ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2001

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 .

The Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): Good morning, everyone. I would like to bring
the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to order. We're here to
consider clause-by-clause of Bill 125. We'll start with section 1. Are there
any questions or comments?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I thought the process here this morning would
be that each caucus would get a chance to put into the record some overall
comments on the bill and then we would move into clause-by-clause. We have
three hours here to consider this bill. I think it's important that we consider
it both in terms of the sections and the amendments, but that we also consider
it in its fuller context. We've been to some pretty significant communities.
We've heard from a significant number of groups --

The Chair: Before you start, Mr Martin, how much time do you want for opening
comments? Five minutes per caucus?

Mr Martin: Ten minutes, I would say, if that's possible.

The Chair: I'm flexible.

Mr Martin: Five to 10?

The Chair: We'll start. Before we start, there's another issue that I'd like to
bring to the committee's attention. At 4 o'clock, under order 46, I will have
to move the amendments. All the amendments that have not been moved shall be
deemed to have been moved at 4 o'clock this afternoon.

Mr Martin: We understand that; at least I do.

The Chair: With no further ado, then, I will give you 10 minutes per caucus and
we'll start with Mr Martin.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Mr Chairman, I have no objection to the members
opposite, obviously, if they so choose, to make a five-minute comment. They can
make that to any one of the amendments and they would be perfectly in order. So
I have no problem with the suggestion that they want to speak for five minutes.
But I would caution that because of the timing -- I know the member opposite
suggested that we have all of three hours so there's plenty of time to go
around. As I look at the pile of amendments, I would suggest that we are not
going to be able to get through all the amendments and have discussion on each
one of them. As we take the five minutes, I would suggest that we're taking it
away from discussing the amendments that are before us. I'll leave it at that,
but I do not want the five minutes.

The Chair: I will proceed with Mr Martin and I'll give each caucus up to 10
minutes to make their comments this morning if they so desire. With that, Mr
Martin, you're the first to go.

Mr Martin: It has certainly been an interesting week, with some very important
suggestions made to this committee; people who have worked very hard over a
long period of time seeing this as an opportunity to actually put in place a
framework that has some ability in it to make some things happen.

We heard from a number of groups that came, however disappointed, that the bill
put in front of us was lacking in some very important and significant areas,
yet still hopeful and not willing to just see this bill withdrawn or scrapped
or set aside but to move forward with whatever ability or facility to make the
changes that are necessary. It's a very important piece of legislation, they
told us. I reference, for example, the group that came from Sault Ste Marie: 13
of them, in two minivans, travelled four hours. They had worked for literally a
year and a half non-stop and had done an excellent job of going through the
bill piece by piece and making suggestions as to amendments that would make
this bill work for them, all of them challenged by one disability or another. I
think this morning what we need to do is to honour their effort, honour their
requests, honour their work, honour the intelligence they brought to this
effort to develop good public policy.

As I said, this piece of legislation is very important. It cuts to the very
heart of the inequality in this province that people with disabilities face on
a daily basis. It's meant to address and remedy these inequalities. The problem
is that in its current form this legislation does not do what the government
claims that it will do.

The government's own Framework for Change document states, "We envision an
Ontario where persons with disabilities can get into and around their community
safely; attend and participate in a town council meeting; get to a job that
nurtures their skills; and live as independently as possible." But Bill 125
does next to nothing to make that statement a reality. Besides preventing new
barriers from being created in new government buildings, this legislation puts
forward no mandatory requirements for the removal or prevention of barriers.

The framework also states, "By working together we can achieve our vision of an
Ontario where no barriers are created and existing ones are removed." Yet when
it really counts, the government chose to fast-track this legislation rather
than take the time to work with all the people in the disability community to
make sure this bill really works for them.

Despite the limited hearings and shortness of notice, people with disabilities
and people working within the disability community came out in droves to tell
this committee this bill just doesn't cut it. If we're going to live up to this
government's own vision, it is really important that we listen to them.

0910

Today I have put forward many amendments that carefully reflect all that we
have heard. The Liberals have done so as well. If the government is truly
committed to creating a barrier-free Ontario, as it sets out in its statements
in the framework, it cannot ignore all that we have heard over the past couple
of weeks. The government must make the changes necessary to improve this
legislation and support the amendments being put forward today.

I would like to begin with highlighting section 1, the purpose clause. This is
the section of the bill that spells out the goals of the legislation and sets
the tone by which all other sections are viewed. If the government truly wants
this legislation to be effective, it is very important that this section spell
out the goals set out in their framework and vision statement. The amendment I
have put forward reflects what the disability community wants in an ODA and
echoes the very goals this government says it has for the ODA. It is imperative
that all of us support this amendment to ensure a strong move toward a
barrier-free Ontario.

Next, I would like to highlight the importance of definitions in the bill. I
have put forward amendments to clarify the definitions of "barrier,"
"disability" and "organizations." These need to be passed. I highlight these
specifically because definitions are key to the interpretation of this
legislation. Currently, their definitions are too narrow, limiting the
effectiveness of the legislation. If we are really going to create legislation
that works for people with disabilities, these definitions need to be
completely clear and comprehensive.

I've also put forward amendments that would remove scheduled organizations and
create classes of organization. Currently under this bill, it is only the
provincial government that has any mandatory obligation to comply. This simply
isn't good enough.

People with disabilities don't buy their groceries at Queen's Park, they don't
get their hair cut at the Ministry of Transportation office and, when last I
checked, Ministry of Health offices were not showing the latest movie release.
If this legislation is really going to create the barrier-free Ontario this
government claims to aspire to, it must cover all sectors.

Obviously, there are issues around the ability of different organizations to
become barrier-free, and that's where the development of classes of
organizations comes in to ensure that tearing down barriers is done fairly and
equitably. Leaving the private sector out of this bill is simply not
acceptable.

I would also like to highlight the amendments creating timelines for action and
enforcement for non-compliance. Without these structures in place, this bill is
worthless. We have seen how voluntary compliance works. It leaves us with the
inaccessible society we have now. It is time for this government to put their
money where their mouth is and give the ODA the teeth it needs to make real
change in Ontario.

Finally, I would like to highlight the amendments that mandate the role of
people with disabilities on the councils and committees. For the ODA to
actually be effective, people with disabilities must be involved in the
creation of the regulations and guidelines, and they must be involved in every
step of the execution of this legislation.

It is only people with disabilities who completely understand the impact of a
life full of barriers. This is why it is essential that they be, in the words
of Minister Jackson, "in the driver's seat." The amendments we will put forward
today will make that happen.

One and a half million Ontarians are counting on us to do this legislation
justice. It is up to us here today to make sure that happens. I'm calling on
everyone here to do the right thing and support the amendments we've put
forward. Let's make this Ontarians with Disabilities Act truly live up to the
government's framework and vision statement.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): It became apparent to me as we went
through the hearings that this is a fundamental human rights issue. There is
absolutely no one whom we would bar from watching the legislative chamber in
action -- except if they were the third person to show up in a wheelchair.
There is absolutely no one that would be barred from coming in and walking
through this building up to the chamber -- unless they were blind, because we
don't have Braille buttons on the elevators. This is the only group in society
that I could identify who, through no fault of their own, do not have access to
the human rights enjoyed by everyone else in this province.
We have the knowledge to take down the barriers. We have the technology to
dismantle barriers. The question that's facing us today and tomorrow is, do we
have the will to dismantle the barriers?

The presenters struck me as incredible individuals, the way they have risen to
meet the challenge. The obligation on us now is to rise back and work with them
to remove the barriers. It is very clear, listening to the experts, and by
"experts," I mean the persons with disabilities who came and shared their lives
with us, that we have to do something. The strong consensus from all was that
this bill will not do it. Other than a great title, it does not in fact remove
any barriers; indeed, it has been suggested by some that it may actually remove
some rights under the Ontario human rights legislation.

They are not asking for a lot. We don't believe that every barrier would have
to come down Wednesday afternoon, but there are certain key things that have to
happen. Fundamental to this bill, we believe, is an amendment to the definition
of what a barrier is. Who better to help us with that than the experts who came
and spoke to us of their life each day?

