NAVY LEAGUE OF CANADA, SUDBURY BRANCH

MALIA DUBE

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY SPECIAL NEEDS OFFICE

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF SUDBURY AND DISTRICT, ONTARIO BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION

NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO REGIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE DISABLED

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY, SUDBURY OFFICE

CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH

SUDBURY DISABILITY COALITION

WEST NIPISSING NATURAL RESOURCES ACCESS GROUP

SAULT-ALGOMA ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE

RACHEL PROULX

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

Friday 7 December 2001 Vendredi 7 decembre 2001

The committee met at 0959 at Cambrian College, Sudbury.

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 the
standing committee on finance and economic affairs to order. We're here to
consider Bill 125.

There are a couple of items I would like to bring to everyone's attention.
Copies of the bill are available at the back of the room in Braille. We also
have audio tapes and disks. It's also available in French.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to recognize the passing away of Dr
Frank Marsh at the young age of 51 years on November 11. Dr Marsh was the third
president of Cambrian College. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to offer
our condolences to his family, to the staff and students of Cambrian College,
and to the community because Dr Marsh, although I did not know him personally,
was involved tremendously in the community.

With that, I'll ask our first presenter, the Navy League of Canada, Sudbury
branch, to please come forward and identify yourself for the record.

Interjection: The screen is wiped out, Chair.

The Chair: I guess we'll have to take a break for a couple of minutes until the
screen is back on.

The committee recessed from 1000 to 1004.

The Chair: I would like to introduce the committee members. I'll start on my
left with Mr Rick Bartolucci, Mr Tony Martin, Ms Shelley Martel, and then on my
right, Mr Carl DeFaria, Mr Joe Spina and Mr Ernie Hardeman. Mr John O'Toole is
not here but will be shortly. I'm Marcel Beaubien.

NAVY LEAGUE OF CANADA,
SUDBURY BRANCH

The Chair: I'm sorry for the technical difficulty, but we won't dock you on
your time. We'll start now. On behalf of the committee, welcome.

Mr Bryan Chapelle: Thank you very much. On behalf of the Navy League of Canada,
Sudbury branch, I bid everybody good morning. I was asked to come and speak on
behalf of disabled people mainly because we have the Brain Injury Association
of Sudbury and District in our building, which is great. I guess in a lot of
ways we feel we have first-hand knowledge of this. I'm going to start my
presentation and give you an idea of how we look at disabilities in the Navy
League of Canada.

The Chair: Before you start, could you identify both of you?

Mr Chapelle: My apologies. This is Mr Bill Lee, my public relations person. We
hang around together because we need each other. It doesn't hurt at all to have
someone else from the branch with me. Given the fact that Mr Lee is disabled --
he is technically blind; he was injured in the Canadian navy -- and he is a
member of our branch, this shows how people can function, even with
disabilities. Do you have anything to say, Mr Lee?

Mr Bill Lee: No.

Mr Chapelle: All right, I'm going to start my presentation. We at the Navy
League of Canada, Sudbury branch, like to think we are setting an example for
the rest of the community when it comes to issues of disabilities. We
understand first-hand the barriers that face people living with disabilities.
The Sudbury branch has two board members who have become disabled in adult
life. In our cadet corps, we have serving cadets who have certain medical
conditions that require special care. We encourage integration, not
discrimination. We are now trying to accommodate the needs of the disabled
within our community.

I have to look back. We have a cadet corps. We sponsor now three cadet corps.
Financially, it costs a lot, but one of them is the Admiral Mountbatten Sea
Cadet Corps. It has a terrific history. It's one of the top corps in Canada.
It's the only corps in Canada that has wiped the field over army and air in
individual and team competitions. That was in 1977, and the second time was
about four and a half years ago.

At that time we had two disabled young adults in our corps. When it came to
judging, we asked that the judges not judge them on their disability, but on
their position. One was in the guard and one was in the band. That was at
Borden and we wiped the field. If you're part of the Mountbattens, no matter
what standing you are, we teach these kids to perform and not to win. That's
why we win all the time. They've got to enjoy it. They have to be a part of it.
So any child who's disabled has to work just as hard at the ones who are in
there. The difference is they help each other.

So we'd never exclude anybody who was disabled. If someone was disabled because
they couldn't do certain things, we would compensate for them to do other
things -- not demeaning things, because the idea is they all progress in rank.
I think the positive thing about cadet corps is we all lack confidence in our
lives. If there's anything this organization brings, it's confidence.

Secondly, as I said earlier, we donate office space to the Brain Injury
Association of Sudbury and District, and we'd like to do the same for other
charities, but because of the current design of our building, the Navy League
Hall, it is inaccessible to all persons in a wheelchair. Anybody with motor
impairment has a tough time negotiating the stairs. Our washrooms cannot
facilitate anyone in a wheelchair with any dignity.

I think at the Navy League of Canada, Sudbury branch, we're too easy in some
senses, but we take in people. We're family. I think the one thing you'll learn
about the Navy League of Canada is we're family. The brain injury association
has become family to us. We have helped them. A member of our branch sits on
their branch. We're a frugal bunch and we intend to make this group frugal. We
know how to raise money even in difficult times, but they needed guidance. They
are very smart people, but they have to learn how to focus, and that's what we
have worked on. I see now in the last few months -- and even the mayor's office
has told me how impressed they are -- how they have come along. That's our main
intent.

1010

They stay there free of charge. We don't charge any money. If it's a rental, a
dance or something, that's a different story. We offset our costs by renting
the building. But the way the building was designed by the Mine Mill union
approximately 50 years ago -- it's a very strong building -- it does not lend
itself freely to wheelchair accessibility. So it will be quite costly. Even
with the grants, it will be costly.

We have initiated fundraising. We've been talking about this for months at the
Navy League branch. Our elections are next Sunday, so I can't go into it fully,
because I can't commit the branch to a new project that will run into the
thousands. I have a lot of confidence it will go anyway, but being president
and as my term is coming up -- I can run for one more year, which I will -- I
can't put a burden on the new incoming executive. That's on the whole, but
we're planning to put so much money away a year that actually would be taken
away from our cadet corps, from our main organization. That's the only way,
because the grant structures as they stand will cover only about 50%, average,
on whatever you do. So if you've got a $100,000 price tag for that work, you're
looking at raising at least $50,000 yourself. I'm already running a budget of
about $100,000 to $120,000. I would figure this year, because we picked up and
started a corps in Little Current, it will be closer to $120,000.

The lady from the Trillium Foundation says, "How do you do it?" It's the people
we have, it's the dedication, ex-veterans, ex-navy, ex-Navy League people who
come together, and we work hard. We have had some tight times even this year,
but we hang on and we push and we come through it. We're going to have to lay
out a plan on how we're going to do it, and that will come about after next
Sunday. We pretty well know how.

We would like to know if there is going to be a time limit on this bill for
retrofitting the project at the Navy League hall. Looking at the year 2000,
just the branch alone we're talking $48,000. That was for two cadet corps on
the branch costs. We're pretty frugal, but at the same time our corps are
spoiled. We must have $50,000 or $60,000 invested in band equipment. We
completely sponsor the Navy League Cadet Corps ourselves -- uniforms,
everything -- because they don't come under national defence. So that corps
costs a lot of money. The sea cadets, everything the debt doesn't honour, in a
sense -- they provide a building and they provide their uniforms. We pick up
everything else that corps needs, so it gets pretty expensive as it stands. We
run a sailing centre. So we've got a lot of overhead. We're paying the
mortgage. The only good thing about the mortgage is that Ontario division of
the Navy League of Canada paid cash for the building, so we pay Ontario
division. If we did run into a problem this month, let's say, we would just
phone Toronto and they'd say, "Well, pick it up in the next two or three months
or whatever." We don't perceive a problem, but we haven't had that problem.
Since we've taken the building over, we've paid them.

I have a vision for us. If we are going to fundraise ourselves, you're looking
at anywhere from two to five years for us to have the money raised before we
can go for grants. What we're concerned about is, if Bill 125 is going to tell
me that I have to do this within two years or three years, that's going to put
a heavy strain on us and, I would imagine, a lot of organizations, and it could
financially put us into --
Interjection: Bankrupt.

