|
|
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY Monday
31 January 2005
ACCESSIBILITY
FOR ONTARIANS WITH Consideration of Bill 118, An Act respecting the development, implementation and enforcement of standards relating to accessibility with respect to goods, services, facilities, employment, accommodation, buildings and all other things specified in the Act for persons with disabilities / Projet de loi 118, Loi traitant de l'élaboration, de la mise en oeuvre et de l'application de normes concernant l'accessibilité pour les personnes handicapées en ce qui concerne les biens, les services, les installations, l'emploi, le logement, les bâtiments et toutes les autres choses qu'elle précise. The Chair (Mr. Mario G. Racco): Good morning, and welcome to the first day of public hearings of the standing committee on social policy on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Before we start, I would like to point out several features that we hope will help to improve accessibility for those participating in and attending these hearings. In addition to our usual French-language interpretation, we have added services for these hearings. Closed captioning is being provided for each day of the hearings. Sign language interpreters are present each day of the hearings; I would like to welcome today Penny Shincariol, Gus Mancini and Angi Tippett. There are two support services attendants available to provide assistance to anyone who wishes it; today I would like to welcome Jackie Hudson and Frank Hamilton. The hearings today and tomorrow in Toronto are being broadcast live on the parliamentary channel available on cable TV. Also, for the first time these hearings are being Webcast live on the Legislative Assembly Web site at www.ontla.on.ca. Our other hearings will be shown as a delayed broadcast and Webcast. Niagara Falls will be available on Friday, February 4; London will be on Saturday, February 5; Thunder Bay will be on Wednesday, February 9; and Ottawa will be shown on Thursday, February 10, 2005. We welcome you all to these public hearings. MINISTRY
OF CITIZENSHIP The Chair: We can proceed with the first order of business, the technical briefing by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. I ask that you come forward and introduce yourselves for the purposes of Hansard, please. Ms. Katherine Hewson: Good morning. I'm Katherine Hewson, acting deputy minister at the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. Ms. Cherith Muir: I'm Cherith Muir. I'm the manager of the legislative project for Bill 118. Mr. David Lillico: David Lillico, legal branch, Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. The Chair: Thank you. Please proceed. Ms. Hewson: Good morning. I'm pleased to provide you with a technical briefing this morning. There are some materials that I believe were handed out, which look like this, if you care to follow along. The purpose of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act is to benefit all Ontarians by achieving accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities by developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards on or before January 1, 2025. The standards must be in the following areas: goods, services and facilities; accommodation; employment; buildings, structures and premises. The bill also provides for the involvement of persons with disabilities, industries and sectors, and the government of Ontario in developing standards. There is involvement through standards development committees, through municipal advisory committees, through standards advisory councils and through public consultation requirements. As you will see in sections 4 and 5, the act applies to any organization to which a standard applies. Accessibility standards in subsection 6(3) can apply to every person or organization in the public or private sectors in Ontario: those who provide "goods, services or facilities to the public;" those who employ "persons in Ontario;" those who offer "accommodation to the public;" those who own or occupy "a building, structure or premises that is open to the public;" or those who are "engaged in a prescribed business, activity or undertaking" or who meet "other requirements as may be prescribed." The purpose of this is to provide for very broad coverage and to cover all things that are available to the public in order for services, goods and physical premises to be accessible to people with all disabilities. In addition, the act binds the crown, which you will see in section 5. One of the main purposes of the act is to develop accessibility standards. The standards are provided for in section 6. As you can see, accessibility standards would require a standard to set out measures for the identification and removal and prevention of barriers "with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures...." So the requirements would be in the standard. In addition, the standard would require actions to be carried out by persons or organizations to remove or prevent those barriers that are preventing accessibility. A person or an organization can be subject to more than one accessibility standard. Accessibility standards would apply to all persons or organizations who are identified in the standard. The application of an accessibility standard "may be general or specific" and "may be limited as to time and place"; that is in subsection 8. The standards would be established by regulation through a general regulation process. On page 5 of the slide deck, you'll see that accessibility standards requirements may vary according to "different classes of persons or organizations." The statute as proposed is very broad around what could be a class, so it could be any number of criteria, and there are some that are specifically provided for in the statute: the number of people employed by a person or organization; the annual revenue of the organization; the type of industry; the size of the buildings, structures or premises. This is a recognition in the statute that it may be more appropriate to subject large organizations to different requirements than small organizations, and this allows some flexibility within the statute to provide for different classes. An accessibility standard may define a class as one person or organization or as including or excluding a person or organization that has the same or different characteristics, so there is quite a broad range of ability to differentiate in classes. On page 6, we talk about the standards development committees. There is a very participatory process that is provided for in the proposed legislation. One of the ways of participating is through the appointment of standards development committees. The minister would establish the committees that would be responsible for the development of accessibility standards. The committees would also have the responsibility of defining and further clarifying the organizations or individuals that are considered to be part of a sector. The minister would fix "terms of reference" for each committee that would include deadlines to be met through "the various stages of the standards development process." In this way, the standards development committees could be required to meet specific timelines for each part of their processes. Before appointing a committee, the minister must consult with ministers who are responsible for a certain sector. This is intended to provide for inclusivity across government and to make sure that the ministries that have a relationship with the sector are advising the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and are participating as well. The minister, in consultation with other key ministers, would invite the following people or organizations to participate in standards development committees: persons with disabilities or their representatives, representatives of the industries or sectors of the economy to which the accessibility standard is intended to apply, and representatives of ministries that have responsibilities related to the industries or sectors that are identified in the accessibility standard. In this way, we ensure that persons with disabilities, the sectors themselves and government ministries that have responsibilities are all included in the standards development process. The minister could also invite members of the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council to participate in the standards development process. Finally, section 12 provides that the minister may appoint experts, if she wishes, to advise the standards development committees. These could be experts in various technical aspects who could provide their advice and help to the committees. Section 9 of the bill deals with the standards development process. The standards are developed in accordance with the act and with the terms of reference, which are issued by the minister. The standards development process would include, first of all, the determination of long-term accessibility standards, provided for in subsection 9(2). It is provided that the standards development committee would promptly move to develop these long-term objectives. Secondly, the standards development process includes the implementation of standards in increments of five years or less. The committees would prioritize which requirements should be implemented within the first five years after the committee is established and then what should be done in the subsequent five-year chunks to meet the objectives. The development of the time frames would take a variety of things into account. First of all, it would look at the range of disabilities that would be accommodated. Secondly, it would look at the nature of the barriers to accommodation: What things need to be identified? Which barriers need to be removed and prevented? Finally, it would look at the technical or economic considerations associated with the implementation of each standard. In this way, the standards development committee can balance and identify the priority needs and the economic and technical impacts of moving to prevent or remove barriers. Once the committee had completed that work, the committee