|
|
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY Thursday 3 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 the members are around here, but they haven't reached this room yet. The Chair: Of course. There are at least three of us here. Maybe at least we can start the process of explaining to you what we will try to achieve today. I'm sure you already know that, but we are here to hear presentations from you, the people of Ontario, on Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. Of course, second reading took place already. All three parties in the House supported the second reading. We are here before going for third reading. Your comments will be taken into consideration and there will be questions from members to you during your presentations to make sure that we understand as much as possible what your intentions and objectives are and try to reflect them in the final Bill 118. There will be 15 minutes' time all during the day for anyone making a presentation. Anyone making a presentation can use the 15 minutes to make a presentation. But if there is any time left from the 15 minutes, then the members can ask questions of you; otherwise, we'll move on to the next presentation. In addition to that, we do have people, as you can see, who are translating. It will be shown on TV what's taking place today so that Ontarians all over the province will be able to hear and see what we are discussing, what we are saying, and go from there. There are also two individuals in the room, I believe, assisting. If anyone needs help, they are there to assist you. If you need to go to another section of the hotel, if you need water or if you need to move around, they are here to assist you and so on. Whenever you make a presentation, keep in mind that all of us want to appreciate what you are saying, so take your time to make your presentation. That's basically what I wanted to underline. The Chair: There are four of us here, so we'll start with the first presentation. The first one is Donevan. Good morning. You can proceed any time. Donevan: Good morning. Thank you for taking the time to hear me. I would like to make several points and then give my personal story on why you should listen. One of the things the bill needs is an advocate position which will deal with intergovernmental, interprovincial, different organizations and stuff from a point of view of not a policeman but a strong adviser, and possibly even a policeman, to facilitate, negotiate where the system doesn't overlap well. The definition of a student loan has been changed such that no student can actually qualify under the changed definition. I have approached my member of Parliament. He says he can't help me because I haven't filled out the form. My doctor won't fill out the form because of the definition. So I'm now caught in a Catch-22 situation, one of many. My life is a fine example of finding all the cracks in the system. So there needs to be someone to talk to, like the people at the student loans, to say, "Wait a minute. This definition is discriminatory," and not to use minor little technicalities, "Well, you didn't fill out this form." "I can't, because of the definition." "But we won't talk about the definition until you fill out the form." Inspectors would be a very important part of this process, that there be inspectors to look at buildings, facilities, and in particular -- my interest -- educational facilities where they can go in and have the power like a building inspector. This hotel has a handicapped entrance but none of the bathrooms are handicapped-accessible. They have nice little signs on the door, but if you can't open the door you can no more use it than -- you know, you might as well not have the handicapped door on the front of the building if you can't use the bathroom. This is virtually universal in that if you look at hotel buildings they will have a handicapped door into the building, but once you get in the building there are spiral doors, you can't use the bathrooms or anything like that. Universal design works. The Eaton Centre in Toronto, when it was built, put in ramps for the disabled so they could use the building. They found that 95% of the traffic uses the handicapped-designed path versus the path that was designed with steps and stairs. I think that tells us something. The other recommendation I have is that the definitions and stuff be functionally based in that, instead of saying that a path must be three metres wide or six metres or whatever, you have a functional approach. For this, I suggest that for an educational institution the definition be such that you may approach, enter, move about and access a washroom without the use of a third party. You do not have to rely on the charity of others to open doors for you and to get you in or out of the bathroom. You should be able to use a building like any other normal person. Also, consider linking, particularly educational institutions and such that receive federal and provincial grants -- that if they do not meet minimal standards, which should be raised over time, at the end point of the 25-year plan, such that a person going to a building no longer has to ask where all the handicapped stuff is and whether it's hidden in the basement or by the back door. There should no longer be this built-in architectural discrimination. The details are everything in handicap accessibility, especially the little details. The building code does not require a railing for a single step, but if you are handicapped, have cerebral palsy or something like that, that railing is vital to your safely negotiating that single step. If a ramp is not of a certain size, a railing is not required on it, but if your balance isn't good, you definitely need a railing on a ramp. It takes a lot of learning to look with the eye of a disabled person and to consider, "OK, if I was in a wheelchair" -- I had specifically requested a room for last night that could accommodate a walker. However, the placement of the bed blocked access to the secondary bathroom door. The bathtub has a very narrow lip on it, so you can't sit on it to get into the tub. There is a safety bar on the far side of the tub, but if you can't reach it, it's of no value. It's all in the details. I'd like to give a couple of examples of why Bill 118 is desperately needed. I am a student at the University of Windsor. I've been going there since 1994 on a part-time basis. I've graduated with a psychology degree and am currently completing my social work degree. When I enrolled at the university, I applied as a special-needs student. I've since had three complete psychological and physiological workups because, according to the government, they expire every couple of years -- like I'm magically going to change overnight. I think that's a waste of money, time and effort. Good documentation is valid at some point, but I don't think you need to repeat it every couple of years, except in a few cases. Each semester, when I start my term, I am given a letter of introduction to my professors. In there, it states that I use a digital tape recorder, that I get reserved seating at the front of the room and that I write my exams in a private, isolated area. However, this last semester my professor decided that he didn't like the idea of me using the tape recorder. I politely informed him that since it had been approved by the university and by the special-needs office, he didn't have a say in it; it had already been decided. He basically said, "I don't care. I'm in control of this classroom. What I say goes." This discussion went back and forth, while remaining technically polite. During the fifth class, the teacher called in the police and had me arrested, handcuffed, dragged out of the building and down to city hall to be tossed in jail. This was over my refusal about my accommodation