|
|
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY Wednesday 2 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, and welcome to the 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 there are also two support services attendants available to provide assistance to anyone who wishes it. Those two people are standing down there at the back of the room, so if anybody needs them, they are all the way down there. The hearings today are being broadcast on the parliamentary channel, available on cable TV on Friday, February 4. Also, for the first time, these hearings are being Webcast on the Legislative Assembly Web site at www.ontla.on.ca. These will also be available on Friday. Our other hearings will be delayed broadcast in Webcast. London will be broadcast in Webcast on Saturday, February 5, and Thunder Bay will be on Wednesday, February 9. Ottawa will be shown on Thursday, February 10. We welcome you all to these public hearings. We can proceed with the first order of business. I would ask that -- Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): On a point of order, Mr. Chair: With the committee's indulgence, as the member from Niagara Falls, I want to welcome everyone and the committee, and I want to thank them for bringing the hearings to Niagara Falls. We have a very active disabled community, and you're going to hear some positive things and some suggestions on how to improve the bill. So welcome, and it's our pleasure to host this meeting today. Thank you very much. The Chair: We certainly are pleased to be in Niagara Falls -- The Chair: -- the capital of North America; not only Canada, but North America. We are blessed to be here today, and I know that our friends will have lots of things to tell us. The Chair: We'll start the proceedings. The first presenter is the Easter Seal Society. Are they present? Would you please have a seat, sir, and whenever you're ready, you'll have 15 minutes to make your presentation. If there is any time left, we will allow questions to be asked. Please speak slowly so that all of us will be able to appreciate the presentation. Mr. Mark-Alan Whittle: Good morning. Before I get started, I'd like to acknowledge my wife, Laurie, my son, Logan, and his Grandma Whittle. They are with me today because we have faith, lots and lots of faith, in each other and in your government. We have taken the time to come before this committee as a family because we work together, sometimes with others, to see that our son gets to enjoy life to the fullest. As you can see by his reaction, he's already having the time of his life. He knows what love is, and he has lots of friends at school who have come to know his value and equality. That's where we have to begin this journey of accessibility, in the classroom, where the children can learn these notions first-hand. Committee members, once again the government of the day has seen fit to begin another exhausting round of consultations on how to get Ontario's institutions and private sector companies, including Ontario's unionized school system, to deliver what adults, teenagers and disabled children like Logan and their parents value the most: an accessible society and public education system that meets their children's needs, just like the education other kids take for granted. To us, it's a matter of survival for our kids, who we want to be the best they can be and make their way in a world that is accessible to each and every one of them. If you want to build an accessible society, you must start with the children, who will grow up and take these notions of accessibility and equality forward into their adult lives, and be better citizens for it. We all know how hard it is to teach an old dog new tricks, so changes in attitudes about accessibility have to start where the children can best adopt them: in public school right alongside their peers in a regular class, not warehoused in special schools that lack the full range of human potential that a regular classroom evokes naturally amongst the children therein. Why is it so painfully hard for public school boards to deliver services that accommodate, as specified by the laws and regulations already in place? Only strong enforcement measures like the legislative remedies afforded by the Ontario Human Rights Commission code, in conjunction with the recently released accessibility guidelines, are the reforms necessary to turn things around in public schools. From first-hand experience, while loving and learning with Logan, and from my duties as the voluntary chairman of the local Easter Seal Society, of which Logan is the young ambassador, and from the good public work I do as the chief executive officer of Logan's Pony Club for children with disabilities with cerebral palsy, I have come to know of many cases throughout Ontario where school boards have failed to deliver the vital accommodations, both physical and attitudinal, that will allow special education students to be the best they can be, right alongside their peers in a public school classroom. How will Bill 118 help Lucy Divizio's less-abled children, who continue to face the attitudinal barriers erected by the administrators and unionized staff at the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board? These are accessibility barriers just as real and insurmountable as physical ones, not unlike those that a flight of stairs poses to a student in a wheelchair. Under provisions of the Education Act, the special education act and the Ontario Human Rights Commission accessibility guidelines, each and every public school board in Ontario has a responsibility to accommodate individual special education students up to the point of undue hardship, and be able to prove it. This is the law and should be rigorously enforced by the Ministry of Education. As you know, school boards are creatures of the province, to be dealt with as the government sees fit. Besides being a Child of Courage featured in a past issue of the Ontario School Advocate and many other national papers, Logan, and our family's plight, helped develop the recently released Ontario Human Rights Commission guidelines for accessible education. Not bad for an eight-year-old, eh? I feel honoured to be his mentor and his dad. Keith Norton, the chief commissioner, personally invited Logan to the launch of the accessibility guidelines in Toronto, where he got a standing ovation after I addressed the chief commissioner on his behalf and for the 22,000 Easter Seals kids in Ontario who are trying to get a decent education. After the meeting, Mr. Norton told Logan that his presence in the room put the human element to everything we worked so hard to see come to fruition in the commission's guidelines. Back then, Logan and I had faith that Keith Norton had heard our concerns and taken action when Logan was targeted for discrimination during a labour strike because he had a physical disability. The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board refused to accommodate my son, even though the able-bodied kids were allowed to attend school. My son's right to access the public education system was trampled on. By the look of things, there will be another strike this September over more money and 200 minutes a week for teachers to prepare themselves for work -- a job which they have already been fully trained and handsomely paid to do. How will this new legislation protect my son from the usurious hand of militant education union presidents like Emily Noble of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, who always puts the members' wants and needs ahead of disabled students like my boy? Will the federation's members be allowed to trample on my son's right to an accessible education yet again? Will I have to do the job myself in the classroom the best I can, like I did the last time the government failed to protect my son's right to access the public education system? Perhaps including provisions from the Ontario Human Rights Commission guidelines on accessibility to Ontario's schools in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act will be the legislative remedy that will finally allow children like Logan to get an education like the rest of the able-bodied kids in a regular class, regardless of self-serving union contract language that is so pervasive in Ontario. From what I have seen up until now, this has not been the case, despite the good intentions of your government and the hard work and perseverance shown by the honourable MPP Cam Jackson, the previous minister who was instrumental in making the original Ontarians with Disabilities Act law, which is the model for this present bill. If he is in the room today, Logan, Laurie and I salute you for the good public work you did, and continue to do today, when we consulted together concerning the provisions within the original Ontarians with Disabilities Act that we are improving today. As you can see from the people in this room with us, there is consensus among Ontarians of all political stripes to see that we provide disabled Ontarians with accessibility to all the great things Ontario has to offer. We should be an accessible society that is "Yours to Discover" for less-abled Ontarians too. Thank you for allowing me to have a say regarding Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2004. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. There is about a minute each for questioning. I'll start with Mr. Jackson. Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Thank you very much, Mark, Logan and family, for being here today. I appreciate seeing you again. Two quick questions. Clearly, you support the Ontario Human Rights Commission's accessibility guidelines to be built right into the legislation so they become the baseline for the standard. Is that correct? Mr. Jackson: The second question, Mark, is that quite a few of the disability groups have already come forward to suggest that David Lepofsky, whose 166-page report includes a substantive number of amendments, be given standing before the committee to help it through the clause-by-clause process. Do you support us moving in that direction, to encourage getting all of these elements into this bill so that we do it right? Mr. Whittle: I would agree with that too, because I know Mr. Lepofsky works tirelessly and I know him as a personal friend. I was part of helping him come up with some of those ideas. They are really heartfelt ideas from the disability community. Those issues that Mr. Lepofsky brings forward are issues from inside each one of us who has a member in our family who is disabled. So we take all those things in there very seriously. Also, in my mind, I have to think of businesses and small companies who will have a hard time meeting expectations that are set too high. I have always told David that you have to temper our requests with reality, because it is very expensive to accommodate in some cases. I know from my own experience where I live that the owner of the building spent over $10,000 to put in a ramp so that we could have accessibility. I sold the idea to him by telling him, "Other people could use it: mothers who have strollers, people who are older. These are people who are on fixed incomes who will be paying their rent on time. They're quiet tenants. They're an asset to your building." He started to think that way, and he realized its importance, and how accessibility is not just for a disabled person; it's for everybody to use. He incorporated that in the building. Now, he's much happier as a result. He didn't mind investing the money, because he knew he would get an economic value out of it. If somehow we can think outside the box, we can help bring those businesses in along with the regulations that are coming in now. This would be a good thing. Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I appreciate your presentation. The difficulties that you and many other families face with children who have such a condition are very difficult ones. As a former teacher, 20 years ago, and as someone who's got relatives with children with severe disabilities, I am fully appreciative of the problems you face. We have a provincial policy that says we should integrate students in the classroom. That's a good policy. But if we don't give those teachers the support that they desperately need in the classroom so that kids can be integrated, then it makes it very impossible. I got the impression there from time to time that you almost make it appear like it's the teachers' unions that create this difficulty, rather than a funding model that makes it difficult to provide the funds so the kids can be in the classroom and so the teachers can give the benefit of an integrated kind of approach. I agree with that kind of an approach, but I also agree that governments need to give the support so that that can happen. I don't think we have that support. Mr. Whittle: You're right in saying that. I know what I had to do. I helped train the person we have now for Logan. I brought in experts who are already funded by other areas of the government to consult with the school board. What you have normally is a barrier that's built up, where the expertise that's already available and already funded by the province is not allowed to come into the school board to apply their skills and abilities to bring those teachers up to the speed you need to educate those students. That is the dilemma that's faced. This is a contract issue. This is not an issue of somebody not wanting to do it. It's an issue of having something written down on a piece of paper that says what you cannot do or what you don't have to do, and not what you should try to do. The reasons for the guidelines for the commission were to try to clear that up. We're not interested in contract language; we're interested in accommodating that student above all other issues. That's what really has to come to the fore here. It's unfortunate that so much animosity is created between unions and parents, but that is the situation they create with the way that they communicate with the public. I have no control over that. All I know is that, when I am in that classroom, my son needs to be accommodated and so do the other kids. People have to understand that that is a priority now. It's not about buying computers for staff; it's about accommodating that student. Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): First, I want to thank Mark, his wife, Laurie, his son, Logan, and grandmother Whittle for coming today to present to us their case and recommendations. I also want to tell you that we have an Easter Seal Society of London chapter that is very active. They play a pivotal role in our society in London in order to serve some people who have fallen through the cracks in the bureaucracy of the government. I want to tell you today, Mark, it's people like yourself who can bring this issue forward all the time, who can create awareness in our society in order to solve the problems we're facing. I agree with you. We have a lot of problems. We have a lot of things, and even Bill 118 wouldn't speak about them totally unless we have people active like yourself, like your family, bringing this issue forward in order to create awareness in the government and in the people of this province. I would just say, thank you very much for coming. Hopefully, your concern will be well-taken. We can note it and send it to the government, and hopefully we can do something about it. The Chair: Thank you again for coming. Mr. Whittle: We all have to have faith that things will be made right. That's what keeps me and my family going, and hopefully other people. I want to have faith in the government. I have faith in Mr. Jackson. He never let me down. I want to have faith now. That's why we're here, so I'm glad you invited me. The Chair: Thank you again for your presentation. SPECIAL
NEEDS The Chair: We are going to go to the 9:30 presentation if the people are present, Special Needs Computer Solutions Inc. Good morning. You have 15 minutes for your presentation, sir. Mr. Craitor: Terry, welcome. Why are you pulling a rope? Mr. Terry Scott: Why am I pulling the rope? Have you tried pushing a rope? I'm a disabled person. There are a number of issues I'm going to address quickly. I'm not going to provide any solutions, because I don't have the solutions. I don't envy any of you. I don't know if you can hear the voice on this. This is technology that's available nowadays. It's new technology; it's not incorporated. There are a number of issues I'm going to go through, and hopefully I can stay on it. I have a disability from a brain-stem injury. You know what? My brain-stem injury was in 1975. Ow. Mean anything? Yes, it means I still live with it. Can you see it? I live with it. Unfortunately -- I'm trying to make this thing work too -- there it is; that's all, from Sunnybrook Hospital, that was left. I denied it for 20 years. Then I went to look at it and that's all they had, one piece of paper. Nothing from Toronto Rehab. Nothing from either place. That was it, one piece of paper. I don't know what to say about that. I'm going to make some suggestions from what I read of Bill 118. Mr. Scott: I'm not going to bore you with listening to every speech right here. Access is not the main problem of having a disability. Having the correct accommodations for my disability is the key -- and everyone's disability is unique -- so that I can live and function within our society on a more equal basis. I don't want special treatment because of my disability. It makes me and my disability the focus. I don't want to be the focus. The focus is upon my ability to function competitively on any given task. The focus is upon providing some relief for the limited activities of daily living because of my disability. The focus must be on equality and ability. The things I need help with, some things that I need assistance -- I know my limitations. I make adaptations for them. I can't do this, but I can do that. Why does society discriminate against me because I'm a victim of something that was out of my control? I didn't choose for a boat to run me over. I didn't choose for any of this stuff that happened to happen. In the present reading, a disability is defined nowhere. Who defines an individual with a disability? Who defines the severity of any disability? In their simplest form, disabilities fall into physical and mental disabilities. These are both addressed in the further reading. A disability impedes the activities of daily living. There are medical professionals in many specific disciplines of these disabilities. Ought we not to appeal to these trained and qualified professionals to define a disability and the severity of each disability? What about multiple disabilities? Very few people have single disabilities. They do kind of run in groups, making everything very complicated. A person with a disability seldom has one disability. The attitudinal barrier: You can't measure an attitude, but you can measure behaviour. Behaviour can be quantified. I don't have an answer for that. There is an option in what I read of the recovery of the administrative costs. No real penalties; no teeth in the bill at all. No bite; no penalty. We'll get along with it anyway. We don't want to create a paper nightmare. We