Mr Chapelle: It wouldn't bankrupt us; it would make it close.

There's got to be a lot of thought going on here. In Sudbury we're pooling from
the same economic spectrum. We're pulling from the different groups, from
businesses and that. The big thing with us is that up to our 50th reunion in
1993 we had over 5,000 sea cadets pass through the corps. They have been great
to us financially; in fact we're starting an alumni now. A lot of them had
businesses, so in turn we've been lucky that way. But there are so many
charities and everybody's going after the same dollar value. It becomes
difficult.

Another problem, on which I was asked to do a survey by one of the ministries
-- I believe it was culture and something; I forget -- was the effect of
gambling coming to a city. It does have a great effect. Even with the
racetracks down -- I was running a bingo and when the racetrack opened up the
revenues dropped. So it does have an effect. And in five years they're talking
about allowing the tables to go in. I think that will just about finish the
charities in Sudbury and area. That's my personal view, and I didn't hide that.

Being part of the Navy League of Canada, where there are charities that have
been affected by racetracks, the maximum you can get is $5,000 a year. Some of
these organizations in the area I'm talking about have teamed up together, four
or five of them, and run bingos. They had their own bingo halls. They had to
sell everything. Like one guy said, "You lost $40,000 out of your budget that
you could use to help people. Then you went to council and they gave you a
whole -- they didn't have to give you five grand; they might give you $1,000."
He said that every group within that area was affected, whether it was someone
who was disabled, or any of the groups -- cancer society, heart fund -- because
there was more money going out to these areas, especially gambling.

I figure we're looking at anywhere from $100,000, maybe $120,000. I went to the
city, and we have to hire an architectural engineer because of the age of the
building. It's a strong building. We've already had it checked out by a
structural engineer. They said it's unbelievably well built. But that's another
cost, and it will be a pretty penny.

I've looked through the material, because I've done fundraising. I'm usually
the guy who applies for the grants. I've learned there's a knack to applying
for the grants, especially in how you fill out the answers. That took some
time. But grants aren't always the total answer. I think groups like disabled
groups will have to do one thing -- and they might be a little angry with me
for saying this -- but they're going to have to take part, even including their
own fundraising to assist, whether it's groups or themselves. I find you have
to do more. You have to get involved. I can't sit back, or Bill, or my branch,
and hope that money comes in. We have to go out and hustle for it. So I think,
as a group, there's money out there and you can get it. They have to be do more
of that. Some people may jump on me for that.

1020

I just take the group that we have in the hall now. They're fundraising their
own money. I remember one of the meetings I sat in on, and they had all these
ideas, which everybody loves. We get ideas of grandeur sometimes. I said,
"Wait. You have to learn how to crawl before you walk." Every quarter, dime,
nickel or dollar you get, that's money you never had before. The Navy League
never looks at hundreds or thousands; we look at pennies, nickels and dimes. I
think a lot of these groups have to look at it in that sense and I think they
have to come out in the community -- I know they're disabled, but I know a lot
of them can do a lot of things. It would probably give some extra meaning to
their lives and show people that they don't need society to totally help them,
that they're more than capable. I think our cadet corps show that, that these
children are capable of going on.

Our aim at the Navy League of Canada in Sudbury is to make the hall accessible
to everybody, and we will do it and we will do it as fast as we can.

Access to partnership: we're going to try that with different companies. That's
a little tough too, because if you're living up here in northern Ontario, you
don't have that many to feed off, because you've got all these other groups.
But we're going to try that approach. I have a few ideas knocking around.
Perhaps this way, with our own fundraising and if we can partner with somebody
and with the grants, I think we should be able to make that hall accessible to
everybody, and to all the charities.

That's been our main function since we've taken over that hall. Even the YWCA,
we opened that hall free of charge, the kitchen, everything, for violence
against women prevention and their march. Anything to do with the community is
free. Last Christmas a company phoned up and they were going to have over 500
children coming through. They were giving them free toys; they had Santa there.
This is a true story. They phoned up and said to the lady we have working, "How
much would you charge for the hall for a day at Christmas?" They said it was
for youth and that, you know. She said, "I don't know. I'd have to talk to the
treasurer." He was next door and she said to the treasurer, "How much do you
charge, Gary?" He said, "Well, $50." Anyway, Gloria went back to the woman and
she wouldn't believe her. She said, "I've got to talk to that person -- $50."
She'd already talked to a few halls and it was $400, $800. Gary said, "I have
to charge something. I've got to pay somebody 50 bucks to clean that hall,"
because it was around Christmas and a lot of us were gone, doing things.

We don't overkill. So the idea is to open the hall, make it more accessible.
There are a lot of groups in Sudbury and area that have people who are
disabled. They don't have to be part of the organization, but you can have many
groups that need facilities. So our aim is to make it accessible as soon as
possible.

Our concern on this Bill 125 is that I've never heard a timeline. That's what
concerns me, because if we can't do it in two years -- it might take us three
years -- are we going to be cornered in a timeline because of that? That's our
main concern. If you have any questions --

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'll allow for a minute. We've just got a very
brief time. I'll start with the government's side, Mr Hardeman, a quick one
minute.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much for the presentation and for
pointing out all the good work that your organization does in the community for
the disabled but also for the community in general.

I noticed you mentioned fundraising and you referred to the Trillium grant. Has
your organization taken advantage of and been able to use that, and does it
work? Obviously the province put in place the Trillium process to replace and
to assist in the areas where the slot machines would take away from the
fundraising capabilities of your organization. So does it work well for your
organization?
Mr Chapelle: It worked well. I have no complaints about the Trillium Foundation
at all, because at that time I applied for $24,000 and we got $17,000. I didn't
expect to get the $24,000, but we got $17,000. We built a monument here in
Sudbury that actually reflects a true value of about $52,000. We did that
project in nine months. The building came open to us within two months of the
monument. So we have a double whammy. We took on the building, we took on the
monument. We've done both. Then we moved to open the cadet corps.

The Trillium fund is great. I don't think funds or grants should pay for
everything, I really don't, because that's the wrong approach. If you're a true
organization, whether it's the Lions Club, the Shriners or anything, you should
be out there getting money. I don't think the government should be servicing
the whole community. I think citizens have to get out and do their own part. I
think it's excellent.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to introduce Ernie Parsons, who is our
critic in this area and will be doing the majority of the questioning today. I
will certainly want to ask just one question to Bryan and Bill, but before I do
that I want to tell you that there's absolutely no question about the
commitment of your organization to our community and to the kids. It is very
inclusive. Certainly over the years your attendance at my schools has been
wonderful in ensuring that there is complete and positive growth of the child,
and then as they move on in life.

David Lepofsky, the chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, has
said that this act is a weak act. He has offered 28 pages of amendments.
Because you work directly and because you said you see the importance of being
inclusive, would you suggest to the committee, and of course in turn to the
government, that they adopt the amendments set out by people with disabilities
across this province who have studied this legislation, who find weaknesses in
the legislation, who want to ensure that it's a strong piece of legislation in
its final draft? Would you suggest to them that they adopt the resolutions as
outlined by the chair of the Ontarians with disabilities?

Mr Chapelle: When I look at it, they have a lot of concerns, and I can see it.
Sometimes their needs aren't met at all. There are a lot of things that should
be adopted in that paper. There are some things that should be looked at,
though, and reviewed. There are areas that concern me. I think the biggest
thing is financial. I don't care what government is in there, and the
commitment; personally, I think it's going to take maybe, in my guess, about 10
years to implement everything. That's my personal view. It might be sooner, but
if you look at how the system works -- I know the biggest thing is that they
want to be part of life. I've worked all my life and I've been fortunate. They
want to be part of that community. They want to feel that self-worth. That's
very important to them. And there are not enough avenues open to those people.
So there are a lot of things, I agree, that should be in. There are a few
things that should be reviewed and looked at a little deeper, in depth. I'm
sure there are a lot of professional people --

The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms Martel.