device. Because I did not follow the professor's instructions not to use my disability accommodation, which was duly certified and approved, now I have to go through an extremely lengthy and costly legal process. They have suspended me from my studies and are preventing me from returning to my studies. This is just unfair. There needs to be someone the university and places can call up and get information, because they don't know, and they don't really want to know. I've repeatedly sat on committees for the designs of buildings. They have recently built a new stadium that seats 2,000 people and has additional seating for 4,000 more on the grass area. We are supposed to be handling seniors' games, disabled games, paraplegic games and Ontario Games there. For all these participants, there is one male and one female handicapped-accessible bathroom. According to the design, there still is not a door opener to be built for the bathroom. How are these people -- there is an exemption in the building code that organizations, particularly larger organizations, can base their decisions on. We have 35 handicapped bathrooms for the university. That's good enough, but it's not good enough on an individual building-to-building usage. If you've got 2,000 people watching a football game and half-time comes up, what chance does a person who is in a wheelchair, who must use a single elevator to change floors, to get to the bathroom, have of actually making it to the bathroom before the whole game is over? It is these Catch-22 situations that need to be eliminated, the little things. Recently I forced the University of Windsor to make a number of changes, although they were reluctant to admit I had anything to do with it. They put in a handicap ramp at the back of a building complex, which is -- The Chair: There's a minute left for your presentation. The Chair: The Liberal Party, please. Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): First, thank you very much for coming this morning. Also, I want to welcome the committee to London, the forest city. Welcome to London. I agree with you about all these issues not being dealt with because we don't have the standards. The standards are not in place. When we have the standards, I think the hotels, universities, schools and many institutions will follow the standards, and then all the places will be accessible for people with disabilities. Donevan: Thank you. May I make one more quick point? Donevan: Under the human rights legislation, only a person with a disability can make a claim or bring it to their attention. As a concerned individual -- my partner has cerebral palsy -- I can't legally say, "Look at this railing situation." She herself is required to fill that out. She can't get it done. Because of her disability, her life is quite difficult. It's just another -- that people can act in the best interests of society, as individuals, not only as the complainant. The Chair: Thank you. The time has expired, unless somebody wants to ask a question. Thank you very much, sir. I wanted to thank the local MPP from London, Mr. Ramal, for having us here today. I also wanted to remind those who want to see what has happened here today on TV that it will be shown on Saturday, February 5. So if you wish to check what takes place on TV, what is taking place here will be shown on Saturday, February 5. The Chair: The next presentation is the Accessibility Centre. Good morning. Ms. Tracy Roetman: Good morning. I'm Tracy Roetman, from Sault Ste. Marie. The Chair: You can start any time. Ms. Roetman: I'd like to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to address Bill 118. When I called to make reservations here, there were no accessible rooms available. It would have been very nice to stay at this motel. I'm staying in a brand new motel with 120 rooms. They have one accessible room, and it's not completely accessible because the toilet is 14 inches, which is very hard for anybody who has to transfer. It's really low. At this time I'd like to commend the minister for taking the initiative to strengthen the act. This is a much stronger act and addresses the real issue of persons with disabilities being able to participate fully in the life of the province. It also addresses the need for penalties for non-compliance, something that was sorely missing in the previous bill. In my years of working toward a barrier-free Ontario, we have lost many dedicated individuals who never gave up on the hope or the dream of seeing the barriers coming down. They gave their limited time to fight so that others could enjoy the freedoms they never had the opportunity to see. A large number of the individuals I now work with will not live 20 years to see this act implemented. Another generation will have grown up and not enjoyed the freedoms that the majority of the population take for granted. As a Canadian from a compassionate country, I'm embarrassed. I understand the complexity and vastness of the task before us, for we have all had to make our homes accessible. I am encouraged by the realization that the people I have worked with, speak with and sometimes vote for are finally becoming aware of the value and importance of what they can learn from those who live outside of the perceived norm. I have lived on both sides of this issue; I know the difference. For those of you who are here, having lived on both sides, it is a lot harder on this side of the issue. Please do not insult me with your pity or promises; bless me with your honesty and integrity. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend the many accessibility advisory committees for their part and commitment as volunteers. My local AAC donated 35,000 hours in the last two years to make our city and surrounding communities accessible. I mentioned before that I'm pleased to be here and grateful to be among people who have struggled in this battle. I'll not forget those who fought the fight and lost, or those who I know will not live to see this bill become a reality. Let us keep those individuals in the forefront and respectfully honour them by successfully making this a reality. I'd like to see government spend some money on education for the public. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of fear and misunderstanding that could easily be rectified through education. We have left some of the language open to interpretation. There are aspects of the bill that may be interpreted differently if the government changes. One of the first things that needs to be defined is "accessibility." Sault Ste. Marie has created an Accessibility Centre to address accessibility issues, a home for accessibility in the community. As a centre, the hope was to assist the city and surrounding areas on accessibility issues, education and promotion of an office that works with existing agencies. We hoped to develop programs to fill the gaps. I have to say that at the onset of this, I had some idea of the needs. The reality is that we underestimated the needs by far. I need clarity. Most of the clients I work with have no understanding of the forms they are being required to fill out. If they get one part of the form wrong, they are rejected. I thought this would be a small part of the job; I was wrong. The people I see are overwhelmed by circumstances and are looking for a way through the system, looking not only for guidance but also for dignity. I believe that the government has lost sight of the impact of these processes on the people. We have many volunteers, but one comes to mind: a kind individual suffering from a brain injury. We're helping him get back into life in a protected environment. He is learning to accept who he now is, and we are learning from him each time he comes in. I have come to understand many different aspects of disabilities, but one of the rewards of working with people is understanding