There needs to be, we believe, a redefinition of the word "disability." There
needs to be enforcement. There is nothing else of value that we do in this
province that we do not enforce. We would enforce any regulation for any other
person that was denied access to a building or access to a service. We need to
enforce it for these equal citizens.

We believe there is too much latitude given under the exemption powers, and
that has to be reduced considerably. The obligation should be to level the
playing field.

We believe strongly that the persons with disabilities need input into the
regulations. I am only too aware of some bills that have been passed and
regulations never prepared. There need to be fixed timelines of when the
regulations will be done. The bill must not simply go on the shelf.

Lastly, we need to recognize where 90%, 95%, 98% of an individual's time is
spent. That is in private industry. They need to be brought to the table with
persons with disabilities. They need to be part of this bill; they must be part
of this bill for it to have any meaning whatsoever.

I look forward to the clause-by-clause with some hope that we can end up with a
bill that has some meaning, rather than just a great title.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My opening comment will be very brief, other than to say
that my sub paper will be in for the clerk's purposes to substitute for Mr
Kwinter who, unfortunately, had to suffer the death of his brother. So I send
my concerns and prayers to him and his family.

I'm reminded of the frailty of life and the fact that the presentations we have
heard, and I've reviewed, are from the heart and are not trying to receive
anything extra. The overlying fact that I came to hear is that no one was
asking for extra. What they were asking for is equality.

My concern is, as was raised much earlier in terms of the decision to even hear
opening statements in clause-by-clause, I've had to suffer through some of
these hearings at a different committee level that basically said at 4 o'clock
we're going to call everything in and everything's gone and forget about it. By
the actions of the opposition, you can see that there are plenty of amendments
being offered. That's not to be frivolous; that is to try to analyze what was
said, what was done, what was presented and to provide the government with some
well-thought-out options to consider. The thought that there wouldn't be enough
time to go through this and debate it falls somewhat short inasmuch as the time
has been restricted to allow those amendments to be passed. I'll caution all of
us to watch how quickly and how easily these amendments are either accepted or
rejected.

As a piece of information for people to listen carefully to, the concern I have
is not one of legislation but one of doing the right thing. If any of these
amendments is the right thing to do, I would encourage and plead with the
members on the government side and those who are presenting to do it in the
spirit of offering the right thing to do for the citizens of the province of
Ontario, not the political thing to do, not the thing that says, "Well, it
might cost us too much money to do this," or whatever the case may be. My
challenge to all of us-and I say that on the very broadest base -- is that all
of us must be doing the right thing to do for the citizens of Ontario,
particularly those who are not presently equal.

Having said that, Mr Chairman, I would forgo the rest of my time.

0920

The Chair: I'll go to Mr O'Toole.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and to the members of
committee as well, I just want to save some time. Other members may have
something to say.

I feel that, first of all, over the last 10 to 15 years the discussion of
determining and making a legislative move for persons with disabilities has
been on the agenda of many governments. They have not found the way or the will
to move forward. Even this government -- and some would criticize that -- has
tried on a couple of prior occasions to find the right balance.
I commend Cam Jackson, the minister, for bringing forward what I feel is -- and
some will describe it as -- a good first step. In fact, many have described it
as that. I would hope it would be stronger as a framework for strengthening
over time. We've heard as a group from over 80 presenters across this province.
In that respect, we've talked to Ottawa, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Sudbury and
Toronto. Those are specific locations. We've heard from every major
organization representing various people. I recall some of them specifically by
name: the Milton Deaf Action Group, the young people who came here and simply
animated the importance of their voice in this debate. Vance Youngs, Tanya
Sturk and Jessamyn Roach were an inspiration for people who felt that we could
move forward with this legislation.

I just want to put on the record clearly a couple of people, besides David
Lepofsky and others, who have been very important voices in this debate over a
long period of time. I commend them for their persistence and diligence. I
encourage them to support the minister and this government by finding the right
membership on the newly formed directorate and advisory panel. That's a very
important role in the regulations that support this bill. I would like to see
an opportunity for broad participation.

There are a couple of members who I strongly felt had some knowledge, far more
than any of us individually could bring to this. David Shannon, who spoke to us
I believe in Thunder Bay, is a member of the human rights board of inquiry and
a person with a disability. I'll tell you, this person had an absolute firm
grasp, from his experience through a lifetime of living with a disability, that
he sees this as the right thing to do. In fact, all members should be
counselled that he is a person who works with this and lives with this on a
day-to-day basis. He was there. He is on the record as very strongly
supportive. I didn't see a political agenda on his side at all. I don't mean
that in any critical sense.

What I heard was a majority of presenters who, when posed the question by
either the opposition or third party that was most frequently asked, "If you
had a choice between this or nothing, which would you choose?" said -- somewhat
begrudgingly, I might add -- most of them supported that this was indeed a
first step and it was the right thing to do.

There were certainly, from my point of view, about four major issues. There
were the timelines, the enforcement, the dollars and the lack of the private
sector. I've seen some of the amendments and I'm confident that with some of
those amendments, specifically with the enforcement protocol, there will be --
I believe and hope -- consent here on at least some of the government
initiatives. Let's review them all, in fairness, to get this started, put a
framework, a seat at the table. It is the right thing to do. Then this voice
will be given articulation in legislation, and other governments -- remember,
the starting point here is not yesterday, it is not six years ago, it is not 10
years ago; it is a lifetime.

This is a first step. Minister Jackson has tried to find a balance and
consensus in removing and preventing barriers for people with disabilities and
giving them a voice at a very important time in our collective history.

With that, maybe Mr Hardeman has something to add.

Mr Hardeman: I won't take a lot of time. I think Mr O'Toole has put it forward
quite eloquently. I just want to say that we had the opportunity to travel the
province with the committee to hear the disabled community speak to the bill. I
think all would agree that the vast majority agreed that we should move forward
with what we have here, although I would then also agree that the vast majority
also wanted amendments made to the bill to make it better to deal with some of
the concerns they had. Some of them have been mentioned. The issue of
enforcement: as we go through the amendments we will find that there are
amendments to deal with the enforcement. The members opposite mentioned the
makeup of the advisory committees, to make sure the disabled community is part
of those committees and have a strong voice on those committees to help design
the plans and to recommend the plans in individual communities. We have
amendments to deal with that.

I too want to commend all the presenters who presented at the committee. It is
not often that we have a bill that goes around the province where the
presenters are all people who are directly impacted by the legislation. That
was very helpful. The amendments that are before us are great in number from
all three parties. That's a sign of the fact that we did hear what the
presenters had to say. Hopefully we can deal with that and deal with the
amendments that are before us. With that, Mr Chairman, I believe we'd be well
served to debate the amendments as opposed to what we heard. I would move
forward with that.

The Chair: Before I go there, as Chair I would like to recognize and thank the
staff and all the people-the interpreters, the signers-who helped us during the
hearings. Certainly kudos go to Susan for working very hard to make sure we had
all the proper staff in the proper places at the proper time. That was very
much appreciated. I would also like to thank the members for their cooperation
during the hearings.

With that, we will go to amendment number 1, which is a Liberal amendment.

Mr Parsons: I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following
substituted:

"Purpose

"1. The purposes of this act are,

"(a) to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities through
the identification and removal of existing barriers and the prevention of new
barriers that limit persons with disabilities from fully participating in all
aspects of life in Ontario; and

"(b) to ensure that persons with disabilities play a central role in the
mechanisms established to achieve the goal described in clause (a)."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Hardeman: I will not be supporting the amendment. I believe the government's
goal in the whole bill is to improve the opportunities for people with
disabilities. That's reflected in the title of the bill, in the preamble of the
bill and in the purpose. I don't believe this motion is necessary. The bill
presently does it.

Mr Martin: This is actually a very important part of the bill. Out of this
flows almost everything else. If we've heard anything in the hearings we've
just been through, it is that we need to sharpen up, we need to be more
specific. We need to take out some of the weasel words that are included in
this bill that will allow the government to define for itself what it means by
so many of the provisions that could be or should be or may be present or
possible because of this bill.