1030

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Thanks, Bryan, for being here this morning.
I'll probably make a comment more than actually ask a question. In fact, the
bill doesn't have timelines for accessibility and it doesn't have an
enforcement mechanism for accessibility. You might find some comfort in that,
based on what you said, but my argument would be that because it doesn't, I
think it really makes the issue of buildings becoming accessible -- private
sector, public sector, municipal, community buildings like yours -- I just
don't see where the end will be in terms of making sure all of these places are
accessible for the disabled.

It does come down to the point you raise, which is finances. We are going to
have to invest in our communities if we are going to help those groups who are
trying to do as you were trying to do, make their buildings accessible. But the
bill doesn't talk about financial investment in any way, shape or form either.
So if we're going to move forward -- and we have to -- we really do have to be
putting money on the table to make this happen. Otherwise, without enforcement,
without timelines and without money, we're not going to see any great changes.

Mr Chapelle: I agree there, partly. The government will have to put in more
money, and industries. I think industries and companies have an easier time
than charitable groups. I would envision us -- between you and me and the fence
post, if everything works out, I would figure probably in two and half years,
maybe less. We're a frugal bunch, but that's not everybody. When we lock in and
decide to do something in the Sudbury branch, we lock in. So if we're going to
raise another $50,000, we'll do it.

The Chair: With that, I have to bring it to an end. We've run well over our
time. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your presentation
this morning.

MALIA DUB6

The Chair: Our next presentation is from Malia Dub1. I would ask the presenter
to come forward, please, and state your name for the record. On behalf of the
committee, welcome. You have 15 minutes for your presentation this morning.

Mrs Malia Dub1: Good morning, everybody. I am pleased to have been provided
with the opportunity to speak to this committee today. I would like to share my
thoughts and suggestions on the proposed legislation.

Bill 125 may indeed be the first step toward a barrier-free Ontario. However,
there are certain amendments that will have to be made before this bill would
have a positive impact on the daily lives of my family and myself. That's what
I'm going to be talking about today.

There are three persons with disabilities in my family: my daughter, my husband
and myself. We all have different impairments and we all have different types
of barriers that if eliminated would make our lives so much easier. Within this
one small group, there is so much diversity. My family is like a microcosm of
the reality of the disabled community. I believe that it is extremely important
that terms such as "disability" and "barrier" have as broad and inclusive a
meaning in the legislation as possible. I am now going to describe some of the
barriers that present the greatest challenges to myself and my family.

My daughter is 16 and she is a person with an invisible disability. The barrier
which she has had to learn to cope with is invisible as well. It is the lack of
sensitivity or understanding of what it is like to process information in a
different way. We have had our struggles in the past with various institutions,
organizations and individuals because of this lack of understanding. For
example, we were told, "She'll grow out of it," when she couldn't read certain
words like "what" and "there" even at the end of grade 3. She was also still
writing her letters backwards, but we were still told she'd grow out of it. We
have always told her that sometimes you have to try hard to strive for your
dreams, and when others tell you that will never happen, you don't have to
listen. My daughter's dream is to become a veterinary assistant.

In spite of many setbacks, my daughter is beginning to win her battle against
the attitudinal barriers that at one point almost crushed her self-esteem. She
will be integrated into two applied courses in high school in January. She is
thinking of going to Cambrian College. She has a part-time job, and with a
little extra training, she is now one of the most reliable members of the
staff, according to her new boss.

The positive things all began to happen because I had an old computer which we
had upgraded and were able to connect with the Internet. She found her job on
the Net. She does all her school work on the computer. Now the teachers can
understand what she has written. She has learned to read and spell with the
help of a screen reader, which also assists me in my course work at university.
So just one device, one piece of equipment, has helped two people achieve some
of their dreams.

My husband is a relative newcomer to the ranks of an ever-growing population of
persons with disabilities. He was injured at work and had to have three discs
removed. He now suffers from chronic pain from osteoarthritis. The $5,000
parking fine which has been proposed in Bill 125 may help him at some point;
however, it won't matter where he parks the vehicle if he has to walk up
several stairs to get into the building or open some heavy doors or turn
unyielding doorknobs. A barrier-free building makes things easier for both of
us. Ramps are also more convenient for everyone, including my dog, who will
choose a ramp over stairs every time.

The Chair: Smart dog.

Mrs Dub1: She does, too, especially in the wintertime.

Accessible doors are easier for my husband to open. If they are made wide
enough, both myself and the dog are able to enter a building at the same time.
We don't block traffic and we are both safe by entering the building at the
same time. Accessible washrooms are great for people who use service dogs. The
dog isn't out in the road in the middle of the traffic. She's with me and she's
out of the way. Having an accessible building to go to can make chores like
shopping a pleasure rather than a trial for both of us.

The barriers that present the greatest challenges for me are of three types:
attitudinal, technical and financial. The most frustrating barrier for me is
obtaining access to the written word. I am a fourth-year student at Laurentian
University and the largest challenge for me over the past several years has
been access to information. I need to be able to access scientific, technical
and research publications in order to produce the high-quality work which is
expected of students at this level of education.

1040

It is now much easier to produce material in alternate format. The Ontario
government has made some progress in this area, but much more is needed. To
achieve a truly barrier-free Ontario, all government ministries and programs
must begin to provide information in alternate format.

For me, attitudinal and financial barriers are connected. I will be graduating
in May. I know that I will be facing one of the largest challenges in my life:
I have to find a job. The barriers I face are not really related to my
blindness when it comes to finding a job; they are the attitudes about people
with disabilities that unfortunately are still all too common in today's
society. Status in society is measured by one's place on the socio-economic
ladder. If there is one thing I would really like to happen in my life, it
would be to get off the bottom rung. I want to participate fully in the life of
the community as a taxpaying citizen.

I have tried to provide a snapshot of the everyday barriers faced by myself and
my family in order to make certain points. Removing barriers will help several
groups of people at the same time. Removing barriers makes good economic sense.
The construction projects will provide jobs. A barrier-free environment would
attract tourists with disabilities to Ontario. Best of all, a barrier-free
Ontario would mean that most of us would have jobs, thus increasing the tax
base in every municipality.

We, the experts, who face these barriers every day want to assist you in making
Ontario a better place to live. Improving opportunities and being involved is
only the first step. Provide the opportunity for persons with disabilities to
assist with the removal and prevention of barriers within a specific time
frame. Provide the opportunity for persons with disabilities to assist you to
develop the regulations, guidelines and mandatory standards that we need to be
full citizens in this province. This is the type of opportunity and the type of
involvement we are really looking for.

In conclusion, I would like to recommend that the amendments proposed by the
ODA Committee be adopted. This will make the legislation not just be the first
step toward a barrier-free Ontario, but a giant stride toward a better society
for all Canadians. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'll allow a very brief question from each
side. I'll start with the official opposition.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): As elected officials, we often hear
from groups or individuals who want special treatment. This is unique in that
we're hearing from individuals who want to be treated like everyone else. They
want simply to be on a level playing field.

If you've examined the bill, as I know you have, you know that "not mandatory"
doesn't apply to private industry, doesn't include funding, has no timelines.
It applies only to provincial and municipal buildings when they're upgraded, or
new buildings. It doesn't even require that the province put Braille labels on
elevators. I don't know how much that costs -- but not very much. This bill
won't even do that. If the bill is passed as it stands, without the amendments,
how will it improve life for you and your family?

Mrs Dub1: Quite simply, to answer that, it won't make a difference at all. I
don't know if I mentioned that in my speech anywhere, but no, it really won't
have any significant impact on how we go about our daily lives.

Ms Martel: A comment and then a question. I've been in politics for 14 years,
Malia, and I get very nervous speaking in public. You did a fine job here this
morning and I wanted to let you know that.
Mrs Dub1: Thanks.

Ms Martel: Secondly, if it's not going to make a difference, if the amendments
aren't included in the bill, does it make sense to pass the bill at all?

Mrs Dub1: Oh, you're putting me on the spot there. If you pass the bill the way
it is, no, it doesn't make sense to pass it, but if you even adopt -- and I'm
qualifying this because, as I said, I recommend all the amendments that the ODA
Committee proposed. There have to be at least some changes or it doesn't make
sense. There's no timelines, there's no regulations. It won't affect our lives.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I would just like to thank you, Malia, for your
presentation -- very well delivered and a genuine story of how a family copes
today. You were speaking of your daughter, who is 16 and has had problems for
the last number of years, I gather, in terms of some learning disability.
Clearly, we've heard repeatedly the issue of attitude. In your presentation
today -- and we've heard the voice of the people, some 60 presenters -- one of
the biggest barriers seems to be attitude itself. It takes the courage of
people like yourself to come forward and explain not just the big picture stuff
but the reality of the changes you need for accessibility.

