departments, and our transit and police all
weigh accessibility as priorities in their budgeting and planning. All across
our municipal government we strive to be understanding and helpful in designing
facilities and programs.

This has shown itself in many ways over the years, and our record of
co-operation with disabled organizations is lengthy, with many, many positive
achievements.

I was hoping to compile a list of these accomplishments to document this so
that we all may know how much as been done. There is still much to do. The act,
I believe, will help. I will leave the analysis and dissection of the proposed
act to those groups who more fully comprehend the implications of the various
components.

At a more recently convened meeting of representatives of many local disabled
advocacy groups, the overall consensus was to ensure that a hearing was held in
Thunder Bay, so again I thank you for taking the time and making sure this
hearing will go on. It may be somewhat compact but at least we're here and
attentive, and that's important.

A second summary of issues was formed by a coalition of several advocacy
organizations and has already been forwarded to you under separate cover. I
believe that has been received?

The Chair: It's not here right yet.

Mr Boshcoff: OK. As a board member of the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario we are also working on a common position paper for municipalities
throughout the province. That should be available to you in the next few days.

My personal goal is to have our city become known as Canada's most inclusive
community. However, we would be willing to share such recognition with other
Ontario municipalities, and I believe that a new disabilities act will carry
this province forward.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have three and a half minutes per caucus and
I'll start with Mr Martin. Oh, I'll go to the government side and I'll come
back to Mr Martin.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much, Mr Mayor, for your
presentation. Just quickly, it seems that with your Fast Forward >> plan here
you've come a long way, or at least in the process you've come a long way. In
the bill, of course, there's a reference to mandatory implementation of
advisory committees. I guess the first question would be, do you feel that's
already where the city of Thunder Bay is going and doing, bringing the people
together and forming an advisory committee on where you need to go? Do you feel
that is the way to go, and are you getting there?

Mr Boshcoff: Let me say that there is a recognition that we have many strengths
and many achievements in our community and we also do recognize our
shortcomings and the distance we have to go. I believe that any process of
consultation that involves the consumer, or the people who are affected
directly, is a good step. If that communication is open and if those people who
are having input are representative and have some measure of certainty that the
recommendations will be taken seriously and implemented, then I would say
that's the track you want to stay on.

Mr Hardeman: Do you have the disabled community involved in that advisory
process?

Mr Boshcoff: A year ago in the springtime, I convened two meetings -- we called
them round tables -- just to essentially educate the mayor as to what the
shortcomings were and what we had to do. Previous to that, though, there had
been considerable input into our community development plan as several disabled
organizations were party to that and representatives were working on it hand in
hand with the rest of the community. The meeting that I convened recently,
after the introduction of the bill, was primarily for me to pass on to the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario the feelings of our group here, which
I have done.

There was some discussion, of course, as to whether the bill should proceed. We
understand that there's a timeline and those types of things. That wouldn't be
my decision. I forward all that on to the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario and I believe we'll be having a conference call in the next day or so
to try and get you something conclusive from the municipal perspective.

Mr Hardeman: Lastly, I just wondered, you were here for the previous
presentation on brain injuries?

Mr Boshcoff: Yes.

Mr Hardeman: Because it's an invisible barrier in a lot of cases, the number
one recommendation that's coming from the association is public awareness.
Obviously that needs to be done where the community is; that can't be done from
somewhere in the distance. Have you got any suggestions on how we could do more
of that? Obviously the problem, the disability, has been there for some time,
but as a society we haven't done a very good job of public awareness of the
situation. Have you got any suggestions on that?

Mr Boshcoff: I do, actually. I think that representatives from our provincial
offices were also at an event last week for a respite care facility that also
houses -- Alice, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- a brain injury unit in
Andras Court, as it's known. With that type of involvement, where you had at
that time the municipal housing authority, the provincial housing authority and
various organizations combine to say, "This is the kind of facility that we
need; this is the kind of co-operation that we need to get there," we could
actually say, "These are the kinds of things that are happening in different
communities." I believe those types of projects are one of the reasons that
Minister Jackson mentioned us in the House at that time.

Mrs McLeod: Ken, thank you for being here and making a presentation. We noted,
of course, that Thunder Bay was cited by the minister, when he presented the
bill, for its leadership in creating greater access for the disabled in our
community. I'm glad that you also noted today that there is still a long way to
go, because I think the people who are here in the audience would agree with
that, even in a community that has shown some leadership. I guess that's what
leads me to my question. I know you've said you would leave the analysis of the
bill to others. Because we do want to recognize the leadership that's been
provided, I want you to wear your hat as a member of the municipal association
rather than as the mayor of Thunder Bay, if I can ask you to do that?
Mr Boshcoff: I hope they'll let me; I'm sure they will.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not asking you for any confidential secrets, I don't think.

The concern that we have had with the bill, as a caucus and party, is the
voluntary nature of it; the fact that it requires plans to be presented but
there's no enforcement. We obviously have a concern about the lack of
timelines, as well as the enforcement -- it's very difficult to enforce
something when there's no requirement that you actually proceed with it. If
there were timelines, if there were requirements to proceed, we would have some
real concern about the resources that might be made available, particularly to
the municipal level because there would be some significant financial
implications for the municipalities. My question is, in the feedback from the
municipalities to the minister, would the municipalities not in fact have been
recommending what's here: "Don't put in the timelines. Don't make this
mandatory. We just can't afford it and without the resources it's just going to
be another download"? I guess my concern is, where's the incentive in this bill
for municipalities that have not been providing leadership, have not been doing
it out of their own resources, to do anything at all?

1210

Mr Boshcoff: Let me try and work backwards. In terms of the downloading as an
issue, there's no doubt that all of the municipalities of Ontario always have
kind of a cautious approach to any kind of legislation that involves us because
we are not really sure how deep the water may become as we jump in.

I would think, though, that there's a willingness to co-operate with the
province to a great extent on this. AMO, I am certain, in its position will say
that the concerns with timelines may not be so onerous on those that are down
the path already but may be for those, as you mentioned, that have not begun in
earnest or -- for whatever reasons -- not gone down that path. That's a concern
there.

