|
|
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY Tuesday 1 February 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, all. It's 9 o'clock and we have a busy schedule, so if you don't mind, I'd like to start quickly. I want to welcome you to the second 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 who are 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 for each day of the hearings, and I would like to welcome today Penny Shincariol, Gus Mancini and Maureen Byrne. There are also two support services attendants available to provide assistance to anyone who wishes it. Today I would like to welcome Jackie Hudson and Assis Sayed. Are they not present yet? The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Anne Stokes): I've seen them. They must be out in the hallway. The Chair: OK. Two of them were here yesterday and two of are here today, so if anybody needs them, they are normally at the back of the room. The hearings today in Toronto are being broadcast live on the parliamentary channel, available on cable TV. Also, for the first time, these hearings are being Web-cast live on the Legislative Assembly Web site at www.ontla.on.ca. Our other hearings will be a delayed broadcast and Web-cast. Niagara Falls will be available on Friday, February 4; London on Saturday, February 5; Thunder Bay on Wednesday, February 9; and Ottawa will be shown on Thursday, February 10. We welcome you all to these public hearings, and we can proceed with the first order of business. The Chair: I want to welcome the Ontario Federation of Labour. You're already there, so would you please start whenever you're ready. Ms. Irene Harris: Thank you, Mr. Racco, very much. I just want to introduce us. My name is Irene Harris. I'm the executive vice-president at the Ontario Federation of Labour. With me is Sharon Hambleton, who is our vice-president for the disabilities caucus. Rather than read our brief out, we've got a short presentation that we're going to make now, and Sharon will be starting it off. Ms. Sharon Hambleton: Our commitment to full accessibility and rights for Ontarians with disabilities stems from a number of factors: (1) our members who have been injured at work, many of whom face difficulties in attempting to re-enter their workplaces; (2) our members who now or in the future may find themselves with some form of disability that will require modification to the work and/or community environment; (3) persons injured in the workplace due to the increased pace of production; (4) persons with disabilities who have not been in the paid workforce because of a lack of accommodation and/or discrimination against hiring persons with disabilities; and (5) persons who will need to rely on strong legislation in the future because disability numbers will increase as our population ages. The need for strong legislation: This is critical legislation that is long overdue. People with disabilities have been denied rights for decades and have been barred from achieving their full potential. There are approximately 1.5 million Ontarians with a disability, or about 13% of the population. By 2025, this number will increase to 20% of the population, or three million people. We must keep these statistics front and centre throughout our deliberations and the implementation process. They serve to emphasize the huge number of people who are depending on strong legislation that has a real capacity to change the status quo. We're looking for legislation to give real measures of relief and real opportunities, not half-hearted ones. Although we are pleased with the application of the bill to both the public and private sectors, we are nevertheless concerned that overall it will not achieve its important objectives if key changes are not made. Unions must play a central role in this. Unions bring unmatched expertise in workplace issues, as well as important insights and decades-long commitment to disability and accessibility issues. We have extensive experience in dealing with return-to-work and modified-work issues and in developing workplace accommodations that are often required by injured workers. We are also experienced in a range of human rights issues that affect members in the workplace. For these reasons, the proposed legislation needs to be amended to allow for the proactive and formal involvement of unions at every stage. We have made several recommendations that speak to this concern in our written submission. We are urging the government to compel us and employers to begin this process immediately by implementing a parallel process to the Pay Equity Act, 1987, passed by the David Peterson government. This is one key to the success of the legislation. Our amendments would require every union and employer to bargain accessibility plans. These plans would identify barriers in the workplace that deny access to persons with disabilities. The plans would set out measures to remove these barriers on a timely basis. In workplaces where there is no union, the employer would do, and post, the plan. Employees would then have the right to complain if the plan did not cover all concerns. Accessibility plans would have to be adjusted if necessary to meet standards set by the province when these standards are ready. With these amendments, thousands of workplaces can become accessible and people with disabilities will have real employment opportunities. The doors of the workplace would be thrown open to people who are now denied jobs because of accessibility issues. We do not see a reason to delay. We can accomplish the beginning of a real change in two to three years, rather than 15 to 20. We view the government's proposed implementation date of 2025 as unwieldy and unreasonable. To look at it from another perspective, someone born this year would have to wait until they were 20 years old to have a reasonable guarantee of access. This is not acceptable. Ms. Harris: We are seeking remedies to systemic discrimination. This, for us, is not a theoretical exercise. People with disabilities encounter barriers every day that have a profound and immediate impact on the quality of their lives and human potential. Immediate relief and remedies are needed now, not 20 years from now. There are some other general observations we want to make. There are four other key areas of the bill that concern us. They populate the category of government approach or commitment to this initiative. The four areas we want to briefly deal with are the purpose clause, the idea of exemptions, the generalities that riddle this bill, and the financial support for organizations that would be required to invest time and staff in the success of the legislation. First, the all-important purpose clause skilfully avoids stating what the purpose of the bill is. A purpose clause in a statute is critical to its interpretation. This bill is a rights statute, and it must reflect this. It is being enacted to remedy the systemic exclusion and discrimination that persons with disabilities have experienced and continue to experience in all aspects of Ontario life. But this bill states that its purpose is to benefit all Ontarians. It will be critically important for the courts to recognize that the legislation is anti-discrimination legislation and not a general statute for the benefit of all Ontarians. The lack of clarity in the purpose clause in section 1 has a capacity to undermine the work, efforts and outcome of the entire statute. Second, the generalities and vagaries of Bill 118 are truly alarming and must be clarified. As it stands now, too many significant issues are left up to the cabinet. The plan spans two decades. There is therefore every possibility that key regulations will not be enacted either by the current government or future provincial governments. For example, this bill is about accessibility, yet it is not defined. It has not even defined who or what might be representatives of persons with disabilities. Third is the question of exemptions. We don't think there should be any. At its heart, Bill 118 is an anti-discrimination bill, yet cabinet is given the ability to provide exemptions. The substance of this idea is all wrong, and so are the optics. Fourth is the question of financial support for disability and other organizations. The government's plan calls for enormous investments in time over many years for disability and other organizations. There must be an acknowledgement of this with formal assurances of financial support. We've outlined some priority areas and concerns. We've detailed our other recommendations and amendments in our brief that's before you. We want to get started now, we want to begin to change the landscape of Ontario now, and we want to live in a province that embraces access. In closing, we just want to say that in our brief and in the information that Sharon has presented to you, you have the opportunity, as a Legislature, to get a lot of this work going now. So we really urge you to consider our amendments, which would have unions and employers bargain accessibility plans. This could be done so quickly and so well. It would at least open many doors and workplaces very, very quickly and would make workplaces accessible to thousands of Ontarians who have disabilities. Without this, people just don't have access to jobs. Unless we tackle that problem, the unemployment rates for persons with disabilities will remain way higher than they should be. Thank you. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. There are three minutes left. We'll give one minute to each party. Can I start on the Liberal side this morning, please. Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Thank you for your presentation. I just want to bring your attention to a couple of points you mentioned. You were talking about 20 years, that people will have to wait 20 years to have access to many places. The 20 years is the end of the period and we have a five-year increment. We start to enforce it as we go, as we finish; as we pass this bill. The second point I want to mention is about the exemption. No company, no institution, no place will be exempt unless they comply fully with the bill. That's why the minister has a right to do this stuff. Ms. Harris: Except on the latter. I understand what you're saying in the first point, but we think those time frames could be shortened. With our amendments, we could do the workplace stuff when the first two or three years would be a lot faster. On the second point, your bill allows cabinet to make exemptions. So you could sit around a cabinet table and say, "These are the standards. We think they're great, but in this sector, X companies are going to be exempted." You've given cabinet that right, and we don't think that is right or fair. The Chair: Thank you. One minute for each party, otherwise we'll run out of time. I will recognize Mr. Jackson. Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Thank you very much. I'm pleased that you identified in the purpose clause -- that was the first thing that struck me, because it's the first clause. As someone who's been involved with this legislation for a few years, I personally believe that the disabled community should be driving the bus. I really think they should be making the decisions. Although there were shortcomings in the first bill, at least it was clear that the purpose of the bill was to empower disabled persons to be the ones making the decision, that government ratifies that. So I would hope that you could assist us -- I will look at your brief in more detail -- and that you'd actually provided some additional wording. Even the old bill's wording is better than saying this is an equality issue for everybody, when in fact we're trying to merge the objectives of the Human Rights Code and have them entrenched in all aspects of Ontario's life and compliance should therefore occur. So I want to thank you for your brief. This bill has to start with the notion that this is about getting rid of discrimination and empowering the disabled to make decisions in their life. Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Thank you, Irene, for your submission. With respect to the notion of the purpose clause, I should point out that a whole lot of Liberals agreed with you in 2001. They disagree now, it seems, for some reason, but in 2001 many of the minister's Liberal caucus attempted to amend the Ontarians with Disabilities Act to include the following clause: "The purpose of this act is to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities through the identification and removal of existing barriers and the prevention of new barriers that limit persons with disabilities from fully participating in all aspects of life in Ontario." At that time they had a better sense of how the purpose clause should read, and now that they're in government, they obviously want to change it. They might want to reflect on that. If this bill passes as is, Irene, do you think it would be a strong bill, a somewhat strong bill, a weak bill or just a great bill? What do you think? Ms. Harris: We think it's weak and that it's taking too long. It's too open-ended and the work hasn't -- they should have nailed down a lot more in legislation than they have. It's far better than what the Conservatives did, but we think that looking at changes to workplaces and being able to do that quickly really should have been in the legislation, and it is not there. The Chair: Thank you very much to both of you for coming this morning. The Chair: We'll move to the next presentation, from Muscular Dystrophy Canada. Good morning. You have 15 minutes in total for your presentation and potential questions. Again, if someone needs assistance, we do have two people available to assist any of you with whatever you need. I would ask that when you make your presentation, please keep in mind that there are people who may need a little more time to appreciate the presentation. You can proceed any time you're ready. Ms. Anne Harland: Good morning. I'm presenting today wearing two hats, actually. I'd like to split my 15 minutes into two sections and present two very brief briefs, one on behalf of Muscular Dystrophy Canada -- I'm a client-volunteer with Muscular Dystrophy Canada -- and the other on behalf of myself and the other individuals with disabilities who could not be here today. Muscular Dystrophy Canada, MDC, is a national not-for-profit organization that provides services and support for individuals with neuromuscular disorders. In Ontario alone, there are approximately 3,500 people registered with MDC. There are of course many hundreds more in the province who have physical challenges due to this progressive muscle-wasting but who are not registered or even yet diagnosed. Staff at Muscular Dystrophy Canada hear on a regular basis from individuals who are denied access in Ontario to a number of facilities, goods and services. Some of the concerns you're about to hear you've heard from other presenters yesterday and from some of the politicians here as well. But each of these concerns, and these are only a few, come from real-life experiences as described in the last six months by people from Dryden to Toronto in this great province of ours. Some of the identified concerns are: -- apartments with elevators that break and are not repaired for several days, making it impossible for residents who are wheelchair users to enter or leave their homes; -- inability to attend school regularly because school buses are not wheelchair-accessible; -- a lack of uniform provincial parking permit bylaws, leading to fines for a population already at risk financially; -- businesses with wheelchair-accessible signage but with restrooms located up our down a series of stairs; -- stores, including pharmacies, whose aisles are impossible for a chair or scooter to navigate; -- doctors, ophthalmologists and dentists whose offices are not accessible by persons in a wheelchair or using a scooter, yet that is the only doctor in the region; -- curb cuts that are blocked by parked vehicles and that cannot be accessed in winter months because of poor snow removal; -- parking garages, including those in hospitals, that cannot be entered in a raised-roof modified van, necessary for someone using a wheelchair; -- government-funded employment retraining programs that are run in non-accessible facilities, with inadequate handicapped parking and dubious accountability for job placements; -- doctors who do not and will not accept a patient whose level of required care is high or complicated because of a disability, leaving that individual without medical attention; -- municipal facilities, including election polling stations, that are not accessible; -- employers who violate the Human Rights Code duty to accommodate, knowing that few individuals with disabilities have the financial and/or personal resources for a legal challenge that would take years to process with the commission as it now operates. That was pointed out by several of our folks here at the table yesterday. The list of concerns at MDC I've read out to you that MDC hears on a regular basis is really the tip the iceberg. There are many more. The recommendations, and there are a few that MDC would propose: that the implementation period of 20 years be substantially reduced. MDC is aware that government funding and resources for implementation for this bill are limited, and is willing to assist the government in an effort to reduce this timeline. We would also urge amending section 40 so that input from persons with disabilities and other interested parties can be considered before cabinet enacts proposed regulations. In closing, MDC would like to thank you for this opportunity to present in such an open, public forum. We hope that you will give your unanimous support again to this bill once revisions have been made and it has been rewritten to incorporate many of the common themes that you heard yesterday and will hear again today. The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have about two and a half minutes each for questions. I'll start from -- Ms. Harland: Mr. Chair, what I would prefer to do is hold the questions until -- thank you, sir. Is that all right? The Chair: Yes; you should finish. Sorry; I thought you did. Ms. Harland: That's the presentation on behalf of MDC. I would now like to present, I guess on the basis of myself as a person with a disability, an equally brief presentation. I noticed yesterday in the proceedings that I watched from home -- thank you very much to the current government for doing that -- that there weren't a lot of individuals with disabilities who presented individual briefs, so I'd like to speak on behalf of myself as well as them. The Chair: Yes. Proceed, please. Ms. Harland: OK. My education-employment experience is not in a political or legal field. My perspective, as I said, is that of a person with a disability who is a proud Canadian and long-term Ontario resident. I speak from personal experience and also from experience interfacing and volunteering with a number of different community service groups that work for and with people with disabilities. I want to remind the ministers that they should not interpret the small number of people with disabilities here yesterday and