want to provide solutions, because solutions are the key. One of the issues that I see of access in the bill is backwards compatibility. How do you make something that you inherited from your predecessor, something that's been there for a long time, accessible with today's technology and today's understanding of what we can do now? It's difficult. There is no simple answer to that. I don't envy you at all. Again, that's restricted by financial resources. The bill doesn't at all address transportation for one individual to get from one place to another. I've got one person I often transport, [Inaudible] my ability to transport him, half an hour away. He's blind. He can't drive, and there is no transportation to Port Colborne. It's pretty hard for people. He has a job there. He can work. I can actually pay him, doing work. He can't get there. It's very difficult. I don't have answers. There is a problem with the ODSP level right now, when you're limited to how much money you can make. It's a system that's self-perpetuating. It doesn't provide the incentive to get off the system. There are a lot of unknowns about ODSP, what works for the clients with a disability themselves, who have limited understanding, limited problems, and the people who work as service providers such as myself. There is a problem with that right now. There is no clear delineation. There are 10 or 12 -- I don't remember the exact number -- different areas of ODSP regions across the province. They all do things differently. Every one is a little bit different in how they operate and function. I've talked to a number of the providers and program managers in each of the divisions, and every one is a bit different. There is no standardization. This is part of the discrimination, because there is a limit through employment to ODSP income supports, where you get your monthly income of $950. You can earn 15% of that; anything more than that is capped back. That's a problem. But if you're on ODSP employment supports and want to work for somebody else, there is no limit to how much money you can access through the government. If you want to work for yourself, because of your uniqueness and your disability, there is a cap of $5,000 that's available to you. Those two don't make sense. I don't understand a lot of the things. More about the differences of ODSP offices: Mr. Scott: When I worked for World Vision, we talked a lot about the poverty cycle and what's going on overseas in the starving countries. People can't get off if they go from hand to mouth. The food goes hand to mouth; that's all they do. It's the same thing when you're limited. You don't have the incentive to move. You're going to get penalized if you try to better yourself. I was very fortunate, for I have a very fortunate family. I didn't know any of this stuff. It wasn't available. I found out about ODSP well over 20 years past the fact, closer to 30 years after the fact, that these programs were there. Sure, they were called something different. Mr. Scott: Recommendations are only proposed; I don't have answers. We need to educate the public that it is the client choice. They have the choice of what is going to be best for them. Of course they're not going to have full faculties amongst themselves. Having a disability, they need help and guidance. I propose that you have qualified assessors. I'm grabbing some procedures from ODSP and ADP, trying to intermingle them in my presentation of what I think would be best. If we had qualified assessors, they would only assess people, with medical expertise, what would be best for them. A client wants to work: "Mark is blind; he can't be a taxi driver" is kind of obvious, but there are a number of things he can't do. There are a number of things he can do. So I would recommend qualified service providers who are trained and educated and have expertise in what they do. There are a number of organizations that have been around for a long time. The one-stop shop is great, but a client is there and they like the comfort of it there and they go through it. But is that best for the client? I don't know. The Chair: You have another two minutes, for the total 15 minutes. You can use the time as you please. Mr. Scott: There are a number of different ministries, about eight of them, that I counted quickly that deal with disabled people. Why don't we bring them all together under one roof? Keep everything together instead of everybody competing. It's all coming from the same funds somewhere and they're competing. Is that best for the client? How about an Ombudsman? I can't say that word. We don't have that right now. I think that would be of great benefit for disabled people. Mr. Scott: I appreciate your time. I don't want it to be a complaint session. I've been through a lot. I can't even come close to describing what I've been through and what I see right now, the other side of the issue. Technology: It took me a year to get this into this government system through ADP. Can it help somebody right now? Sure, it can. It's taken a year to get it through. Technology changes so fast. Why don't we take advantage of it? The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Scott. You did give us material for your presentation, so we will receive that and your comments. We thank you for your comments and for being here this morning. We'll move on to the next presenter, if they are present. Is someone from the Autism Society Ontario present? We have one cancellation. That's why we have some extra time. ONTARIANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT The Chair: Is someone from the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee present? Would you please come forward, madam? Sandra -- that's what is written. It's a name I am familiar with. Good morning. Ms. Sandra Bird: A very good morning to you all, and thank you for coming to Niagara Falls. Cam Jackson, it's wonderful to see you again, sir. Thank you for all you have done. Kim, we couldn't have done it without you, my friend. Thank you so much. My name is Sandra Bird. I am a proud member of David's team for Bill 118. I also serve on the mayor's accessibility committee here in Niagara and the regional accessibility committee for the region of Niagara. I was just given this as we came in, and I am so thrilled with it. I am actually talking about intermunicipal transportation. We had to have a two-thirds majority to try to get a mobility system up intermunicipally. A West Lincoln vote tipped the balance in the project's favour. So we really have a chance now, working with all the communities, to get this going. I hope it's going to be a go. Paratransit is the number one concern of any disabled committee. There is municipal transportation available within our city limits, but it is within city limits. Niagara Falls does not have accommodation for wheelchairs on the regular transit system, but Niagara Transit runs Chair-A-Van. Most surgeons, specialized doctors and services are located in St. Catharines. With changes in the health system at Hotel Dieu and Shaver, treatments may be transferred out of St. Catharines to other areas in the region. It is very difficult at the moment to even get enough accessible transportation to get our committee members to the regional Niagara headquarters for our meetings. Mobility Niagara was implemented through a grant by the region a few years ago due to the demand. They did not realize how much this service was needed, and unfortunately had to discontinue it after a period of one year. I myself have experienced the financial hardship of not having this service. After being discharged from the Hotel Dieu Hospital, an ambulance was called. I was charged $75 because I had to travel back home by ambulance. If Mobility Niagara had been running, I would have paid just $40 to come back. Because I needed to get myself and the wheelchair back to the hospital, that would have cost me $20. That is $40, not $75. We have been told there is an additional cost to the region when an ambulance is sent out. While preparing this presentation, I wanted to get current figures of costs travelling by Wheel-Trans taxi. The cost from Niagara Falls to St. Catharines return is $52. If you don't have special insurance, the ambulance is $95. As I mentioned, with the changes in regard to Hotel Dieu and Shaver in St. Catharines, it may mean that services will be transferred to other Niagara Health System sites, which would mean that persons with disabilities in St. Catharines would have to travel out of St. Catharines to the other areas. If persons have to travel to appointments several times a week, it costs a lot of money. People are on fixed incomes and they cannot afford it. Having intermunicipal transportation would certainly be more affordable and less strain on the ambulance system and would ultimately save money for the health system. We keep hearing about the new superhospital being planned. Am I wrong to assume that they want to replace the aging general hospital, Hotel Dieu and Shaver, looking down the road for a regional cancer centre, which is certainly needed in the Niagara region? The provincial gas tax was to be used to upgrade transportation systems. I fervently hope that inter-municipal transportation for persons with disabilities will be considered, as it would be a saving to the province's health system and persons on fixed incomes. Inter-municipal transportation must be included in Bill 118. We simply cannot wait until 2025 for intermunicipal transportation to be implemented. I also wish to comment on guide dogs and specially trained service animals. This act does make mention of this but doesn't