The financing is always the concern in any of our conference calls. Will the
municipalities be charged with this responsibility? I don't think we would mind
being part of the implementation process, be it building services or ensuring
that things are corrected that haven't been. I would say that the senior
government, in terms of forging this legislation, has got to understand that if
we are going to be wheels to help implement it, we are going to need resources.
To a large extent, it comes down to the municipalities always perhaps saying,
"Make sure we are adequately funded." In this case, there seem to be some grey
areas here. That's from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. We would
like that part of the legislation cleared up so we know what we'd have to
commit to.

Mr Martin: Which actually is my question as well. We've heard continually over
the last week or so that there are no timelines, there's no enforcement and
there are no resources. Underpinning all that, it seems to me -- and the
government did consult with AMO and others -- is this question of money. Is the
money going to be available? If you set timelines and I have to hit those
timelines, it is going to cost me to do that. If you don't have the money or
the resources, you really can't do any of this.

Mr Boshcoff: Our own experience here in our community is that we have tried to
be a little bit ahead of the game in terms of barrier-free municipal
facilities. Our building department tries to be, one might say, more diligent
in enforcing building codes to ensure these things. We know for certain that
things happen during the course of events that might not meet the standard that
we are trying to achieve here. So, in answering your question, municipalities
-- we'll all use our own case -- want to go forward quickly with this. We
believe here that it is not even just a matter of it being some kind of
philosophical thing. Something we believe here intrinsically through the
community is that these are the things we should be doing. You will see the
reason that there's a large number of advocacy groups here is, I believe, that
there is a response and that their messages are being received.

I am hoping this act, over all those things of timelines, enforcement and
funding, will at least grease the wheels so that we can start going down that
path. I would think that over the next two weeks really those things in terms
of enforcement, timelines and resources are the kinds of things that will, once
people identify them all, be part of the act. It comes up very obviously in
almost every discussion paper.

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

Mr Boshcoff: Thank you. Please enjoy your stay in our community. I hope it is
very productive.

The Chair: Too bad this will be a short stay, though.

Mrs McLeod: You never know. The storm is coming. You may be able to enjoy the
city longer than you thought.

TRACY HURLBERT

The Chair: Our next presentation is from Tracy Hurlbert. I would ask the
presenter to please come forward and state your name for the record. On behalf
of the committee, welcome. You have 15 minutes for your presentation this
afternoon.

Ms Tracy Hurlbert: Thank you. I am Tracy Lynn Hurlbert. I'm an ODSP recipient.
For those who don't know what ODSP stands for -- I don't think there's anybody
in the room who doesn't -- it is the Ontario disability support program. I'm
also a home care recipient. What's really been affecting me lately is that I've
been cut down from five hours a week to one hour a week. This also means that
I've been cut back from three baths a week to one bath a week. I'm incontinent.
I have colitis, so I have accidents. Plus, being a young woman, I still have
periods. One bath weekly will cause me health problems as well as a bit of a
social problem.

The other thing is that my grandparents are also home care recipients. They're
currently allotted three hours weekly. I'm worried that they too will be cut
back. My grandmother has had two strokes and, as a result, has great difficulty
performing daily living tasks. She also is a very heavy woman. My 85-year-old
grandfather is her primary caregiver, but he is getting frail and forgetful
himself. All members of my family, except myself, work. In my grandfather's
mind, asking us for help, or accepting it from us, would make them a burden on
us. That's not so, but that's what he thinks. My grandparents would be more
willing to accept home care rather than care from our family. They need this.
My grandfather has heart problems and has had a mini-stroke himself. I'm afraid
that if their home care is cut back, my grandfather will take on too much and
put himself at risk.

They don't want to move into a seniors home and they shouldn't have to if they
don't want to. It is cruel to make people move and to do things like that.
That's just not right. I think that the ODA should help us with allowing people
to stay in their home and giving a decent amount of home care. We should have
the right to live in our own homes just like everybody else.

My problem is also with limited medications coverage. My antihistamines aren't
covered. That's $20 to $30 a month. That's not a big deal. But if I don't take
them, I need my puffers, which cause mouth ulcers, which cause my colitis to
act up. Then I need three or four medications for that. One of these causes
fibromyalgia and arthritis to act up. I then need more medications. All these
medications that are covered come to over $200 to $300. Why should I have to
suffer and be overmedicated? The cost is a big factor. Why should the
government spend $300 on me if they could get away with spending $20 in the
first place? If this extra money was spent on prevention, like antihistamines,
a lot of money would be saved.

Speaking of money, the cost of special equipment is astounding. On top of that,
the manufacturers need to be made responsible for the quality of their
products. My wheelchair was $24,000, OK? It broke the first week I had it.
That's right, one week. Someone bumped into me and part of my foot pedal busted
right off; it shattered. When I phone the manufacturer, they said, "Of course,
you can't take that out in the cold." It's white metal. That's ridiculous. I
live in the north. If they sell something in the north, it should be made for
the north and the manufacturer should be responsible for that. They're the ones
selling it. This chair will be two years old in February and it has been in the
shop 23 times for repairs. It has been in the shop almost more than I've had
it.

Service and sales stores must also be made more responsible for their work. One
store sold me used batteries as new. They broke parts of my chair on purpose,
right with me there, and tried to convince me that they were broken before and
replaced perfectly good parts with inferior ones. When I complained, I was
given excuses. When I called ADP, they said that's between myself and the
vendor. Hey, ADP pays for these devices; the taxpayers pay for it. They should
be able to ensure that they get what they pay for. This is a lot of money. If
the money was spent on actually preventing this kind of stuff from happening,
we'd have more money for home care. That's a lot of cash. More and more repairs
aren't covered also. My battery charger needs to be replaced. It is $800 and
not covered as it is not part of my chair. What good is a power wheelchair
without power? Where am I supposed to get this $800 from?

As with most people on ODSP, I haven't received a raise since 1987. Can anybody
else here live on what they made in 1987? Oh, I've got a small raise now. Years
of not having enough money to buy healthy food have helped me become a
diabetic. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just prevent diabetes in the first place by
giving people enough money to buy good food rather than have to try to keep us
healthy once we develop diet-related illnesses?

Another problem I have is the medical clinics. When I go there for my
illnesses, not all clinics and hospitals are wheelchair-accessible or have
equipment that is accessible or usable by persons with disabilities. I
shouldn't have to go to the hospital for a simple Pap smear but I do, because
none of the doctors' offices in town have an exam table that I can get on to.
I'm sure that's a problem for a lot of other people. Seniors, women who are
pregnant, they need these things as well. It's not just me.