that they all have the same needs. They are just looking for a place to fit in. Let us leave none behind. Let us recognize the value of what we are undertaking. Again, I commend the government for taking a leadership role. Let us address the gaps, the words and the bill so that it is crystal clear. Let us not make this another situation where it is so governmented up that it's unworkable. I would really like to see the information flow improved. I should not have to rely on information being passed to me by another person on e-mail. I am thankful; at the same time, I'm well aware of the sad fact that a good part of the people who should have the input are being left out. They are not techno-literate, or are on the wrong side of the digital divide. They have no means for a computer. Twenty years is too long. We are not building a spaceship; this is not rocket science. My group would be happy with 10, but I believe it could be done in five. The standards are out there; so is the technology. There are ways to address this. A business plan should look like a flowchart so there is no guesswork involved. The plans and standards are good. The fines are substantial. It identifies that we are taking this seriously. I would also encourage this government to make available low-interest loans, tax incentives, and a planned dateline for development, a one- to three-year program for supporting barrier removal. You will definitely need regional boards that have representation on a provincial board, through the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or even the directorate. I would encourage that the formula used to develop these committees be the same as the formula we use for the AACs: 51% disabled persons. There are standards all over the province and throughout the world. This is not a difficult task. Take away the choice, just as you did when you implemented the AACs. Planning is critical. You cannot accomplish anything or any task if you have not set guidelines and timelines for completion. We need to know the extent of the exemptions being offered, other than those for historic buildings. As board members of Community Living Algoma, we struggle to maintain a standard of living for our clients. Unfortunately, the agency has been doing little more than crisis management. There has been no increase in base funding since 1994, except for special programs, and we can only run them as long as the funding lasts. There have been layoffs, and as much as we try to say it doesn't affect the clients, with every layoff there are transfers and repositioning of personnel, which alters the consistency of care. This is hard on these vulnerable people. This is not right. They also cannot comprehend the comfort allowance -- $112, which will be going to $115. On a personal level, I've raised four children. That $112 wouldn't cover their bus passes, their haircuts, their toiletries. There's nothing left over for comfort. There's nothing left over for a hockey game or taking a lesson. We should be ashamed here. I would like to include their bill of rights; it's something they've come up with. "Community Living Algoma Bill of Rights: "Respect: Respect my ability to make my own choices and decisions. We can disagree, but be nice about it. Say sorry when you are wrong. "Self-advocacy: to be the person I am and choose to be; to know and understand my rights and options and have my choices respected. "To be heard: to speak for myself and be heard; to get the help I need to communicate. "Privacy: to decide what privacy means to me -- locks on my door; my own keys; reading my own mail or having it read to me; knock on my door; my own space to be alone; not touching my things unless I say it is OK; to use the phone in private; right to sexual intimacy. "Choosing supports: to choose who, when and how I am supported. "Living: to choose where I live, who lives with me and some say in who visits my home. "Relationships: to spend time with who I want. "Work: to explore and choose what type of job works best for me; to continue to learn and grow. "Money: to be in control of my money and to decide how I spend it. "Free time: to choose what I want to do with my free time and to be in control of my time. "My information: to know and decide what personal information is kept and who sees it." Students with disabilities; trained attendants or assistants: Children who have needs and need assistance are being given assistants who have no training. Kids are being left behind in programs that they should be able to partake in -- swimming, social events -- some because of no accessibility, some because the TAs refuse to participate. When an understanding or a working relationship is formed, there is nothing in place to keep consistency with that TA. Success is difficult enough. We cannot continue to fight for rights. The understanding that we have with our AAC is that it's a partnership, just as Bill 118 has to be. The Chair: Mr. Jackson, do you have any questions or comments? Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): First of all, I want to thank you for coming such an extensive distance for the hearings. Ms. Roetman: This was the closest place. Mr. Jackson: It's unfortunate you weren't accommodated in Toronto. You've expressed concern about specific timelines within the 20 years. Is there a specific sector or a priority that you'd like to recommend to the committee that we should begin with? The minister has indicated she wants to start with hotels, which was how you started your presentation, the hospitality industry and transportation. Are there areas that you feel over the 20 years we should be starting with? Ms. Roetman: Education should be first. We have one child who can't go to school in his community because the community refuses to accommodate him. He has to ride an hour on the bus. He's there with children who aren't his friends and aren't his neighbours and he has no choice. Mr. Jackson: Do you feel that the school boards should be required under law to file annual accessibility plans so that parents like yourself would be able to know just what -- you could be auditing -- Ms. Roetman: It won't be any good unless you put people, parents on there with disabilities. Right now, the MUSH sector doesn't have to do that. Their plans, most of which I've looked at, except for a few, are a joke. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. The Chair: We'll move on to the next presentation, from Ms. Catherine Linderoos. Is Ms. Linderoos present? Yes. You will have, as I said earlier, 15 minutes total allocated for your presentation. If there is any time left, we will allow questions. Ms. Catherine Linderoos: Thank you very much. I'm hoping that most of you at this table have my speaking notes. If you don't, I'll get you a copy after. My name is Catherine Linderoos. I'm a retired teacher. Before being diagnosed with MS in 1987, I taught school in Ontario. I taught many students with specific learning disabilities over a period of nine years. I was 33 years of age at MS diagnosis and I'm now 50. I am a member and a volunteer regional contact for the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, London region. I am very pleased that upon second reading, Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2004, was voted for by all three parties. I am very glad that the standing committee on social policy is here in London today hearing from the public on Bill 118. I fully support the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee's brief suggesting amendments to Bill 118. You have that copy from David Lepofsky, so you know that "brief" is not the best word for it. I look forward to seeing an amended Bill 118 passed into law after receiving unanimous support upon third reading. Regarding Bill 118, I've gone through the ODA Committee's brief and selected out a few of the