really express the need for the animals and that they are as much a part of a person who needs them as someone needing a wheelchair or cane. They are just as important and must be recognized by the public sector. Also, they must be allowed to travel on public transit and specialized transit. Thank you for allowing me to speak to this. I will be very glad to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Marchese: Thank you for highlighting some of the difficulties that people with disabilities face. Mr. Marchese: It's important to hear the personal stories of people with disabilities, the financial hardships, the social burdens and/or the restrictions they face in society and the very incredible psychological difficulties they have to face in general. This bill obviously is something that is very useful in terms of how it addresses the concerns that people with disabilities have. In my view, there are weaknesses in the bill that could always be improved. One of the weaknesses of the bill in my view is the 20-year time frame. Although there are five-year cycles for standards committees and accessibility committees to be able to report, in my humble view, that is a very long time to achieve the kind of equality that people are seeking. It is my contention and the contention of many that we could reduce those cycles. Instead of five-year cycles, they could be three-year cycles. If we did that, then the whole term of dealing with what we want to get to would be 12 years rather than 20. It seems to me a more reasonable time frame to achieve what we want, rather than dragging it out interminably. If we did it every three years, governments would have to literally do something twice, that is, in the first three years, and then begin the second cycle while they were in government. It seems to me to be fair and reasonable. What do you think about that? Ms. Bird: Maybe for some things, but for transportation, we needed it years ago. We need to have that implemented right away, as soon as possible. Transportation is mentioned in the bill. Intermunicipal transportation -- if the bill actually said, "All means of transportation needed by the disabled must be in place," it would have to be done, and as I said in my presentation, it would save money. We are not out to try to cost people money; my gosh, we're trying to save people money. We know the problems the health system has right now and we know the strain, but with what is happening in the Niagara area, as I said, with the cancer centre and also with the hospital, people now are travelling three and four times a week for kidney dialysis, for cancer treatment, on fixed incomes. For instance, I'm in the process now of trying to get ODSP. I have been turned down four times, because I can feed myself and I can talk on the phone. I do a little bit of volunteering, but with my present medical condition, even that is a bit of a hardship. I love to do it. This is my passion. This is something I really feel good about. But if I have to travel -- I only get $420 a month. Half of that goes to rent. Do the math. So if I have to travel to and from -- fortunately, I have a lot of people who are willing to give me rides, but you can't expect them to -- gas is not cheap and you do have to make some repayment to those people for being very kind. But as you can see, that deletes my money. And I'm not saying, "Poor me." There are a lot of people in the same position. Mr. Craitor: First, Sandy, before I make a comment, I didn't have a chance to just say to Terry, thank you for your presentation, Terry. I still remember you were one of the very first people who came in and sat with me to talk about disability. I learned a lot from the time we spent together, so thanks. Sandy, I just wanted to say to you that one of the most positive things I've learned about the bill -- and I think it will help us in this community with intermunicipal transportation -- is the fact that there are no standards in this bill or in the process. All of us around this table want to expedite the process. I know we see 20 and 25, but the goal is to get it done much quicker. By setting standards in different categories, by having a standard in place in the area of transportation, it means that transportation will have to be provided, and the standard will be set by those from the disabled community, from the private sector, from government agencies. They will set a standard for transportation, and I think that will help drive intermunicipal transportation even here in our own community in the Niagara region. As I said to you, right now there isn't anything, and all the people in this room know how difficult it is to move around throughout the Niagara region. The final thing -- you echoed it, along with Terry, and I've heard it from many people -- is the ODSP. Terry, I was just talking with Jeff and he's going to make sure your presentation and some of your comments go to the parliamentary assistant to the minister, Deb Matthews -- as well as yours, Sandy -- to see if there's a way to improve it. Another person, Jacqui Graham, is here. I know she has put together a brief and it has gone up to the minister's office as well. So thanks just for taking the time to come out and participate. Mr. Jackson: Sandy, good to you see you again, and thank you for being here. I have two very short and quick questions for you. The challenges in Niagara are unique, probably more unique than anywhere in the province, because you have so many municipalities with so many transit systems. Only a handful have actual paratransit and they're not connected. Part of this problem is the fact that upper-tier municipalities don't have control over transit and lower-tier municipalities do, and there's no political force pushing them to the table and saying, "You must co-operate and provide service." So my question is this: Before the government gives, whatever the price tag is, I think it's almost $1 billion or more, of gas tax money to the municipalities, do you feel that money should go with a condition that they must integrate their transit systems and they must make paratransit a priority? Ms. Bird: I would say yes, they should. But what we have been told with our Niagara Transit -- and they are marvellous because we have the van system. We have asked Niagara Transit, "Would you be willing to incorporate wheelchairs and everything on regular transit buses?" and the answer from Terry was actually that it wouldn't be any more cost-effective for them. It would ultimately cost them more money. They are strapped now. That's why they would rather stay, he feels, in this area just with the specialized transit, the paratransit system that we have now. May I also say that Mr. Librock was very kind, and for anyone from Niagara Falls coming on paratransit today, it was free. So I do thank him very, very much for that. They've always been very co-operative with us. Another area -- and I'm not neglecting to mention this, because I know you're going to be hearing from other people: Niagara Falls is tourism. Someone coming to Niagara Falls in a van or something themselves, that's terrific. But if someone comes in and needs to get from point A to point B, there isn't any system within the parks to take people around, unfortunately. But that is the case right at the moment. I didn't really want to get into that because I have a colleague who will be most eloquent in what she will have to say later on today. The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Bird. The Chair: We'll move on to the next presenter. If Autism Society Ontario are here, would they please come forward. Madam, please have a seat there. You have up to 15 minutes for your presentation, and if there is any time left, there will potentially be questions asked. Ms. Orvitz, I would ask that during your presentation you moderate your pace so that all the people in attendance are able to understand and appreciate the presentation equally. You can start any time. Ms. Flavia Orvitz: My name is Flavia Orvitz. I'm representing the autism society. I'm the president of the local chapter of Autism Society Ontario. I'm here to inform you of what we consider as barriers to have individuals with autism spectrum disorders fully included in our community. I would like to tell you a little bit about us. Our vision is acceptance and opportunities for all individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Our mission is to ensure that each individual with autism spectrum disorders, or ASD, is provided the means to achieve a quality of life as a respected member of society. Our key areas of focus are advocacy and support, research, best practices, government relations, public awareness and governance. It is estimated that between 20,000 and 70,000 people in Ontario today have some sort of autism spectrum disorder. It's one of the most common developmental disabilities, with prevalence as high as one in 165 people. The number of people who are being diagnosed with ASD continues to increase dramatically. The nature of autism spectrum disorder: While it's a hidden disability -- it's not readily visible -- all people with ASD have problems in the areas of social interaction and communication skills. However, there is a wide range of ability levels among individuals with ASD; therefore, they need individualized programming in education or elsewhere. The challenges in communication range from mild to severe, with approximately one third of individuals with ASD remaining non-verbal throughout their lifetime. A majority of people with ASD have a significant level of cognitive impairment, although those with Asperger syndrome have more