I liked the emphasis you placed on the key word "opportunity," because I really
believe that the empowerment that comes with opportunity and --
The Chair: Question, please.

Mr O'Toole: This first step will provide a seat at the table, and I would like
your response to that. It's coming down to the voice of the directorate, and
the advisory committees will have a voice at the table, reporting directly to
the minister.

Mrs Dub1: I would definitely like to be part of that process, providing that
what we do on those committees would be looked at seriously and there would be
regulations or standards in place to address the barriers once we've identified
them.

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

Before I ask for the next presenter to come forward, we've had a request from
Rachelle Proulx to address the committee this afternoon. I seek unanimous
consent for a 15-minute presentation after the last presentation this
afternoon, which would be around 2:30. Agreed? OK, thank you.

1050

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY
SPECIAL NEEDS OFFICE
The Chair: Our next presentation this morning is from the Laurentian University
special needs office. 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.

Mr Earl Black: My name is Earl Black. I'm the coordinator of special needs at
Laurentian University here in Sudbury. I began my employment with Laurentian in
1989. When I started there, we had eight students. Now we have 240.

We try and work to make our buildings accessible but we're all taxed out too.
We actually did an audit of our buildings and we worked out that the price
would be about $2 million, but that's really not much when you look at the
total operating dollars of a big institution like that. What we've done is set
aside X number of dollars each year to go toward access.

There's a quick story I'd like to tell you. I had a young fellow when I started
there in 1989 who had cerebral palsy and was confined to a wheelchair. It took
him seven years to finish his honours degree in economics. Six months ago, he
called me and he's looking for work. In the cover letter he was putting out, he
was mentioning, "Could you mention to the employer to allow a little extra time
for my transportation to get to and from my work?" Not one of the resum1s he
sent out was answered. I told him, "Take that off your cover letter and just do
a blind one." So that's what he did. He did a blind cover letter, basically
talking about his credentials, and he got interviews, but when he'd show up for
the interview, people's jaws would drop. In other words, "What are you doing
here? You didn't tell me you're disabled." Here's a guy who's finished seven
years post-secondary education, four years honours in economics, an 80%
average, and he can't get a job. Something's wrong here. This guy wasted seven
years of his life. Why didn't he just stay home?

That's the Ontario we have right now. I don't see things happening. I've been
in a wheelchair for the last 26 years and now this bill comes forward. There
was a three-page bill three years ago. I really don't see much difference in
this bill. The three-page bill before was OK. "We will take a look, we'll
identify our barriers, we'll make recommendations," and that's the end of the
dance. We're done. Everything gets shelved again.

I was on the Ontario Advisory Council on Disability Issues from 1990 through to
1995. All of a sudden we just got discontinued. We were no longer of service to
the Ontario government for some reason. But you know what? Out of that, at
least we got low-floor buses that are integrated in the community. We helped a
lot with the assistive devices program to make it work more effecttively.

We had the opportunity to get bills before. Before they would even come here,
the advisory council would advise the government and say, "What's the matter
with this bill?" "It's a proposal." "OK, here's a group of people who are
visually impaired, people who have hearing impairments. They had input into
this bill." That doesn't happen any more. How come? I don't understand. For
some reason, we just got shut right out of the picture. In this last several
years, we've been put on the back burner by every government there is, and that
goes for all levels. I'm not taking sides or anything; I see it right across
the board.

Anyway, this bill doesn't address older buildings, from what I see in it. As
far as I'm concerned, it doesn't even address some of the new ones. For
example, there's a Tim Hortons that just opened down the street from me. My
buddies and I would go for coffee at this new Tim Hortons that opened. They had
some wheelchair spots to park in, but then when you come up to the door, you
can't get in. You're waiting for the people inside and you're waving out there,
"Can you come and let us in?" It's a brand new building. Tim Hortons does not
sell enough coffees to pay for a door? I don't think so. The rule is not there.
There's no compliance to say, "If you don't put this door in, we're going to
stop letting you sell coffee." Where in this bill does it say that Tim Hortons
should do this? Tim Hortons will not do this until somebody tells them they
have to do it. I've been around long enough to know that. That's the only way
it's going to happen. There needs to be enforcement in this law. If there's no
enforcement, it's useless. Do you know what it will do? It's going to create a
bunch of assessments and recommendations and they're going to go on the shelf
too, just like the Ontario advisory council did. Our project took about two or
three years to put together. It's called Workable. One hundred and seventy-five
recommendations are there. A lot of them aren't implemented today. It's
collecting dust, and so will this. All this bill will do if it goes through --
and it probably will -- is just collect dust once it's put together. And that's
just the government. It's got nothing to do with the private sector. The
private sector's actually just sitting on their hands.

If I want to get into Tim Hortons, I've got to go to the Human Rights
Commission and file a complaint. I've done this before. I've been down this
road many times. I'll go there and it's probably going to take about a year or
so and then finally we might get our door in. That's going to be hemming and
hawing back and forth, go to mediation, blah, blah, blah. You know what I mean?
It's just a long road. We're just trying to get into buildings to have equal
service. I'd even buy lots of cups of coffee there, I promise you. There are no
mandatory regulations. These are just a couple of little examples.

Parking is a big issue in this bill. Do you want to borrow mine? Anybody?
That's how easy they are. It's not going to matter. Why do we want to start
charging people $5,000 for parking in handicapped parking? That isn't the
problem. The problem is these are used all over the place. Everybody is using
them in their own vehicles. "Here, borrow my vehicle. You can park." You know
what I mean? This needs to be looked at again. It's being abused. For the right
people it should be used, but right now it's being abused. That's why we're
lacking parking. Maybe there should be not only just a wheelchair one, but
perhaps an ambulatory one for people who can walk a certain distance, and let
the wheelchairs off closer to the front of the buildings. That's what I have to
say about that one.

Education: I get many students who come to the university, and their parents,
by the time they hit university, want to pull their hair out. They'll say to
me, "OK, what are you going to do for our son or daughter to accommodate them?"
I'll say, "What happened in high school, in grade 12 or 13?" "Well, they had
this, this, this." I say, "That's what we're going to do," and they go, "Is
that it? You mean we don't have to go through every class and make sure this is
done for them?" I say, "No, that's my job." They sit back stunned with just
relief on their face, going, "You mean I don't have to go fight with the
principal or the next teacher?" "No." That person has a right to an education
here, and under the Human Rights Act and our policies that have been
introduced, they will get an education.

But then there are situations -- like, we're taxed. Special needs offices are
taxed right across the province. We've had no increases since 1989. For
example, if you get a student like Malia, I can understand and I can see why
there are not enough resources to put the information she needs in proper
formats. That also leads to the fact that I don't see where any of this bill
talks about electronic formats being accessible as well. That's the way we're
going. Certainly technology has assisted us a great deal and in order for us to
progress forward, we need to also keep technology in this bill.

I'm just going to go through a few other things here. I notice this bill talks
about -- it's the same definition of "disability" as the Ontario Human Rights
Code. It doesn't seem to be any different. There are a lot of people we know
with fibromyalgia; also environmental disorders, just ill from non-medical
conditions due to that. I don't see that in here. I think that's going to be a
higher population.

You can just flag me when my time's coming up. Meanwhile I'll go on.

1100

There need to be fines in this bill. I'm talking about the architects who make
these designs. I know at the university, I have to chase them. I have to follow
up and see what they're doing. If they're not doing it, then perhaps maybe they
should be fined. The contractor I think has some responsibility here. There
need to be timelines to buildings being accessible, both in government and the
public, but government's got to lead by example. I think the government of
Ontario has got to begin first. Let's assess our buildings. Let's put some
deadlines, though, on making these buildings accessible.