1220

Communication: when you're at the doctor's office, a lot of doctors don't take
time to communicate with you if you have a communication disability, like my
honorary sister does. She uses a special computer to talk. She's got cerebral
palsy and it takes her forever to type anything. So if something's not
noticeable, her doctor just doesn't treat her for it, because he doesn't have
time to listen to her. If I can't take time off from what I'm doing to go with
her, he won't even bother. Unless it's something that's noticeable, she doesn't
get treated. So something else that could have been prevented may happen to
her.

I'd like to see that when hospitals, medical clinics etc are built, they have
to be wheelchair-accessible. All buildings should be wheelchair-accessible,
regardless of their size. That's not the way it is now, though. A new doughnut
shop opened in my neighbourhood, but there's no power door there. It's just a
stupid doughnut shop, I know, but maybe I'd like to go and get a doughnut and a
coffee but I can't get in there.

When I complained to the Human Rights Commission, I was told that buildings
under a certain size don't have to have power doors. Why is this so? I should
have the same rights as other people. I think a strong ODA would help me to
have those rights, if we include those things in there. I should be able to go
out and do things on my own. I shouldn't have to call my mom and dad to help
me.

The final thing -- also speaking of calling people -- my honorary sister needs
an attendant on the bus. But on the city buses, she has to pay two fares if she
brings an attendant with her, despite the fact that all the bus drivers want
her to have someone with her because she can't hang on and she can't ring the
bell when she wants to get off. Why should she have to pay twice when everybody
else only pays once? I think we should have some legislation that would force
organizations to allow people who actually need an attendant with them to have
that attendant and not force them to pay two fares. Thank you.

The Chair: We have two minutes per caucus. I'll start with the government side.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Tracy, for being here and for a very clear
presentation of things you have to live with on a regular basis, some of which
are directly under the prevalence of this debate on this bill.

There has certainly been lots of debate, as I'm sure Ms McLeod will say, on the
home care and home supports programs. I can't respond any more than to say that
there have been increased supports, I believe, certainly in my area, which is
not in Toronto; it's kind of a rural area. Are they enough? No. Will it ever be
enough? No.

In fact, it is a problem for all governments. I'm not trying to make it
political, I just think it's a national issue as well. It does me no good to
play politics, but I believe the federal government has a role in putting more
money in, because the population is aging, more diseases and ailments are being
diagnosed earlier, treatment is more readily known and should be delivered, and
drugs and other things are very expensive and growing more expensive, and not
because of anything you've said or done. Governments at all levels have to make
sure that they're working -- not just on the equipment side, as you mentioned
-- to make sure there are standards in those areas that aren't particularly
attached to this.

I think if I were to relate this to this bill, the ODA would be able to put a
framework and a voice to the issues you've raised, and they could become part
of the mainstream debate on people and access issues and attitude issues. If
the bill does nothing more than that, I think it is definitely a step forward.
I see it as a person trying to represent roughly the same number of
constituents as Ms McLeod or Michael. I would just like you to respond: do you
think this bill will help not just your voice today but the people with access
and disability issues across Ontario?

Ms Hurlbert: As long as it's a very clear bill and certain things are stated
very clearly, such as the fact that we have a right to live in our own homes
and have home care and stuff like that. It can't be a very vague bill. It's got
to be very clear, so that people don't have grey areas where they can say, "We
can get around this and get around that." It's got to be clear and it's got to
actually be enforced. That's the other thing. Having a bill that's there, if
it's not going to be enforced, then it's no good.

The Chair: We'll turn to the official opposition.

Mr Gravelle: Tracy, it's great to see you. We had a public forum recently
related to the Ontario disability support program and Tracy was an active
participant in that. It was interesting at the time when you brought forward
the issues related to the fact that the wheelchair you have is not really built
for the conditions of the north and that the frequency with which it breaks
down is extraordinary. Tell us a little bit more about that. I just think there
needs to be full support for you to be able to have access to this, which is
really such a significant part of your life, obviously. I know how frustrating
it's been for you over the years. There are so many other issues you and I can
get into which we've discussed, but I think it's important for members to hear
more about that.

Ms Hurlbert: There have been days when I have had to stay in bed because my
chair is just not working. Those days when I'm in bed may be days I have
physiotherapy, they may be days that I have volunteer jobs, things that make my
quality of life better and also the quality of life for other people in this
community. If I'm in bed I can't do any of that stuff, but if I sit up in my
chair all day I just can't breathe. If this chair breaks down too many more
times, it's not going to be covered any more. Some of the repairs, I'm being
told now, won't be covered any more because they have been done to the maximum.
I think this is the fourth set of foot pedals I've had. They just keep
breaking. And the wheelchair shops know about this. My mom has talked to
another lady who has had five wheelchairs in the last 15 or 20 years and she
has had a problem with every single one of them. I don't know anybody in a
power chair who hasn't had a problem. I met one lady today who said she hasn't
had very many, but it's across the board, it's not just me. My friend, my
honorary sister, who is 105 pounds soaking wet with a weight around her neck,
also has problems with her chair. So it's not my weight, it's the chairs. This
lady has to spend a lot of time in bed too when her chair doesn't work.

Mr Martin: Thank you for coming today and talking with us. Certainly, in a very
personal way, you've touched on a lot of the things we've heard over the last
week: attitudinal challenges, the ODA covering the private sector, the coffee
shop, the lack of resources.

It seems to me that the problem with this bill is underpinned by this question
of resources. If the government had the resources and was willing to spend
them, we wouldn't be worried about timelines and enforcement. I think it would
be a question of just making sure that people hit those targets. The government
has indicated it has chosen its priorities, and one of their priorities is to
give tax breaks to corporations and other individuals in the province. Because
of that, we don't have the money in the public kitty to spend on these other
things you speak of as necessary if you're going to have a good quality of life
and be able to participate in the way that you have the potential to
participate.

I would be interested in any comment you might make in terms of priorities.
What should the priority of government be? Should it be tax breaks for
corporations or should it be taking publicly collected taxes and spending them
on services such as the ones we're so directly talking about here today?