0930

If we are going to, as I suggested earlier, live up to the challenge of meeting
some of the requests that were made to us by those who live with a disability
and with barriers every day, we need to be willing to, right off the bat, in
the purpose of this act, be more specific in terms of what it is that we mean,
because the purpose that's there now is too loose. It doesn't go to the heart
of the matter. I believe if we were to replace it with what the Liberals have
tabled here this morning, which, if you look, is exactly the same thing as the
amendment that follows from our own caucus -- and I would suggest to you that
we both depended very heavily in terms of the wording of this amendment on
suggestions, information and advice that we got from the disability community
out there. So if you're going to kick this off right off the bat by not
listening to that community and not listening to us, who have now become a
voice for that community at this table, then I don't see where anything else in
the act is going to make much sense either. I don't see where you've actually
heard much of what was presented across the province during the hearings. We'll
miss an opportunity, in my mind, to really make a difference and to make that
difference right at the outset where we lay out the purpose of this bill.

I'm encouraging members across the way to see this as the beginning of an
exercise of putting some teeth into this bill, of defining more clearly what it
is we want to do and using some language that has been suggested to us by the
disability community that will start us down that road.

The Chair: I shall pose the question on amendment number 1. All those in favour
of the amendment?

Mr Levac: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: I've already called the vote, so you will have to nail it past me
earlier. But anyway, if you want a recorded vote, we'll go with a recorded
vote.

AYES

Levac, Martin, Parsons.

NAYS

Arnott, Hardeman, O'Toole, Spina.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

We'll go to amendment 2, which is very similar but has a couple of words that
are different in the amendment. It's an NDP motion.

Mr Martin: I move that section l of the bill be struck out and the following
substituted:

"Purpose

"1. The purposes of this act are,

"(a) to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities through
the identification and removal of existing barriers and the prevention of new
barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from fully participating in all
aspects of life in Ontario; and

"(b) to ensure that persons with disabilities play a central role in the
mechanisms established to achieve the goal described in clause (a)."

The Chair: Do you wish to speak to the motion, Mr Martin?

Mr Martin: Yes, I do. Basically, it's a continuation of my comments with regard
to the Liberal motion, because this is very similar.

I mentioned in my support of the Liberal motion that the disability community
out there wants us to be a lot sharper, a lot more clear on what it is we're
talking about here, what it is we're trying to do, what it is they've been
waiting for a long time for us to do. They are not enamoured with the simple
term "improve opportunities." They want it more defined. They want it clear
right up front in the purpose that we're going to identify and remove barriers
that they confront in their everyday life.

I agree with them when they say they're not going to be satisfied until we
actually do that, until we have the political will, the strength of character
here to actually say what we're going to do, and not leave in this bill what I
referred to on a number of occasions through the hearings as weasel words that
can be reinterpreted, interpreted, redefined and made to say something else.

The other part of this amendment that I think is equally important,
particularly given some of the fuzziness around the edges of some of the
language in this bill, is that, right up front, we say that persons with
disabilities are going to be involved, are going to play a central and
essential role in making sure that these barriers are identified and that in
the end action is taken to remove them.

As we go through this bill, if we find that the government might be willing to
support us in actually introducing some language that would see us talk about
timelines and some enforcement mechanisms, that they be there as well to make
sure that those timelines are realistic from their perspective and that they
get done -- because if we simply go with what we have here, which gives any
governing or government organization, any administration that is struggling
with some of the financial considerations and concerns and pressures that all
of them are dealing with right now, and we leave the kind of language that's in
the purpose as it is, that can be taken advantage of. But at least if the
disabled themselves are playing an important role in the mechanisms, the
organizations that are set up and established to work with the various
institutions to make sure that barriers are identified and removed, it won't be
done so easily. It gives people with disabilities living in communities an
opportunity to be involved in those issues that affect them so directly.

To not do this, to not be willing to identify more clearly and to ensure in the
purpose, out of which everything else flows, that disabled persons will
participate in a major and significant way -- we heard over and over again, if
you'll remember, as we travelled the province, requests by almost every
organization that people living with disabilities might be a majority on these
advisory boards, both at the provincial level and at the local level. If we
don't put some reference in here to that, if we don't suggest very clearly and
strongly right from the outset in the purpose of the bill that persons with
disabilities play a central role, then I can see us having difficulties down
the road.

As I said, municipalities, for example, that find themselves pushed and cajoled
and influenced by people within their jurisdiction who have identified
barriers, who are anxious and wanting to see those barriers removed, and will
get themselves on to these committees, will be on these committees or will have
persons from their community speaking for them -- it will be much simpler
without this amendment for those communities to simply remove those people and
put people in there who will do their bidding and simply, at the end of the
day, make a mockery of an act that was introduced with so much promise and hope
and flair. At the end of the day, if we're not willing, right from the outset,
to listen to what we've heard and begin to define more clearly that which we
want to happen, I would anticipate that we will have a major flame-out here in
the not too distant future. Where we've lifted this community up to a degree in
our suggestion that there might be an act here that would support them in their
efforts to remove the barriers they confront every day, because of the
disappointment that will happen, they may be further behind than they were in
the beginning.

I'm encouraging the members around the table here to support this amendment for
all those reasons and, more importantly, not just because I'm saying that but
because we've heard over and over again consistently across the province that
this is what people with disabilities want in the purpose of this bill if they
are going to feel confident that what's promised in the preamble will in fact
happen in reality when this bill is enacted and becomes the law in the
province.

0940

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Parsons: I've always believed in listening to experts in their field,
whether they be doctors or lawyers or engineers or people simply with
experience. We have had the advantage of having world experts come and present
to us over the last week and make suggestions. I'm sensing that, although we
very much enjoyed hearing the presentations, there doesn't seem to be a will to
actually listen to them. If we're not going to listen to them now, are they
going to be heard when they're on the advisory committees? It gives me no sense
of optimism that that will happen.

People with disabilities, in most or many cases, probably most cases, live an
incredibly complex life. I compare this act with the bill that dealt with
municipalities and how thick and how detailed it was. This one is as loose as
can be. But I would suggest that the life led by a person with disabilities is
as complex as one led by a CEO or by a mayor or a reeve. We heard a
presentation in Ottawa by an individual who is deaf and blind, and I challenge
you to try to imagine the organizational skills required by that person to plan
their daily life, to plan their education, to plan their career. We need to
give them as much power as we can so that they can live the utmost life
possible. We are the barrier to them. They very clearly don't see the barriers
other than the ones that we've erected.
I urge support for this amendment to make it as all-encompassing and inclusive
as we can to handle not just the present situations but anything that will
arise in the future -- barriers not yet thought of or identified. I certainly
will be supporting the motion.

Mr Hardeman: Again, I think it's important to go back. The motion is to change
the "purposes of the act" definition. The members opposite have gone into
detail about what the purpose of the act is. To me, the purpose of the act is
to identify, remove and prevent barriers so full participation of the disabled
community can be achieved in the province of Ontario. I believe that the
present purpose says exactly that, in fact, except for the preamble to it. The
function is exactly the same: "identification, removal and prevention of
barriers to their full participation in the life of the province." In that
respect, I see no need to amend that section.

The member opposite spoke to the participation of the disabled community in the
process and on advisory boards. I would suggest that as we go through the
amendments we'll find that there are some amendments dealing with that to make
sure that we do have the proper participation. So I will not be supporting the
amendment.

Mr O'Toole: I just wanted to reinforce what Mr Hardeman has said. The purpose
clause very specifically does -- I think the most important thing here is the
involvement, which is articulated later on in the bill in section 12, section
17, section 19 and section 20. That's where you'll see this much more clearly
defined, the purposes: the identification, removal and prevention. I think
without looking at it in terms of the consultative model that's being proposed
here, we may be looking too narrowly at the purpose clause, and in that case, I
won't be supporting the NDP amendment because it doesn't look beyond the
specific word that they're having a problem with.