would propose accessibility standards to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The minister would then make the proposed standards available for public comment for a 45-day or other time period, as specified by the minister. This would be done by making the proposed standards available on the ministry Web site -- or in some other way, but one would expect that it would be through posting them on the ministry Web site. There would be the 45-day or other period in which organizations or persons could provide comments about the proposed standards. After that, the committee would take that information from the public into account and decide whether to modify the proposed standard. Once they had modified it, they would provide the modified standard to the minister, and then the minister would take that and consider it through the government regulation-making process. So after the proposed standard, as modified, comes to the minister, the minister would take that to cabinet as a proposed regulation. Once it's a regulation, there are obviously requirements to comply. The standards development committees would be required to provide periodic progress reports to the minister so that she would be aware of what is going on. I think it's important to note that the minister does have responsibility in the statute for the development of standards. This is through the terms of reference she provides, the periodic reports the committee provides to her and other methods. So there is a clear accountability on the minister. Section 9 also deals with a review of standards. Within five years of the adoption of a standard by regulation, or earlier if it's specified by the minister, the standards development committees would reconvene and perform the following functions: First, they would review the long-term accessibility objectives and time frames. Second, if they needed to, they could revise the requirements to be implemented on or before January 1, 2025. So they could look at the long-term objectives and decide whether they needed to be changed in some way. Then they would develop another proposed accessibility standard with suitable additions and modifications. We would anticipate that they would take the work that was done originally and decide what more can be done in order to achieve the long-term goal of accessibility by 2025. They would submit the revised accessibility standard to the minister, again, to make it public -- the 45-day period -- and receive comments. If they decide there are changes coming out of the public consultations that needed to be made to the proposed standard, they would do that, and they would provide the minister with the subsequent proposed accessibility standard. Sections 14 and 15 deal with accessibility reports. Individuals or organizations who are subject to an accessibility standard would be required to file accessibility reports annually. The statute provides that the reports may be filed electronically, and there are provisions for electronic signatures which are similar to other statutes. The report would include a statement certifying that the information provided in the report is accurate, and a senior official of the organization or the individual preparing the report would be required to sign the certification statement. In this way, there's a senior official of the organization certifying that the report is accurate. Individuals and organizations would be required to make accessibility reports available to the public. In this way, people who are potentially affected by the compliance with standards could take a look at the report and see how the organization is doing and what it says it has done. Individuals or organizations are required to comply with accessibility standards within the time frame set by the standard. This is in section 13 of the bill. Anyone who files false or misleading information in an accessibility report or who fails to comply with an order that is made under the act would be subject to financial penalties if convicted of an offence. This would be a maximum of $50,000 per day for an individual and $100,000 per day for a corporation. In addition, if there is an obstruction of an inspector or intimidation of somebody who is providing information or doing other things that they are supposed to be doing under the act, those are also offences that can be subject to those penalties. Inspections are dealt with in section 19 of the bill. Inspectors would carry out inspections to determine whether a person or organization had complied with the act and regulations. An inspector could require the production of a document, record or other item relevant to the inspection. An inspector can also be accompanied by an expert or a person with professional knowledge to assist in carrying out the inspection. So if there was a particular need, for example, for someone with building expertise that the inspector himself or herself did not have, that person could accompany the inspector. Section 21 deals with the enforcement of the act. Subsection 21(1) says the director can order that an "organization be treated as being part of" an industry or sector and that two or more organizations be treated as one ... organization" if they are organized with the intent or really with the effect of defeating the purpose of the act. This takes into account the fact that there could be differentiating standards, depending on the size of the organization, for example. The inspector can say, "That organization really is one organization, not two organizations, and therefore is covered by the more stringent requirements of the act." A director can issue compliance orders against a person or organization in the following situations: If the person or organization has failed to comply with an accessibility standard or regulation, then that order can be made; secondly, the order can be made if the person or organization fails to file a report or provide other information. The bill is really predicated on the organizations themselves providing information through reports. So it's important for the inspector to be able to order the report to be completed. A director may make an order to comply with the standard or regulation within a specified time, to file an accessibility report that complies with the act or to pay an administrative penalty. Section 23 provides that if the person fails to pay an administrative penalty, that order can be filed with the court and can be collected as if it were an order of the court. Administrative penalties are provided for three basic reasons in the act: First of all, to encourage compliance with the act; secondly, to prevent a person or organization from deriving economic benefit from non-compliance with the act; and third, to recover the cost of enforcement. In subsection 40(2), there are regulation-making authorities to deal with administrative penalties. On page 15 of the slide deck, you'll see that there are requirements on the director before he or she issues an order under the act, and these are just basic fairness requirements. First of all, a director would be required to provide notice to a person or organization before issuing an order, and the notice would have to include some basic information so the person knows what the implications, potentially, of the order would be: first of all, the nature of the order proposed by the director; second, the right of the individual or organization to make written submissions explaining the alleged failure to comply; and third, the deadline for making written submissions, which is 30 days under subsection 22(3), or could be according to whatever is provided in the notice. But the usual would be 30 days. Sections 26, 27 and 28 deal with appeals and mediation. In section 26, the Lieutenant Governor in Council designates one or more tribunals for the purposes of this act. A person or organization subject to a director's order has the right to appeal that order to the designated tribunal. The parties to an appeal would be the person or organization who made the appeal, the director who made the order and any other person or organization the tribunal deems necessary for the proper conduct of the hearing. So there is discretion left to the tribunal to allow other parties if it is appropriate for the proper conduct of the hearing. The tribunal would normally hold a written hearing; that is, unless they're satisfied that there's good reason to hear oral submissions. Upon hearing the matter, the tribunal could confirm, vary or rescind the order of the director. The tribunal could make attempts to effect a settlement of all or part of the appeal matter by mediation, with the consent of the parties. As you probably know, mediation is very often an effective alternative dispute mechanism for litigious matters. So we have provided for that for the designated tribunal. Section 33 deals with incentive agreements. If it is deemed to be in the public interest, the minister can enter into an incentive agreement with a person or organization if they agree to exceed the standards. The purpose of this is there are many organizations, we know, that are real leaders in accessibility; they will meet the standards that are provided for through the process in the bill, and this provides an opportunity through a contract, basically, with the minister to agree to do more. There can be benefits to that. One benefit can be that the organization may be exempted from doing the annual reports or may have different reporting schedules provided. There can be other benefits, but they are not specifically provided for in the draft legislation. It's important to note that these agreements really take on legal responsibilities and requirements. So, if the person or organization entering into the agreement with the minister does not comply with the terms of the agreement, that could be treated as non-compliance with the act and all of the processes in the act could be applied to that person or organization. As I mentioned, there can be specific exemptions from the legislation that can be part of the agreement, both around reporting and providing other information, documents