Timetables perhaps should be based on overall budgets of that ministry etc. For
example, for a university, you would go by the overall operating budget of the
institution. I don't expect, like the gentleman who was speaking before, that
non-profit organizations all of a sudden knock down the barriers. I don't think
anybody who has a disability -- physical or whatever -- would expect all these
changes overnight. We just want some commitment from the government that it's
going to be done. Then if it's not done, there has to be a deterrent, some type
of compliance measure to say, "OK, you didn't do this. You had ample time to do
this. Now you have to face the consequences."

Right now, as it is, the Ontario Human Rights Code doesn't work for us. It's
case by case. What we want is a proactive law. Proactive law is good for
everybody. My complaints now come when a power door breaks down in the
university. Sometimes it's the multimedia centre calling and telling me the
power door has broken down. That's so you can get all the AV equipment through
and not break all your TV sets, and for people walking through with books etc.
It's good for everybody. It's good for people with strollers. We have an older
population coming to the university now and they don't have to push these big
fire doors open any more. Isn't this what it's all about? We're all temporarily
able-bodied anyway. Think about it. It's just a matter of time until you are
going to wind up with some type of impairment and then you're going to say,
"Jeez, I wish that was accessible." You have a chance with this bill to do it
now.

I think that's all I have to say. I'm open to any questions.

The Chair: There's time for one minute from each caucus and I'll start with the
third party.

Ms Martel: Earl, thank you for your candour here this morning and for giving us
some concrete examples about what it means just to get into the new Tim Hortons
and how ridiculous it is that you can't. I'm going to ask you the same question
that I asked Malia. The ODA has put some recommendations on the table which
would take us forward. If they're not implemented -- maybe I can ask you two
questions. If they're implemented, would that be enough, and if they're not, is
it worth supporting this bill?

Mr Black: No and no.

Ms Martel: To both?

Mr Black: Yes.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): Mr Black, I just want to correct one
statement you made. You indicated that older buildings that are being renovated
would not be caught by the act. Section 9 provides that when renovations are
supported partly or wholly by government-funded capital, those renovations
would have to comply with the accessibility plans.

The other thing is different sectors of the private sector. Section 20 talks
about the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario. That directorate is supposed to
"develop and conduct programs" and work with different sectors in the private
sector, sector by sector, to encourage accessibility and develop standards on a
sectoral basis.

The Chair: Question, please.

Mr DeFaria: There are a lot of things in the bill that I would ask you to
consider, whether that would not amount to a first step, something that we put
in place and have the different committees work on different issues that would
be addressed by regulations as time goes by.

Mr Black: What I see you having here is almost this Ontario advisory committee
again. All this information usually goes to this advisory committee that's at
the discretion of the minister. So then the minister wants, "OK, we're only
going to do this today. We're aren't going to do that." Do you know what I
mean? This has to be a law that says you're going to do it.

The Chair: I have to bring it to an end. We've run out of time. Mr Parsons.

Mr Parsons: I've also appreciated your openness and candour on this. I think,
as you understand, that this is a fundamental human right that is being asked
for. If in 1920 a provincial government said to municipalities, "We would
encourage you to let some women vote," it would have been recognized as
fundamentally wrong. There was a right there that had been denied, and you have
had a right denied.

You are in a unique position in that I suspect there isn't a disability I could
name that you could not put a face to, having worked with students over the
years. In your years here and with the students you've interacted with, can you
think of any who would benefit from this bill if it were passed without
amendments?

Mr Black: No, sir.

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

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT
ONTARIO BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our next presentation this morning will be from the Ontario Brain
Injury Association and the Brain Injury Association of Sudbury and District. I
would ask the presenter or presenters to please come forward and identify
yourself for the record.

Mr Denis St Pierre: My name is Denis St Pierre. It is an honour to speak before
the committee today on a subject that is very important to our entire province.
I am here today representing the estimated 1,479 northeastern Ontarians who
will sustain an acquired brain injury this year alone. I am also a director of
the Ontario Brain Injury Association and work in the field as a professional
with brain injury rotation. I am pleased to have Nancy Baron, a brain injury
survivor, with me today.

To start, I want to relay a few facts about brain injury. Acquired brain injury
is the leading cause of death and disability in Ontario for those under 45. A
brain injury is an organic neurological disorder whereby the results can last a
lifetime, even after intervention has been provided. Therefore, the symptoms
are present lifelong. This means the problem does not go away.

In previous hearings, you've been made aware of the leading causes of brain
injury. Here in the north we have a unique situation in that we have a higher
rate of incidence compared to the provincial rate. The provincial rate is 1.9
per 1,000; ours is 2.1. The main contributing factors to this increase in our
incidence rate are industrial accidents, specifically logging and mining, as
well as the greater number of undivided highways we have in northern Ontario.

Brain injury does not distinguish itself by age, gender or socio-economic
status. However, we have significant numbers of injuries related to alcohol
consumption while participating in outdoor recreational activities,
specifically while driving an ATV, a motor boat or a snowmobile.

1110

As well, I must remind you that overnight, even today, this could happen to any
one of us in this room -- while at work, while playing, or even driving the
kids home from a meeting or a school play. This is what makes a brain injury so
significantly different: folks before the injury are normal and know a normal
life, therefore they know their rights and what their needs and interests are.

Chances are that at least one person you know or work with or love has
experienced the effects of this kind of injury, and you know that the effects
are lifelong. As well, since no two brains are alike, it means no two brain
injuries are alike, therefore rendering the problem even more severe.

Brain injuries cut across all disability groups. The nature of the damage,
being global, affects multiple functions, therefore leaving survivors with
physical, cognitive, language and behavioural impairments. It is very hard for
survivors, family members, friends and employers to understand the one common
deficit, which is, why has the automatic pilot shut off? Why can't things come
as easily as they used to, like taking my bath, organizing my thoughts,
processing information and everything happening simultaneously?

What I've been speaking about are the invisible deficits. These invisible
deficits are huge challenges that survivors of acquired brain injuries have to
contend with on a daily basis. Because they are invisible, often the
brain-injured have been referred to as the walking wounded. They appear normal
and we cannot see where the abnormalities are. Not only is the normalcy of
their physical appearance deceiving, but the absence of these visible deficits
and barriers creates a false sense of performance and need.

For example, presently I know of a young mother with an ABI who has to care for
her two-month-old. Physically she appears without any deficits and the child
also has no problems. The child is very healthy. In attempting to secure
services for this young lady so she can care for her child, she has been denied
services on the basis of mandates. She does not need help, nor does the child,
but she needs help to schedule the feedings, the diaper changes, to remember
the stove and remember to put the child down for a nap. No services are
rendered to this young lady at this present time. Again I must emphasize that
in this situation she needs help to care for another, rather than care for
herself -- once again, another invisible deficit.

Why are we here today? As you have heard from many of my colleagues across the
province throughout the hearings, we are here because we want to be part of an
Ontario that is fair and encompasses all individuals, so that everyone can have
the opportunity to participate as fully as possible in all aspects of life in
Ontario. Like many other individuals and advocacy organizations, we have been
very much involved with trying to make changes within legislation.

Regarding the ODA, we would have been more comfortable if the plan had laid out
explicit timelines for the removal of specific barriers. It would also have
been comforting to have assurance that these timelines would be effectively
enforced.

It is also imperative that the terms of reference for the advisory councils
address the following: representation from a full range of disabilities,
appointed by their respective provincial bodies; length of term of service;
making sure the reports are made public, with a specific plan of action that is
responsive to the issues and doesn't become a dormant government policy and
procedure manual; the advisory councils be given the authority to identify any
and all barriers and make recommendations for their removal.

To further illustrate the invisible deficits I've been speaking about, Nancy
will tell us her story. Nancy is a survivor of a brain injury as the result of
a sagital sinus thrombosis with global damage.

Ms Nancy Baron: As Denis has said, I am one of the many brain injury survivors
in the Sudbury area. Before my injury three and a half years ago, I was a
part-time university student in the field of psychology working full-time at a
truck stop as a cashier, waitress and cook, as well as having a very active
social life. I was driving and I had just come back from holidays the day prior
to my injury. In essence, my life was very complete and very worthwhile living
for.