Mr Martin: If in fact the government is suggesting that what's covered in the
purpose is going to be dealt with later on in the bill, then why not just lay
it out right off the bat, put it in the purpose? In the purpose it's indicating
very clearly right off the bat what it is that you are proposing today. I guess
I'd like to hear why it is you would not want to put that piece in there. I'm
referring now to the proposal "that persons with disabilities play a central
role in the mechanisms established to achieve the goal described...." Why would
you not want to put it in there? If in fact that's what you propose to do,
that's what you think is going to happen and that's what, as we go through this
packet, some other amendments will address, why not put it in the purpose? Why
not lay out clearly right from the start the fact that you want the disabled
community, those living with disabilities, to be involved up front and clearly
and in definitive ways in these mechanisms? I don't understand why you wouldn't
want to put that in there.
The Chair: Any further discussion? If not, then --
Mr Martin: Recorded vote.

The Chair: -- I shall pose the question on amendment 2.

AYES

Levac, Martin, Parsons.

NAYS

Arnott, Hardeman, O'Toole, Spina.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

Shall section 1 carry? It is carried.

Section 2, amendment 3: it's a government motion.

Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, I wish on behalf of the government to withdraw that
motion. I think the next motion in our package covers in a more thorough way
the same items, so we will be supporting the motion put forward by the Liberal
Party.

The Chair: You're withdrawing amendment 3. We'll go to amendment 4, which is a
Liberal motion.

Mr Parsons: I move that the definition of "barrier" in subsection 2(1) of the
bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`barrier' means anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully
participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability,
including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or
communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a
policy or a practice;".

I think this is probably as broad a definition as we can get for "barrier" and
I believe it is absolutely vital that it be all-inclusive to handle, as I
mentioned earlier, both known barriers and barriers yet to be identified. I
believe this amendment will do that.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr O'Toole: I think it's clear here as we get into the definition part where
the real articulation of this and the strength of it really is: in the
definitions part. I did hear during public hearings that the comparison used in
the existing language, that it's not an obstacle to access for other persons,
was seen as sort of negative, and the removal of that and the suggestion
brought forward by the Liberal Party seems to clarify and remove that negative
inference. So I'll be supporting it very strongly.

Mr Martin: I also will be supporting it and I want to recognize the movement by
the government in this area. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. I think it's
the kind of co-operation that we hope we'll see more of throughout the exercise
here this morning. I think this is a very good start. As I said in my opening
comments, definitions are key to the interpretation of this legislation, just
as I believe the previous motion was important in terms of setting the tone in
the purpose. Certainly we will find that people in communities across this
province in various areas of activity, as they look at what they need to be
doing, will return time and time again to the definitions to give them further
direction as to what it is and how it is and why it is that they need to be
doing what they're doing. This will give the advisory committees the kind of
platform they need from which to develop the plans that they will and hopefully
make them more effective. So I'll be supporting this motion.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Levac: A recorded vote, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I shall pose the question on amendment 4.

AYES

Arnott, Hardeman, Levac, Martin, O'Toole, Parsons, Spina.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Mr Levac: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is there a rule that prevents the
request for a recorded vote for all amendments?

The Chair: No, I think if you request a recorded vote, then I can call a
recorded vote --

Mr O'Toole: Mr Chair, I would prefer to have a very legal opinion. We have a
very clear mandate in the time allocated to this. With the amount of important
debate occurring, we could end up not getting through the motions. As it stands
now, they will all be deemed to have been moved. So my impression there is this
might be -- Mr Levac, do I have your assurance that the intention here is to
complete this prior to or at noon, or is this some sort of subtle tactic? Do
you have some other motive here? What's the objective?

0950

Mr Levac: Am I allowed to respond, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr Levac: I'd just like them recorded.

The Chair: I shall call a recorded vote on each vote, then.
Mr Levac: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We'll go to amendment 5: Mr Martin. Sorry, it's a duplicate.

Mr Martin: Yes, I will withdraw that motion because I think it's covered
completely by the motion that the Liberals put forward.

The Chair: We'll go to amendment 6, a government motion: Mr Hardeman.

Mr Hardeman: I move that clause (a) of the definition of "disability" in
subsection 2(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "a brain injury" after
"epilepsy."

I think the motion is quite self-explanatory. The brain injury association was
in at almost every stop we had on our tour around the province suggesting that
the definitions should include brain injury specifically, as opposed to just a
disorder. We think it's appropriate to add that to the legislation.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Martin: Again, I go back to comments I've made a couple of times now.
Definitions are key to the interpretation of this legislation and our view is
that the current definitions in some instances are way too narrow and they
limit the effectiveness of the legislation. If we're really going to create
legislation that works for people with disabilities, these definitions need to
be completely clear and, I highlight, comprehensive.

Although I recognize some movement by the government and the fact that they
heard, I believe, from a number of the groups that came forward, particularly
the groups representing those with acquired brain injury who came in great
numbers to all the hearings across the province, that they have put these two
further definitions in this piece, I don't think it's enough. I don't think it
goes far enough to defining what we mean by disability. There are a couple of
amendments, actually identical amendments -- well, not quite identical --
following this that I would suggest the government take a look at and consider
supporting, which will go a whole lot further than what is suggested in this
amendment to making sure that those things identified by the groups who came
before us as difficulties, as shortcomings, as fuzzy in the bill are covered in
these definitions.

I guess for fear of losing even this little bit of movement that has been made
in this amendment, I'm going to support it, but I'm going to support it
hopefully setting a tone that will allow the government side to support the
motion that we have put forward that will further define this in a way that
will be more acceptable to the disabled community out there, more in line with
what we heard and what was called for by these groups as they came before us
over the last week. So I will support this, but, as I said, I'm supporting this
with the hope the government in fact will respond, will reciprocate, by
supporting the further amendment to this that both the Liberals and ourselves
are putting forward. Ours is just a wee bit different from the Liberal
amendment. Perhaps in keeping with that spirit, the government might want to
consider withdrawing this amendment in favour of one of the other two. I would
put that out there as well as a suggestion that the government might want to
entertain.

Mr Parsons: Like the previous speakers, I learned a great deal about
individuals who have acquired brain injury during the presentations, but for me
it begged the question: what other disabilities are there out there that I do
not know about? This bill, once passed, is not amended easily, so we need to
proceed on the assumption and basis that it will in fact be in place for quite
some time. Critical to me for this bill is that the act not in itself serve as
a barrier. We must not erect a barrier that will make it difficult for us to
identify, recognize or help people with a disability not yet known or not
familiar to this committee or to this group. I would suggest that in the six
days of hearings that we held we only scratched the surface of Ontario with
individuals who would have liked to have spoken to us.

Like my colleague from the NDP, I will support this amendment from the
government side because it is better than the existing, but it is not as good
as it could be.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

I'll call the recorded vote. All those in favour of amendment 6?

AYES

Arnott, Hardeman, Levac, Martin, O'Toole, Parsons, Spina.

The Chair: That motion carries.

We'll go on to amendment 7, which is a Liberal amendment.

Mr Parsons: I move that clauses (a) and (b) of the definition of "disability"
in subsection 2(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or
disfigurement and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes
diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of
physical coordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing
impediment, muteness or speech impediment, chemical or environmental
sensitivities, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a
wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device or a brain injury,

"(b) an intellectual disability,".
We have put this amendment forward in the belief that it is vital that we keep
the door open to allow the inclusion in this bill of every possible known and
to be identified in the future disability.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Hardeman: I believe this amendment just covers the same bases that the
present clause already provides. In fact, I'm having trouble trying to find out
whether it isn't becoming more vague, that it's going to be more difficult to
identify what it means for someone else reading it. As I read 2(a) -- and I'm
not going to read it into the record -- in the present bill and then I read
this one, I find very minimal differences. The other thing is, of course, since
we just passed the other resolution, the amendment would not be appropriate as
the wording is not in the amendment now as we have just passed; the words
"brain injury" will be put in after "epilepsy," so if the amendment were to
pass it would not fit the previous amendment.