or reports. The exemptions granted by the minister in these cases would be limited to the period of time specified in the incentive agreement. There are some administrative bodies created by the bill. First of all, section 29 continues the accessibility advisory committees that were created under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. This is a requirement on municipalities to have accessibility advisory committees where the majority of members are persons with disabilities. The functions of the municipal advisory committees would include advising municipal councils about the requirements and implementation of accessibility standards and the preparation of accessibility reports. So they would be continued and they would have ongoing responsibilities around the standards and the reports. Section 31 establishes the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council. This would be a council of persons, the majority of whom would be persons with disabilities, and they would be responsible for advising the minister on the accessibility standards development process and the progress that's being made by the standards development committees. They would provide advice on accessibility reports, public information, public education and other matters. Section 32 provides for the continuation of the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario. This also is a body that was created under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. Under the proposed act, the directorate would be continued with the following additional functions. They would be supporting the standards development process, conducting research and public education on the act and on accessibility issues, and supporting and consulting with the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council. Section 39 is something that I think needs to be pointed out. It is a section that deals with conflict with other legislation. It's possible that there would be different requirements coming from different pieces of legislation that would deal with accessibility in some way. Under the proposed bill, if an accessibility standard conflicts with any other act or regulations, the provision that provides the highest level of accessibility for persons with disabilities would prevail. In this way, we are ensuring that persons with disabilities benefit from the highest amount of accessibility, and this act or standards would not take away existing rights to accessibility. Section 41 provides for the repeal of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. The repeal could take place section by section, and this is intended in order to provide for an orderly transition from the planning requirements that are currently the case in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, to the new requirements for compliance with accessibility standards which will take place once the accessibility standards are in place under this act. That's the end of what I had proposed as a technical briefing. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. There are 55 minutes available for questioning, and we are going to try to split it evenly in three ways. I would ask, if the Conservative Party has any questions, to proceed, please. Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Katherine, welcome. A couple of initial questions: You're the same team that's been operating since 2001, as I recall, having worked with you as the then minister, and you've been responsible for Bill 125 and the transition to the draft of Bill 118. Is that correct? Mr. Jackson: I'm going to flip between the two pieces of legislation, because one is the current law, from whence the new law springs. So my first question has to do with the proclamation of the specific section dealing with compliance that leads to penalties for those organizations that do not file their accessibility plans. Has that section been proclaimed? Mr. Jackson: Is there a reason why you have not proclaimed that two and a half years after the legislation? Ms. Hewson: My understanding is that the government undertook the consultations with respect to strengthening the Ontarians with Disabilities Act and, as a result of those consultations, which were quite widespread, they decided that they wanted to take a different approach with standards and, given that, did not choose to proceed with proclaiming the offences section under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. Mr. Jackson: So you do concur with the fact that Bill 125 did deal with setting standards at a municipal level and that the vehicle through which that -- this is what you just indicated to me -- Mr. Jackson: Let me finish, and then I'll let you answer. The point I'm trying to stress here is that we do not have accessibility plans from all those groups required under the legislation. So by not proclaiming the penalty section, a $50,000 penalty to a municipality that refuses to either have an accessibility committee or have a plan, that section is about to be repealed and there isn't a replacement section in your Bill 118. Clearly, both sets of legislation call for the creation of these, but the only penalty section that I find in your legislation is the one dealing with failure of compliance at the end of the process of setting standards. So, at the outset, I'm concerned that there is a whole host of municipalities -- there may even be some ministries; there may be a public institution, whether it be a hospital or a university or a school board -- that has not filed its plan and has not embraced the principle that not only exists in Bill 125 but, we've been led to believe, will also be embraced in Bill 118. The pure empowerment of this model, which I'll get to later, seems to have a better end game for the disabled community, but I have some concerns about the process in between, because we've pulled the teeth out of the empowerment model the way it's currently structured. But I want to stay focused on the issue of the penalty section which has not been proclaimed and, therefore, the only penalty is at the very end of the process when there's non-compliance. And then there's a whole arbitration and mediation process, which we'll get into. So perhaps you can just advise me, how do we guarantee that we will get accessibility plans from all of these people, which are required in the original legislation? Ms. Hewson: I think perhaps the best way of trying to answer that is by comparing the two pieces of legislation. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, provides that certain organizations -- municipalities, transit providers, school boards, universities etc. -- must develop accessibility plans. There is an offence provision in that act, which has not been proclaimed, that provides that it is an offence punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 if the organization does not do a plan. Mr. Jackson: You can't do a plan without a committee, in the case of municipalities. Ms. Hewson: Smaller municipalities can. Mr. Jackson: Yes, under 10,000, but let's stay with the core responsibility in this legislation. Ms. Hewson: Large municipalities must have an accessibility advisory committee and must develop an accessibility act -- Mr. Jackson: By Bill 125. We do not have that absolute requirement. Let me get to the real point of this: Under the law today, every single cabinet minister and every minister of a government is required by law to publicly file. Under your legislation, they will not be required to do that. We're going to get into this with the minister and we're going to get into this with the public, but the fact of the matter is, the level of government that can most afford to make Ontario fully accessible is the Ontario government. It's argued that those other public institutions that rely on the provincial government for their funding have less of a propensity to make Ontario fully accessible. So if the very seat of government gets a bye out of this legislation and does not have to file accessibility reports by ministry, and if each minister is responsible, with their funding base, to make their ministries fully accessible -- in other words, how are we then going to ensure that the public generally is able to reach those benchmarks? You've confirmed for me that nothing in Bill 118 impels a ministry to file an accessibility plan. Ms. Hewson: There is a change from a planning regime to a standards regime. Mr. Jackson: A yes-or-no answer is what's required, Katherine. You and I know that that's your -- Ms. Hewson: What is required will be for the government to comply with any standards that are applicable to it. Mr. Jackson: Set by a standards committee, but it doesn't set the same standard for a ministry to be working on accessibility, in the way in which we're calling upon municipalities to do the same thing. This is a question of principle and one of process as well. But fundamentally, I'm offended by the notion that we're allowing ministries to catch a bye. Here I have in front of me all of the accessibility plans for the province of Ontario and for each of the ministries. Now, I'm going to raise this with the minister later on, but the Attorney General's plan talks about reducing its budget and its financial capital commitments for new courthouses in the province of Ontario. That is their plan. Now, the only way the public is aware of this, the only way that we in government, regardless of which political party we're in, know this is because it forces a government to be held to a standard of accountability and to declare publicly where it is or is not making the commitment. I don't think our courthouses need to wait 20 years in order for a committee to set up standards for courthouses 20 years down the road, when in fact the ministry, with the money it has -- and we'll build many new courthouses in the next 20 years -- shouldn't be making them fully accessible as quickly as possible. Yet I have an act which says that they should file a report and be moving toward full accessibility. Let me ask you a second question: Have you done any regulations in the more than three years since Bill 125 