amendments I want to address today. The first one is that section 8 should be amended to the following: "Identify the minimum number of standard development committees that must be established within six months of the bill coming into force, and identifying at least some of the key standards areas that should be covered. These should include, among others, standards committees to address transportation, education, health care, the built environment, employment, large retail stores and customer service to people with disabilities." That does not reflect necessarily the order of importance, and of course that's open to your input and debate, I should think. This morning, I would like to address the crucial area of education. When I think of education within this area, I'm thinking of standards development committees which will address special education testing, accommodations, placement and review in both elementary and secondary schools. Today, I can highlight some unnecessary barriers to students with unidentified learning disabilities in the London area. Not addressing these barriers -- in other words, not having a standards committee under the AODA, 2004, and not having the Ministry of Education's policies and accessibility reports and planning -- means you do have and you will have a worsening of those existing situations where students do not receive the appropriate testing and necessary accommodations in school, become discouraged, drop out and/or fail to take full advantage of the many opportunities for education, for apprenticeships and ultimately for paid competitive work. This is a trend that Ontario, a province with a declining birth rate, declining public school enrolment, an aging population and looming skilled trade shortages, can ill afford. It has been suggested elsewhere that only those students with the greatest special education needs are currently getting the services they need in those Ontario centres where there are a great many school-aged children with special education needs in general. This suggestion goes on to state that, because of its concentration of health care and medical resources, London, Ontario, is one such location. That may or may not be true. At any rate, we must redress the inequities province-wide as soon as possible. Passing Bill 118 with the necessary amendments will assist with this task. I've outlined an excerpt from an association called the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, and it's just about learning disabilities, nothing else. It refers to a number of disorders which may affect the acquisition, organization, retention, understanding or use of verbal or non-verbal information. Going on in the second paragraph, "For success, individuals with learning disabilities require early identification and timely specialized assessments and interventions involving home, school, community and workplace settings. The interventions need to be appropriate for each individual's learning disability subtype and, at a minimum, include the provision of: specific skill instruction; accommodations; compensatory strategies; and self-advocacy skills." I've read the accessibility plans for 2004-05 from the Thames Valley District School Board, as well as the 2004-05 accessibility plan from the London District Catholic School Board. Of all the areas where unnecessary barriers against people with disabilities might be identified and addressed, the barriers encountered when trying to access special-education testing, identification and placement seem to have merited little specific attention in these plans. Perhaps the accessibility working groups have privately viewed the current provincial education funding formula as the primary reason why such barriers or obstacles cannot effectively be dismantled under the ODA, 2001, and so have opted to leave that fight to another political arena. At any rate, there are written requests from the Thames Valley District School Board to aid with monies to allow measures to be afforded to remove barriers under the ODA. I am concerned that the length of waiting lists for special-ed testing in elementary schools is a formidable barrier to students with unidentified learning disabilities. I've met parents who, for whatever reason, are not succeeding and did not succeed in getting their children considered for testing at all. These are extremely serious barriers. An excerpt on timeliness from the recently published discussion paper Guidelines to Accessible Education, from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, explains why this should be dealt with as soon as possible. That's on the next page, page 5 of 8, under "Timeliness." Another sort of barrier concerns the number of students with special needs assigned to each special education teacher. That's very relevant to southwestern Ontario because that figure is very high in school boards in southwestern Ontario, according to the People for Education 2004 Elementary School Tracking Report. This barrier should be dealt with as swiftly as possible. The reason I brought forward the People for Education tracking report is so that you don't have to depend on my anecdotal experience or experience in the classroom from 18 years ago, which is a very long time -- a lifetime ago. I suspect we were doing a better job of addressing special-ed difficulties, at least assessment, 18 years ago than we are now, because there are 43,000 students within the province of Ontario just waiting for service, and those are the ones who have been identified. What about the ones in northern Ontario who can't even get psychologists to identify them? That is a travesty. Where there is insufficient funding for appropriate special-education instruction, then, at least teachers within the mainstream classrooms will better be able to accommodate those students identified as having learning disabilities. Children who are tested and told they have a specific learning disability, for example, can and should be taught to understand that they have strengths and not just weaknesses that matter at school. This is an indispensable component of teaching. I think costs are very, very important, and I cannot overlook the fact that with a $5.2-billion deficit, which doesn't even compute, we have to be respectful of costs. Therefore, going on to page 5, the government and an education standard committee should immediately ask that concerned Ontarians think outside the box on the cost of this important issue. One example is that community foundations such as the London Community Foundation could be approached by school boards' foundations. There is a program called the assistive devices program, ADP. It's where people like me can apply for and be helped with the purchase of a wheelchair or something for mobility, like a walker. Of course, I'm not just talking about physical barriers today, but those are the examples that come to mind. As well, there could be something set up to help parents who can't afford to have testing done when a school board says, "I'm sorry. There's a waiting list." Pro bono work by psychologists and psychometrists could be solicited by northern school boards. Any parent or teacher should be able to request that their child or student be tested for learning disabilities. Look at this timeliness thing. This is from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It talks about being a breach of the code. They mean the Human Rights Code. So being a breach of the Human Rights Code, you don't want people having to go one by one with their barriers up against the existing Human Rights Commission, but we don't want to get rid of it either, because it's got some really excellent points. The Chair: There is about a minute left, madam, in your presentation. Ms. Linderoos: Thank you very much. Section 9 -- this would be on the second last page. Section 9 should be amended to reaffirm and make it as clear as possible that accessibility standards developed under the bill shall ensure that the level of accessibility for persons with disabilities is equal to or exceeds the level of accessibility required by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Since I've finished all the time I have, I just want to say one last thing. The suggestion was that education should be very, very important and brought in for students within the schools to learn about what accessibility means. I think that's very worthwhile, and it's very important for those people who are going to be working in the field and bringing their expertise to the standards committees -- that sort of thing, the architecture, and we'll say design consultants. They need to get to school right away. Thanks very much. The Chair: Mr. Marchese has a question. Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Catherine, thank you very much. I think you've identified, as have many others as well, a big field of concern for students, young people with education needs. I don't think the government had in mind to create a standards development committee that would specifically deal with this, but I think it's a critical area. To leave that just to the educational system, as if somehow they're dealing with it, would be a mistake. I think this would be very comprehensive in terms of what they should be doing and ought to be doing. I don't believe that that list of 41,000 students that we identified in opposition when the Conservative government was in power has been dealt with. Mr. Marchese: I believe it's still there, and I believe a whole lot of students -- Ms. Linderoos: Or it's growing, but we have to look for the next annual report. Mr. Marchese: I'm not sure it's a question, other than just simply saying to people that they should lobby, as you're doing today, to make sure that we set up a standards development committee dealing specifically with special education in our school system. Ms. Linderoos: No, but at least within the sector. The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, and the question. The Chair: We'll move on to the next presentation, from the city of London, Susan Eagle, councillor. Good morning, and thank you for having us here in the beautiful city of London. You can start whenever you are ready. There is a total of 15 minutes for your presentation and potential questions. I know there will be people who want to ask you some questions. Ms. Susan Eagle: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Councillor Susan Eagle for the city of London and I'm joined today by Mr. Kash Husain, who is the chair of the city of London's accessibility advisory committee. With your permission, we'd like to combine our presentation time and that of the accessibility committee, which is supposed to follow us. So we'd like to put the two presentations together, if that's acceptable. Ms. Eagle: I'm also joined by Grant Hopcroft, who is our intergovernmental and community liaison, and by Robin Armistead, who is our municipal policy specialist, if there are some questions or time during the presentation when there is a specific issue they might want to address as well. The Chair: Sorry, just to make sure everybody understands, there are two presentations together. We have a total of half an hour for your presentation and questioning. Please proceed. Ms. Eagle: Thank you. I'd also like to welcome the committee to the city. We're certainly delighted that you were able to come and hear the presentations that are being made today. Not only do we have folks at the front here today representing the city but we have members of the advisory committee who are also in the audience. We're joined by another staff person, Joyce Burpee, our human rights specialist, and also a councillor colleague, Judy Bryant. So perhaps that gives you some indication of the seriousness with which we take the work you are doing and our partnership with you in that. We believe that the public sector has a lead role to play in the creation of a barrier-free Ontario. We have long recognized that accessibility planning is a long-term process. We know that community consultation is integral to that process. As council, we join with our mayor in the commitment to build a better community through identification and elimination of barriers. Over the last 20 years, London, with its 338,000 residents, has witnessed an expansion in the number of citizens with disabilities. Today, we estimate that there are over 43,000 people with some form of disability, and we expect that figure is going to increase as our population ages. We began accessibility planning back in 1997, when we adopted a policy designed for the inclusion of people with disabilities in recreation facilities and services. Then, in 2001, the city joined with Partners in Leisure, a community-driven consortium of service providers working to develop a responsive leisure system for adults with disabilities. With partial funding from the city and the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, it coordinated a community response and produced a leisure directory, which provided information about leisure activities and accessible outdoor and indoor facilities. That same year, an inclusion enhancement study identified barriers faced by children in summer day camps. Since then, new policies have been introduced, including comprehensive staff disability sensitivity training. In 1999, city council adopted a diversity policy for the city, followed by an accessibility policy for all city departments the next year. We have recognized the need to seek input from persons with disabilities when we have been developing these policies. As there was no accessibility advisory committee in place at the time, London council took the initiative and created a position on their diversity advisory committee for a representative from the London Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. In 2001, city council adopted the facility accessibility design standards, known as FADS, to make newly constructed or renovated city facilities accessible to people with physical and sensory disabilities. Designable Environments Inc. was hired to develop these standards, with input from more than 12 local disability organizations. Libraries, local arenas, the John Labatt Centre, community centres, long-term residences and parks are just some of the facilities that were affected by this standard. We believe that, with community involvement, everybody wins. As a city, we have tried to create accessible planning which is right for our community as well as meeting the legislative requirements of the ODA. Since our advisory committee includes members with a variety of disabilities who have direct knowledge and experience, we have a better idea now of how to eliminate barriers. As well, we've involved our staff to make sure that we have a flow-through from the kinds of recommendations we get into active planning and implementation. Just quickly, I want to identify some lessons we've learned. We need to involve as many people as possible from a wide range of representation in accessibility planning. Not only does it make for a better process but it creates ownership. We've learned that we need to promote consultations throughout the community with formal letters to disability organizations and/or telephone, e-mail or mail contact with all interested community members. We've learned that we need to schedule consultations taking into account the needs of participants with disabilities: plan meetings around available transportation, ensure meeting rooms have enough space for wheelchairs, and ask participants what's needed in terms of accommodation, such as sign language interpreters, material format in Braille etc. We've learned that we have a diverse representation of disabilities on