Since my injury, I am not as much fun to be around as I am more irritable,
especially toward my family. They are not able to tease me as I get angry very
easily. This is on a constant basis. I used to laugh whenever anybody teased
me; now that's not the case. I have lost many friends, meaning that socially I
am more isolated, all because the people do not understand what brain injury
means and think or assume it is an illness they will get since it is
contagious. I can assure you, it is not contagious.

My attention is also affected so that when I ask for directions, I remember the
first direction said, which is, maybe, "Turn right." That's the only thing. Ask
me anything afterwards, don't remember. So in essence if I really want to get
somewhere, I need to have somebody with me. It can be frustrating at times.

If I am sitting in a meeting or in a classroom, after a short period of time of
about 45 to 60 minutes, I have lost what is being talked about. If I am writing
notes from somebody who's speaking, I always have to ask them to repeat. It
gets frustrating for everybody else in the room. To actually organize to have
somebody take notes for me is very difficult because you never know when a
teacher per se is going to give notes orally that you have to write down.

I need to be very organized if I want to be able to get through my day. I have
to have everything written down so that I know what I am doing when I get out
of an appointment. Even just taking the Handi-Transit, which is a service we
have here in Sudbury, I have to know two days in advance what I will be doing.
Nobody, in their life, knows 48 hours in advance what they are going to be
doing. It means, for me, that I have to be extremely well organized. What
happens when something happens the day of? Possibly I will not be able to get
there. If you look at my Daytimer, my whole life is included in there,
including what time I get picked up, how much medicine I'm supposed to take one
day and so on.

When I am cognitively fatigued and somebody asks me something and I do not
write it down, I will forget and I will not do what is asked of me. So I am
always taking notes, which is extremely frustrating, especially when I am
wanting to sit in a conference or presentation and be able to remember what has
been said. Usually, in that situation, my memory is good for about 45 to 60
minutes, again, because I'm not fatigued before that time.

I no longer work as I get tired very easily, so my schedule has to be very
flexible and have time to rest in the afternoon to be able to get through the
evening. You don't see that in many people, but in my case this is something I
have to do on a daily basis. I am 26 years old. That's not normal.

I no longer drive, therefore I have to rely on people to take me where I need
to go when I am not able to have Handi-Transit; very difficult to do and
sometimes very expensive.

When I have too much stimuli around me, I get nervous and cannot function very
well. For example, when I take the transit with my sister and I get to the
downtown station, I will assume the bus I am to take is the one where all the
people are lining up, which is not always the case. But I will not think of
looking for the signs for the proper bus, because I get in a state where I just
lose everything unless I have somebody with me. Then, if they're rushing me,
it's even worse.

In essence, I was able to do all these things without any problem before my
injury. I understand that if you look at me you see only my physical
impairment, which is that I am walking with a cane, but there are also the
hidden parts to my disability, which I have mentioned to you. They need to be
addressed. These impairments can be addressed through educating the general
public and businesses, as well as education and so on, so they can finally
understand what I, as well as so many other people, am going through each day
of my life.

Please help us, the brain injury survivors, to have a better life by lending
support to make people aware of the effects of brain injuries. Finally, please
support the recommendations OBIA is doing that you have heard through the
public hearings, as well as today.

1120

Mr St Pierre: We would also recommend that local advisory councils include in
their annual reports the barriers they have to achieving their goals. If
additional supportive housing, home care, Wheel-Trans or supportive return to
work is needed, there should be an ability for municipalities to say that the
lack of funding is preventing them from implementing their plan. Will
municipalities have the ability to fund additional services such as these?

A challenge we have, specifically in northern Ontario, in dealing with this is
with communities with populations under 10,000. The recommendation will be that
these be addressed regionally. As you probably are very aware, there are very
many isolated communities in northern Ontario with fewer than 1,000 people.

We also want to bring the committee's attention and focus to the other types of
barriers faced by people with a brain injury. I think we've spoken to the
variety of impairments they have. It is cross-sectional as far disabilities are
concerned. Therefore, we are recommending that brain injury be classified as a
unique disability category under the ODA. We urge the committee to revisit the
definition under the disability act.

What has been noted is that 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 and
removable. The proposed ODA attempts to address the issue of physical barriers.
Similarly, barriers for those with sensory impairments such as vision and
hearing are addressed in the act through the use of alternative formats.
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 also speak of
inaccessibility to services because their impairments don't meet the service
mandates.

We recognize that this is an important piece of legislation. But how can you
legislate attitudes and values? We don't find this is totally impossible. It
can be done through providing the opportunity to provide comprehensive programs
that address public awareness and public education.

In summary, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act attempts to address visible
barriers faced by those with disabilities. It falls short of its goal of
supporting the right of every person with a disability to live as independently
as possible and to enjoy equal opportunity to participate fully in the everyday
aspects of their lives without barriers, including the invisible barriers.

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

A barrier-free community is a minimum goal to full participation of the
disabled in society. Through effective regulation and mandated co-operation
with the private and public sectors, the ODA could help in order to deliver
broad public awareness and understanding of cognitive and behavioural
disabilities and eliminate barriers for these individuals.

I have a really brief anecdote or story. I know we are talking about money, and
companies are usually based on how much money we're making or losing. We've
made an analogy between a company and the brain, how the brain works. If you'll
give me a second, I'll read this out to you. Again, it's a very simplified
analogy. It helps to understand how the brain works if you think of the brain
as a company. The company runs at peak efficiency when all the parts are
working. Up at the front of the company -- we call them the frontal lobes --
are several vice-presidents. They make the plans for the company, they decide
who's going to do what and when. As things get underway, they get feedback or
information as to how well things are going and they judge it: "That looks
good; that doesn't look so good." They make further decisions -- changes -- and
show appreciation or annoyance. So up at the front you have the planning,
organization, decision-making, judgement and appreciation.

In the middle, in the parietal lobes, are the managers. Each manager runs his
own department. On the left side of the brain you have the speech department,
which moves the tongue, lips and throat. The language department finds the
words that you want and knows what the words mean. Then you have the motor
department: move the right arm, move the right leg. On the right side is
another motor department -- move the left arm, move the left leg -- and a
spatial reasoning department -- find your way around a building, know where
you're going to drive the car and place things. Also, we have the music
department and a few incidentals. The right side is the picture side and the
left side is the talking side. Now, the managers know what the plan is from the
vice-presidents and they make sure it gets carried out. In order to do this,
they communicate frequently with each other and they send messages back and
forth.

At the bottom, in the limbic region, in the basal ganglia, are the workers.
They don't know what the plan is because they don't get it from the
vice-presidents, they get it from the managers. But they know their job and
they do the same job day in and day out: things like appetite control, need for
water, need to eat, going to sleep, turning the tears on and making a face red,
increasing your pulse.

What happens when somebody is brain injured -- in this metaphor -- is basically
the company is constantly downsizing, constantly restructuring. Managers are
away on vacation and don't come back. The information doesn't get passed on to
each department and therefore it leaves each component with more to do with
less resources.

What would your definition of this company be? A defunct company. Thank you
very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much. There won't be any time for questions; you've
used more than your time. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for
your presentation this morning.

1130

NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO REGIONAL
ALLIANCE FOR THE DISABLED

The Chair: Our next presentation will be from the Northeastern Ontario Regional
Alliance for the Disabled. I would ask the presenter to please come forward and
state your name for the record. On behalf of the committee, welcome.

Ms Joanne Nother: I can't get close enough to the table because there's a
ridge. It stops my knees right about here. So bear with me if I have to do
everything at kind of a distance, as long as the microphone can pick me up.

The Chair: Yes, I think we can pick you up.

Ms Nother: Is it doing it?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Nother: Good, thank you.

Good morning. My name is Joanne Nother and I'm the chair of the consumer group
here in northeastern Ontario. The name is the Northeastern Ontario Regional
Alliance for the Disabled. We kind of like the acronym NEORAD. It sort of tells
you what we do. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity this morning to speak
to this piece of legislation. I have a few points that I'd to bring forward on
our behalf.