was approved? Have you done any regulations at all that are called for in that legislation? Mr. Jackson: OK. So you've been the accessibility directorate called for in the legislation. You're still the accessibility directorate being called for in the new government's legislation, Bill 118. Yet you've been there three years without setting any of the regulations that are required to guide not only municipalities but all transfer agencies that are called for in the legislation, and you haven't done a single regulation to help advance the concerns that were called for in the legislation. Ms. Hewson: We have not passed any regulations. For the past year, I would say, the government has been undertaking consultations around what the disability community, the business community and others think needs to happen with the legislation. Since then, there has been a focus, I think, on developing Bill 118. Mr. Jackson: Have you been instructed that all forward progress with the given law of this province is to stop? Mr. Jackson: Yet I have evidence that you are not doing -- all right, let me ask you another question. Can you inform this committee of all those municipalities and transfer agencies in our province that have not filed their plans and are in non-compliance? Ms. Hewson: There is no requirement in Bill 125, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, for municipalities to provide their plans to the government, so I am not able to say that. Mr. Jackson: It's public. Are you telling me that you're not even monitoring the fact that the act calls for it to be public? Ms. Hewson: Staff are monitoring, however -- Mr. Jackson: Do you have the list? Ms. Hewson: I don't have it with me, but we can certainly provide what we have. Mr. Jackson: But it would appear that you're not even monitoring the performance under the existing legislation. Much of the disability community has said that 20 years is far too long. They waited for a long time to get a disability act; they got one, and now, a little over three years later, we're seeing no progress from the government side in terms of advancing the principles and the law that were put in place with Bill 125. I want to ask you a couple of questions, because I know I'm going to run out of time fairly soon. When we had our technical briefing on November 15, you were unable to tell any member of this committee how many different committees you have in place. Have you begun the work on drafting the terms of reference and the number of committees that will be required under this legislation? Ms. Hewson: No. That would be premature until the Legislature passes this legislation. Mr. Jackson: I don't think that is necessarily the fact. If you're going to cost this legislation, you need to determine at least the basics of some of the committees that are going to be required. Have you not put your mind around any of this? Did none of this come out of the consultation? Ms. Hewson: The specifics of how to set up the standards development committees and which ones need to be established first are still under development. Mr. Jackson: So since your minister declared her desire to revamp this almost a year ago, you still have no plan or draft plan in place to deal with the standards committee, the regulations that will govern them, the membership of them, the areas of involvement there will be with both the public and private sector and its impact, either financially or otherwise? Ms. Hewson: We have some work underway. However, we feel it is important for the Legislature to look at this bill. There may be changes that come out of the legislative process, and we will be developing implementation plans in due course. We have, of course, started to work with other organizations that have expertise in standards, such as the Canadian Standards Association, to learn from them and to be in a position to quickly move to implement this bill if the Legislature passes it. Mr. Jackson: So we don't have the committee number down pat; we don't know the composition; we'll have to go through a process of developing the terms of reference, going out and asking the public if they would like to participate, and then appointing them and training them. What is your best guess? Will it take a year, a year and a half, to get those off the ground and running? Ms. Hewson: No, I wouldn't think it would take that long. I'm not prepared to give a specific amount of time, however there is work that will be done and will continue to be done as the Legislature continues its work on this bill. Mr. Jackson: The reason I raise that is that the legislation is specific about from the time the committee is formed -- you know the section I'm referring to. If that's three or four years from now, and then you start your five-year cycle, something as simple as banning all unaccessible curb treatments in subdivisions in Ontario may be seven or eight years away. My question is, how is it that you give the committees, according to the legislation, up to five years from the first time the committee is constituted and therefore able to function? That could potentially be, as I say, about eight years down the road. Ms. Hewson: No, Mr. Jackson. The way it would work is that the committee would establish the requirements and the time frames for complying with those requirements for the first five years. The time frames could be before the five years are up, and that will be up to the committee to decide. Then, after a maximum of five years -- it could be earlier -- the committee has to reconvene to establish the next five-year requirements. Mr. Jackson: You mentioned the word "reconvene," and that doesn't show up in any previous briefings, nor does it show in the legislation. You've sufficiently done work in regulations to determine that once the committee has done its work, it will, in a sense, be put on hold until it's called upon in the next five-year segment. I have concerns about the fact that no work has been done in this area, and it's critical. The reason it's critical is more than just the composition. I think a simple majority is not sufficient. I think a two-thirds majority of disabled persons -- if I had to do it over again, that's what I'd do, because it's sufficient for the private sector with special interests to put one of their employees who's disabled on, whose interests may or may not be in the best interests of the disability sector generally but of their corporation specifically. Therefore, I will be proposing amendments to make sure that the composition of all the standards committees is two thirds persons with disabilities, and that will accommodate specifically even civil servants who will be sitting on these boards -- if you put disabled civil servants on, they can protect their ministry perhaps more than they can protect the disability agenda. I have a lot more questions, Mr. Chairman. I will raise those during the course of the hearings over the next two weeks, and with the minister. To be fair, I think the legislation does require some major adjustment, but I would hope that -- one last question, and this is a short question. The Chair: Mr. Jackson, you just went over. Thank you for that. Maybe Ms. Martel will ask some questions you may have. Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Thank you for being here this morning. I appreciate the briefing. I've had a chance to read a few of the briefs that have been put together in advance of the public hearings starting, so the questions I'm raising come from my reading. They are questions that I agree with, actually. The first question I have has to do with the purpose clause of the bill. ARCH in particular has pointed out that a purpose clause in any bill -- and this is correct; we know this as legislators -- is to really set out the vision statement. You want to make sure that vision statement is very clear, because if there is any kind of court challenge, the courts would be looking to the purpose clause to really determine what the government was intending. What they pointed out was that the purpose, as it appears in the bill, is to benefit all Ontarians, which is fine. But I think the purpose is really to do away with discrimination. This is what this bill should be all about. I agree with them that the purpose clause, as it stands, is not strong enough in terms of pointing out that it's the government's intention to have legislation that stops discrimination and that that should be very clearly referenced in the purpose clause. Can you tell me how the ministry ended up with the purpose clause that it did, and are you open to an amendment that would clearly state that this legislation is anti-discrimination legislation? That's the point of it, and that's how it should be judged if it's ever challenged in court. Ms. Hewson: I don't think I can comment on what the government ultimately will be open to. I think the hearings will be very helpful in making that case. Certainly the genesis of this is anti-discrimination. However, we have the Ontario Human Rights Code, which provides for complaints against discrimination, and we don't want to set up a duplicate process. I take your point that certainly this is social justice legislation that would need to be interpreted broadly by the courts in order to achieve its purpose. It does have a background, if you will, in anti-discrimination, and I think that the words you'll see around barriers will help make that point, because those are the kinds of things that are dealt with in other rights legislation. I don't know that I can give you a complete answer at this point. Certainly I imagine that the government would look forward to hearing further discussion about proposals around the purpose. Ms. Martel: From my perspective, while the legislation may reference barriers in other sections, I think the purpose clause really needs to be very specific. Yes, the act is to benefit all Ontarians. But frankly the act is to benefit those Ontarians who have been left out, and that should be the driving force. However we can change the purpose clause to make sure that is the driving force and that the intent of the bill is very clear at the