Mr Martin: Actually, there are some very subtle and important differences in
what's been moved now by way of amendment and what's in the original definition
of disability and I think it needs to be put on the record. I believe it was
spoken to on a number of occasions over the period of the hearings. There is
some real nervousness and anxiousness around the clause in the existing
definition that indicates "that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or
illness." There is some anxiety that may get in the way down the line of some
really good work being done. It's something that somebody who, for whatever
reason, wants to block or impede or slow down or stop the removal of a barrier,
who is wanting to split hairs or get into legal wrangling or arguments about
why it is a particular barrier should not be removed, could in fact take and
use these words in this instance.

1000

In my view, it's another of those clauses put in by way of fuzzifying the bill
so that all barriers don't ultimately get removed and it gives somebody who may
be dealing with this some basis upon which to make an argument that is silly
and frivolous and not relevant.

It was clear in the presentations that were made that there was some real
concern about that particular piece in the definition and that it be removed.
By putting forward this amendment, we've actually removed that. We've also
added a section down a little further --
Mr Hardeman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are we speaking to the same
amendment?

Mr O'Toole: No, this is the Liberal amendment.

Mr Martin: This is the Liberal amendment.
Mr Hardeman: You're speaking to the Liberal amendment?

Mr Martin: Yes, we are.

Mr Hardeman: You were saying, "as we have put," so I was wondering if you
speaking to the next amendment.

Mr Martin: Yes, I'm sorry.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same --

Mr Martin: Yes, and you'll find, Mr Hardeman, through this morning that we, New
Democrats, and the Liberals are very much onside together with the amendments
that we're putting forward. There is a slight difference in the amendment
you'll identify and I'll speak to that in a few minutes, but right now I'm
speaking to the Liberal amendment. I'm sorry if sometimes -- I'm not joining
the Liberal caucus; I just want everybody to know that.

Mr Parsons: The door's open.

Mr Hardeman: I just wanted to make sure we all understood.

Mr Levac: You've ruined our plot.

Mr Martin: I just want everybody to know that my chair's not moving that way or
anything, to the right.

So excuse me if from time to time I'm --
Mr Hardeman: No, that's fine.

Mr Martin: As a matter of fact, it highlights the fact that we need to be clear
sometimes in what we say so that people don't misunderstand what we mean when
we speak.

That's why we're so anxious, particularly upfront and early in this exercise of
putting amendments, that we do everything we can in both the purpose and now
the definition to take any fuzziness out of the language because of everything
else that flows out of this bill. As we move forward and begin to do the very
important work that's required to remove the barriers that we know are out
there, we have to make sure that what's in this bill by way of purpose and
definition supports that effort and doesn't give anybody looking for a loophole
a reason not to do that.

The first piece of the definition in this amendment is removed; it was clearly
identified by the disabled groups that came before us as necessary if you're
going to define and sharpen up the language here and take out anything in there
that might create some difficulty or some problem down the line.

We've added here a piece which covers a condition that often gets in the way of
some of our fellow citizens participating fully in the life of their community;
we've added chemical or environmental sensitivities. That becomes more and more
relevant in the world we live in now as we begin to, because of science, be
able to identify those chemical and environmental sensitivities that many of
our brothers and sisters, many of our neighbours and friends, struggle with. To
put this in here is being proactive on our part and recognizing that we see in
our communities more and more people who struggle with challenges brought on by
some of the chemicals people come in contact with which, for one reason or
another, become problematic, or some of the things that are happening in our
environment now because of the industry that we see evolving and some of the
new ways we've found to affect our environment that are ultimately affecting
people and their ability to participate fully.

We had a number of people come forward to talk about this and to ask us to
please consider these kinds of difficulties in this bill. Here's a chance for
us to very clearly upfront identify an area that I believe we will see coming
at us in a big hurry and is actually coming at us right now. I know in my own
constituency office we're seeing more and more people coming in, looking for
support to live their lives, to get retraining to get back in more active
participation in the workplace. We're not able to help them because there still
isn't an understanding out there of what it is they're confronting and why it
is they're having the difficulty that they have. Lacking that understanding
then, there is no effort to try to put in place supports required to make sure
that these people are able to get over the barrier that they're confronting or
facing and move on.

If we include it in the definition it will be easier for them to bring it
forward to the different institutions, organizations or government bodies to
get redress through the advisory councils at both the provincial and local
levels. I think this is really important. I think both these changes suggested
in this amendment are really important and I would ask the government, in the
mood that I think was struck with our supporting their amendment because we
wanted to make sure that change was made, that they would entertain what we're
saying and support us in pushing this forward and making it part of the bill.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr O'Toole: I'm just wondering if this is procedurally in order. I put to you
that we have moved an amendment to subsection 2(1) and have unanimously
endorsed that amendment. As I understand it, once you've amended the original
wording, however substantively, you're actually amending an amendment and as
such, I put to you that this motion Mr Martin has taken up some time on is
basically out of order.

The Chair: No, I think it's in order, Mr O'Toole, because this amendment --

Mr O'Toole: I depend on your interpretation. That's fine, Mr Chair.

The Chair: -- would basically amend your previous motion that was passed. So I
don't see it out of order.

If there is no further discussion, I will pose the question and it will be a
recorded vote on Liberal motion number 7. All those in favour?

AYES

Levac, Martin, Parsons.

NAYS

Hardeman, Munro, O'Toole, Spina.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

We'll got to NDP motion number 8.

Mr Martin: I move that clauses (a) and (b) of the definition of "disability" in
subsection 2(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or
disfigurement and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes
diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of
physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing
impediment, muteness or speech impediment, chemical or environmental
sensitivities, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a
wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device,

"(b) an intellectual disability,

"(b.1) a brain injury."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr O'Toole: On the motion: we have had considerable debate. The wording is
almost identical in both the defeated motion by the Liberals and this motion
here, except in clause 2(1)(a), the Liberals have used "brain injury," where
they have not, and the NDP has added a separate clause (b.1). These terms that
Mr Martin's referring to have been in the Human Rights Code for many years and
have formed the basis of protection for persons with disabilities, so it's not
in any way new language. That's our comment.

1010

Mr Martin: I hope the member isn't suggesting that we just dump everything that
we're not able to catch with this into the Human Rights Code. We all understand
here, who've been around for a while, that the Human Rights Commission is
already overwhelmed with the kinds and numbers of issues they have to deal with
on a day-to-day basis. So I think it's important, if we're going to introduce a
bill and put a framework in place that supports the removal of barriers for
people with disabilities, that we do it right the first time and that we
include in it as much as is required to actually get that job done.

Without any further real debate, the member is right. I did put on the record
my thoughts with regard to this bill. I think it's important, as I said before,
to be clear in the definitions, to be very precise in the definitions and to
include those things in the definitions that we heard from the disability
community are important. Again, that's what this is. It's our attempt, with a
bit of a variance from the Liberal amendment, to make sure we capture what we
heard and not miss an opportunity here to include all those things that are
barriers for individuals out there wanting to participate fully in their
communities.

Mr Parsons: I will be supporting this amendment. As we have joshed a few
minutes ago about the NDP and Liberals agreeing in these amendments, I think we
need to look at perspective; not that we're agreeing with each other, but both
the Liberal and the NDP caucuses agree with the community of persons who are
disabled. If it would increase your comfort level, in many, many cases in here,
it is not a Liberal amendment or an NDP amendment; it is an amendment that has
come from the individuals with disabilities who live the life every day and are
sharing their expertise with us. This is an amendment that reflects the needs
and the requests of that community. I certainly will be supporting it.

Mr Hardeman: Again, I just want to point out, as I did with the previous
amendment, that if we're looking for clarity for the disabled community,
definitions as they are in the Human Rights Code, and then, to no major effect,
to change it in this act is not going to help the community in trying to
decipher what government legislation does or doesn't do.