today as a lack of interest in this process, but rather as another example of where it's sometimes difficult, if not impossible, for people with disabilities to be involved in process. I applaud the current government's decision to actively seek input from persons with a disability in a public, open forum and to recognize and arrange that the proceedings need to be televised. I would like to commend the Conservatives for Bill 125, and now the Liberals for their proposed Bill 118, but both have merit and both have shortcomings. Many of the MPPs acknowledged yesterday and pointed out very clearly -- Mr. Jackson in particular put it succinctly -- that in the four-year interim there has been no forward movement in spite of Bill 125. To my untrained eye, with my lack of political and legal background, my perception is that Bill 118 as it stands is vague, lacking in timelines and very weak in the area of enforcement. I would answer the MPPs' question at the end of the last presentation with a very easy "No; it is not suitable as it stands. It needs amendments." To my thinking there are even problems, as Ms. Martel of the NDP pointed out yesterday, with word usage, with "may" versus "shall." She was corrected on that issue on a legal technicality. I am not going to go into all the areas that I see as problems with the act. I have read it thoroughly. I do have concerns. I would instead instruct the committee, if they could, please, to look at a brief that will be presented later this afternoon. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee presents this afternoon. I have no affiliation with that group; I did not sit on their committee. But I have read their 50-page-plus brief and it is outstanding. It is very well written. In spite of its length, it is concise and very clear in some of the changes that need to be made. I'd also like to make note of a presentation that was put forward yesterday by the GTHA, the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, and thank them for recognizing, as a public sector representative, that public sectors are interested in being involved in coming to the table -- they are sometimes leaders in the field over our public sector as private businesses -- and also for their recognition that the financial loss is to all Ontarians when we do not have a barrier-free Ontario. I'd like to highlight some of the concerns that were brought up yesterday by some of the presentations and the MPPs who are here. This legislation needs to provide a mechanism whereby a member of the public can voice concerns with respect to non-compliance and have that complaint dealt with in a specified time frame. It was pointed out many times yesterday that the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as a vehicle to deal with issues of non-compliance, currently is not effective. Therefore, the use of tribunals in this piece of legislation needs to be revisited. The 20-year timeline is excessive. I support Ms. Martel's comments yesterday and the brief preceding mine that this can be much reduced, the timeline changing from five-year blocks in which things are reassessed to three-year blocks, with a total implementation period of 12 years. Provincial government remuneration needs to be given to persons with disabilities and individuals from the non-profit sector who sit on these standing committees at the community municipal level. Standards in certain areas should be legally mandated to be addressed in priority, and this is listed in priority from my perception as an individual with a disability: barriers in (1) the physical environment, (2) transportation, (3) health care, (4) education, and (5) employment. I just want to point out that there is very strong legislation under the Ontario Human Rights Code with respect to a duty to accommodate in the workplace. It is outstanding. It is stellar. However, it falls short in enforcement because the method of enforcement is through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and we heard yesterday that that is not working. Government should be included in the legislation and required to file an accessibility report, as suggested yesterday by Mr. Jackson and a few others. No incentive should be provided that exempts an organization from filing an accessibility report. I urge all parties to be proactive in your final revisions of this bill. I wish also to remind you that the challenges that persons with disabilities face were first recognized in Ontario law with the Ontario Human Rights Code in 1982. Concrete, significant changes are yet to be legislated, from my point of view. Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to speak. The Chair: I thank both of you for your presentation. The time is over. Thank you again for coming. Ms. Harland: I will be here during the lunch break if anyone wants to approach me individually. The Chair: Thank you very much. ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF ONTARIO The Chair: The third presentation is from the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario. Are they present? Good morning. Proceed whenever you are ready, please. Ms. Cynthia Lemon: Good morning. I'm Cynthia Lemon, vice-president of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, and on my left is staff officer Christine Brown. We're delighted to be here this morning. The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario represents 65,000 educators across the province and, in this particular case, I would like to say that we also speak on behalf of the children in our classrooms. We welcome this opportunity to provide input on Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and we extend our appreciation to this committee and to the citizenship minister for the chance to participate in these consultations. We believe that Bill 118 holds the potential to enable Ontarians with disabilities to participate as full citizens of this province. It is an opportunity long overdue. We also believe many parts of the bill could be strengthened and improved. I will touch on some of these areas in this presentation, and a more comprehensive list can be found at the end of our written submission. The Ontario Human Rights Code already provides blanket protection against discrimination for people with disabilities. Yet, as we know, a complaints-based system such as that found under the code is no substitute for proactive legislation. The goal should be to prevent discrimination rather than merely to redress it once it has already occurred. For unionized employees such as members of ETFO, enforcement of the Human Rights Code falls mainly under the grievance procedure in our collective agreements. This means that a member with a disability who is faced with barriers in the workplace must challenge them on an individual basis. ETFO takes on many workplace accommodation cases every year. It is not unusual for us to be handling very similar complaints simultaneously in more than one school board. This is a very inefficient use of resources, both those of ETFO and those of the individual school boards, particularly at a time when we need the money in the classrooms. Bill 118, as presently drafted, will take a long time to bear fruit, but when it does, we look forward to the day when barriers will be proactively prevented rather than being eliminated one by one. Rather than tearing down walls brick by brick, we'll have bridges permitting connections and accessibility for all. We would like to turn now to some of the fine tuning that, in our opinion, Bill 118 needs in order to make it all that it could be. The 20-year time frame for the implementation of accessibility standards has received a great deal of attention. We're less concerned by this ultimate timeline than by what happens along the way. It will be of no surprise to you that, as teachers, we're very fond of deadlines. The process for setting up standards committees, allowing them to complete their work and implementing the standards they develop is a complex one. The sooner all of this is achieved in fixed measurable stages, the better. As drafted, Bill 118 is too open-ended with respect to timelines. Specifically, we would recommend that mandatory time frames be put into place for establishing the standards committees, setting their terms of reference and fixing the dates by which various stages of their work must be completed. Further on the question of timelines, we believe that there are any number of barrier removal measures which are either no-cost or low-cost. Once the standards committees are up and running, we would like to see them identify as many of these as possible and to target them for especially early removal. An accessible Ontario is long overdue. We believe that establishing such deadlines will help kick-start the process. We're all aware that in some cases the horse is out of the barn too fast, too soon, but we would like the horse to get out of the barn. We strongly support the participation of persons with disabilities in the work of the standards committees and commend the government for making them a formal part of the process. As an equity-seeking and social justice organization, we do firmly believe in inclusivity. However, as has been pointed out by the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee and numerous other advocacy groups, barriers to full participation and civic life are among the key reasons such legislation is needed in the first place. Given the material circumstances of so many people with disabilities and the shoe-string budgets of the organizations which represent them, there is a very real danger that the individuals who know the most about barriers will be the very ones cut out of the process. We would also like to emphasize that many individuals in the disability community with unique and valuable knowledge of barriers reside in areas outside major urban centres. Their expertise and experience should also become a part of the process. We therefore join with the Ontario Federation of Labour and other organizations in urging the government to develop a reasonable system to compensate these individuals for their expense and their time. Opportunities to participate should be encouraged, provided and supported. There are other areas in which we believe Bill 118 could be further strengthened. As drafted, Bill 118 permits broad ministerial exemptions and leaves many crucial details up to cabinet. One example is the power of cabinet to make regulations which would exempt persons, organizations and buildings from the application of the act or its regulations. Given the more than generous timelines built into the bill, we're finding it difficult to understand the need for such sweeping powers of exemption. Finally, as is often pointed out, the most difficult barrier that people living with disabilities must overcome is that of attitude. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee has suggested that a formal mechanism be developed to educate the public about disability issues. In particular, they have proposed that the curriculum and key post-secondary programs, such as architecture and medicine, as well as the curriculum in elementary and secondary schools, be enriched in this fashion. As a union which represents those who educate young children, we support these suggestions. Greater knowledge about disabilities and, more specifically, about the barriers that people with disabilities face is crucial to ensuring that those barriers are not replicated by future generations. From our own experience as teachers, we know that children are receptive to learning about the challenges that their own classmates with disabilities face. In my own experience, I've had the opportunity to have in my class a student with a visual disability. We did bring in support to help the students in that room understand how she lived on a day-to-day basis. They wore glasses that negated their vision or distorted their vision, and their understanding of how she walked on a daily basis was incredible. That will help to educate all students and change attitudes and behaviours, the behaviours that prevent accessibility. Once again, we extend our appreciation for this chance to contribute to the debate on Bill 118. It's a piece of legislation with the potential to make Ontario a world leader in the area of social justice and human rights. Thank you. The Chair: We will have two minutes for each party, and if I can start with Mr. Arnott, please. Two minutes. Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. It's very helpful to have your advice and your views as we move forward on this discussion of Bill 118. It's my understanding that the former government's disability legislation, Bill 125, included in it a provision that would have compelled school boards to file disability plans with I guess the Ministry of Citizenship. As well, it would be a public document so that parents and interested people could know what the board was planning in terms of moving forward to removing barriers and ensuring that people -- students, teachers and your staff -- would have opportunities even if they were disabled. It's my understanding that it was the plan of the government to assist in the funding of whatever upgrades would be necessary as a result of those plans. Over a period of time, it was the belief of the government that that would work. Are you at all concerned about the fact that Bill 118 now does not include a requirement for school boards to create these disability plans? Ms. Lemon: I think with any piece of legislation there has to be a mechanism that monitors the progress of the initiative. I would suggest that there have to be the supports in place to ensure that this follows through. When I think of school boards in particular, in relation to the membership in ETFO, something as simple as parking spots is an issue that could be addressed in a fairly expedited fashion. I don't know how recently some of you have been in school parking lots, but sometimes they're not even close to the school building. So you will have a wheelchair-accessible parking spot, but it's still quite a distance from the building itself. Also, monitoring the attendance of students in the schools: Do they have to in fact leave their own home community to go to a school that is accessible? So there are a number of initiatives that can happen, but they do have to be monitored, as always, to ensure that they do. Mr. Marchese: Some quick questions, if I can. The OFL made a presentation, saying that it is critical that there be a "proactive and formal involvement of unions at every stage of the process." They said they believe that "a parallel process to the Pay Equity Act of 1987, passed by the David Peterson government, ... is ... key to the success of" this "legislation.... Thousands of workplaces can become accessible, and people with disabilities will have real employment opportunities" if accessibility plans are bargained in all workplaces. Unions and employers should be compelled to begin this process immediately. Do you have a comment on that? Ms. Lemon: I will give that one to my resident expert next to me. Ms. Christine Brown: Thank you. I would hope that the government and all those implementing this bill would make use of the very great expertise of the OFL, and indeed of all unions, because we do have the day-to-day experience. I wouldn't say that a workplace-by-workplace plan is absolutely key to the success of the bill. There is opportunity for stakeholders to have input into the process. Mr. Marchese: So you agree that they should listen to the OFL because they have a lot of expertise, but you don't necessarily agree that that's something that should be bargained in the workplace, necessarily? Ms. Brown: Along the pay equity model, I don't think that is key to the success of the bill. But I would certainly hope that the OFL and all unions would be part of the process. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marchese. The Chair: You have another half a minute if you wish to ask another question. Mr. Marchese: On the issue of inspections, the minister may appoint inspectors for the purposes of this act. Is it your sense that inspectors should be employed to make sure that accessibility plans are there and are in order and so on, or do you think it should be left to the government to decide whether or not inspectors "may" be hired? Ms. Lemon: I think, as with everything, there has to be something that makes accountability kick in. I'm not sure I like the word "inspectors" -- I wish there were a more proactive refrain word that we could use -- but there have to be supports in place to ensure that people with disabilities are having the accessibility they need. Mr. Marchese: At the moment, we don't have it. Ms. Lemon: We can build it in. Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Just a quick question: What percentage of the members of ETFO would be disabled teachers? Ms. Lemon: I actually don't know the answer to that question. It's a number or target that moves. It depends on the age and stage of the career. We have members who become disabled as they age. It also depends on whether people are prepared to self-identify. So I don't have an exact answer for you. Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): One of the challenges I find in our society is that people are afraid of individuals with invisible disabilities such as mental illness. Do you see an advantage or opportunity in adding to the school curriculum some material on disabilities to better inform your students of what their friends and neighbours in the community -- Ms. Lemon: Absolutely. I think this is about more than changing attitudes; it's changing understandings so that people at a level have a very innate understanding of those around them and the supports they need, so that we don't have to educate people in post-secondary, in architecture, about how to make a building accessible. They'll understand that before they get there. It will become as natural as breathing. So, absolutely, those supports need to be built into the curriculum sooner rather than later. The Chair: Thank you to all. Thank you for your presentation. YONGE-BLOOR-BAY The Chair: The next presentation will be from the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Business Association. Mr. Douglas Jure: Good morning. The Chair: Good morning. Please proceed whenever you're ready. Mr. Jure: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Business Association, I would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to participate in your hearings on Bill 118. My name is Doug Jure. I'm a vice-president of our association. With me this morning are two members of our association who are retailers: Oriella Stillo and Simone Marie Coenen. Oriella Stillo's shop, Accessity, is located at 136 Cumberland Street, in the village of Yorkville. Her shop is known for its extensive range of women's fashion accessories, varied in price and design. Accessity carries two of Canada's biggest jewellery designing stars: Rita D. and Tryna. Simone's shop, Simone Marie Belgian Chocolates, located at 126 Cumberland Street in the village of Yorkville, offers, as its name suggests, authentic Belgian chocolates and chocolate truffles for all occasions. The aim