outset, then I think we should be looking for that kind of language. I hope the ministry and the minister are going to be open to that. Secondly, there are two definitions that do not appear. I found that funny, because there are very specific terms defined, such as "barrier" and "disability." But "accessibility" is a term that's not defined, and "services" is also not defined. It seems to me that people, as they start their work, are going to need some clear idea of the government's intention with respect to what it thinks accessibility is, what those services are, and they should or could be defined. Can you give me some sense of why some terms are identified in the legislation and others are not? Ms. Hewson: The first thing I would say is that there is a specific regulation-making authority. Clause 40(1)(q) provides for a regulation-making authority to define the terms "accessibility" and "services." Those terms are fairly broad in nature, and so it was thought it may be useful, given that this is really broad-based legislation and something that hasn't been tried before in many cases, to have some flexibility in defining those terms. Ms. Martel: We all know that it's much better to have it in the law. The regulation is not as powerful -- it doesn't have as much authority -- and as much of this as you can put in the actual act itself would be my preference. I think there are far too many sections in the bill that are left to regulation-making, which I think we should spend some time trying to move into actual legislation. ARCH points out that in fact the Human Rights Commission does have a discussion of the word "services" in its guide to the Human Rights Code, and it seems to be quite an extensive list, as I look at it. They also make a recommendation that "services" be defined. I'm wondering if the ministry looked at the definition of "services" that's already set out by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in its human rights guide. What was the problem with using that definition of "services," especially if the Human Rights Commission, with some support from the disability community, you would think, has already accepted that definition? Ms. Hewson: We did look at it, but we thought, given the fact this is going be broad-ranging legislation dealing with a whole variety of organizations, employers and service providers, that having some flexibility to define it in regulation was the better way. Ms. Martel: But wouldn't the Ontario Human Rights Commission be worried about doing the same thing? It would be in their interest, and I would think it's part of their mandate, to be defining those terms, with respect to their own mandate, in the broadest possible way as well, so they would already have considered a variety of organizations to be included. Ms. Hewson: Their mandate is very broad, and so their definition is going to be very broad. Our legislation is at an early stage, really, and it may well go in the same direction as the Human Rights Commission's definition, but there may be some specific things that need to be adjusted. That's why we thought it was preferable to put it in the regulation. Ms. Martel: I'm sure that ARCH will be coming before the committee, and they can probably make their case more powerfully than I can. But we've got some other words that I think one might consider to be difficult to put in legislation that's already defined. I think, with another round of that, we can probably find some definitions the majority can live with. I think we need to have that in the legislation and not in the regulation-making section. This has to do with the minister making regulations establishing accessibility standards. If I'm reading this correctly, Section 6(1) says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations establishing accessibility standards." That's a bit contrary to what we're doing here. You're setting up the committees, whose work is going to be to develop the standards and to bring them to the minister, they go out for public input and they come back. I'm not sure why you're using permissive legislation. It should say, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall," to make it very clear that that's what is going to happen and that the work all these folks do is not going to be for naught. Why did you use "may" instead of "shall"? Ms. Hewson: My understanding is that it is difficult to constrain the Lieutenant Governor in Council to do something in legislation. However, it is certainly intended that regulations would be passed. Ms. Martel: I know what the intent is, but I'm looking at what the bill says. Legal counsel, can you give me a clear explanation as to what constraint may or may not be on the LGIC? I've got to assume that in some other statute somewhere it says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall"; I can't imagine that we only ever use "may" with respect to what the Lieutenant Governor in Council can do. Mr. Lillico: I don't know of another statute that provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council "shall" make regulations. Subsections 6(1) and (2) provide that the LGIC "may" make regs, and that when that happens, they shall have a specified content. I think that's the more usual procedure. Another issue that arises is that if the section said, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall make regulations establishing accessibility standards," then the Lieutenant Governor in Council would be out of compliance with the law if one moment in time passed between that provision coming into force and the first standard coming into force. Of course, it wouldn't be possible to do that, because the standard cannot come into force until the entire standards development committee process has taken place: The committee has met, they've made a recommendation to the minister, it has been put on the Web site for 45 days, it comes back to the minister etc. So as a matter of law, the first standard cannot come into force at the same time that the provision comes into force. If it said that the LGIC "shall" make regs establishing standards, then the LGIC would be out of compliance with the law, and there's no legal way around that. Ms. Martel: Does the same thing happen if you say "minister" instead of "LGIC"? You're changing by regulation, so it's a little tougher. Mr. Lillico: The standard can't come into force except by regulation, and the regulation cannot be made until the process of establishing the committee -- going through sections 8 and 9, that were referred to earlier -- has taken place: The committee has met and come up with the recommendations etc. Ms. Martel: For your consideration, Mr. Jackson is going to put on the record a way that you might get around that. Mr. Jackson: David, is it not possible to state within the time frame of the bill, since the bill says that we shall reach a level of compliance by the year 2025 -- so we have an end date -- that we shall make regulations in accordance with or that flow from the work of the standards committee? I've seen that in legislation over my 20 years at Queen's Park. Instead of making it general, which I guess Shelley and I are accepting to a degree, make it specific, which I've seen in legislation, instead of all-encompassing. The act clearly sets out the progression of the evolution of the standards, but at the end point the standards have to come into regs. It doesn't even see, say, which ones or from which number of committees. It just says that once you get the standards, they shall be put into regulations. Given what we just asked about the lack of regulations in three and a half years, I think it's important. The Chair: Is there an answer to the question? Mr. Jackson: That was a question to David. Mr. Lillico: We can consider that from a drafting point of view. Ms. Martel: OK. I'd appreciate that. I have a question about the section on tribunals. As I read it, there certainly is an opportunity for there to be more than one tribunal established. I wondered why the ministry would not have a single specialized tribunal, with the majority of participants being representatives of the disabled community, to deal with situations that arise from this legislation. I think what you want here is a panel, if I can describe it, which would have some very specific expertise and a body of knowledge that would be helpful to make standards to deal with complaints etc. over the period of time that all of these are to go into effect. We have a very long time frame -- too long, in my opinion -- for the standards to be established. Instead of using a single tribunal with very clear expertise, with a majority of representatives being from the disabled community, why was there a decision made to pick and choose, have a tribunal here, have a tribunal there, where you may lose some of that expertise? Ms. Hewson: The provision that allows for a designated tribunal gives a lot of flexibility. So there could be a specific tribunal or there could be a use of existing tribunals, where they have the expertise, where the subject matter is more closely aligned to the kinds of things the tribunal is currently dealing with. It leaves it fairly open, but there are opportunities to provide that requirement to whichever tribunal is the most appropriate. Ms. Martel: Can you tell me, because I honestly don't know, what would be the tribunals that you see already in place that could logically deal with some of the issues that are going to arise here? You're talking about the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Ms. Hewson: That certainly could be one. Ms. Martel: OK. Can I raise a concern? Right now it takes people three, four or five years to get complaints through the Ontario Human Rights Commission and through the tribunal. This is a process that is not working in Ontario. As supportive as I am, it is not working. So to look to additional responsibilities for an existing tribunal where there is a long wait list is not an option for me. I would much prefer that we look at establishing a separate tribunal that has no wait list before it, whose particular expertise would be in dealing