Ms Hurlbert: I think if you spent the money on the services, but on the ones
that are preventive. First of all, I take $200 to $300 worth of medications
instead of spending $20 in antihistamines, and all the costs of the wheelchair
repairs that I've had. If you would make the companies responsible for making
sure they actually work, you would be spending a lot less on repairs, on
wheelchairs, on things that could have been prevented. Then you could take that
money and help cut back the taxes on the big businesses. So it could be both.

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

1230

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY,
THUNDER BAY REGIONAL OFFICE

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Canadian Hearing Society, Thunder
Bay regional office. I would ask the presenter or presenters 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 afternoon.

Ms Karen Higginson: My name is Karen Higginson and I work at the Canadian
Hearing Society. I am also an advocate for the deaf community and I am myself
deaf. First, I would just like to express my appreciation for being invited to
present to the committee today, and I will take less than 20 minutes.

To begin with, I'm sure you are already familiar with this document that I have
before me from the Canadian Hearing Society. It goes into a little bit of
detail about discussions that deaf, hard of hearing and deafened individuals
have experienced. Have people had the opportunity to see this? OK.

I'm going to talk about some of the concerns that we as a deaf community have
in regard to the ODA. The hard of hearing, deafened and deaf community in
Thunder Bay is not in support of Bill 125 the way it is laid out right now, the
reason being that there have already been three laws established: the Human
Rights Code, the Supreme Court of Canada ruling of 1997 and also the federal
rights and freedoms. None of these three bills has been successful for the deaf
community. We have experienced many barriers since, and during, the times of
these other laws.

People who work within the government, the medical professions in the
hospitals, and the court systems, do not make services accessible. When deaf
people go to see their family doctor, for example, it is said that interpreters
will not be provided. In fact, the attitude is, "If you want an interpreter,
bring one yourself." This is very frustrating for deaf people. It is not our
responsibility to always provide our own interpreter. The law is clear that we
should have accessibility in all services but it is not actually taking place.

We have to bring our own interpreter, which is very difficult, and it's very
difficult to convince people. If a person were to bring their own ramp to a
building, that would be ludicrous. It's just as ludicrous for deaf people to be
expected to pay for their own interpreter.

As well, when deaf people go in to use hospital services and we ask for
interpreter support, we are often told that we have to bring our own
interpreter or arrange it ourselves. Sometimes they request or expect us to use
our own children to interpret for us, which is very inappropriate. Sometimes
they will bring in people who know a little bit of finger spelling or a little
bit of sign language to interpret for us, and that's inadequate for the deaf
community's need. We need professional, certified interpreters.

A professional interpreter means that they will have qualifications and they
will have been tested and certified in both languages: ASL and English.
Professional interpreters are also trained in deaf culture and are aware of the
differences between deaf and hearing cultures.

The Ontario disability support program has been very frustrating for deaf
people to access. Oftentimes the worker will say that we can write notes
instead of getting an interpreter, which is very limiting for deaf people since
English is not our first language. When we go in to sign papers for the ODSP,
those are legal proceedings, those are legal documents, and if we sign them, we
may be signing something we don't understand because we haven't accessed it in
our first language.

We have these particular frustrations and struggles on a daily basis because of
people's attitudes, thinking that we are the bad guy, and we've had enough of
it. That is why we as a community would like Bill 125 to become stronger in its
language: if people are not following the guidelines and the requirements set
up in the ODA, that there be stronger consequences. That's all I have to say
today.

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

Mrs McLeod: I'll lead off for us. Karen, thank you very much for your
presentation. You have made the point so clearly about the importance of
interpretation and the barrier that represents if it's not available. I guess I
would like to use the opportunity of your presentation to make a plea to the
people who are around the table who will be hearing, I'm sure, a similar
emphasis on the importance of interpretation as you go around the province. But
I think, because you'll be sensitized to this, it's important that you know the
frustration of people here in northwestern Ontario and in Thunder Bay. We have
only one interpreter, if you can imagine the limitations on those who are deaf
and hard of hearing and deafened in our community when they're told, as Karen
says, that they have to bring their own interpreter, but in fact there's only
one person. The limitations on access for people in this community are almost
unimaginable. In fact, you'll know that this committee almost couldn't come to
Thunder Bay because we didn't have an interpreter available. Our only
interpreter was busy. She's been coming in and out, doing other things.

So I would ask, if we're serious about removing barriers, that you help us take
this message back that we have to move some kind of mountain. We've written
letters. The deaf community has written. Somehow we have to move mountains to
try to address this really serious barrier in our community.

The Chair: Ms Higginson, did you want to comment?

Ms Higginson: Just to say that what we are requesting and requiring is
qualified interpreters. We need interpreters who have the qualifications in ASL
and in English, including an understanding of deaf culture. The Ontario
Interpreter Services require their interpreters to be tested every two years to
make sure they're current. That's the type of interpreter we're asking for.

Mr Gravelle: Karen, thank you very much, and thank you also for attending the
public meeting we held a couple of weeks ago related to the Ontario disability
support program. It was very good to hear you.

In terms of the legislation itself, what do you think specifically needs to be
in there? Does there need to be some specific reference to the need for
interpreters and the funding for them in the legislation that's before us
today? What else would you specifically ask for?

Ms Higginson: In Bill 125?

Mr Gravelle: Yes.

Ms Higginson: To be honest with you, I have not been able to access the bill
efficiently because of English being my second language. I recognize this
morning that you mentioned that it was available in Braille format and large
print, but it is not yet available in ASL format. So we as a deaf community
have really been struggling to understand it in its full meaning.

Mr Gravelle: That's very unfortunate.

Ms Higginson: As far as I'm concerned, it is null and void to me.

Mr Gravelle: That's very sad.

Mr Martin: I just again want to thank you for personalizing some of the issues
we've seen presented over the last few days as we've travelled the province. I
know in my own community we have the same problem. We have one interpreter for
80,000 people. If you consider the region -- there are 125,000, and they all
come to the Soo for services -- there is no interpretation.

I know of deaf people who have ended up in jail because something happened
downtown and somebody misinterpreted what the situation was. The police were
called. The deaf person got really frustrated and became a bit aggressive and
got thrown in jail and had to wait in jail for days until they could fly an
interpreter in to actually hear from the person what they were trying to say
and do and sort the circumstance out. Those are the kinds of things that happen
on a fairly regular basis for that community of people.

1240

Can you imagine, as Karen has said, that you're in the hospital and you're
asked to bring your own interpreter in? So the doctor comes in to tell you that
you have a brain tumour or cancer and your child has to be used to pass that
message on. That's the kind of thing that I hear in my office as a difficulty.