First off, I'd like to say it is nice to see a piece of legislation directed at
ensuring, or trying to ensure, accessibility throughout the province. First of
all, though, I'm kind of concerned because when you call the legislation the
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, it's a misnomer. If we're trying to name the
legislation in comparison with what the Americans do with regard to the ADA, it
is not a good fit. The Ontario legislation doesn't give us any more rights than
we had to begin with. It just tries to ensure that the rights we are given
through the Ontario Human Rights Code are effectively ensured and allowed and
granted to us.

The legislation is a fair example of, as I said, an attempt at trying to allow
accessibility and make sure buildings and such are accessible to all. But there
are some concerns with that, and part of our concern is that the plan the
government talks about with regard to creating accessibility really has no
independent review. In fact, for the most part, there is no timeline on which
to provide the review. It doesn't say to provide the review to anybody and
there is nobody specifically designated to look over the review. There are no
teeth in the legislation to ensure that the review, or the accessibility spoken
about in the review and the guidelines, is going to be done, which leaves us in
a really kind of an empty situation. You're preparing a review that is really
going nowhere, so why should you even bother to do the review?

The legislation deals, for the most part, with Ontario government and agency
buildings, which are fairly accessible and are easier to get into. It's easy to
make sense of talking to individuals about accessibility toward those buildings
because it is understood that the provincial government, as the administrator
of the Ontario Human Rights Code, has to allow access to buildings to persons
with disabilities. So, in keeping with that, we're going to be allowing granted
access anyway.

Again, when we talk about advisory committees, they are wonderful but they need
to have some kind of clout to not only review and look at, but who are they
going to report to? Are they going to go back to the persons or individuals who
wrote the plan or the review, and are they going to be able to ensure that
anything's enforced with regard to the plan, in the same token as the
provincial advisory council?

Two governments prior to the Conservative government had advisory councils for
persons with disabilities. The NDP had one that they continued that had been
with the Liberal government; I don't know if there was one prior to that. I had
the fortune, I guess, of sitting on the persons with disabilities advisory
council for the province for a number of years. It was a nice council. We got
together, we got to talk about issues in the province regarding persons with
disabilities and what we could do in the province to make things better. We put
out position papers and that sort of thing, but that was about it. It was
really nice to get together and talk, but the council itself had no clout. It
would forward the position papers and the results of our discussions to the
minister or the assistant deputy minister in charge of the portfolio but it
would stop there. They would never go anywhere else. They would be distributed
among the disability community, but any recommendations the community made were
stopped. They never went any further than that.

It really looks good and it's nice to say that you have a council of persons
with disabilities to talk about the issues and to suggest recommendations, but
it really is useless if all you're doing is paying for them to get together,
have a nice lunch and a nice little meeting four times a year. It would be much
more effective if, in both this legislation and throughout any legislation, it
talked to the provision that this council can address any other disability
issue the government puts before it. If you're going to do that, give the
council some ability to make recommendations that can be acted on, or at least
ensure that the council is going to have some kind of say that will make some
kind of difference. Other than that, as a member of a council that gets
together to have a nice meeting because we haven't seen each other in four
months, it's nice to be able to know that what you're saying is going to be
heard and may eventually get acted on. That's important and I think it's really
imperative.

The bill is good with regard to talking about accessibility and barriers. The
problem we have is that barriers are not the same for everybody. I think that
was referred to in the previous presentation. What is often a barrier for a
person with a disability isn't a barrier at all for a person with a
non-disability or a totally able-bodied person, for lack of a better term; I'm
not going to use "normal." I'll use the example of flex-time. Flex-time is used
by people who are able-bodied for, say, family commitments -- they need the
extra day or week, whatever, to do things -- whereas a person with a disability
may not have the choice of flex-time or not. They may have to because their
disability is such that they need time to relax and rest; they can't handle
five days full-time in a row, so they need that flex-time. Part of that is
included in the whole systemic barrier issue. Those are things that have been
done constantly over the years. It's just assumed that you can do certain
things which are not a barrier to a person without a disability but are
barriers to people with disabilities. There are plenty of those throughout
human resources, throughout the employment world. I don't want to get into that
any more.

Back to the legislation, our concern with the legislation is that it's nice,
feel-good, mom-and-apple-pie legislation. Everything should be accessible. It's
agreed that provincial government and agency buildings -- and it's wonderful to
have the government say to the regular Joe Employer, "Make your buildings
accessible because it's a good thing you should do for the disability
community," but again no enforcement. There is nothing in the act -- no teeth,
no bite -- to ensure that buildings will be made accessible. It's fine to pay
lip service, but my feeling is that if you're going to expect employers to do
anything like this, you have to give them something in return. Obviously, the
only kind of exchange the government and an employer can have at this point in
time is a corporate tax cut. The government is always looking for an economic
jump-start and businesses are certainly looking for something that they can use
and have that will be beneficial for them, for the businesses.

I can't see, and we can't understand, why the government can't offer tax cuts
to businesses that make their buildings accessible or increase whatever access,
whether it be for a physical disability or a sensory or a cognitive impairment.
Tax cuts should be allowed because they benefit everybody all the way around.

In conclusion, we basically think the legislation is a feel-good kind of
legislation. It also may be a "last hurrah" kind of legislation. It could be
the end of a promise where Mike Harris told us he was going to come through
with a piece of legislation and this is the piece of legislation he referred
to. It is not what we had in mind when the act was originally talked about. We
hoped it would be more like the American act, but it doesn't give us any more
than anything else.

1140

The proposed legislation encourages, it empowers businesses to make the
buildings accessible, but there is no incentive for them to do so. The Human
Rights Code has a provision that is called "undue hardship." What's going to
happen is that if a business is told they have to make the building or whatever
accessible, they will cry undue hardship. Undue hardship, as defined by the
Human Rights Code, indicates that they can't afford to, don't have the money to
do the renovation or to make the building or whatever accessible. That's
acceptable by the Human Rights Code, except the Human Rights Commission would
like for you to come in with a plan financially to tell them how you can do the
renovations within a period of time, if you can pay for it over a period of
five years or whatever. That would be great if the government could enforce
what the accessibility review says, so that if the employer says, "I can't
afford it. It's undue hardship," the government can say, "OK, you don't have to
pay for it all now. Do it in stages," just so at least they can come forward
with a plan to say, "Yes, the building will be made accessible. It may not
happen tomorrow, but it will, at the end of three years or five years, be
done." They will put forward a plan whereby it will show the government how it
can afford that accessibility renovation within a period of time.

Basically, we feel the legislation is nice, but it is kind of feel-good
legislation. At this point in time, it doesn't really give us anything more
than we already have that is guaranteed through the Ontario building code or
the Human Rights Code. It's nice that the government is paying a least a little
bit of attention to people with disabilities. I dare say that the group of
people with disabilities, the disability community, is only going to get
bigger. You yourselves know that the baby boomers are going to be the biggest
demographic and will be the aging population. That aging population has a lot
of disability attached to it, whether it be an ambulatory or a hearing
disability, whatever. It is nice that the government recognizes us, to whatever
extent, but it's nice to be able to ensure that something can be done about it.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have one minute per caucus and I'll start
with Mr DeFaria.

Mr DeFaria: Joanne, thank you very much for your presentation. I would agree
with you if this was the end of the promise that our government made. That
would be bad, but if in fact it's a beginning of a promise being kept, and if
this legislation is followed by regulations that will really have an impact in
the lives of people with disabilities, you must agree this will be a great day
for Ontario.

Ms Nother: Yes, I would agree. Regulations that are tight and that have some
kind of impact would be nice.

Mr DeFaria: You indicated that there should be a review of the measures that
will be taken. Section 21 talks about this act having a mandated review every
five years to see whether the programs are working or not. Is that a kind of
review that you'd like to see?

Ms Nother: I'm still concerned because five years is a long period of time and
I'd like a tighter review period. Five years is an awfully long time to ensure,
and governments change in that period of time, things lapse. I'd like to see a
shorter review period of time; perhaps three years would be much more
recommendable.

Mr Bartolucci: Joanne, thanks so much for your presentation. I'd just like to
follow up on the apple pie legislation. We know that the regulations will only
sweeten the apples or make the pie a little hotter. The reality is, if
regulations are going to be very effective, then I think the original
legislation has to be sound. You've pointed out that it's flawed. If in fact
this is a flawed bill -- and I agree with you, and I think our party does -- if
they adopted the amendments from the ODA group, then the legislation would be
strong so that the regulations would be meaningful. Would you agree with that
statement?