with this bill and everything that flows from it. Is the ministry open to considering that? I think your other option is one that's just not going to work. Ms. Hewson: I think the fact that it is a designated tribunal means the ministry is open to a variety of possibilities. So I would imagine that the ministry is very open. However, I would just like to point out to you that you can only get to the human rights tribunal itself if you've been through the Ontario Human Rights Commission. That would not necessarily be the case here if the human rights tribunal were a designated tribunal. Ms. Martel: But even for the cases it's dealing with right now there's a long delay. To give you an example, there are a number of parents of autistic children before the tribunal now. They've been there for over a year and there is no end in sight. I'm not blaming anyone; I'm just saying that is the reality of what we're dealing with at the tribunal. Ms. Hewson: The only thing I just wanted to point out is that there is a process of investigation and so on at the commission before it does reach the tribunal, and we wouldn't be dealing with that. The Chair: There is one minute left. Ms. Martel: With respect to what the tribunal can do, I don't see a lot of guarantee about public access. First of all, I don't really see where there is an opportunity for people to make complaints if they are concerned about an accessibility standard -- not an organization to which the standard has been applied, but persons who are concerned that a standard may not be stringent enough or may not be implemented properly. I don't see much room for them at the tribunal, because the tribunal seems to be a place where you go to deal with an order. What is the mechanism for public input around complaints that accessibility is just not being achieved in a timely fashion, be it in one sector or another? Where do people have a chance to fit in here and have their complaints reviewed, investigated in a very serious manner, and adjudicated? Ms. Hewson: There is no individual complaints process provided for in the bill. Individuals who believe they have been discriminated against under the Human Rights Code can go to the Human Rights Commission. However, this bill is proactive in nature, with standards that have to be complied with, so the organization that is required to comply with the standard must do so. It must provide its report to the public, so there is public access to information there. It must file its report with the government, and there can be an inspection. So somebody who felt the organization was not, for example, complying with the standard could first of all go to the organization itself based on the report and say, "You say that you are doing X, but here we see that you are not doing it. Therefore, you should do it." That's one mechanism. It is not a legal complaints mechanism. The second mechanism would be to indicate to the inspector, and that may be a reason to audit the organization or to inspect it. But you're quite correct in that there is no individual complaints mechanism. There are many opportunities for people to be involved; for example, there is the public consultation process for the standards themselves. There are municipal advisory committees. There are other mechanisms as well for public consultation. Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Thank you very much for the briefing. I just want to talk to you with respect to section 1 of the act, the one that deals with accessibility standards. You've got them listed here. Does transportation fall under one of these? Mr. Craitor: In order for me to grasp how this act functions, let me just run by you a situation that we have. I'm the member who represents Niagara Falls; I cover Thorold and Niagara-on-the-Lake, so I want to understand how this act would benefit people with disabilities from that area. In that area, we have a number of communities, including Welland, Pelham, Wainfleet, so there is a large geographic area that has to be covered for people who have disabilities when they want to access services. It could be dialysis services, going to Brock University, going to Niagara College: There's a large area that they have to move around in. Within the region, municipalities do have disability committees. I was a city councillor, and we had one in Niagara Falls; so do a number of the other communities. Then, within the region, there's a regional government. They also have a disability committee. One of the issues that we have been trying to come to grips with at the regional levels is, how do we set up within the region an inter-municipal transportation system so that people throughout the region would have access to moving around and getting the services they need? Watching the process back within the region, it seems that the communities and the representatives who sit on regional government and speak on behalf of their communities can't seem to buy in collectively to this concept. So in some municipalities you have their elected officials saying, "Good idea," and you have others saying, "No." Having said all of that to you, how would this act play into that so that there would be an onus at the regional level that they would come up with a system that would assist people with disabilities so they can move around throughout the entire region? Ms. Hewson: The act would provide for the development of specific standards, and the standards in transit -- well, let me back up. The first thing that would happen would be that there'd be a standards development committee that the minister would appoint, and that would be in the area, let's say, of transit. So there would be representatives of people with disabilities, there would probably be transit providers and likely municipal people as well -- so people representing the sector that is going to be regulated -- and, third, probably people from the Ministry of Transportation and maybe the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Those people would develop a long-term vision for accessibility. So, if you were to achieve accessibility in the transportation sector, what would it mean? They would identify what the long-term goals are. Once they do that, they would look at what is achievable in the first five years, what is technically feasible, they would look at the economics, the opportunities for transit investment, and they would come up with standards, probably in four main areas: (1) physical accessibility; (2) customer service; (3) communications; and (4) employment. But there may be other things as well that you need to address to get to accessibility in that sector. So they would come up with standards -- specific outcomes that all providers of transit would have to achieve within five years. That doesn't specifically require transit providers to come together to create one transit organization, but it does create the obligation on each of those providers to meet those standards, and they may find it is more efficient and effective to band together in order to do that. Mr. Craitor: I'm not really feeling comfortable with what you just said. You're telling me that five years -- we have all these groups that have already gone through this process locally and they know what the issues and the needs are. So they're going to start all over again? Ms. Hewson: There are planning requirements now under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. Transit providers have that obligation to provide an annual plan. There aren't specific outcomes that are required, but there are areas they have to look at. So those planning requirements will continue to be the law until there are standards in place, at which point that part of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, would be repealed and then kind of replaced with the standards. Mr. Craitor: Is there a faster process within this legislation than what you just told me, five years? Ms. Hewson: Yes. The five years is within the standards development processes in the bill. Mr. Craitor: How do you expedite it for something that's been discussed for years in the Niagara region? Ms. Hewson: Well, the minister sets out terms of reference for the committee, and she could indicate to the committee that they needed to come up with something earlier. But remember, these will be standards that will apply across the province. Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that if a particular organization or sector wants to move more quickly, that's where the incentive agreements come into play. They can actually jump over some of the administrative requirements if they move more quickly. Ms. Wynne: So that would expedite the process that Mr. Craitor was talking about. Ms. Hewson: Yes, and that's a legislative part. That's absolutely right. Ms. Wynne: I have a couple of questions. One of them comes out of a meeting I had in my riding last week on this legislation. The discussion was not so much about the standards -- I want to ask you about the move from a planning to a standards regime -- but about the setting of the sectors, the determination of what the sectors were going to be. It was a question I didn't have a good answer for. So my question is in two parts. The role of the ASAC, the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council, and the Accessibility Directorate -- first of all, what's the difference between the roles of those two bodies in terms of the standards committees? And, related to that, how are the sectors -- because we can talk about transportation, but are there particular disability areas that will be sectors? How are those sectors going to be determined? I expect that's not finalized yet, but -- Ms. Hewson: Let me try to deal with what a sector is. A sector is not a specific disability, it is a sector of the economy. So it could be hospitality, it could be transit, it could be municipalities. It's a group of service providers -- I can't think of another term for it -- that will have the same kinds of accessibility issues. So you can imagine that hotels might have the same kinds of accessibility issues; municipalities would. You're right. There