So I think the present form, as it's written for the Human Rights Code, is the
one that we should accept, recognizing that this amendment again puts forward
adding brain injury in a different manner than what the committee has already
supported. In adding it, I would think at the very least that part of the
motion would have to be changed prior to it, if it were to be accepted. So with
that, I'll be voting against it.

The Chair: If there's no further discussion, I shall pose the question on
amendment number 8; it will be a recorded vote. All those in favour?

AYES
Levac, Martin, Parsons.

NAYS

Hardeman, Munro, O'Toole, Spina.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

We'll go to amendment number 9.

Mr Parsons: I move that the definition of "Ontario government publication" in
subsection 2(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Ontario government publication' means a publication or an appendix to a
publication in any form, including print and electronic forms, that the
government of Ontario, an officer of the assembly or an officer of the
Legislature issues or a publication that is created by any organization with
funds provided by the government of Ontario."

I strongly support this amendment. One of the frustrating things that the
individuals have shared with me is difficulty in getting publications that are
accessible to them. It has always struck me, whether we use the words "funny"
or "ironic," that it is easier for an individual who is blind to get a deaf
menu at McDonald's than it is to get a document in Braille from this
government. If there is anything that is fundamental to democracy, it should be
the access to information that an individual can get from our government.
Therefore we'll be supporting this.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Martin: Again, this speaks to an issue that was brought forward but should
also be actually logical and obvious to us if we've paid any attention to what
is being asked for where this bill is concerned. It simply lays out that those
publications, those communications that are developed by way of organizations
supported by government not only be available to those who can access them and
read them or hear them or whatever, but that they be available to every citizen
who calls Ontario home and who wants to participate in life.

What this does simply is broaden the venue or the opportunity for people with
disabilities to access information that may be in some instances absolutely
essential to them if they're going to be able to participate or take advantage
of opportunity to improve their lives or take advantage of some things that are
out there or may be out there that they won't have any clue are out there
unless they have access to that information. So I'll be supporting this
amendment.

The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I won't support this because I think that
with respect to the current proposed definition, it would remove restriction to
the sections of publications that are generally available to the public and
remove the exemption of certain technical publications. I don't have a problem
with the government providing the services but the real concern I have here is
the part of the clause that makes reference to any organization with funds
provided by the government of Ontario. Having been involved with tourism and
small business, this clearly imposes a difficulty on all of these businesses
that may be receiving some sort of funding from the province in whatever
mechanism, whether it's through a tourism or travel association or even to a
community group. I think that would constitute quite an undue hardship for
these smaller businesses. Clearly, those that want to be able to cater to
elements of the disabled community, either who currently do so or who wish to
do so, certainly will already, as they have, or will be in a position to find
the resources to market to that community. But I think it would be pretty
onerous for us to extend that as far as this amendment recommends, and
therefore that's why I would not support it.

The Chair: Mr Hardeman -- Mr Parsons; I'm sorry.

Mr Parsons: We share the same first name but not last yet. I would counter that
with the comment that persons with disabilities are full citizens and pay
taxes. It's some of their tax money that will have flowed to these other
organizations. If they are in fact individually and collectively helping to
fund another organization, surely there should not be a barrier erected to them
accessing what they have helped to pay for.

Mr Levac: One of the comments I would suggest is that if these companies at any
time want to receive monies from the government, there would be conditions
attached to it, that indeed we do that. We also do that now. There are
conditions which people who receive funds from the government have to fulfill
and maintain. So quite clearly, if you want to do business with the government
of Ontario, you're going to be barrier-free. If you're going to receive those
monies, you are going to use some of those funds to ensure that the public in
general has accessibility to that.

So quite clearly it would be a very strong mandate, a very clear message to the
people of Ontario that the government is exceptionally serious about ensuring
that the people who have disabilities will have access to their government
through any action. Another clear point that comes to my mind is that we also
are sending a message to the people who have disabilities that if there are
agencies that are receiving government funds, they can count on them to be
accessible.

Mr Martin: I would suggest that people consider very carefully the comments
that Mr Spina just made, because they indicate very clearly why that we need
this act and why we need to be doing what we're calling for by way of this
amendment.

1020

He speaks of undue hardship. That's precisely what we're here about. But we're
not talking about undue hardship to organizations and businesses and groups out
there that will find it a challenge, yes, to live up to the requirements of
this act; we're talking here about undue hardship to people with disabilities
trying to access this information.

To suggest for a second that by providing opportunity for people with
disabilities to access information they may need to take advantage of
opportunities, which is the definition they chose to run with here under the
purpose, and to see this or to somehow define this bill by way of what undue
hardship it will cause for the organizations out there, is precisely why we're
here today.

There are undue hardships. The undue hardships that we're trying to address in
this bill are the undue hardships that people with disabilities are
experiencing. We don't for a second suggest that there won't be hardships, some
of them considered undue, depending on your view and what side of the table
you're on, but they need to be removed. That's why we're here.

The argument falls flat for me that somehow, by way of this bill, we would be
creating undue hardship for some organizations and institutions out there. Of
course we will, because we'll be asking them to do some things which they
heretofore have not been doing that will make it easier for people with
disabilities to access the information, in this instance, that they're looking
for. So that doesn't carry much water for me.

I would suggest that people consider those comments as we go through the rest
of the bill, because underlying a lot of what this government isn't willing to
do with this bill is this sense that it will provide undue hardship for some
people out there who, for one reason or another, don't want to have to deal
with that. We're saying very clearly they have to, because if they don't, there
are a million and a half people living in this province who will not be able to
participate fully in the life of their community.

I just had to put that on the record where this amendment is concerned and
suggest that that's precisely the thinking that's going to get in the way of
our making this bill the effective piece of legislation, the effective
framework that it has the potential to become.

The Chair: If there is no further discussion, I will pose the question on
amendment 9. It will be a recorded vote.

AYES

Levac, Martin, Parsons.

NAYS

Hardeman, Munro, O'Toole, Spina.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

Do you wish to withdraw amendment 10, Mr Martin?

Mr Martin: Yes, I do. I've said everything I need to say on this and I don't
want to prolong the discussion any further. We have lots of other important
pieces to debate here as the morning goes on.

The Chair: We'll move to amendment 11.

Mr Parsons: Have we voted on 10 yet or has he withdrawn it?

The Chair: He's withdrawn it.

Mr Parsons: I move that subsection 2(1) of the bill be amended by adding the
following definition:

"`organization' means any person, entity, or class or persons or entity
carrying out a business, enterprise or other activity that offers goods,
facilities or services, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
includes,

"(a) every district school board as defined in section 1 of the Education Act
and every board established under section 68 of that act,

"(b) every hospital as defined in the Public Hospitals Act and every private
hospital operated under the authority of a licence issued under the Private
Hospitals Act,

"(c) a board of governors of a college of applied arts and technology, and

"(d) every university in Ontario, and its affiliated and federated colleges."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Parsons: This is simply an amendment to be more inclusive of organizations
or entities that persons with disabilities would be interacting with. I cannot
see a problem if we want to give persons with disabilities access into as many
facilities and services as possible. I cannot picture why this amendment would
not be supported to do just that.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Martin: This amendment clearly tries to broaden the scope of this bill and
capture or catch all of those organizations that might, for one reason or
another, fall off the table here and not be covered. It's bad enough that we're
not covering the private sector, which is the institutional offering out there
that provides so many of us, and the disabled in particular, with the everyday
opportunities and needs we require, but in moving this bill forward,
understanding that probably we're not going to be successful in capturing the
private sector -- although hope dwells eternal in my heart -- that we not miss
any opportunity to make sure that we cover absolutely every organization that
needs to be covered in at least the public sector. So I'll be supporting this
amendment.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Hardeman: I will not be supporting the amendment. The amendment is just to
broaden the scope. Presently there is no definition of other organizations. It
defines where the act covers and where it doesn't. Our government approach is
to work with the disabled community to set standards for these organizations
and, when they have been designed, they will be put in place by regulation and
have the force of law. I think our approach to that is going to work better
than this amendment would, so I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Mr Martin?