of Bill 118 is to ensure that Ontarians with disabilities have full accessibility to restaurants, stores, public transit and other services. The Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration estimates that 350,000 public agencies and private businesses, large and small, big-box stores and shops, will have to meet standards giving access to people who are deaf, blind, or in wheelchairs, or who have mental disabilities. Our association supports the aim of Bill 118. We expect it to be enacted this year, and we would like to sit down at the table to work out those standards. As you can no doubt appreciate, the AODA will have a significant impact on how our members operate their businesses, manage their employees, and offer their services to the public. In many respects, the act parallels and will build upon obligations that currently exist in law, whether in human rights legislation or in building codes. However, the AODA will also go beyond existing obligations, and over the course of its implementation we expect that the act will require our members' landlords to make significant expenditures in terms of time, capital investment and ongoing operating costs. Unless those standards are set to exempt or grandfather two- to three-storey street-front buildings where entrepreneurs such as our members carry on their businesses, this legislation will impose onerous and unaffordable building retrofits and structural changes to accommodate those disabled Ontarians who must use wheelchairs and walkers. To suggest that these building owners can or will afford to install new stairwells and stairways and install elevators is unrealistic. The cost of structural renovations will be passed on to the landlords' tenants, our retailers. They in turn will have a choice: to pass their increased lease costs to their customers or get out of business. In communities not just in the village of Yorkville but throughout Ontario, these two- to three-storey street-front properties in downtowns and in neighbourhood business districts are integral components of your and my communities' character. These buildings have been around for a long time. Structural renovations are not only expensive but in many cases beyond either a design or an engineering solution to improve accessibility. In Yorkville, many of these buildings were originally houses. When they were built, no one thought about putting a closet on the second floor above the closet on the first floor, so that if an elevator is required, the shaft is already built in. To install an elevator in either of the buildings where Accessity and Simone Marie Belgian Chocolates reside would cost anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000. Tenant leases usually require a contribution to common-area expenses. Neither retailer could afford to contribute to such an expense. If that is what the relevant sector standard requires, it is too late for these building owners and their tenants. However, we do want to work with the ministry by participating in the development of the goals, the relevant sector standard, and the time frame within which the goals are to be achieved. To that end, our association has requested membership on the relevant standards development committee. We encourage you to ensure that the intent of Bill 118 is to balance the need for accessibility with an expectation that small businesses need not go beyond what is readily achievable. A men's clothing store may not need Braille merchandise price tags, for example, but the staff must read price tags and describe the clothing selection to a consumer with a visual impairment. A women's fashion accessory store does not have to hire a full-time sign language interpreter, but the staff must communicate by pen and paper when necessary. A specialty food store might need to adjust racks to permit access to people who use a wheelchair, but only if these changes are readily available and achievable. Alternatives may include staff taking a selection of products to the customer. Our retailers extend their customer services in a variety of ways to all individuals. Our problem is the potential demand of a sector standard requiring the modification of two- to three-storey street-front buildings for those disabled who require wheelchairs and walkers. In our opinion, the cost to our small business retailers and communities across Ontario is too great. To give you an idea, Mr. Chairman and committee members, of exactly the kinds of buildings I'm talking about, I have a number of photographs. Here on Cumberland Street in Yorkville, right over at this side, is a picture of Accessity. You can see these buildings are of several decades. They are narrow. They have stairs. On the other side, Oriella here has a panoramic shot, a further shot in Yorkville; again, an intimate setting with narrow buildings, two to three stories, normally two stories. Oriella has a picture of Simone's shop. Right there is where the honourable member from Burlington will be buying his chocolates on Valentine's Day. Mr. Jackson: The sweetest thing I ever wanted, Doug, just for the record. Mr. Jure: I thought so. And last but not least, even more recent buildings. This is a picture on Bellair, off of Yorkville, between Yorkville and Cumberland: lots of stairs. So we would like you to take into consideration the intent of the bill, to provide a realistic basis for accessibility, in terms of cost and engineering. With that, we're open to your questions. Ms. Oriella Stillo: If you don't mind, I do have a comment. Most small businesses in this city and across Canada are started by women these days, and they are started by immigrants, of which I am both. We often go into areas that are derelict, that are old, that for good reason are just this close to being torn down. I started 25 years ago with $5,000 and my husband building the store for me. I am very, very worried about these areas, not just in Toronto but across Ontario, that will suddenly be faced with a $100,000 elevator charge or all these additional costs. They are going to be further derelict. They are going to be the future slums. You're going to have a problem with historical areas like Yorkville across Ontario. I can't afford to open up in a mall. Simone probably can't afford to open up in a mall, where it's wheelchair-accessible. But what we do offer, and I have to tell you that we come second to nobody, is incredible service. We both help people with disabilities. We will spend over an hour helping some of our blind customers pick out the perfect gift for someone, or Simone with her customers. Service like that is not available in big-box stores. I am concerned, if this legislation goes through as it is written -- and I do have a problem with the clarity; I'm concerned about just how draconian this legislation can be if you want it to be -- that the only thing in existence will be big-box stores that can incorporate the cost of wheelchair elevators and escalators into their cost factors. I can't. I do offer incredible service, and my customers come to me. I have blind customers, hearing-impaired customers; I have people in wheelchairs whom I serve. But to be asked to participate in some of this legislation that is coming through will bankrupt me. I cannot afford it, and a lot of small businesses in Ontario cannot afford it. Ms. Simone Marie Coenen: I would like to add my comment as well. Besides the financial aspects that we have touched here, the aim of this bill is to provide accessibility to everybody to our product and services. I don't think, and we don't think, that putting in elevators and a widened door will solve the problem. We believe there is much more to do in terms of giving education, giving another type of service. In our store, as Oriella just said, we have been giving the service forever. That's what small businesses are doing all over Ontario. We are here not only to represent the village of Yorkville. We represent small towns from all over Ontario, hundreds of businesses in similar situations. Those small businesses have been giving this service to people with disabilities forever. We go on the street. We take credit cards and orders from our customers from the street. Even if we put an elevator in front of my building, which would be very nice if we had the financial ways of doing it, I don't think that a person in a wheelchair could even turn around in my store. So this is not a global answer. We have people with poor hearing, we have blind people, we have people with some kind of mental illness. An elevator is not going to solve their problems. Our staff have to be trained. My staff had training in Toronto two years ago to handle senior people with disabilities. We have pamphlets in the store that have a special font that people with poor eyesight can read. So there are lots of things that need to be done, not only solving the problem of people in wheelchairs. That's why we want to sit with you to discuss all that, because it is much broader than just the wheelchair people. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. There is one minute each, and we'll start with Mr. Marchese. Mr. Marchese: Obviously your point of view is an important one in these hearings. My sense is that you all agree that discrimination has happened, continues to happen and is likely to happen in spite of this bill on people with disabilities. My sense is that you agree that people have been discriminated against if they have a disability. Is that correct? Mr. Jure: Yes. We agree with the intent of the bill. Mr. Marchese: My sense is that you agree that people with disabilities should generally be able to have the same access to places, to stores, as anybody else, because otherwise it would be unfair. You probably agree with that too, right? So what you're saying is that there is discrimination and that people should have access, but as it relates to your particular places, it would be too expensive for your members because of the historic nature or structural nature of the building. Therefore discrimination exists, but in this case we just have to live with it because it's too expensive. Mr. Jure: But we also said that the staff do accommodate those situations. We gave you illustrations of that. We're saying that the physical structure of the building makes it impossible to install ramps and other devices, elevators, escalators, to accommodate those individuals who have mobility problems. We're focusing on individuals with mobility problems. The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Marchese. Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I really appreciate your presentation and take your point in terms of the age of the buildings. There are religious institutions and buildings all over Ontario that are confronting the same kinds of challenges. I just wanted to get you to comment. As a member of the government that's introducing this bill, one of the things about it that encourages me is that it does put a process in place to set standards and to involve the people who are going to be affected. The composition of the standards development committees will include "representatives of the industries, sectors of the economy or classes of persons or organizations to which the accessibility standard is intended to apply." Are you encouraged by that? You've said that you want to sit down and talk with us. Mr. Jure: Yes. We're relying on our participation. Ms. Stillo: I just find the bill very, very vague when it comes to what kinds of standards. I read where inspectors can come into any business any time of day and demand all sorts of information. Ms. Wynne: But you see, we're relying on you and on the disability community to have that very difficult dialogue. This is an evolutionary process, and we're relying on you to work with the people who will be affected. Ms. Stillo: I can appreciate that. Coming here for us to give a different side is like arguing against motherhood and apple pie and being accused of being discriminatory to some extent. Ms. Wynne: But you bring very good points. The Chair: Excuse me; thank you. I think the question and comments have been taken care of. Sorry, I have to limit this to a minute. Mr. Jackson: As someone who has been involved with this legislation for the last half-decade, I want to say to you that it has always struck me that government and society can set priorities both in terms of time and in terms of importance to the disabled community. If I were disabled, I'd want to know that if I needed access to government services, I should not have any barriers in front of me. If I need access to the courts, there should be no barriers in front of me. If I need medical or emergency treatment, there should be absolutely no barriers in front of me. It strikes me as odd that those provisions in the previous legislation that said all government buildings in this province must be accessible -- you make the very strong point about the cost to retrofit. All past governments have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in rent to landlords in inaccessible buildings. In my view, that's criminal and should not go on a further day. Are you concerned that in this legislation they are removing the responsibility of the government of Ontario to make all of its buildings accessible, which they can afford, but rather, according to the minister, they are actually going to start with the retail, the hospitality and the hotel industry as the first people to be tested with this new legislation? Do you not think that the priorities are backwards here, that we should be starting with hospitals, schools for children, government buildings, courthouses, doctors' offices, and not starting with a chocolatier in Yorkville who's got a building that will never -- I mean, the square footage in front of the cameras is as large as her store. Mr. Jure: It's a little larger. The priorities the government has set: I'll leave that for the parties to debate. What we're focusing on is the issue of the cost to our retailers in those kinds of buildings -- there's a particular building. We welcome the idea that there will be a bigger marketplace. We always want more customers, no question about it. But the government, the legislation, the law, the standards, must take into consideration that there are just some barriers, unfortunately, for some sectors of the disabled that cannot be resolved. The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments. Have a nice day. INSTITUTE OF DOCTORS IN SOCIAL WORK The Chair: The next presentation is from the Institute of Doctors in Social Work. Please have a seat, and whenever you're ready you can start. I remind you that there is a total of 15 minutes, including questions and comments from the membership. Good morning. Dr. Doreen Winkler: Good morning. It's my pleasure to introduce my colleagues Dr. Gail Aitken, Dr. Don Bellamy and Dr. Malcolm Stewart. I'm Dr. Doreen Winkler. The Institute of Doctors in Social Work, IDSW, is a newly established group of social workers who have their doctorates and work in different settings but share similar concerns. The IDSW does not presume to have special expertise in disabilities, yet as social workers we are grounded in understanding the nature of disabilities, their impact on the people who have them and the various things faced by disabled persons. Also, as social workers, our stock-in-trade is advocacy and social action. We welcome this opportunity to appear before you and we applaud the Ontario government for its decision to hold public hearings openly on Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We commend all three political parties for their unanimous vote in favour of the bill on second reading, to approve it in principle. We would encourage all parties to vote similarly at third reading so that the possibility exists that this law could be passed unanimously. We believe that Bill 118 is a good bill and that some amendments to it will make it an even better bill. Amendments to the bill are necessary for the strengthening of the current Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. As it stands, Bill 118 makes significant, substantial improvements to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, as it currently exists. These benefits and improvements are set out clearly and in depth in a brief that will be submitted to you by the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, and we endorse this excellent brief in its totality. We support the reasons set out in this brief for proclaiming Bill 118 as a good bill. Also, we find that the committee's key rationales for amendments are persuasive. We are convinced that the 11 priorities contained in the brief's amendments are very well organized, thorough, and clearly crafted with wisdom. We urge you to give this brief the attention it deserves. Our main message today, though, and this will be elaborated upon by my colleagues, is that Bill 118 provides a firm basis for a strong, effective and mandatory Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The proposed amendments, in our view, make this legislation truly live up to the government's stated objective to make Ontario barrier-free for all persons with disabilities. It is our contention that this can happen only when the ODA committee's 11 principles become fully operational. I refer to the 11 principles introduced into the House by the Honourable Dwight Duncan and passed as a resolution on October 29, 1998. We contend that when these 11 principles are implemented -- not simply accepted or enacted -- we will have this strong and effective legislation to make this province barrier-free, not only for those of us who live with a disability but also for all those people who, by reason of aging and other circumstances, will become disabled in the future. We look forward to the passage of Bill 118 as unique, exciting legislation. The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Bellamy. Does anyone else wish to comment from your side? Dr. Gail Aitken: Yes, I would like to. That was Dr. Doreen Winkler. I'm Dr. Gail Aitken and I would add my thanks to Dr. Winkler's for the opportunity to present at this hearing. We stress that it is essential to work with those affected by disabilities as the standards and regulations are developed and implementation plans are put into place. We were very, very pleased that Minister Bountrogianni emphasized this in her address to the Legislature on December 2, at the second reading hearings. It is especially important to set strict time frames for implementation of this act in all of its facets, both in the public and private sectors. We would like to emphasize that it is instrumental to get going and, in the first five years of the implementation, to show that strong action will be taken to facilitate the implementation in the subsequent 15 years. If you show that there are teeth to this legislation in the first five, it may mean that it's easier to have compliance in the subsequent years of the implementation plan. Strong monitoring and enforcement of standards in the first five years may ease the costs of the implementation in the subsequent time frames. Despite the government's fiscal situation, we would suggest that some resources, such as low-interest loans, be made