any type of accessibility planning initiative and that that's critical. If it isn't possible to include the whole, broad spectrum, then we need to look for people who can bring to the table more than one area of expertise so that we try to cover as many areas as possible. I'm going to turn things over now to Kash Husain, who chairs our advisory committee, so he can give you some of the specific details and recommendations that we'd like to make to the committee. Mr. Kash Husain: With regard to standards development committees, we endorse the direction the legislation takes with the establishment of accessibility standards for both the private and public sector. The development, implementation and enforcement of a set or series of strong standards will ensure that persons with disabilities, no matter where they live in Ontario, will receive equitable treatment and be given equitable opportunity when seeking services throughout this province. It is therefore vital that these standards be comprehensive and be developed by persons with disabilities for persons with disabilities in partnership with each sector. Bill 118 provides for the formation of standards development committees whose mandate will be to produce accessibility standards for sectors of the economy. While Bill 118 acknowledges that these committees will be composed of representatives from the government, the sector of the economy to which the standard applies, people with disabilities and other stakeholders, there is no time frame given as to when these committees will be established and how these committees will function. Nor is there any indication as to the number of standards development committees that will be established and/or the sectors that will be governed by these proposed standards. We recommend that, rather than establishing a standards development committee for each sector of the economy, the minister consider setting up a few standards development committees with a broad scope of sectoral responsibilities. We also recommend that these standards development committees be set up so they operate at arm's length from the government. This will be necessary to establish trust with the disabled community. The city of London would like the province to establish a specific municipal sector standards development committee following the passage of the AODA to allow for focused representation of large and small municipal issues and standards. Furthermore, this municipal standards development committee will be composed of a balanced, representative number of municipalities -- both staff and politicians -- persons with disabilities, organizations representing the disabled community and ministry officials. We would like the ministry to identify a process for seeking applications and/or nominating members to serve on these and other standards committees, a fair review and selection process, clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each standards committee, voting procedures, mechanisms for settling disputes, and a process for reimbursement of committee members' travel and accommodation expenses. Bill 118 states that there will be opportunity for public comment on proposed standards for 45 days after each standard is posted by the minister and that the committee can then make any changes it considers advisable prior to providing the proposed standards to the minister for a final decision before it is enacted as a regulation. The city of London hopes these standards development committees will be able to actively consult with stakeholders as required while the standard is being developed. We would like to see the public record of standards committees be transparent while different points of view could be brought forward. There needs to be a clear record of each committee's deliberations and their reasons for adopting or not adopting a particular standard. The proposed time frame of five years for the first development and implementation for proposed accessibility standards is, in our opinion, too long. We propose shortening this first development period to three years. The bill implies that accessibility standards will come into force only when the standard has been completed in full. This could result in undue delays as some standards may take years to complete. The minister should allow standards committees to develop standards, in particular the municipal sector standards, in sections or parts thereof. This will allow the city of London to implement each section of an applicable standard without delay. One of the positive aspects of Bill 125 was the requirement of municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more to form municipal accessibility advisory committees. However, the success of the workings of these advisory committees varies from municipality to municipality. One of the reasons for this discrepancy is that Bill 125 did not clearly specify the roles and responsibilities for these advisory committees. Thus, it was left to them to negotiate the terms of their duties with their respective municipalities. London chose an open and transparent process in preparing the mandate and composition of its advisory committee. Public consultation sessions were held, and Londoners with disabilities were able to contribute toward the establishment of their advisory committee. Our committee has worked hard in establishing a close, co-operative working relationship with city council. We believe we have been able to make a meaningful contribution toward making London accessible to people of all abilities. During the past two years, we have been able to get council support on many initiatives, and we have listed for you a number of these initiatives. Despite our success, there are many advisory committees that are still struggling. The minister has the power to assist these committees by ensuring that the terms of reference for them be enhanced and included in Bill 118. To assist the minister in determining these additional duties, we have included in appendix B the terms of reference for London's MAAC, and we hope you could use that as a guideline. With regard to municipal standards development timing and content, municipalities are unique corporations that reflect the size and scope of the communities they serve and, as such, need flexible timelines for implementing a municipal standard. The timing of annual reporting should be flexible and linked with the municipal budgeting process. ODA, 2001, is not specific enough for municipalities to know what is expected. It is recommended that Bill 118 be more specific related to the proposed categories for municipal standards development. With regard to the built environment standards, I can tell you that as an electrical engineer working in the consulting business for over 20 years, myself, architects, contractors and construction personnel have been inundated with standards in the design and construction of all types of facilities. There are standards for the building envelope, standards for the electrical and mechanical systems, standards for fire protection and HVAC systems, and standards for the purchase of materials. These professionals are also required to comply with municipal bylaws in plan submissions and reviews. Should we be introducing a new set of standards or regulations governing the work these professionals do, or should we be enhancing the standards currently in use? The Ontario building code is used by the built environment. It is, therefore, used in the design of hotels, motels, restaurants, retail stores, apartment buildings, condominiums, arenas, libraries -- just to name a few -- and including government facilities, train and bus stations etc. In fact, any building built in Ontario which will be used by the public must adhere to the requirements of the Ontario building code. Knowing this, why would we consider sectoral built