Again I go back to the issue of, if we're going to provide the kinds of
services the deaf community needs, it's going to cost money; there's no doubt
about it. It's expensive. But it's a question, as I said yesterday at the
hearing, of how many of people's human rights can you afford not to offer, and
this community in particular.

The government has chosen, obviously, priorities. They're giving tax breaks to
corporations. We're spending public money to the tune of some $2 billion to $3
billion that we then don't have to spend on the kinds of services you need. Is
that fair, in your mind?

Ms Higginson: No.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Thank you, Ms Higginson. It was important
for you to be here today to be able to present your personal perspective and
the need for more signers and, really, assistance to people of the deaf
community.

I want to draw to your attention, and also to the other members' who haven't
been with us on the committee, with due respect, that in the spring budget the
finance minister has committed $55 million this year, which is $20 million more
than the normal amount, for these services. It's intended to grow to nearly
$200 million by 2006-07. It was specifically designed to enhance services for
people with developmental disabilities and attract more quality caregivers. So
it was important that you gave your input here today. We want to ensure that
down the road, after this bill is implemented, the lobbying is important so
that some of those dollars can be allocated in the way that you have described.

Ms Higginson: I hope this is not off topic, but if services are provided to the
general public, we're happy about that. But when we try to access those
services, we feel, when we're not provided with access, that we're like a
second-class citizen and that we're living below the standard of living of
everybody else. So what we're asking for is just to be on par with the hearing
community. We have felt very neglected to date.

Mr O'Toole: I would just like to thank you, Karen, for being here today and
giving voice to your concerns. I should, for the record, mention that you would
have been very proud yesterday of the deaf and deafened community. Three young
students from the Milton Deaf Action Group made a very excellent presentation.
Their names were Vance Youngs, Tanya Sturk and Jessamyn Roach. They were very
animated, and not angry, but frustrated. I think they made many of the same
demands of increasing the number and quality of signing interpreters. So you've
certainly got this forum to get your message out, and I appreciate that.

Ms Higginson: Thank you.

Ms Nancy Frost: Hi. I'm Nancy Frost. I'm regional director of the Canadian
Hearing Society. Although Karen, because of personal reasons, is really
focusing on the lack of sign language interpreters, the lack of access for the
deaf community, we also must not lose sight that there are issues of lack of
access for the hard of hearing and deafened; for example, real-time
captionists, note-takers. The entry levels into a lot of provincial and
municipal services are through voice messages which are not acceptable to deaf,
deafened and the hard of hearing. So I appreciate Karen's focus on the lack of
sign language interpreters, but we must also not forget that there are many
other access issues that are not being made available.

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

DISABLED WORKERS'
COMPLEX CASE NETWORK

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Disabled Workers' Complex Case
Network. I would ask the presenter to please come forward, and if you could
state your name for the record. On behalf of the committee, welcome.

Mr Darrell Sanderson: My name is Darrell Sanderson. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the standing committee on finance and economic policy for
this opportunity to speak here today on this proposed legislation, Bill 125,
the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

I am a disabled consumer with a wide range of experience and interests relating
to our disabled communities. My disability is as a result of a workplace
accident in October 1977. I was 21 years of age at the time. Since that time, I
have acquired a vast amount of experience, history and knowledge relating to
disability issues and their impact on persons with a disability.

My volunteer background and work experience in the disabled community are
extensive. I have served as a volunteer in executive capacity on the board of
the Handicapped Action Group, Wilderness Discovery, HAGI Transit, a parallel
transit service for persons with disabilities, and also Persons United for
Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario. Both the HAGI and PUSH Northwest are
consumer-controlled organizations. Their boards comprise at least 51% disabled
consumers who have a direct say in the day-to-day operations of the
organization.

I have also served as business manager for the local Ontario March of Dimes as
well as for the aforementioned HAGI Transit. Presently, I am the president of
the Disabled Workers' Complex Case Network, or DWCCN for short. Our
organization is a consumer-driven organization providing peer support,
information services and assistance to severely disabled workers who have
suffered a serious workplace accident.

The complexity of modern society and the severely disabled workers who are
dependent on workers' compensation require an increased level of education in
order that severely disabled workers are able to cope and manage in today's
society. The battle with acceptance and adjustment to disabling conditions can
be viewed as less devastating than having to deal with getting through the
bureaucratic systems in order to live as independently as possible. This
concept can be extrapolated to all disabled people who experience much of the
same complexity and bureaucracy in meeting their everyday needs for equal
access and effect for such things as education, housing, transportation,
employment and recreation.

There is a great amount of controversy about Bill 125. Some simply say that the
proposed legislation is inadequate. Others say that the legislation may impair
or supersede other legislation such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Others say there are no teeth to the bill. They say it is voluntary and that
there are no enforcement mechanisms or provisions. The legislation only talks
about the public sector and really does not involve the private sector. As it
stands, one only has to show intent to meet the code, as outlined in the
legislation. Intent to provide access does not constitute attempt and
obligation under the legislation. As an example, the building codes lack
uniform standards, best practices and enforcement mechanisms. Where you have no
standards, how do you remediate the problems that arise?

PUSH Northwest and DWCCN were involved in a previous provincial review of
building code recommendations. The government of the day introduced changes in
legislation that is today less effective than it was before the review. The
municipality of Thunder Bay at one time had better standards and building codes
than the provincial legislation itself contained. The revisions to the building
code were a step backward for our community, with most adopting undesirable
legislation which the government introduced. If the government does not put
proper provisions into the Bill 125 legislation, then persons with disabilities
will look for other alternatives, such as filing complaints with other bodies
such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission. That is not a preferred option as
the Ontario Human Rights Commission process can literally take years. Moreover,
what of systemic issues? How will the proposed legislation deal with them?