Mr Martin: Sorry, I misspoke myself a few seconds ago. There's just a lot of
stuff here. This is really important work and it's important that we be clear
in what we're doing. This amendment does in fact capture the private sector and
any other organization. Just to go back over it, "`organization' means any
person, entity, or class or persons or entity carrying out a business,
enterprise or other activity that offers goods, facilities or services, and
without limiting the generality of the foregoing," and then it includes some
more defined organizations. I believe this gets us into the area of trying to
capture in some small way the issue of business or enterprise, public or
private, being covered by this act.

If we heard anything over the last week from the groups out there, it was that
this bill needs to cover, to include, to capture the private sector, very
clearly.

Mr Parsons: We have a significant number of amendments before us and limited
time, but this one is a key to 98% of where a person with a disability would
want access. This is a fundamental one. The US Americans with Disabilities Act
-- we never advocated that we follow it line by line, but clearly the summary
of the experience in the US with the Americans with Disabilities Act is that
private industry there has supported it.

To pass a bill that prevents persons with disabilities from having access to
shopping, medical services and accommodation makes a sham of the rest of the
bill. I know that what I'm saying everyone at this table and in this room
already knows. If we genuinely, truly want to remove barriers, we have to
provide access to every possible organization.

I have learned that at this very moment -- I don't know if many of you will
recall that some years ago there was an Ontario human rights case over a person
with a mobility disability not being allowed access to movie theatres. The
reaction from the theatre chain has culminated today with them closing the last
of the theatres that were named in the human rights case. So the reaction to
them not having time to develop access over the years -- not only have persons
with disabilities lost access to these theatres, everyone in the community lost
access, whereas had the theatres been included in this bill, there would have
been a time phase that would have allowed it to take place. So we're seeing the
doors closed to the very group of people we purport to be putting this bill
through to help. I know it will get a limited amount of debate because of the
time allocated, but if this bill does not apply to the private sector, then we
have by and large wasted our time and wasted the time of individuals who have
waited for years to get access to all facilities.

1030

The Chair: If there's no further question, I shall pose the question on
amendment number 11, and it will be a recorded vote.

AYES

Levac, Martin, Parsons.

NAYS

Hardeman, Munro, O'Toole, Spina.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

Mr Martin, do you wish to withdraw amendment number 12 as it is a duplicate of
11?

Mr Martin: No, actually, I want to be on the record as having moved this as
well, because it's so important.

The Chair: Well, Mr Martin, I shall have to rule the amendment out of order
because it is exactly a duplicate of number 11. We've already debated this one.
So we shall move to amendment number 13.

Mr Parsons: I wish I had the training of a lawyer. I'm trying to recall -- I
wish I had a better memory than I do -- what effect the previous amendment
losing has on this amendment. I don't believe this amendment is necessary if
the previous amendment was lost.

The Chair: So you're withdrawing the amendment?

Mr Parsons: I will withdraw that.

The Chair: We'll go to amendment number 14, which is basically the same thing.
Mr Martin?

Mr Martin: Just give me a second here. That has sort of thrown a little wrinkle
into my thinking, because I'm not a lawyer either. OK, I'll go along with that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go to amendment number 15.

Mr Parsons: I move that subsection 2(2) of the bill be amended by adding at the
end "including consultants, agents or contractors or any other person doing
work with or for the government of Ontario."

That should be reasonably self-explanatory. If it is publicly funded, it should
be included in the coverage of this bill. I can't picture anyone not supporting
this.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, I will not be supporting the resolution.

Mr Martin: Briefly, this again is an attempt to broaden the net here and
capture some organizations and groups that wouldn't otherwise be. I think we
have to be diligent and do due diligence in making sure that nobody escapes the
influence of this bill out there and can make an argument that they don't have
to live up to some of what will probably be in the end suggested as
barrier-removal exercises in the various communities across this province. So
we'll be supporting this amendment for those reasons.

The Chair: Any further discussion? If not, I shall pose the question, and it
will be a recorded vote.

AYES

Martin, Parsons.

NAYS

Hardeman, Munro, O'Toole, Spina.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

I think number 16, Mr Martin, is similar in nature.

Mr Martin: Yes.

The Chair: So you're withdrawing the amendment?

Mr Martin: Yes.

The Chair: I shall pose the question on section 2. Shall section 2, as amended,
carry? It must be a recorded vote also.

AYES

Hardeman, Munro, O'Toole, Spina.

NAYS

Martin, Parsons.

The Chair: The motion carries.

We'll go to section 3, amendment number 17.

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following
substituted:

"Recognition of other legal obligations

"3. Nothing in this act, the regulations or the guidelines made under this act
limits in any way the legal obligations of the government of Ontario or any
person or organization with respect to the provision of access for persons with
disabilities under any other act, including the Human Rights Code, or under any
regulation."

The Chair: Discussion? Go ahead, Mr Hardeman.

Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, first of all, I want to say we had a number of legal
presentations during our consultation that suggested there was concern that the
wording of the bill presently wasn't clear enough to make sure that the other
acts were paramount over the Ontarians with Disabilities Act in any area where
they had a higher requirement. They wanted to make sure that that higher
requirement remained. I believe this amendment does that.

I wanted to point out, Mr Chairman, for the committee and for the member
opposite, the next motion is a motion from the Liberal Party, doing the same
thing. Ours is, in my opinion, slightly clearer. We would be prepared to
support your motion too, but I believe that this one will serve the purpose
better than the amendment that is being proposed in the next, in number 18.

Mr Parsons: I appreciate the intent of that. I prefer the Liberal motion, and I
believe the NDP motion is exactly the same as ours. I am bothered in the
government's, though, by the words, "with respect to the provision of access."
I believe our amendment is more inclusive. It's simply with respect to persons
with disabilities. This limits it to access, and I believe that there will be
some questions certainly within the community as to exactly what does "access"
mean. I believe the phrase "provision of access" is too restrictive. I will
support this motion in the hope that the following amendment -- I'm going to
withdraw that comment that I will support this amendment. I would prefer the
other amendment.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Martin: I want to recognize a movement when it happens. I want to thank the
government for bringing this forward. Obviously, they're going to support it.
It's certainly an improvement. It indicates that, at least in some instances,
they've heard some of the very real concern raised by deputants in front of
this committee over the last week. Without this, there was the very real fear
that this act would be a lowering of the floor for people with disabilities,
and this will catch that.

However, I raise the same concern that my colleague from the Liberal caucus
raises. The government takes two steps forward and then one step back all the
time, and that's what they've done here. They've brought forward an amendment
that will capture very clearly an issue that was raised over and over again by
a number of groups, particularly those with legal expertise, who have that
capacity to assess legislation and understand what it does or doesn't do or how
it affects other pieces of legislation. But to include in here the piece with
respect to the provision of access seems to me to speak very clearly to another
issue that was raised consistently over and over again by groups who came
before our committee to speak of the very limited focus of this bill on the
question of mobility and physical barriers out there.

Given the comments of members across the way that we not create any undue
hardship for various organizations and perhaps businesses out there with this
act, I'm afraid that a piece like this, with respect to the provision of
access, may be just the tool that some of those groups will use in order to
reduce the undue hardship they may experience.

1040

You will excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for the argument of undue
hardship where organizations and perhaps businesses etc are concerned when you
stack it up against the many years of undue hardship experienced by people with
disabilities out there as they try to remove barriers and in fact participate
more fully in their community.

For those reasons, I'm disappointed that the government would have put this
piece in. However, like the member from the Liberal caucus, I don't want to
miss an opportunity to actually put at least some little provision in here that
will make sure we're not lowering the floor, even if it is limited with respect
to provision of access.

I'll be supporting it but I'm hoping the government will see its way clear to
improve on that. I'm giving you credit; I'm supporting it. I think this is a
good move. As I said, you've heard very clearly what's being called for and
asked for here and you've done the right thing. I'm asking you to listen some
more, hear what we're saying from this side -- driven by consultations that
we've had with the disability community out there -- and remove this piece by
supporting the amendment that either we or the Liberals have put forward. I'll
be supporting this, hoping that you will be supporting our motion when it comes
down.