normal levels of cognitive functioning. The barriers for people with ASD that we have identified: Regardless of their functioning level, people with ASD face significant barriers to participating in the mainstream of Ontario life. The things that other people take for granted yet remain elusive for people with ASD include appropriate education, employment, leisure activities and supported or independent housing for adults. On appropriate education, many times, even the children who are mainstreamed or integrated do not get the specialized curriculum they deserve. They're plopped in the classroom and a lot of times are expected to learn incidentally. Leisure activities can include something like the Infinity Playplace that was supposed to be a new concept to be inclusive of everybody with every disability. Unfortunately, to people with autism spectrum disorders, it's just another park where children cannot be left to play unsupervised. Perhaps if it was fenced in, then we wouldn't have such a concern of the children running out into the street. That's just an example. It is our view that much of the current legislation, including the ODA of 2001, does not adequately address the needs of people with ASD. So what I ask is, how will the ODA make a meaningful difference in the lives of people with ASD? The ODA overwhelmingly addresses barriers in terms of physical barriers because, obviously, they're more visible, but there is little emphasis on the types of attitudinal barriers and policy barriers that constrict the lives of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. In order to make Ontario a barrier-free place for persons with ASD, changes need to be made to government policy in four key areas. The areas we've identified as being key are housing, day programs, the Ontario disability support plan and education. With regard to housing and residential services, historically, most children with ASD were institutionalized at some point during their childhood. This is no longer the case. In the 1950s, deinstitutionalization came into effect and the parents were expected to look after the children in their homes, but without sufficient funding to gain those supports. So the reality is that most children with ASD remain with their families throughout their childhood and, very often, throughout their adulthood. The majority of adults with ASD are not able to live independently and many of them continue to require a high level of assistance with basic activities of daily living such as dressing and personal hygiene. Adults with Asperger's syndrome, a higher level of functioning but still within the spectrum, are more able, but are still unable to manage the more intricate aspects of independent living such as household budgeting or maintenance. They are unable to develop social relationships that are necessary for functioning in society. They have challenges in understanding the motivation and intentions of others, and that impacts their daily interactions and can affect such things as paying bills, dealing with salespersons or just generally shopping. Developing and maintaining relationships is crucial to success in independent living and is a significant barrier for individuals who are cognitively impaired. Because of this deficit, a lot of individuals grow up without having real close friendships and they feel lonely and are very susceptible to depression. A lot of children, once they start to reach their puberty years, are more aware of their differences and they start to realize that they are different, and they feel alienated. A lot of them, unfortunately, fall into depression and are very suicidal. The supports that are unavailable: There is currently a waiting list of many years to access residential services across the province of Ontario, and that is for individuals with ASD or otherwise. Many adults remain in crisis in their family homes for many years. There are many adult parents who are over the age of 65, they're often in poor health and are looking after their adult children. When both parents are deceased, the adult with ASD is generally moved into any available residential placement, and that may include a locked ward in a psychiatric hospital. It can be a long-term-care facility for seniors. These could be adults in their 20s and they're placed in homes with seniors. It's not very appropriate. If the goal of the ODA is to encourage meaningful participation of people with disabilities in this community, then it must do the following: It has to address government policies that fail to provide adequate residential and housing services. It should recognize that appropriate housing and residential services for adults with ASD are essential if these adults with ASD are to be participants in the community. A range of residential support options should be available to individuals with ASD. Some higher-functioning adults can function fairly independently and they may just need supported independent living. Some adults will require one-to-one care for most of their lives in a very highly structured environment. Examples of some Ontario excellence in residential supports for adults with ASD include Woodview Manor, which is in Hamilton; Kerry's Place Autism Services; certain placements within Community Living Ontario. Some families have creatively supported their adults through individualized funding. We don't have anything in the Niagara region. Unfortunately, at Woodview Manor, which is the closest to us, there's also a waiting list. It's a good facility, but there's just not enough space for everyone. The importance of appropriate housing for adults cannot be underestimated. The lack of appropriate adult housing precludes full participation in the community not just by the person living with ASD but the elderly parents of the adult with ASD. What we need are more day programs. Currently we have adults leaving school at the age of 21 and they have nothing to turn to. They cannot hold down a full-time job, or even a part-time job for that matter, because of their disability, and they have nothing to do during their days and they're bored. This just reminds them how much they don't fit in, and once again they fall into a role of depression. Day programs are very important. Government policies must not fail to provide adequate funding for community support agencies. There are some agencies out there, but they don't have enough funding to continue or expand their programs. The programs that they have now have long waiting lists for many years and many service agencies provide services only for their clients who are receiving residential services. If they're not in the residential services, they don't get services. There's nothing like an outpatient sort of service available to these individuals who want to continue living at home. The Ontario disability support program: The level of financial support received through ODSP has not changed substantially in the last 10 years. This lack of increase has increased financial hardship for persons dependent on this funding, and it's created more barriers to participation in community activities for people with ASD. The policy of decreasing the ODSP as somebody gains some part-time income actually penalizes them by reducing their ODSP. A lot of these people may work for a couple of weeks, their ODSP gets cut off and then suddenly they lose their job because they just cannot work in that environment and then they face financial hardship because their ODSP has been reduced. In fact, it should be a reinforcement. They should allow a little more time to see if this person is successful in their working position, perhaps six months to a year. If it's pretty stable, then I would say cut it back a little bit, but don't penalize them for making an effort to participate in their community. Adults with Asperger's syndrome face very unique challenges to employment. These are the ones who can actually probably get through the interview, but then their sensory issues and other things get in the way and they just can't hold down that job. They may have some valuable employment skills, because their IQ tends to be either average or above average, but they still need assistance in obtaining and keeping this job. The ODA could recommend some guidelines and procedures for ODSP which would make it more meaningful for the adults with ASD. The ODA could also work to alleviate these problems by helping companies to understand these invisible disabilities. People with ASD would benefit from programs that would help them to understand their rights in terms of employment and discrimination. Funded programs that include job interview assistance and job coaching would be valuable as well. The ASO's submission to the Human Rights Commission in October 2003 identified four major barriers to appropriate special education for children with ASD. The first one is the appeal process under the Education Act. The second one is the lack of knowledge of the disability and the lack of specialized training on the part of the staff on how to effectively work with and teach students with ASD. The third is a funding formula for special ed. that discriminates against students with ASD. The fourth is the enforced short- and long-term absence from school for many students with ASD, which also creates a barrier to education. By that, it's the constant suspensions or withdrawals from school. What we recommend as solutions for these is that the Ministry of Ed. and school boards must operate under the statutes, regulations and codes that are meant to protect Ontarians with disabilities. In the even of non-compliance, parents should have a meaningful recourse to a remedy: A timely and just process that will ensure the student's progression through the school system. The Chair: Thank you, madam. You have just gone over the 15-minute limit. I thank you for the presentation. We have some material that you left with us and we thank you for both. Ms. Orvitz: Thank you very much for your time. ST.