1250

DWCCN has followed closely the activities of the ODA Committee. DWCCN supports
the ODA's submission of the 11 principles outlined by the committee and accepts
their submission of the blueprint and amendments for the ODA legislation. It is
of concern that this government does not. The government is quick to cite that
their legislation and initiatives have the support of many well-known disabled
organizations. However, we point out that it is erroneous to draw on such a
conclusion in that many of those organizations are service providers and have
vested interests in the form of government funding and agency obligations. Some
examples of organizations that are not consumer controlled are the Ontario
March of Dimes, Easter Seals, Canadian National Institute for the Blind,
Canadian Paraplegic Association. These organizations do good work and
contribute positively to the quality of life for disabled people, but they have
a conflict in making representation to this government, which funds them. In
addition, these organizations representing the disabled have become out of
touch with the disabled issues of those at the grassroots. It is important that
this government take the time and energy to consult all constituents on Bill
125 in a qualitative and quantitative manner.

Disabled individuals in our community are asking why Bill 125 is being rushed
through the process, especially given that many view this legislation in its
present form as undesirable. The present bill is voluntary, not mandatory, it
has no enforcement mechanisms or provisions and only talks about the public
sector versus the private. Why do you want to put through something that is not
good? Furthermore, there are no provisions in the legislation that will deal
with the systemic issues. People are misinformed if they think the Ontario
Human Rights Commission deals with systemic issues. If that agency did, then
people would not have to file individual human rights complaints repeatedly on
the same issues. How will Bill 125 deal with these systemic issues?

If you're following the paper, it's not in here but I have added this, given
some of the presentations that have been made. It was probably a miscue on my
part in not including it. This particular legislation is about rights
legislation and it should ensure for people with disabilities that it is
portable. It should be mandated so that people with disabilities, no matter
where they go, what community they come from, whether it's 5,000, 10,000 or
100,000, should be able to travel to those communities and expect some uniform
standards.

Why is this present government so set on ramming this legislation through the
House? What is the rush? Is Cam Jackson being forced to keep Mike Harris's
promise to bring the legislation in this year? It would be better to renege on
Mr Harris's promise than to bring the legislation in at this time. The
Conservative government has had approximately six years of government to act in
an enlightened and proactive way. Instead, we have lack of funding in programs
designed to assist people with a disability. People cannot get service because
of a lack of funding and co-opting of payments under the assistive devices
program. People are going to charity for assistance in funding mobility
equipment. There is a lack of income supports, transportation, sidewalks and
curb cuts. Grocery stores set up pop and vending machines in access routes or
fill their aisles with stock. The more severely disabled suffer more because of
their needs and the higher costs associated with their disabilities. The list
goes on. The government should have been leading the way. Instead, we are
receiving rhetoric that is meaningless and consultation that is less than
ideal.
As an example, the government recently proposed $5,000 fines for abusing
handicapped parking spots. The disabled community does not value expensive
fines for disabled parking infractions. More value would be obtained if the
existing and any future laws were policed or enforced.

Disabled individuals at the grassroots level have a lot of life experience and
knowledge to impart. This knowledge is not always captured by the disabled
organizations that represent the disabled. It is our belief that the
government's consultations should be more extensive and not on short notice as
presently is the case. The government should make use of that knowledge by
accepting the proposed amendments that are coming forward and defer the
introduction of the legislation until it can more thoroughly consult in a
manner and matter that is meaningful to all.

The Chair: We have two minutes per caucus.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much for coming today. One of the points you
highlight in your presentation, all of your points actually, indicates that
you're paying attention to this whole process. You're obviously either watching
or listening to the hearings and what's going on at Queen's Park, because what
you're presenting here today is certainly relevant and on the mark.

The question of more extensive public hearings: I guess it's in northern
Ontario that you notice it probably more than anyplace else. For example, today
I would guess that all the people coming to present are from Thunder Bay. What
about Fort Frances, Kenora, Marathon, Manitouwadge, and on and on, those
communities? Mind you, most of them are under 10,000, so they won't be affected
by this legislation anyway. The question then is, what do those people do in
terms of access and their human rights?

I think you make an excellent point. It's unfortunate, actually, that the
government isn't willing to take the time, if they're really and sincerely
interested in finding a bill that will do the trick, to hear from as many
people as possible in as many circumstances as possible. Do you have any idea
why they might not be willing to do that or aren't willing to do that?

Mr Sanderson: I'm not really sure why that is. I would suggest the short notice
for people to respond is not helpful at all. If you look at one of the
communities farthest from us, Kenora, it's a considerable distance to travel.
Relative to people who have presented here today, Tracy herself had to book
ahead to get a ride on the parallel transit system. Those are some of the
difficulties people with disabilities have: just getting out in the community.

Like I say, the way we're starting to view this is that it's being rammed
through, that it's not a direct consultation. My own personal opinion is that
this government believes they are doing the right thing. However I'm trying to
say I don't think you are if you're putting all your eggs in the basket of
looking at the disabled organizations that have been around. There are people
out there who do not have the opportunity to participate and you have to do it
in a proper, well-time-framed manner in order to collect those particular
inputs from those individuals.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Darrell. Clearly you've been a very
hard-working advocate, since 1977 you said in your report. I see in the
background here you've been involved with the WSIB in an advisory committee
capacity as well. Has anything happened since 1977, or what could be, as I see,
the position paper from the north in 1993 that was presented to the government
of the day? I have a copy of that with me.

I'm not trying to be harsh. This is quite critical of the government, "ramming
it through." When I was on council, this very issue was discussed in the early
90s in excruciating detail and there was absolutely no response by the
government of the day. This, to me, is a very complex rights issue, as you
said, and as such -- now, I'm not lecturing you, I just want to balance the
discussion of "we've done nothing," to make the point that rights legislation,
you said, should be portable and as such should be national, but airline, train
and other regulatory agencies are federal in nature. There is no federal or
national standard. This is the first province that's done anything in a
legislative framework. I'm convinced this framework allows you at this table
and the ODA table to make statements on the record and require governments to
respond.

To this date, not one government, including the others, have done anything. I
have not been as involved as you by any stretch, but I have listened to it for
over a decade, personally, at a legislative framework, at council and as a
school councillor. I can say without exception -- I was the chair of a special
ed advisory committee from 1982 to 1987. In that time special education got
zero attention. This government required integration as opposed to segregation
and specifically funded special ed.

1300

What I'm saying is, without being argumentative with you, I must put on the
record that this is, in my view, a first step. The consultation has been going
on with you since 1977. I believe this is a piece of legislation that's badly
needed. I would ask you a question: if I put to you that the next option is to
do nothing, would you prefer to defeat this bill and have nothing or -- it's a
not a fair question perhaps. I hope I haven't been too animated. But do you
understand? It's fine to be beat up in public, but my record is --

The Chair: Question, please.