available to help non-government social agencies and small businesses comply with the access requirements. I would also suggest that it is not only humane but cost-effective to ensure that small grants or loans are available to disabled individuals of limited resources to help them live independently in the community and avoid costly institutionalization. Sometimes, as you realize, a ramp into the house and help with transportation are all that's needed to defray or delay institutionalization of people who really want to maintain their independence and live in the community. We would like to emphasize that all Ontarians will be affected by improved accessibility legislation. With a background in health care, social work and education, I am particularly concerned with the extent of unobvious disability, the hidden or invisible disability. You've heard that 15% of Ontarians are disabled. I contend that the percentage is much higher. When you consider the number of people of all ages who have challenges and as the Ontario population is aging -- and we keep being told and have been for decades that we are, in this century, going to face increased numbers of elderly with some disabilities -- we really need to pay attention to the invisible sector, the people with disabilities who have trouble with subway stairs; stroke victims find that it's a major difficulty when subway escalators are not functioning etc. Our experience with children and youth also causes us to have grave concern about current limitations to access to schools and transportation at every level. People, whether it's primary school, high school or post-secondary school, find that there are grave impediments to their participating fully in the educational system, and I think we need to continue to work on improving that. If this government can look beyond the immediate costs of implementing Bill 118, with its suggested amendments, in the longer term, both the tangible and intangible benefits to our society will be enormous. Ours is an aging population, and a major goal is to maximize independence and productivity of all people in this province. Some people may support strong accessibility laws only on the basis of enlightened self-interest. However, we at IDSW expect that the majority of Ontarians will support the implementation of Bill 118 from the standpoint of social justice and human rights. Dr. Donald Bellamy: Thank you, Dr. Aitken. I just have one or two comments that I would like to make, perhaps less formally. One of the things that occurred to me as I read the material and our submission is that we really have to be concerned about extending accessibility beyond the large urban centres. Not that people don't suffer the same kinds of problems, but we do tend to overlook our rural, isolated members of Ontario. So I think that's a major challenge. I heard already this morning that there are groups presenting to you from rural areas, and that, of course, is very important. Just to state something else that perhaps is obvious and that we all recognize today, I believe the change is phenomenally swift, and while we stress the importance of moving aggressively with implementation in the first five years, over a 20-year phase-in, we really have to plan for much flexibility in dealing with what is now essentially the unknown. We can barely anticipate five years hence, and 20 years hence is very difficult. We should not think of the act and its regulations as a box, in a sense, a rigid system. We have to move beyond that. Aside from the population shifts that Dr. Aitken referred to, we'll have to accommodate changing legislation to meet the future needs. For example, our home care policies and programs will surely change over time, as they must, if you know those, of course, as would other legislative measures. All of these legislative arrangements that are associated with human welfare and human rights and so forth must be able to move together, develop together, and be linked, if you will. Finally, another comment about this environment of change: We see even greater developments in technology than we even can consider or contemplate today. We really need to encourage innovation and application of these resources in support of accessibility to disabled people. It isn't just ramps and transportation, in the simple terms we refer to. There has to be a great payoff, I think, if we think of technology innovatively, experimentally. There are all sorts of developments in nanotechnology, and I think there's a lot of payoff if we're able to do that, to enable people who are isolated to be in touch, if you will, with necessary services, professionals to be in touch with each other, and so forth, around these situations. Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: Thank you for the presentations. There is no time for questions. Thank you again for coming. Dr. Bellamy: Thank you very much for the opportunity. JOINT PEEL-CALEDON ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Chair: The next presenter will be the Joint Peel-Caledon Accessibility Advisory Committee. I remind you that there will be a total of 15 minutes, and when you make your presentation, can you do it as slowly as possible? Thanks very much. Of course, when you start speaking, introduce yourselves for the record, please. Mr. Barnes, thank you for coming this morning. Mr. Glenn Barnes: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm here on behalf of the Joint Peel-Caledon Accessibility Advisory Committee. My name is Glenn Barnes, and I'm here with some committee members. Terri just got married. Her last name was Hamilton but it's Leroux now. First of all, before I start, I just wanted to congratulate the minister and all of her staff on the bill she has put forward to this point. I think it's a really commendable effort, and it's got very good parts to it. As my colleagues said before me, and I'm sure many times before that, the bill is a strong bill, but we believe it could be better with some amendments. The following recommendations that we're going to read are of the subcommittee put together through the accessibility advisory committee from the region of Peel and Caledon. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, the recommendations we're going to be presenting today were not endorsed by council. However, I think we have full support from staff, and staff were part of helping to put these recommendation together. We think that our council meeting on March 10 will enable us to have these points all passed by council and fully approved. The Chair: Mr. Barnes, if that happens, would you please notify the clerk with that information so the committee will be aware if the political body does support those. Mr. Barnes: We will. Thank you. Having said that, I just wanted to comment on our recommendations. The first four recommendations that we have for the committee today are all based on the discussion of the standards development committees that are to be established for Bill 118. We feel that it's very necessary and very important that sufficient staff be allocated to these committees and that these committees be allocated to every single sector that is going to be affected by this bill, and not just makeshift sectors and shifting sectors. We ask that the standards committees all be established within 12 months from the effective date of proclamation of the ODA. We would also like to say that the standards committees should be made up of individuals from across the province, including representation from stakeholder organizations, including municipalities, members of the accessibility advisory committees already established over the last two years and a representative spectrum of both visible and invisible disabilities, and that they be determined by a well-appointed public process. Further, we hope that a mechanism be established for these standards committees, a process that would allow for municipal and public recommendations to the committees, as well as recommendations from individuals from the disabled community and, on top of that, an appeals process, or a way to establish a complaint or an appeal to the committee on behalf of an individual. Further, we would like to say that the next two recommendations we'd like to put forth are based on funding. The first recommendation has to do with funding for those standards development committees to be established. We hope that the funding to establish the committees will come from the province within the first 12 months, as I said. We also hope that there will be sufficient funding provided by the province for all sectors, including all municipalities and all individuals with disabilities, to assist with the smooth implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The final recommendation -- and, again, this is something that hasn't been passed by council -- I wanted to put this forth to you as well. Something that we wanted to add is that, included in the implementation of the bill, or after the bill is proclaimed, an extensive marketing and advertising campaign should be put forth to support the bill so that the execution of the bill is effortless and to ensure ongoing public support, so that the new ODA will become a strong bill that's supported by the private, public and individual sectors of the province. The Chair: We have about nine minutes for questions -- three minutes each. We'll start with the Liberal side. Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): It's a pleasure to have all three of you here. I was looking at the recommendations as a newly elected MPP from Niagara Falls and, formerly, city council. This is really well put together. If I was sitting on your council, I would be endorsing it, just so you know. There are a couple of things, though, that I wanted you to elaborate on, because I think they're really important. I will say to you -- and I think I speak for all the members, but certainly for myself -- that this is our second day, and I'm just amazed at what I have learned about disabilities in a day and a half. I'm embarrassed to say that I thought I knew, but listening to the people who came in and their personal stories, the difficulties they faced far outweighed anything that I ever imagined. I have a number of personal friends who have disabilities, and we've talked many times, but to get input from across the province is truly amazing. I really like a couple of things in your recommendations -- the last one. It says, "And further, that a comprehensive advertising and marketing campaign be established to adequately encourage an effortless execution of and ensure ongoing public support of a new AODA." I wonder if you could elaborate on what you or the committee were thinking of when you put that forward. Mr. Barnes: I guess I'll comment on that because I added it yesterday, as chair of the advisory committee. Ms. Naz Husain: With our support. Mr. Barnes: Everybody is supportive, of course. The idea came to me as something that was suggested by a friend of mine who is in the business world but is not part of the disability community. It was put forth that if they saw commercials on TV that explained why there was more need for accessible vehicles or transportation and why there was a greater need for the public sector to buy into the fact that we needed better accessibility to buildings, both physical and structural, in terms of visual disabilities, or the way they're put together with different types of glass and things like that -- you mentioned that you've learned so much in the last day and a half. If we had a great marketing campaign with advertising on buses or commercials on TV, how much would the public learn about all this as well? I think that's very important, in terms of a smooth transition from not having a strong ODA to having a strong ODA. Mr. Craitor: Excellent. Thank you, Glenn. The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Barnes: My colleague would like to add to that as well. Ms. Husain: If I could just add to that, the mass media is the quickest and easiest way to reach out to so many people at the same time. As we know, through TV and radio we learn instantly about so many things that happen around the world. Won't it make common sense to learn about the AODA, bring it right into the household so you can outreach to so many individuals at the same time, educate them and make them aware? I think overall it would make it cheaper for the government to educate the masses. The Chair: Thank you. If we don't have your name, will you please leave it with our staff before you leave. Mr. Jackson: Glenn, you've indicated the need for funding for those persons who sit on the various standards committees. But you're not being compensated to sit on your access committee currently. Is that correct? Mr. Barnes: That's correct. I'm sorry if I misspoke there and so you misinterpreted what I said. It was not for the individuals sitting on the committee themselves but for the establishment of the committees to make sure they are well funded, to make sure they are able to function as they need to function. Mr. Jackson: Thanks for the clarification. You're in Peel and you're talking about Hazel McCallion. Of course, her first concern was, "Cam will agree to any kind of regulation, but as long as the province will pay for it." I'm sure that has come up in some of the discussions with your organization. What opinion do you have about the ability of the province to support the new standards and changes? Should that be in the legislation, Glenn? Mr. Barnes: To be honest, the funding issue for me is one that obviously has a need for careful consideration. However, as an individual with a disability, who acquired their disability almost 13 years ago, it is something that I've heard right from day one: "We'd like to do it but we don't have enough money to pay for it." Quite frankly, I think it needs to be addressed not as a problem but as a solution. We can't have an ODA without having funding to go along with it, and we can't just say, "It's going to cost too much money, so we can't do it." Accessibility and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act need to become a part of everyday business. It can't just be, "This sector is going to add this much and this much each day or each month or each year as it goes by." I think it needs to become a part of everyday business for every ministry, for every municipality, for every committee, for every area established. In terms of funding, it's something I've learned -- maybe I kind of knew, but I was a little bit naive about the fact that in terms of accessibility committees, when you work for an accessibility committee that is on the region, you always have them talking about the need for funding from the province. Then you've got the municipality, the city of Mississauga, saying, "We need more money from the region." So everybody is saying they need money from everybody else. It's time to sit down and say, "Look, let's give some money out and let's put some money into this bill so that it works properly for everybody." Mr. Marchese: Mr. Barnes, some quick questions to you. Other individuals have commented on the fact that we need some strong monitoring and enforcement systems. The problem with this bill is that with respect to compliance, "A director may review an accessibility report filed under section 14 to determine whether it complies with the regulations," it says "may," "a director may." It's easy to understand that that person might do it or might not; there is no obligation to do it. Does that concern you or do you think it will be OK, that we can trust the government to do this right and the directors to review it, maybe or maybe not? How do you feel about that? Mr. Barnes: I don't know. If I speak on my personal beliefs -- Mr. Marchese: Yes; personal, of course. Mr. Barnes: My personal belief: I would like to see it have more teeth to say that they will do it. As an individual who acquired a disability, I've seen two sides of life. I've seen the side of life without a disability and I've seen the side of life with a disability, and quite frankly, they're two completely different lives. I'm almost appalled at the fact that things happen in this day and age that happen in what we don't call well-established countries. I would like to see more teeth behind it to say that it will happen, not that it just may happen. Mr. Marchese: Nothing in this act says that anything has to happen before 2025, the government argues. But we've got these cycles, these committees that do the standards and accessibility setting, and some of us believe that 20 years in these five-year cycles is rather long. We think they could be reduced. If you had three-year cycles, the whole process would take 12 years. In my view, it's reasonable. Is there anything in your mind -- personal, of course -- to think that somehow we need the extra time? And do you think that if we have it in three-year cycles -- because, you remember, governments now will have elections every four years, not every four and a half or five -- it would force the government to be able to complete a cycle and even begin another one? Would it not be better to have three-year cycles, in your view, than the five-year cycles? Mr. Barnes: That was something our committee did talk about, and we were going to put it forth as a recommendation. We decided that we didn't want to push too hard in terms of having a cycle determined before the actual bill is determined. We think that five years is too long as well. We actually talked about four years, but I like your suggestion of three even better. I think if it fits better within the government structure in terms of re-election for the government in power, then three years is definitely something that's doable. Our discussion was that if you knock just one year off the five-year sectors they've talked about, you're already down to 16, from 20. So I like the suggestion of 12. Maybe we'd fit it somewhere between 12 and 16, with some applications made for undue hardship or inability to transform to the codes set by the standards committee. They could reapply for an extra sector in it. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marchese. Mr. Barnes, thanks very much for your presentation and comments. The Chair: The next presentation will be from the Canadian Auto Workers. Good morning to both of you. Please proceed. Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, on behalf of the Canadian Auto Workers we are making a brief, of which you have a copy available. The Chair: Yes, we do. We need your name too, sir. Mr. Dhaliwal: My name is Raj Dhaliwal. My colleague with me is Lisa Kelly. We are both going to share our comments, and I would like to start. We welcome the invitation to attend before the standing committee to share our thoughts and concerns regarding Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2004. CAW is Canada's largest private sector union, representing over 260,000 members in more than 2,100 workplaces across the country. Approximately 180,000 of our members are in Ontario. In addition to the auto and auto parts sector, we represent workers in a wide variety of industries and sectors across the country, including aerospace, health care, education, gaming, |