is some work that we're working on now but we don't have a perfect answer yet on what a sector is. The bill, though, knows that there are going to be different rules that could apply to different organizations, or you could be one organization and theoretically there could be different sets of rules that apply to you. That can happen and the standard-setting process will have a mechanism for determining which set of standards will apply. We're planning to do that, actually, and providing some help to organizations so that they would be able to electronically have the kinds of requirements that are going to apply to them and that could be combined even with reporting. Ms. Wynne: So the fine-tuning of the particular group of people within a sector is going to happen; it's going to be the refinement within the economic sector? It's a very tricky question because if you're talking with people who have acquired brain injury, as opposed to people who are deaf-blind, the requirements are different. The economic sector may be the same but the requirements for accessibility are going to be quite different. Ms. Hewson: That's right, and one thing I should say is that one of the first things the sector development committees will be doing is refining the idea of sector. Ms. Hewson: The other thing they'll be doing is trying to define what accessibility is in their sector, and to do that, they are going to need to look at the full range of disabilities. Ms. Wynne: Now you're talking about the disability sector. Or are you talking about the economic sector now? Ms. Hewson: The economic sector will be the standards development committees. So you'll have, let's say, people from hotels, you'll have people with disabilities and you might have the Ministry of Tourism or the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Those are the people on the standards development committees. They're looking at the hotel sector. One of the first things they will do is determine what is accessibility in the hotel sector. In order to do that, they need to take account of a full range of disabilities. Ms. Wynne: So all of those different communities are going to have to feed in from their perspective what accessibility means and then that becomes the discussion on the standards development committees. Ms. Hewson: And they can't just focus on physical disability for people. They have to recognize there is more than that. Ms. Wynne: Is there anything in this act that allows for that meta-process of feeding in from the different communities what accessibility means? Because that's almost a step back from what this legislation does. Is there anything that provides for that? Ms. Hewson: The bill itself provides a very broad definition of disability. Secondly, there are people with disabilities who will be on the standards development committees. Thirdly, the accessibility directorate, which is where you started out, will be providing a lot of work to the standards development committees. We have a number of years of experience in helping organizations plan for accessibility. In order to do that, they have to look at the full range of disabilities. So we have lots of experience within the accessibility directorate on that very issue. That can be provided. Ms. Wynne: So that's what the directorate would be doing, providing that kind of advice? Ms. Hewson: That's one of the things the directorate can do, and they can do other things. They can do public education. They can assist the standards development committees with technical information. They will also do general policy work, as well, around accessibility issues. Ms. Wynne: OK. My last question is a more global question. You had talked about moving from a planning regime to a standards regime, and it seems to me that the reason we should be celebrating this legislation is that there is a tightening up of requirements in the broader community for all people with disabilities and for accessibility in general. It's great to have a plan, but if there is no requirement to implement the plan, which it seems has been the case for the last number of years, then things are not going to get better. Can you talk about how this bill is going to move us, and what that means, planning to standards regime? Ms. Hewson: I maybe would just start by saying that the government undertook fairly broad consultations on how to strengthen the existing legislation. What they heard was that there was a lack of clarity around specific outcomes that were required because there was just a planning requirement with nothing specific about what the plans had to achieve. So there was a feeling, that was fairly generally shared, that there was uncertainty about what achievements actually had to be made and that the plans did not address that. So there was a lot of inconsistency and, as you say, there wasn't a requirement to actually implement. That was something that came out of the consultations that took place last year with, I think, over 2,000 people participating. The decision was made to move to a standards approach, recognizing that there needs to be a lot of participation by the sectors that are going to be regulated, a lot of knowledge that needs to be acquired, and a lot of harnessing of the good practices that are already out there, because many organizations go through the planning that they've done, and also the private sector, either because they have been compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act or they just believe that it's important to being accessible to people with disabilities. So there's a lot of good activity out there that can be harnessed, a need to use that to build on the good practices that have taken place and to provide more certainty and specifics, and outcomes and measurable results, rather than plans. Having said that, the planning requirements -- sorry, one other thing I should mention is, through the consultations it was noted quite a lot that the current act, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, applies only to the government of Ontario, municipalities, transportation providers, universities, school boards and hospitals. So it's to the broader public sector. There was a desire to expand that and apply it to the private sector as well. The application, the results-based focus, and the certainty were all identified as reasons to move to a standards-based approach. Ms. Wynne: Great. Thank you very much. The Chair: Mr. Fonseca, two minutes to go. Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I'll be brief. It's in regard to the range of disabilities, or that spectrum, and when it comes to disabilities that may be invisible, those that are mental health or addictions. Where does the spectrum start? How do you define that? Ms. Hewson: It's a very broad definition, and I'd just draw your attention to section 2, "disability." There are five parts to that. This is basically the same definition as in the Ontario Human Rights Code, which is a very broad definition. So it's very clear that it is both visible and invisible disabilities. It is physical disabilities, it is mental disabilities, it is sensory. It's a very broad range of disabilities. I think that is one of the things the standards development committees will have to take into account right from the beginning, that they will need to address a broad range of disabilities, and there are different activities that need to be undertaken in order to address the whole range of disabilities. Mr. Fonseca: A question about one of the industries: With the airline industry, where you go to the federal level of government, what would happen in a case like that? Ms. Hewson: This is provincial legislation, and it applies to those organizations that are subject to the provincial jurisdiction; so not airlines. The Chair: Thank you, and that terminates this part of the presentation. Ms. Martel: Mr. Chair, may I just raise a point of order? Some additional information just before we leave, because I'd like some clarification on the questions that were raised by Mr. Craitor and Ms. Wynne. Can the incentive agreements be signed before the regulations have been passed, or after? As I read your page 17, I thought that it said the incentive agreements could only be entered into after the requirements had been outlined in the regulations, which would, from my perspective, still not respond to Mr. Craitor's concerns about work already being done and how much longer the process would take as you develop standards. So you don't have to do that now, but if you can get back to the committee about this, because essentially the time frame, then, would not be shortened, and that's what I'm worried about. The Chair: Any other questions? I thank you again for your presentation. The Chair: Next is the opening statement by the minister, the Honourable Marie Bountrogianni. Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Good morning, everybody. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, today we take a momentous step for Ontario as this committee begins its review of the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. This landmark bill, which I was honoured to introduce on October 12 as the first order of business in the fall sitting, is about fairness. It is about opportunity, inclusion and empowerment, building stronger communities and a stronger economy, and making Ontario the place to be. The vision behind this bill is an inclusive Ontario. As Premier McGuinty has said, "Every Ontarian deserves the opportunity to learn, work and play to their fullest potential, and every Ontarian benefits when we tap into the potential of each Ontarian." Inclusion is not only the destination; it is the vehicle that will take us there. We have developed this bill through a participatory, inclusive process. If passed, people with disabilities and other stakeholders would have a real voice in setting accessibility standards that make a real difference. As every committee member knows, by providing full accessibility for people with disabilities, Ontario would benefit enormously: more participation in the workforce by people with disabilities; improved educational achievements by thousands of young people; a higher quality of life for citizens; more consumer spending; and an enviable reputation across Canada and around the world. With this legislation, the government proposes action to remove the barriers facing Ontarians with disabilities, whether those disabilities are visible or invisible: real, physical barriers; real technological, communications, bureaucratic barriers; and, very importantly, real attitudinal barriers. I've been told over and over again that the community is confident that this proposed legislation would finally take those barriers down. Since introducing the bill, I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of disability groups. When I visited Community Living London, I saw the wonderful work they are doing to support adults and children with intellectual disabilities. For instance, I attended the annual general meeting of the Ontario Special Olympics to salute the remarkable athletes and the dedicated volunteers and staff. I remember being so humbled that evening to assist in presenting awards to the extraordinary people involved in the Ontario Special Olympics, like the Metro Leafs floor hockey team, who won team of the year. They could teach us all a lesson in team spirit, and hearing their stories of triumph is something I will never forget. I was honoured again yesterday, in Stoney Creek, for the skating Special Olympics. These truly are the best people, pure at heart and bold in spirit. In Ottawa, I toured the Independent Living Centre. I saw first-hand how individuals are given the chance to develop skills through workshops, a library, newsletters, Internet access and other services. I also met with Disabled Persons Community Resources, which helps ensure the independence, participation and integration of people with physical disabilities. I also met with the regional municipality of Niagara accessibility advisory committee and learned about the gains the region has made to improve accessibility. In November, I toured the Canadian National Institute for the Blind's new service centre and their extraordinary and fully accessible library. On December 3, the day after Bill 118 received approval in principal in a unanimous vote at second reading, I took part in an inspiring event in Ottawa to celebrate the United Nation's International Day of Disabled Persons, hosted by the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres. All of these groups, and many more, are knocking down barriers facing people with disabilities. They are champions of ending inflexible approaches and old attitudes. All of them are leaders in the movement toward full equality, toward fairness, toward a truly inclusive society. This is the true spirit behind our proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. In the fall, the Legislature debated this proposed legislation. The debates showed how very personal the issue of accessibility is for each member. Most of us know someone who has trouble getting around physically, has vision loss, is hard of hearing, has a learning disability or mental health challenges or copes with a chronic condition. In Ontario alone, 1.5 million people with disabilities encounter barriers every day, from insurmountable curbs on the street, to telephones without volume controls, to restaurant menus in small print, to insensitive customer service. Members on all sides spoke with deep passion and emotion about the obstacles faced by their constituents, their families, their neighbours, their friends, their loved ones and, in some cases, themselves. For example, I remember Kathleen Wynne telling us about the Villatones, a group of teenagers with disabilities who came together to form a singing group that traveled across the province. They had no systematic support, couldn't go into restaurants when they traveled and had no way of entering many public buildings. They had to fight for funding to buy a van so they could do their radio shows in small towns. It is for people like the Villatones that this legislation is so essential. We all agree accessibility is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. Within 20 years, as our population ages, more than one in five Ontarians will likely have a disability, up from 13.5% today. We have to prepare for a future that is fast approaching. Many business leaders recognize the value of accessibility in terms of expanded markets for their products and services -- a market already estimated at $25 billion a year in Canada, according to a Royal Bank report. Apart from purchasing power, people with disabilities have untapped employment potential that can be developed to build a stronger economy. Our major trading partner, the United States, is moving ahead with accessibility. They're expanding their labour market and consumer market by opening up opportunities for people with disabilities. In the US hospitality industry, for example, implementing standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act increased annual revenue by 12%, according to a US General Accounting Office report. That's action on the macro level. It's happening in response to change at the micro level. For example, a theatre company in Ohio used one customer complaint about listening devices to launch a whole program of accessibility. It decided to do weekly tests of its headsets in all 100 of its theatres. It provided new maintenance training to employees. At the ticket booth, it advertised the availability of listening devices for patrons. The company also trained all its staff in customer service for people with disabilities and on the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Big change starts small. Some say accessibility sounds like a good idea, but how can we afford to do it? The answer is, we can't afford not to do it. The issues are clear. The needs are real. The potential is extraordinary. The roots of the proposed legislation now before us can be traced back 10 years. That's when a small band of 20 Ontarians with disabilities formed a committee for the purpose of making Ontario barrier-free. I'm proud that, first, as opposition members and then in office, we listened and responded. But the real credit for making this bill happen goes to those Ontarians with disabilities who pushed so hard for so long. For 10 years, they would not give up. They will never give up, nor should they. During the 1995 election campaign, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee asked all three parties to pass this kind of legislation. The Tory government said they would do it in their first term, but to the dismay of the disability community, they failed. As their first term was drawing to a close, the House demanded action. I'm referring to the resolution introduced in October 1998 by my colleague Dwight Duncan, now Minister of Energy and government House leader. This resolution called on the government to enact disability legislation based on 11 principles that had been articulated by the ODA committee. The House unanimously adopted the resolution. A few weeks later, in November 1998, the Tory government tabled the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 1998. The bill was widely rejected by the disability community. When the Legislature adjourned in the following month, it quickly died on the order paper. Finally, not after the first term but six long years later, in November 2001, the former government at last introduced and passed the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. I believe this was introduced in good faith, but it too was dismissed as ineffective by advocates for people with disabilities. In April 2003, with another election in the offing, Dalton McGuinty, as Leader of the Opposition, sent a letter to the ODA committee. He wrote that if we formed the government, we would enact a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The legislation before us is a priority for the Premier. He instructed me to make it a priority -- something I was honoured to do. In our first throne speech, shortly after forming the government, we said we would work with Ontarians with disabilities on meaningful legislation, and that's exactly what we did. From January through March 2003, my former parliamentary assistant, Dr. Kuldip Kular, and I undertook a series of consultations across the province. More than 1,000 individuals participated in seven regional public meetings, 246 stakeholder representatives took part in 14 round tables, and a live Web-cast for students with disabilities registered about 2,000 viewer hits. All these sessions, of course, were fully accessible to persons with disabilities. As well, countless individuals spoke to me to express their personal hopes, their practical suggestions and their unwavering determination to build a truly inclusive Ontario. In these consultations, people with disabilities told us that we should listen to their needs, their aspirations, their ideas, their dreams. That is what we have tried to do in developing the proposed new accessibility legislation. Ontarians with disabilities urged us to address the need to respond to the full range of disabilities, both visible and invisible; the need to fully include the private sector as well as the public sector in the legislation; the need for strong enforcement measures; and the absolute imperative of enabling people with disabilities to be ongoing partners in shaping the policies that affect their lives. As we met with communities around Ontario, we made a point of inviting business people to the table, and the result was positive. What we heard from business leaders were their own personal experiences, stories about parents with disabilities or children or grandchildren or brothers or sisters or employees. Adding up all this input, the bottom line is unmistakable: This province needs meaningful legislation to deliver fundamental change, real change in the way we think and act as a society. If passed, this legislation would do just that. Under this bill, accessibility standards would be phased in with real results every five years or less, moving toward an accessible Ontario in 20 years. |