Mr O'Toole: Is it this or nothing?

Mr Sanderson: I think I know what the question is and truthfully nothing is not
acceptable to anybody. The point is, do not ram the legislation through without
laying out the plans to the disabled community as to where it's going to go.
It's like we're being asked to sign a contract without knowing the details.
Credit to the government for taking some initiative. I sure hope they'll deal
with each and every iota that is being brought forth as it relates to people
with disabilities.

I'm going to give you a little tale aside. I talked about the building code
here. This is very quick: it's a washroom. Not to get hung up on just mobility
barriers, but we had a bowling alley here that redid and put in a unisex
washroom. It was accessible. About a year and a half after that, they turned
around and did a major renovation. The stall is quite accessible. It's great
and wonderful. But let me tell you, I challenge any one of you who happened to
sit on that toilet and then make a reach for the toilet paper. I guarantee you
will be standing. The person in the wheelchair, the paraplegic or somebody like
myself would not be able to reach a darn piece of toilet paper. What is wrong
with that picture? It goes back to intent, and for intent, there has to be
teeth to this legislation.

Mr Gravelle: Darrell, I think the point that needs to be made, and you've made
it, is that there's absolutely no reason for the government to rush this
legislation through, except that they want to. They want to get it out of the
way before Christmas. The truth is, and no matter what Mr O'Toole says about
all the years and everything else, you bring forward legislation and you give
the public a real opportunity, which we could have done over the wintertime.

I guess I'd like you to respond to this. I think the proof of the government's
commitment will be whether or not they accept meaningful amendments, which are
going to take place next week, again part of the rushed process. I guess we can
say that if indeed they're willing to accept significant amendments that make
this a piece of legislation that you would find acceptable, then we would say,
"OK, thank you very much," but I'm not full of hope that's going to happen.

The truth is there's no reason to rush this through, after six and a half years
to finally put something forward and then say, "We're going to make you get
through this in three weeks so we can get if off our plate." I don't mean to be
harsh or rude, but I think that's something that can be said. I take it you
agree?

Mr Sanderson: I certainly do. The reintroduction shouldn't be a problem.
Personally, I would welcome it.

Mr Gravelle: There's legislation that will be carried over regardless of being
prorogued anyway, so even that isn't a good reason to say it has to be rushed
through. It would have been great to get to so many more communities, and quite
frankly if people from the outlying regions were invited here today, they might
not have been able to get in anyway because of the weather. You need to go to
the communities. We need to get to more communities, and that's the least that
I think we should be doing.

Mr Sanderson: When Tracy presented, people really need to look at the story she
presented, because that's the story for many people, including seniors. I see
doctors lifting senior people up on to the tables. It's true. You can't get
health care, you can't get transportation, and so on and so forth. Where are we
going to go with this?

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

THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT
INJURED WORKERS' SUPPORT GROUP

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Thunder Bay and District Injured
Workers' Support Group. I would ask the presenter to please come forward and
state your name for the record. On behalf of the committee, welcome.

Mr Francis Bell: My name is Francis Bell. I am the executive director of the
Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers' Support Group. Like many of the
presenters before you this morning, I'm one of the disabled people in this
community. I'm also probably one of the loudest ones speaking a lot of times.
Some of you have seen me before and know that I have been known to give you my
opinion in a quite direct manner. Today I intend to do the same thing: give you
a direct opinion and offer you some alternatives to make this bill better.

We are here not to lambaste the government but to provide constructive
criticism. I can tell you we started working on this thing just the other day.
It was serious enough for our committee that we finished this brief this
morning at 6:30. We worked through the night to make sure we had a brief we
were proud to present to you. This is important to us. It's important to
injured workers. It's important to people in the disability community.

Part of this brief you're going to see in other briefs, and that's the portion
of it from the ODA Committee. We support those portions and we've laid them out
for you. We hope you would do some very basic things, and that is, if you
haven't had an opportunity to go, we've provided you with the Web page. As I
understand it, all MPPs have access to the Web. You can go directly there and
actually see the documents.

Remember, that's a pretty broad-ranging committee that has been working for
years. We have been involved with it in Thunder Bay. Our sister organization,
an umbrella organization, the Ontario Network of Injured Workers' Groups, has
been involved and support the proposals from the ODA Committee. As the
secretary-treasurer I can say that quite emphatically, as I have spoken this
morning with the president of the network after he has had a chance to look at
this brief, which is endorsed by the Ontario network.

This bill needs to address the issue of systemic problems. This bill is a
beginning. It is not good enough to pass at this stage, folks. There are some
things you need to look at.

What I want to say to you is that there has been talk about using the Human
Rights Commission. There has been talk about enforcement mechanisms. The Human
Rights Commission is not an appropriate enforcement mechanism. It will not do
the job. A unilateral, independent enforcement mechanism must be set up to run
parallel with the ODA. This government, the opposition parties, everybody must
work in educating people about disability issues. Too often, as injured
workers, we've seen that it does not work.

You may ask, who is the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers' Support
Group? We represent injured workers over a quarter million square miles. Just
to give you an example, right now, recuperating at my personal home is a friend
of mine from Marathon who came in for treatment, but the hospital discharged
him after two hours of having cortisone shots. Those epidurals were given this
morning at 6:30. He arrived by taxi at my house at 8:30 this morning. This
person is going to ride a bus back to Marathon because he can't get service. If
it wasn't for our providing him with a place, his alternative was to hop back
on the bus and go back this morning -- not something I would think would be a
wise move to make, as somebody who has been down that road before, but it's
what's out there.

As I've already said, we're here to provide constructive criticism. We want to
help you get the legislation right. We want to give you advice on how to take
the potential weaknesses in Bill 125 and make them strengths. We ask that you
understand that many of the presenters who will be before this committee know
the problems because they have personally encountered them. They are the
experts. The experts are not those who draft the legislation, but we are. We
can tell you what will work and what will not work.

1310

This bill is about concepts. The question for you is, what are the concepts
that this bill should espouse versus what are the concepts that this bill
espouses to the disability community, the citizens of Ontario? We've laid out
for you in the brief the 11 principles. We would ask that you use them and use
them wisely.