Ms Nother: Yes, I would to some extent. If the government listens to the ODA
Committee and adopts some of those items and beefs up the legislation, then we
have some hope. Then, in effect, the regulations can be made tighter and then,
yes, the legislation will be livable.

Ms Martel: Thank you, Joanne, for coming this morning. The government has said
to many groups, I gather, that this is a first step and there would be much in
the regulation for you to look forward to. If we don't include the private
sector, if we don't say clearly that older buildings have to become accessible
too, even those that don't have government capital in them, if we don't
actually put some money on the table to make this happen, do you see that there
will be much in the regulations that is going to fix this?

Ms Nother: I don't think so, quite frankly, unless there is the direct
incentive and unless the regulations can promise the private sector that there
will be some kind of financial benefit to them to do this kind of change or
make this kind of renovation. It isn't going to get done and I can't see a
regulation enforcing that in any way.

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

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY,
SUDBURY OFFICE

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Canadian Hearing Society, the
Sudbury office. I would ask the presenters to please come forward and state
your names for the record. On behalf of the committee, welcome.

Mr Bryan Searle: Good morning. My name is Bryan Searle. I'm the chair of the
community development board locally for the Canadian Hearing Society. I also
have with me Wanda Berrette, who will be speaking briefly following my initial
comments.

The Canadian Hearing Society is a non-profit charitable organization which was
incorporated in 1940. Locally, the Sudbury area office is responsible for
providing services that enhance the independence of deaf, deafened and
hard-of-hearing people throughout the districts of Sudbury, Nipissing and
Cochrane. To that end we have offices in Sudbury, North Bay and Timmins.

The reality of access to service in northern Ontario is fundamentally different
than it is in southern Ontario. The realities of access in northern Ontario are
limited by major barriers that simply do not exist in the same way in southern
Ontario: geographical barriers caused by distances and smaller population
centres; linguistic barriers -- the prevalence of francophone, anglophone and
native language speakers, and, in the case of the Canadian Hearing Society,
both LSQ, the French-language sign interpreting, and ASL, the English-language
sign interpreting; economic barriers involved with the cost of travelling the
distances, to southern Ontario for service in many instances or to major
population centres because of the distribution of the population over the land
mass; and social barriers, the attitudinal barriers which you've heard about
already this morning.

Until very recently, simple basic sign language interpreting for health care
issues, for example, was not something that hospitals in northern Ontario
provided. It took the intervention of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in
Eldridge v British Columbia to wake the provincial health care providers up to
their responsibility to ensure effective communication of basic health
questions was made to deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing persons. The
provincial government is now working towards fulfilling that responsibility.
But it took someone spending their own money, spending their own time -- years
of time -- to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to get that simple
right to be able to communicate to a doctor about, "I want to have chest
surgery"; "I want to have heart surgery"; "My child has just been hit by a
car." For that person to actually talk to a doctor, to understand what is being
said, it took some individual spending their own time and their own money to go
all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to obtain that right. That's not
something that any hearing individual in our society would accept.

1150

Notwithstanding the Eldridge decision, no change has occurred with respect to
access to justice. There is no requirement today that a police officer
investigating a crime involving, or on receiving a complaint from, a deaf,
deafened or hard of hearing individual obtain a sign language interpreter or
make any significant effort to accommodate the individual. As a result, many
abuses occur within the deaf, deafened and hard of hearing community that go
unreported or uninvestigated because of the effort and cost associated with
accommodating that disability. There have been cases reported to our local
community development board where a crime as serious as a sexual assault has
occurred and gone without proper investigation because the complainant was
deaf.

The reality is that many of the access issues may be capable of being resolved
on an individual basis by application under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms or under the Human Rights Code. The problem is that that takes too
much time and for the majority of the disabled it is outside their pocketbook.
It is only the high-functioning and high-achieving disabled members in the
community who can afford or have the personal will to proceed with those
applications, and even then, in most instances, it occurs on a
one-case-by-one-case basis. It is not across a whole spectrum of business.

I applaud the government for taking the initiative with Bill 125 to address
some of these concerns. It is helpful to require government ministries to
develop annual accessibility plans and to make those plans public. It is
helpful to establish the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario to advise the
government and to educate the public. It is helpful to engage the various
sectors of our community in establishing accessibility standards.

I am, however, left with some real concerns unanswered. There is no real
mechanism for the enforcement of those standards which may be identified. If
the disabled, deafened and hard of hearing, in particular, are to be left with
the right to make application under either the charter or the Human Rights
Code, then the bill does not go far enough.

The people of Ontario need a cost-free mechanism to ensure that access in
accordance with the standards developed is enforced and that mechanism needs to
include a power to make orders that the standards be adhered to. The current
version of the bill does nothing to assist the disabled to enforce their right
to access in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Currently in Sudbury, for example, deaf, deafened and hard of hearing
individuals cannot be assured that the local building authority will enforce
the requirement of the building code as it relates to the implementation of
hearing assistive devices in newly constructed buildings. There have been
instances of occupancy permits being issued for buildings which failed to
include FM systems to assist the hard of hearing and the building officials
later refusing to issue work orders to correct that defect.

In addition, the local college program for interpreters is underfunded and
threatened with closure. We have a difficulty at the Canadian Hearing Society
local office, that being we have one staff LSQ, French-language sign
interpreter, and no staff ASL, English-language sign interpreter. The problem
is that it becomes very difficult to attract people in such high-demand
positions to northern Ontario. They don't want to be faced with the
geographical barrier of servicing people from Sudbury, North Bay and Timmins.
It becomes even worse when you consider moving up toward Thunder Bay, where
you're dealing with a land mass the size of France and it's being serviced by
one office.

The opportunity exists to give the appropriate powers to the Accessibility
Directorate to enable it to ensure that the identified barriers to access are
removed. This opportunity should not be wasted.

The essential elements in the bill that are missing, in my view, are simple. It
needs to have an easy, inexpensive, effective and timely method of complaint
and enforcement; a timeline within which accessibility standards are to be met;
and it needs to apply equally to all Ontarians, not simply to government
agencies.

Ms Wanda Berrette: A lot of deaf people in this province use ASL as their
primary language of communication. That is what we consider our first language.
English is our second language. We depend on physical cues and facial
expression to communicate effectively. Written English is less effective,
especially when we're talking about official documents and official meetings
that are in a sophisticated government format that we have difficulty accessing
because of that being our second language.

The second issue is interpreters in the north -- developing education. If we
need an interpreter, it might take two or three months before we can get an
interpreter for a medical appointment. Also, we require that interpreters are
certified and also follow a code of ethics. If deaf people want to increase
their education and follow up with post-secondary, often they're not allowed to
do that because there are no interpreters available.

People who are deaf depend on Bell relay service to make phone calls to
communicate with the hearing community. So if I want to speak with a person
regarding my child or whatever, it might take 30 minutes before I can get
through to a Bell operator -- very frustrating. It is also very frustrating to
have to communicate through a third party on the telephone.

Visual aids: for example, in the building that we're in right now, there are no
visual fire alarms. Many buildings may have very small visual fire alarms that
I would never see if I was looking at a paper or had my head bent to write a
note. We need strobe lights that are very visual and that would bounce off the
walls.

Many people who are going to labs or to the doctor need to pull a number in
order to get served. Deaf people have to watch very carefully to make sure that
their number is not called and they haven't been missed. One good example to
rectify that situation would be to have a visual number board so that we would
be aware of which number is up and we wouldn't miss our turn.

I had a situation where I was waiting for a plane and I was travelling with a
friend. I was in the airport and my name was called for some reason. My friend
told me that I was being paged. So I went to the front desk and I said, "I am a
deaf person and I don't always travel with a hearing friend. When you're
calling me, I normally would not know that I was being paged. So please
consider deaf people when you're making these announcements." I was lucky that
time that I had a friend with me. But if I'm travelling alone or if a deaf
person is travelling alone, there is no way for us to be paged. There