CATHARINES AND DISTRICT The Chair: The next presentation is St. Catharines and District Labour Council, please. If I can remind you, it's 15 minutes for your presentation, if you can keep that in mind. Thank you very much. You can start whenever you're ready, please. Good morning. Ms. Suzanne Hotte: Good morning. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present today. On my right I'd like to present Donna Herrington. She's with the Joint Accessibility Committee of Lincoln, West Lincoln, Pelham, Thorold, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Grimsby. This committee plans for a group of over 100,000 people. I am Sue Hotte, president of the St. Catharines and District Labour Council. The St. Catharines and District Labour Council represents 36 union locals and 15,000 unionized workers in the area north of the Niagara Escarpment, stretching from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Grimsby. We have long been involved in many economic and social issues in our communities. We try to improve the lives of all who live in our communities. We do this through collective bargaining and working for legislation which improve living and working conditions, and working closely with community groups such as the advisory groups for persons with disabilities. We welcome this opportunity to speak to you today. According to Statistics Canada, 13% of Ontarians have a disability. In Niagara, the percentage is much higher due to our demographics. We estimate that there are over 70,000 people who have a disability in our area. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that we have strong legislation which will change the status quo and help improve the quality of life for Ontarians living with a disability. We are pleased with the bill, as it will help to create fully accessible communities. We do, however, have some concerns that the bill will not achieve its stated objectives unless some key changes are made, and we would like at this time to draw your attention to some of its major weaknesses and offer our views on how some sections could be changed. I'd like to pass this on to Donna now, please. Ms. Donna Herrington: I'd like to begin by thanking you, as others have, for coming to the Niagara region. We do not often get an opportunity to meet you face to face, and we thank you for that. To start with, the joint accessibility advisory committee, which I work for, is in agreement with any legislation that will help create fully universally accessible communities. However, we believe that the use of exemptions as a form of incentive for compliance is contrary to the purpose of the legislation and will only serve to create further barriers for people with disabilities. It also suggests that certain disability barriers are more important than others. As an example, if you say to a required agent that you must comply with physical disabilities, but you don't have to deal with policy disabilities, as an exemption, you're actually creating disabilities for further communities within the disability community. So we have issues with that. Also, we believe that once physical access standards are created, they should be included as a mandatory section of the Ontario building code. We believe the code should be modified and revamped and should be the means through which physical standards are enforced. Finally, we believe that a new, separate public entity or agency should be created to enforce this new legislation. Enforcement should be a provincial rather than municipal jurisdiction situation. Municipalities do not have resources or expertise across the board to fully implement this legislation to what your vision is. We also believe that a public entity will ensure transparency and public accountability for its actual enforcement. I'd like to pass it back to Sue. Ms. Hotte: Some of the major concerns we have: First of all is looking at the role of unions. We have been fighting to end discrimination against persons with disabilities. We have a great deal of expertise in dealing with issues of return to work and modified work. We have developed workplace accommodations required by our injured workers. The proposed legislation should be amended to allow unions to be involved at every stage of the process. In looking at the process, we need a process to allow us to bargain accessibility plans in all workplaces. By becoming accessible, workplaces will enable people with disabilities to have real employment. If there's a process similar to the Pay Equity Act of 1987 in place, accessibility plans would be bargained for in all workplaces, making it possible for people with disabilities to have real employment opportunities. Furthermore, no workplace should be exempted. We're also looking at the timelines. The timeline of 2025 is too long. Why should persons with disabilities wait 20 years for full implementation? The accessibility standards can be developed in less than 20 years. The bargaining process should start immediately, thus ensuring that important remedies can be achieved as fast as possible. If we start making changes now, once the standards are adopted, it's easy to review the plans and modify what needs to be done. Another thing we were looking at is that we need to make sure there are amendments ensuring union involvement. We have a list of recommendations dealing with part III of the accessibility standards. I won't at this time read the section, but would just outline that there has to be an accessibility plan for each bargaining unit and an accessibility plan for that part of the establishment that is not in the bargaining unit. The next thing we're looking at is section 12. There's a large and continuing investment of time and energy that will be required in order to develop meaningful accessibility standards. The bill should provide for payment of expenses or indicate if remuneration is authorized. Furthermore, it must address the diversion of scarce resources and costs that disability organizations will experience if their staff or members participate over a long period of time. We must support them to ensure that they are part of all the different committees. The other thing we're also really looking at is the purpose clause. A purpose clause in a statute is critical to its interpretation. The purpose clause in Bill 118 does not match the purpose expressed by Dr. Marie Bountrogianni on October 12, 2004. She explicitly stated that the bill, if passed, was to help remove barriers to persons with disabilities. Bill 118 states that the purpose of the bill is to benefit all Ontarians. This is anti-discrimination legislation and is not a general statute to benefit all Ontarians. Our recommendation is that section 1 be revised to clearly state that the purpose of enacting the bill is to remedy the systemic exclusion and discrimination that persons with all disabilities have experienced and continue to experience. Ms. Herrington: I just wanted to add to that piece that it's very important for the legislation to be cross-disability-based. What I mean by cross-disability is that it involves all disability experiences, whether they're physical, mental health, learning, cognitive, visible or invisible. You've heard that from others, and I'm sure you'll hear it again. There needs to be a true understanding and a true implementation that it involves everyone and that everyone's needs are equal. I think that needs to be more clearly stated. From the advisory committee's perspective, we feel that needs to be more clearly stated in the legislation, because it isn't so now. We also believe there needs to be a better definition of what it means to be accessible. We do believe that the creation of standards will work toward that, but we need a better definition. There's been a lot of talk about the definition of "disability," but very little talk about the definition of what it means to be accessible. I think there needs to be more work in that area as well. Ms. Hotte: The other item that I want to draw your attention to is the regulatory powers to exempt from the application of the act. As far as we are concerned, there should be no exemptions, because it's contrary to the purpose of the act. The way the bill reads right now is that the Lieutenant Governor may make regulations "exempting any person or organization or class thereof or any building, structure or premises or class thereof from the application of any provision of this act or the regulations." Definitely, this section should be deleted. There should be no exemptions. In terms of subsection 6(3), "to the public," we think it should be clear that accessibility standards made under Bill 118 will apply to organizations that have membership criteria -- for example, private schools, fitness centres -- or organizations involved in design, manufacturing and construction who do not provide their services directly to the public. Once again, "to the public" should be deleted from the section. The act should apply to everyone. There should be no exceptions. In terms of inspections, the bill should clearly state that the minister shall appoint inspectors, that there will be inspectors. It's not a question of maybe there will be or maybe there won't. The second-last thing I'd like to draw your attention to is the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council. It's very important that this should operate at arm's length from the Ontario government in that it has the opportunity and should be able to take action without first requiring a request from the minister. Last but not least is a section that we think is important dealing with the Ontario building code. Ms. Herrington: I've already alluded to the importance of using the existing code by revamping it so that it is a mandatory section of compliance. This will also impact how buildings are designed and that they will be designed for function as opposed to minimum standards. I'm sure you've heard this before and I'm sure you'll hear it again: the importance of moving beyond minimal, physical-only standards in the Ontario building code. We need to move beyond that in order for this legislation to be implemented effectively. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. There is no time left for questioning, but thank you for coming. The Chair: Our next presentation will be from John La Berge. The Chair: OK, we'll wait. Is John La Berge present? You are. You can have a seat in the meantime, sir. We'll wait until they are ready. Maybe I can just remind you that there is a maximum of 15 minutes for your presentation and potential questions and comments from members, if you allow the time. Also, when you make your presentation, keep in mind that there is some need for all of us to appreciate it. We certainly are ahead by about eight minutes. The reason is because one person did not show up this morning. We must wait until they are ready, but we are not really -- The Chair: I know. I am only trying to explain to everyone that we will be able to keep to our scheduled time if it's going to be ready within the next seven minutes or so. So hopefully it will just take a minute or two. Do you have any questions for us in the meantime, before the presentation starts? Mr. John La Berge: My presentation is mainly questions. The Chair: Well, then we'd better wait for that. Maybe we can have a coffee or stretch our legs for a few minutes, if anybody wishes to. Let's recess for five minutes or so. If it's ready sooner, it will be announced. The committee recessed from 1024 to 1058. The Chair: Thank you for waiting. Now that we are ready to proceed, I would like to remind all of you that this is the standing committee on social policy and we are here, of course, to hear your presentations so that we, the minister and the entire House at Queen's Park will be able to make some decisions that will affect all of us directly or indirectly. We will allow every presentation 15 minutes, as I said earlier. The presenters can use the 15 minutes to make their presentations, or if there is any time left, the members will be able to ask some questions. I want to remind you, though, that we do have cameras to show the province what we are discussing today and we also have people who are translating, to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to understand and potentially participate in this debate in their own forum. So please appreciate that. I think we can start with our next presentation. My watch says it is 11 o'clock, so you have about 15 minutes for your presentation, sir. Mr. La Berge: Thank you, Mr. Racco. I thank your committee members for allowing this presentation to go forward. My presentation will consist mainly of questions that are not, I believe, addressed by the aspects of the law. I will start with paragraph 1. Access is to extend to the provision of services or employment. I see no reference to meaningful, gainful employment, whether salaried, commissioned or self-employment. Will Bill 118 support access to re-education or retraining for any of these, which lead to quality-of-life issues? Will high-functioning, high-intellect adults having an acquired brain injury and/or comorbid conditions continue to be forced to seek access to these necessities or rights on their own? As this is framed, I perceive that Bill 118 limits right to access to society's benefit to a state solely responsible for assuring mechanical entry to buildings, public or private, for persons utilizing, for example, powered chairs or similar devices. This act refers in limited forms to the protection of aspects around life and the quality of it. Given the near secrecy attached to Lyodura and its consequences for the disabled, what assurances about equal attention to quality of life -- for example, internment -- will be included in Bill 118? My next item is in regard to definitions and informational barriers being a contravention. Will the hodgepodge of regulations that exist across the province regarding levels of assistance available to persons with disabilities -- for example, social service or Ontario disability support programs -- continue to be operated or managed in an atmosphere of secrecy, offering little information about what is available or what are the requirements to apply for the benefits of either? That process is bewildering, as it is kept that way and demonstrated as kept that way through the persistent practices and pervasive attitudes of front-line staff, case workers and managers of each agency. The attitudinal barriers of staff and management, or both, have been described as being finely honed passive-aggressive psychological intimidation, which is especially prevalent in ODSP staff and management practices. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal makes a mockery of appeals of that process, which would normally be available under law to the non-disabled person or persons for whom benefit of legal representation is an affordable expense. The concept and effects of brain injury are neither addressed nor defined. More often, an ABI, or acquired brain injury, is in and of itself neither quantifiable nor visible. An ABI is also an incurable disability. Its effects may be identified and addressed. It is a disability which can, under present legislation, be considered equal to mental incompetence. Persons having an acquired brain injury have, in a strict sense, no rights under the law other than those of the Mental Health Act, if they exist. A refusal to consent to a course or courses of treatment is not available for the owner. Objections to those courses is also not available. The rollator affair of the 1990s has remained unaddressed by medical, legal and other professional bodies, especially provincial and federal Legislatures. I will continue with the definition. It is not inconceivable that persons trained in that despicable practice continue to address the main and comorbid distresses of disabilities attached to brain injury. Yet they still practise those inhumane but still illegal medical procedures or techniques in one form or another. The ABI owner, a guardian or caregiver has little or no practical recourse or redress when medical error by technique or philosophy results in further injury to a person with a disability. Where does Bill 118 address that aspect of quality of life and, under section 3, require that existing legislation -- if it is a benefit of it -- is available? Under paragraph 3, a brain injury often leaves a portion of the brain, bluntly put, dead. That portion now being declared dead, under current law, renders the person legally incompetent. By definition, that also describes mental retardation as a disabling disorder or condition. Persons with an ABI are employed in legal, financial and educational positions. This contradiction will, through Bill 118, create a new and very discriminatory category of disability. I object to being included in a class of persons labelled as mentally incompetent to form and express cognitive processes. I have, despite having 25% to 40% of the right side of my temporal lobe excised due to an auto injury, an IQ of 140-plus on the Wechsler scale. I do not fit the category of a person with a mental retardation condition. Under part III, subsection(8)(2), how and when, or where, will persons identified as having an acquired brain injury, or an agent of the same, be advised that a standards development committee member position will or has become available or vacant? I see no reference to the composition of such committees specifically referring to this aspect of disability. Accessibility to members of generally available knowledge of sittings of such committees, which would be posted, is also absent, other than the dates on which reports from the same are due to the Legislature and the public. My closing remarks are these: Under quality of life, access to conveniences in society is stressed by this bill. However, access in the form of physical entry requires, for example, the use of entry to a facility or free movement within upon gaining entrance, including freedom from the fear of injury, assault or other issues. Persons providing installation service and repairs to, for example, the door locks, which many people do open -- even with the advent of lever locks, which are fortunately available to persons with disabilities. However, as consequences have proven, there are no standards for competence and training for such positions. The Ontario government spiked, if you will, Bill 40. There are many records of assaults, sexual assaults and sex crimes which occur in the non-disabled community. Those are reported. How many to persons in the disabled community are left unreported? That aspect, I believe, is not addressed in the act. Thank you for permitting me to address this committee. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. La Berge. If there are any questions, we do have two minutes each, and I will start with the Liberals. Any questions? Mr. Ramal: Thank you for your presentation. I know you raised a lot of questions. One of them was about employment and education for a person with a disability. I believe the intent of the bill, the aim of it, if passed, is to make all workplaces accessible for persons with disabilities, and also all schools and private and public facilities. Despite what's been said, the bill equally treats private and public facilities to be accessible for all people with disabilities. In order to do that, I guess we have to work hard on it. As we said in the bill, it's going to take about 20 years. That doesn't mean it will be 20 years before we start seeing progress. At the end of that time, in 20 years, we should see all Ontario, all facilities, whether private or not, accessible without any conditions or problems. We have a five-year increment in order to follow up on that procedure. I believe that when we create a barrier-free Ontario, it will make life easier for people with disabilities, enabling them to have access to malls, doctors, hospitals, schools and workplaces. I believe this will affect the quality of their life. This also answers part of your questions. About the definitions around ODSP, as you know, with all the physical difficulties we are facing in Ontario at the present time, we increased ODSP by 3%. I know it's not a lot, but it is a step. In the past 11 years, we had no increase. It's the first time in 11 years that we had an increase in ODSP. Attitudinal barriers are also very important. It's not just yourself talking about it; many, many people are. We've listened to about 50 to 60 presenters in the last two or three days, and all of them talk about attitudinal barriers. Yourself in conjunction with the government, we have to launch an aggressive campaign, working together in order to break these barriers by education, by publication, by talking to your neighbour, to organizations etc. I believe that what you raised is very important. I strongly believe that Bill 118 answers most of these questions. If this bill passes, it will make life a lot better for many, many people living with disabilities across the province of Ontario. Thank you very much, again, for coming and presenting to us. The Chair: A quick question from Ms. Wynne? Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): No, it's OK. Mr. Jackson: John, welcome. As one who knows of your past presentations before governments and tribunals, I know you are a paralegal and you do an excellent job in that regard. I'm delighted that you're here. In many respects, in the third day of our public hearings, you've opened up questions that previously have not been raised in areas with respect to the Mental Health Act, with the exception, perhaps, of Don Weitz from People Against Coercive Treatment, who presented a very strong presentation with respect to the need to protect a whole range of individuals who are being subjected to certain treatments unnecessarily or inappropriately. So I wanted to ask you this question: Do you believe that this act should contain within it a review of the Mental Health Act or the Consent to Treatment Act? If there is time for a supplementary, I have another area with a vulnerable persons protection act, which I've been doing some work on. You raised some very interesting questions with respect to classification, treatment, denial of treatment and so on and so forth. Mr. La Berge: Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for recognizing that point. There is only one answer, and that is, putting it mildly, definitely. It cannot be stressed enough, the necessity to overhaul the Mental Health Act, the welfare act of Ontario, various attached family court issues, the unified family court issues. They all have to be overhauled to address this. Perhaps even federal issues such as successions, wills, estates, competency acts -- especially competency acts -- have to be reviewed. Provision for the representation: It is not inconceivable that a person with an acquired brain injury or a mental competency condition is not capable of forming reasonable concepts or reasonable levels of understanding and being able to express this. That right has to extend to caregivers or persons within their sphere of influence. It has to be extended. It's a necessity. Thank you for asking that. Mr. Jackson: If I might, just very quickly, I had a case of a constituent of mine who was sexually molested in a home care situation. He never did live long enough to appear in court. So there are two issues here: the vulnerability of persons with disabilities from external caregiving, outside of the family and sometimes within the family; and also the issue of the courts not providing an immediate response so that justice can be performed very quickly, because you're a paralegal. Do you believe that we should be developing some kind of vulnerable persons protection act in this province that would better codify the protection for persons who -- and I include vulnerable persons, because that could be children, the disabled, it could be seniors, people who aren't able to protect themselves? Mr. La Berge: Again, "yes" and "definitely" are perhaps as close as I'd like to express toward that. Mr. Marchese: John, you've raised a lot of good questions and that's why, because they are questions, I think government members should answer them. I'm going to give up my time so that they can respond to the many questions you've asked. The Chair: OK, that's fine. Is there interest to answer the questions? Ms. Wynne: Could I just comment? If there was time, one of the things I wanted to clarify -- because I think one of your questions, John, was about the composition of the standards development committees. Ms. Wynne: Right. Intentionally, the way the act has been written, it's open. We haven't specified who would be on those committees at all, and I take your point about people from your particular area, the brain injury folks, being represented. But the way the act is written, it's persons with disabilities or their representatives, and the minister would take advice on who those should be. So I just wanted to clarify. The problem with making lists is you leave people out. It's left open so that we can get the right people on those standards development committees. Mr. La Berge: I address that, again, with a question. I, as stated, have a very unique disability. I have several invisible disabilities. I believe -- and this is not to put a negative slant on your response -- that while I may not represent each person in Ontario with this particular or a comorbid condition, I am also an individual who has rights and I would like to have the right, if I am not present, to have my concerns at least addressed. Mr. Marchese, thank you for allowing me to present even that level of thinking to myself. Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): John, thanks so much. One of the interesting themes that has developed this morning from your presentation and a previous presentation from Sandra Bird is the secrecy around ODSP and the operation of ODSP. I wonder if you could comment on it, because ODSP is the principal financial assistance vehicle we have for people who are disabled. So could I just get your comments with regard to secrecy and the lack of transparency? The Chair: Quickly, because we are already over time. Mr. La Berge: Unfortunately, Mr. Racco, with respect, I would like to write that response. If I can have the question written out and made available to me, I will provide that in writing with some personal experiences. Mr. Leal: I appreciate that. Just before lunch, if you're here, I'll have -- Mr. La Berge: You bet I'll be here. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. La Berge. The next presentation has left something in writing, so we will receive it. The Chair: The next presentation is from Josephine Hewitt. Is she here? I was making reference, by the way, to the 11 o'clock presentation. We'll deal later on with that one. Ms. Josephine Hewitt: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Josephine Hewitt. You can call me Joey. I am not here today presenting to you on behalf of any organization. I am simply here as an individual, a 49-year-old taxpaying voter, living and working full-time in the regional of municipality of Niagara, who also just happens to be afflicted with primary progressive multiple sclerosis. As a person battling a chronic, incurable, disabling disease, the issue of a barrier-free Ontario is of paramount importance to me and my family. I have a sister with MS. She's in attendance here today. I also have another sister with Guillain-Barré syndrome. We all reside in the Niagara Peninsula. I myself struggle daily to hold down a full-time job in order to pay my mortgage. I so strongly support Bill 118 that I am giving up a day's pay today in order to attend and participate in person at these public hearings. I have read the proposals in the brief presented to you by the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee and I wish to tell you that I support these proposals wholeheartedly. I proudly commend all parties of our government for voting yes to Bill 118 on second reading and I thank you. I strongly encourage you also to vote yes to Bill 118 on third reading so it will pass unanimously. Here in our Niagara Peninsula we have a population of approximately 410,000 people. Of that population, there are estimates that there are approximately 70,000 -- not 17,000 -- disabled persons living among us. Demographically, the region of Niagara has one of the largest aging populations in Ontario. There's a huge number of seniors living here. We expect to see a significant in |