In fact, we have developed a report card for you. If you go to page 12 of the
brief, the report card runs in a landscape mode. It's important you look at
this report card. We would ask that as you're going through your deliberations,
especially at the committee level where you're going to hopefully make some
amendments, you look at the report card and say, "Is this going to fail? Does
it need remedial help? Does it need improvement? Is it satisfactory, or is it
excellent?" We've given you comments on each of the principles. We did that so
it would give you some creative thought processes on what we're talking about.

It's important that each of the amendments be looked at very carefully, very
concisely. This morning you've heard from some local people who have told you
about the problems they've encountered due to disabilities. This government and
this committee can roll up their sleeves. They can work constructively together
with the opposition and make the necessary amendments to improve this bill. The
first step: it must sell those changes to its fellow legislators and to the
minister. If this is done in a positive manner, it will ensure that the bill,
as amended, will meet the needs of the Ontario disability community. It must be
positive. We don't need the sniping. We've all seen it. We don't want to see
it. We want you all to work constructively together.

The amendments cover a wide range of sections in the bill. The amendments
proposed cover issues such as language, barrier-free, accountability,
inclusiveness, enforcement, limited enforcement, reviews etc.

The government has a unique opportunity to have a second chance to develop,
review, amend and proclaim an Ontarians with Disabilities Act that is really
worthwhile. The Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers' Support Group asks
that this opportunity not be squandered. We ask that you take a bold stance.
Stick to the principles of the ODA and show leadership. In the end, we can only
offer guidance. This committee can propose amendments that the Legislature will
vote up or down. You can do the right thing. You can bring disabled Ontarians
in from the outside. You can improve all communities in Ontario. Now the
question is, are you going to do it? We've offered constructive criticism and
we implore you to act now.

In appendix A, you will see the 11 principles. We've actually headlined them to
make it a little bit easier for you. Those are the 11 principles. What we would
propose is that in your committee room you put each one of these principles up
on the wall, and as you go down through each section, you see if the amendments
you're going to make will meet one of those 11 principles. It's like that
reporting card. It's a way to remind you of what is needed. You can do it. You
can show the initiative. We believe it is imperative that it be done.

I want to talk about just one more item and that deals with the issue of
municipalities. The individual I spoke about from this morning comes from a
small municipality. That small municipality would not have to meet any of the
ODA requirements as suggested now because it is under 10,000. You need to fix
that. You need to make this an inclusive piece of legislation. It needs to
cover every community in Ontario. The time frames may be different, but if you
do not do that, it will be a weasel way out of making the necessary changes.

I'm not going to go through each of the amendments, because I'm sure you've
already heard them.

Again, on behalf of our group, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
present to you today. I want to implore you to work co-operatively together to
propose the amendments you have seen in front of you and pass them. If there is
a problem and you need further consultation because you're not sure about the
amendments, take the time. Don't put through something that is inappropriate,
that will not meet our needs. We've waited long enough. You've waited long
enough. Do the right thing.

The Chair: We have approximately three minutes per caucus.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much for your presentation. There are a couple of
items that I just wanted to go to.

In principle 2 -- obviously, I've seen the principle many times before, but
this is the first time I realize -- it runs into a problem or a concern that's
been expressed by a number of people, particularly the legal people who have
spoken to the committee, about the ability of the ODA to supersede other
legislation. There's some concern that -- in fact, some people presented and
said that in their opinion some of the benefits that the disabled have in the
Human Rights Code would actually be reduced by this act. That, I can assure
you, was not the intent and is not the intent. If that is what it would do, I'd
want to make sure that we did put amendments in place to prevent that from
happening. Yet in principle 2 we're suggesting that the act should supersede
all other legislation. Is that dealing with the same problem? Is that why the
community, particularly the legal community, feels that we are superseding it,
in your opinion? Could you give me your opinion on that?

Mr Bell: A very quick response is that if you make the act better than the
other legislation, of course it should supersede it. If you make it worse, then
obviously we don't want it to supersede it. It's a matter of where you're going
to put the floor. Remember, legislation is about floor levels. It's about the
beginning, the basis. You can make this act better than the Ontario human
rights act. If there's a provision that's better somewhere else, what we want
is that provision to be enforced, obviously. What we don't want is a piece of
legislation that allows people to lower the standards. We want the standards
brought up. That's what we're talking about.

Mr Hardeman: We'll make sure we check this out more with the legal profession,
but in my opinion the act is quite clear that this in no way infringes on any
of the standards set in the Human Rights Code. So it's covered, but I just
wanted to make sure we had that right.

The other issue I just wanted to quickly ask about is the uniformity across the
province, and the fact that the advisory committees, in preparing the plans,
are restricted to municipalities over 10,000. Your position is that we should
take out the 10,000 floor, so we would have the same service across the
province?

Mr Bell: Yes. The reason is very simple. Do you just say to somebody who's in a
community of 9,000 that they don't have the same rights as somebody in a
community of 20,000, or 100,000, or a million? The answer is no. We're all
Ontarians. We should all be treated with the same, equal level of service. Does
it mean that this government may have to find some dollars to assist smaller
communities? Yes, it does, to be blunt. But we've waited long enough. It's time
to move in a positive way.

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

Mrs McLeod: In support of principle 2, I think it was never conceived that a
bill that's specifically to provide greater access for those with disabilities
would ever be less than the Human Rights Code. Therefore, the principle I think
should apply, and the bill that's intended for the disabled should be
revisited.

My question is around the report card, Francis. I'm trying to relate the
principles in the report to the grades that you've given out. I guess one of
the things that I was struck by was the -- I understand some of the failing
grades. On principles 4 and 5, it says they need improvement. It seemed to me
that principle 5, in particular, was about the extension. As I read it, it's
the extension to the private sector which is noticeably missing from the bill.

Mr Bell: We've put that in the comments section: "Missed private sector." We
need to get this broadened across the entire province. The government passes
legislation that's about health and safety and doesn't say it's only for the
public sector workers; it's for all workers. This is no different than that,
folks. It's the same thing. It's for all workers, all sectors.

Mr Gravelle: Francis, it's a great job that you've done. It's terrific. You
have appealed to us, all parties, to work together to try to create a piece of
legislation that really makes a difference in its value, but I think you and I
both know that there's a certain amount that will be accepted in terms of
amendments, perhaps -- we hope -- and a certain amount that won't. Maybe it's
not a fair question, but could you focus for a moment on, if there w