Mr Hardeman: As I said earlier in my previous comments, we heard considerable
debate during our consultation that one could interpret the bill differently,
in different ways, and the concern that it didn't cover all the bases as it
should. It was for that reason we brought forward this amendment. With the
debate on this amendment, there still seems to be some confusion or different
interpretations to this amendment from across the floor. So with the unanimous
consent of the committee, I would withdraw our amendment and move on to the
opposition amendment for further discussion.

Mr O'Toole: I fully agree to expedite this. I could make a stronger case for
the government's proposed amendment. It's actually stronger, less general and
less subject to misinterpretation, because it refers specifically to the term
"access." If you look under "access" under the definitions, when we talk about
the barriers and the word "access" in all of the agencies, the word "access"
becomes a key word. You also have to look at subsections 3(1) and 3(2) to
really appreciate what the current government amendment does. But giving
respect to our key person on this committee, Mr Hardeman, I'll be supporting
withdrawing the government motion.

The Chair: Mr Hardeman has withdrawn amendment 17. Do I have unanimous consent?
Mr Martin, do I have unanimous consent to withdraw number 17?

Mr Martin: In the interest of?

The Chair: Going to number 18.

Mr Martin: OK, that's fine.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr Parsons with amendment 18.

Mr Parsons: I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following
substituted:
"Recognition of existing legal obligations

"3. Nothing in this act, the regulations or the standards or guidelines made
under this act diminishes in any way the legal obligations of the government of
Ontario or any person or organization with respect to persons with
disabilities."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Martin: I just want to thank the government for moving in that way. I really
appreciate the co-operative nature of that move and I think it will pan out in
the long run to be in the best interests of the people we're all speaking on
behalf of here this morning. Thank you very much.

Mr O'Toole: Because it seems to be moving along rather harmoniously, which is
nice, out of respect, I'd like to ask the Liberals to withdraw 18 and support
19 unanimously, and then we would have the work Mr Martin has put into this on
the record. Really, they're the same amendments.

Mr Parsons: I think that's an excellent idea. I'm certainly prepared to
withdraw.

The Chair: So we have unanimous consent to withdraw number 18, to support
number 19? OK.

Mr Martin: I appreciate the co-operative nature of that suggestion. Thank you
very much.

The Chair: I will ask you to move amendment 19 for the record.

Mr Martin: I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following
substituted:

"Recognition of existing legal obligations

"3. Nothing in this act, the regulations or the standards or guidelines made
under this act diminishes in any way the existing legal obligations of the
government of Ontario or any person or organization with respect to persons
with disabilities."

The Chair: I shall pose the question and it will be a recorded vote.

AYES

Hardeman, Levac, Martin, Munro, O'Toole, Parsons, Spina.

The Chair: The motion carries.

Shall section 3, as amended, carry? It will be a recorded vote.

AYES
Hardeman, Levac, Martin, Munro, O'Toole, Parsons, Spina.

The Chair: That carries.

We'll go to section 4, amendment 20.

Mr Parsons: I move that subsections 4(1) to (4) of the bill be struck out and
the following substituted:

"Government buildings, structures and premises

"(1) In consultation with the Barrier-Free Directorate of Ontario, persons with
disabilities and others, the government of Ontario shall develop barrier-free
design standards to achieve accessibility for persons with disabilities to
buildings, structures and premises, or parts of buildings, structures and
premises, that the government owns, purchases, enters into a lease for,
constructs or significantly renovates after this section comes into force.

"Implementation of standards

"(2) Within six months after the government of Ontario develops the standards
and in consultation with persons with disabilities and others, they shall make
regulations that require the government to comply with the standards within the
time period specified in the regulations.

"Deadline

"(3) In establishing the time period for compliance, the Lieutenant Governor in
Council shall take into account the cost of complying with the standards, the
use of the building, structure or premises affected, its projected future
occupancy and other factors that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers
relevant having regard to the purposes of this act.

"Duty to comply

"(4) The government of Ontario shall certify that the design of buildings,
structures and premises, or parts of buildings, structures and premises, that
it owns, purchases, constructs or renovates after this section comes into force
complies with the standards before occupation or regular use by its employees.

"Display of certification

"(4.1) The government of Ontario shall display a copy of the certification
mentioned in subsection (4) for a building, structure or premises publicly at
the location of the building, structure or premises and make the certification
available for inspection by the public on request.

"Recertification
"(4.2) The government of Ontario shall renew a certification mentioned in
subsection (4) at the times specified by the regulations."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Parsons: Certainly we heard concern out of the community that made
presentations to us that they felt there was no point in barriers being
identified and plans being made without something actually happening. The
current bill as it's drafted does not provide any assurance that anything will
ever be implemented. So this requires that, within a time frame, regulations be
prepared and that there be timelines established for compliance. In echoing
concerns that these things will cost money and will take time, this provides
for a process that allows for input as to the various costs and the various
challenges faced, but it does require a timetable to be put into place that
will make it happen. In addition, it recognizes that from time to time
buildings are modified and changed, so it is possible that a building that is
accessible at one time could lose that due to modifications, and hence a
recertification requirement.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Martin: I just want to bring to the attention of the committee that we have
tabled a similar motion that follows on this but does have one sight variance.
I'm not sure how we might deal with that, if in fact we want to.

Our concern is in (4), "Duty to comply," and perhaps a friendly amendment. I
don't know if that's something that happens at this kind of committee. I know
at our conventions we often do friendly amendments. I know you find it hard to
believe, watching some of our conventions, that we do friendly amendments.

In the "Duty to comply," the Liberal amendment references "before occupation or
regular use by its employees." That may become in some instances -- for
example, this building here, if we're going to try to bring it up to standard
and we decide to go down that road, it may be that this question of "before
occupation" could require an evacuation for a period of time, which might prove
to be somewhat impossible to do. So what we're suggesting in the amendment
we're putting forward next is slightly different for that reason. Perhaps we
might want to consider that, as opposed to the "Duty to comply," subsection
4(4) of the Liberal amendment. That's the only concern I have.

1050

Mr Hardeman: I will not be supporting the motion. I have some concerns about
the ability of this committee and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct
the Lieutenant Governor to do anything. We don't have the ability to do that. I
think the resolution is quite clear that she "shall." I don't believe that's an
appropriate terminology in this. If the resolution were to pass, I don't think
that part would be appropriate. I will be voting against the whole motion.

Mr Spina: In going through the elements of the bill with respect to the duties
of the government, I felt it was pretty strong and pretty clear as to the
responsibility of the government. Subsection 4(1) says, "develop barrier-free
design guidelines to promote accessibility" and so forth, and furthermore, that
carries forward to "structures and premises, that the government purchases,
enters into a lease for, constructs or significantly renovates after this
section comes into force." There are a number of elements here that I think are
pretty strong.

"Duty to comply

"The government of Ontario shall ensure that the design of buildings,
structures and premises, or parts of buildings, structures and premises, that
it purchases, constructs or significantly renovates after this section comes
into force complies with the guidelines before occupation or regular use by its
employees."

I think it's pretty clear. I know, for example, at my own constituency office,
which is marginally accessible, once this bill is through, I can tell you that
my landlord will receive a very clear direction that our constituency will be
and must be accessible to all parties. I know this is sufficient and I'm
confident of what is there now. In addition, it is beyond the mandate of the
Legislative Assembly to order the Lieutenant Governor, as has been proposed in
the amendment by the opposition. So we won't be supporting it.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Parsons: This subsection 4(4), "Duty to comply," seems to be causing some
problem. I would note a key phrase in there that says, "significantly renovates
after this section comes into force." I'm prepared to accept the friendly
amendment from Mr Martin on this. I don't --

The Chair: For the procedure, I think amendments had to be submitted at noon
yesterday. So I think if you want to withdraw your motion and maybe go to Mr
Martin's, that's probably the only way I can deal with it. It's your choice,
and I need unanimous consent.

Mr Parsons: No, I think I will leave it. One additional thing I