standards, such as those for hotels, restaurants and municipal facilities, when the design of these buildings is already governed by the Ontario building code? We strongly believe that our time and resources can best be utilized if we work toward the establishment of a strong and effective Ontario building code, complete with a section devoted to the principles of universal design. Professionals who use these standards and codes are used to seeing regular updates and attending seminars which explain the changes that are upcoming. The city of London recommends that its facility accessibility design standards become the built environment standard for municipalities and other sectors, if achievable. We have provided for you a CD which contains the complete set of standards, and we hope that you get an opportunity to review them in detail. The implementation of FADS, as we call it here in London, has made newly constructed and/or renovated city of London facilities, lands and services accessible to people with physical and sensory disabilities. FADS go beyond existing regulations, standards and guidelines that currently address the needs of persons with disabilities. This standard incorporates universal design principles that benefit people of all ages and abilities. Some of the design elements included in FADS are: access and circulation; space and reach requirements; doors, gates, windows; disabled parking; curbs, ramps, stairs and handrails; escalators and elevators; washroom facilities; signage, lighting, flooring and colour treatments; visual alarms, assistive listening systems and telephones. This gives you an indication that these standards are comprehensive and cover a wide range of disabilities. They're not just limited to those with physical disabilities. London city council adopted FADS before the ODA, 2001, was approved because they believed it was the right thing to do and that it was also good for business. We have a list of large and small municipalities that have formally adopted FADS -- you'll see that list in appendix C -- and London has specific experience in the use of this standard related to new construction and renovated municipal facilities. For example, the use of FADS has been shown to add 3% to 4% to the total building cost of new construction. FADS have also had flexibility related to heritage building standards, noting that municipalities are often the owners of buildings which can be difficult and costly to renovate. We would like to see the concept of FADS incorporated into the next version of the Ontario building code because it incorporates the concept of universal design. We feel there should be one minimum built environment standard across Ontario. In this way, suppliers of building products will create new accessibility products that will match the market demand generated by having a common standard. There are a couple of other standards that are currently in use by engineers and architects that we feel should also be upgraded and enhanced. These include the Planning Act and a couple of other ones that are used by the Ministry of Transportation, specifically the Ontario provincial standard specifications and the Ontario provincial standard drawings. These are used by MTO primarily in the design of traffic signals, curbs and sidewalks. We believe that by updating these standards, the ministry would then download them on to the various municipalities and the cities that use these standards in the design of their traffic control systems. That way, there will be no need to provide a new set of standards, as they can be implemented by those produced by the MTO. The standards committee struck to review these OPSSs and OPSDs, as they're referred to, should consist of traffic engineers and designers, MTO staff, as well as representatives from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The Chair: There's about five minutes left, sir. Mr. Grant Hopcroft: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be dealing with the issues of enforcement. The proposed act is enforcement-driven and enforcement-focused and similar in approach to other enforcement-driven pieces of legislation such as environmental protection and human rights legislation. While we recognize that enforcement is necessary in some instances, we believe that education is going to be the key to success of the AODA. We encourage you to take the lead in developing a marketing campaign similar to the no-smoking campaign that's currently ongoing in Ontario. Municipalities and their accessibility advisory committees are prepared to assist in that initiative. We think that it is incredibly important for the success of the legislation that there be some flexibility as it applies to both the public and private sector to ensure that there are appropriate periods of time for various sectors to respond to the new standards. I'd like to also outline some concerns we have with respect to a continuation of a thread in terms of administrative penalties that we see in this legislation. This is a concern to municipalities on two counts. One is the overlap with the provisions of the provincial offences penalties that are applicable and the double jeopardy, in some cases, that places on those who do not comply. It is also a concern to us from a monetary perspective because, in the provincial offences stream, we would see the revenues from those fines accrue to the municipal sector, and that was part of the local services realignment in the 1990s. We'd like to address as well the issue of site plan control. This is a very powerful tool that municipalities have in terms of controlling the accessibility of sites. There are many developments in the province of Ontario that are not currently covered by site plan control, and we would urge the committee, in terms of an enforcement mechanism, to look seriously at permitting retroactive requirements for site plan agreements and site plan control on sites across the province so that municipalities, in addition to the province, have a tool with which to ensure that all of our facilities, both public and private, are accessible to those who need it. Thank you. Ms. Eagle: In conclusion, I would be remiss if I did not identify two other areas, and they are in the printed material that we've provided to you. One is the need for an orderly transition as we move from ODA to AODA. We certainly would be looking for some help as a municipality in making sure that there is an orderly transition there. Finally, the area of funding, and that's not a new area, I'm sure, to this committee or to the provincial government in the dialogue that we have as municipalities with the provincial government. Certainly we do identify that there could be some funding needs that are part of moving forward and we want to ensure that there is an opportunity and some dialogue between you and ourselves and other municipalities in ensuring that there is sufficient funding from the provincial level to assist us in doing the work that we need to do. I see that our local MPP is nodding his head, because he knows we've had many dialogues with him on this and other areas as well. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. We appreciate this opportunity to be here. Again, our learning has been that we need to do this together, we need to be proactive and we need to be as inclusive as possible as we move ahead. The Chair: I thank you. I will allow all three parties to have a minute, and I'll start with your local MPP, Mr. Ramal. Mr. Ramal: First, I want to thank the city of London, Grant, Susan and Kash -- I'm sorry, I don't know your name -- Mr. Ramal: -- and Robin for coming today to present in front of the committee, with your recommendations for Bill 118. The city of London makes me proud all the time, especially when they mentioned London as an example that should be adopted across the province for working with the disabled community and being accessible as much as possible. Susan, I want to assure you, it's not going to be like the past. Our government is not going to download things on any municipality across the province. From the dialogue between the Premier, the ministers and our government all the time with municipalities, whatever we do, whatever we move, on any issue that comes up, we like to consult municipalities and see how we can work it out together. We believe strongly that we cannot move forward without consulting with the municipalities across the province because we believe you are a true partner to go forward toward prosperity in this province. I share your concerns about different issues, especially about the continuation from ODA to AODA. There's not going to be an emptiness. I believe the ODA will still be an act and will establish standards in order to move forward to make the linkage and the bridge in order to maintain our standards across the province, and to maintain your work. You've been working for a long time with the disabled community in this city and in this province. I thank you very much. The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Welcome. I've had the privilege of working with some of you over the years on this issue during the development of Bill 125. It's on that issue -- you would probably be quite aware, Mr. Husain, that the access advisory council of Ontario specifically has in the current legislation, the ODA, the responsibility to prepare the regulations that affect all sectors referred to in the bill. So the council, as it's currently constructed with a majority of disabled persons, is required -- and in fact they have been working on developing standards for the province. Are you aware of that? Mr. Husain: I'm aware that the council does exist. We have, quite frankly, not had much communication with them unless it has been at meetings such as this. There has been very little communication with them. Mr. Jackson: You would be aware, then, that in accordance with the act, they also have responsibility to develop regulations for programs that are provided by the government of Ontario and, further, that the bureaucrats, known as the Accessibility Directorate, are responsible under the act to prepare those draft regulations, standards, codes, codes of conduct, guidelines, protocols, all of which are to be developed by the civil service, and that both those sections in the bill that involve the disabled community are being removed under the new legislation. Are you aware of that? Mr. Husain: Not as such. As I say, I was aware that some work was being done in the background, but we are not familiar with what exactly has been done. Mr. Jackson: I encourage you to read -- The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Marchese? Mr. Marchese: I want to thank you for your submission. I think it's very thorough and has very universal applications across Ontario and, in that regard, I hope the government will use it. Three quick points. First, on enforcement versus education, I know that you think this is enforcement-based, at least from the way you presented it, but while there is a fine, and a big fine, it doesn't say in this document that the government will hire inspectors, it doesn't say that a director will review accessibility reports -- it says they "may" -- and we don't know who's responsible to administer those penalties or fines. So it appears as if there's going to be a strong penalty-fine kind of approach to this, but it's really not there. I wanted to point that out. I agree with you on the issue of education. On the issue of municipal downloading, I won't be as sanguine as my colleague Mr. Ramal on this point because I think there are a lot of municipal concerns about downloading responsibilities to you folks, and it does involve considerable costs. I hope the money will flow. The third and final point, because I don't have much time, is to agree with you on the standards development committee suggestions. I think you propose a lot of useful things that we should be looking at. In addition to the fact that you said there was no time frame given -- and that's true, because we need a time frame to get this going -- I agree with you that it shouldn't be 20 years. I've been saying 12. It should be 10 or nine, and if we can get there, that would be great. On the other suggestions about setting up a few standards development committees with broad-scope sectoral responsibilities, that's useful. A municipal sector would be good; you'll probably agree that there should be an education one as well, because it's big. I want to thank you for all those suggestions, and I hope the government will review them very carefully. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Have a lovely day, and thank you again for having us here today. SAULT
STE. MARIE ACCESSIBILITY The Chair: The next presentation will be from the Sault Ste. Marie Accessibility Advisory Committee, Mr. Taylor, please. Good morning, Mr. Taylor. You can start whenever you're ready. You know the rules already. Let me just remind everyone that in the back of the room there are two individuals who are available if anyone needs any assistance. You may proceed now. Mr. Gerard Taylor: First, I'd like to thank this committee for holding these sessions on Bill 118. In October 2001, the province enacted what we have come to know as the Ontario disabilities act, ODA. The purpose of this act was to improve opportunities for persons with disabilities and to provide for their involvement in the identification, removal, and prevention of barriers so that they might fully participate in the life of the province. The ODA gave the people of Ontario, and especially disabled people, the opportunity to have a voice and a platform to work from on accessibility in Ontario. In the ODA, municipalities with a population of over 10,000 people had to form an accessibility advisory committee, or AAC. Each AAC had to be made up of volunteers, and at least 51% of those members had to be disabled. Municipalities under 10,000 people could still form an AAC, but most were left to merge with bigger municipalities in order to participate in the ODA process. One of the most important responsibilities of these AACs was to audit municipal property and respond to their city councils with an accessibility plan that identified the barriers for removal within their community. Some municipalities bypassed the committee and hired a consultant. We question whether all municipalities produced an accessibility plan. From information recently received, some neglected to submit accessibility plans in their communities. As far as we know, there have been no repercussions for not complying with the ODA, in the form of penalties for municipalities, as outlined in the ODA. Along the way, AACs came up with more questions than they had answers for as committees had the opportunity to meet at events such as the Access Ontario conference in Sault Ste. Marie in 2003 and the Michael Lewis memorial forum in London in 2004. There's a further AAC event planned for later this year in Burlington, Ontario, in June. At these events, many questions and concerns were raised. Some of the most frequent question were, first, why didn't the provincial government include the private sector in the ODA; secondly, where were the universal standards in the ODA; and finally, where was the funding? The province responded to AAC concerns, and on October 12, 2004, Dr. Marie Bountrogianni introduced Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the AODA. The AODA's purpose is "to benefit all Ontarians by, "(a) developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services ... occupancy of accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025; and "(b) providing the involvement of persons with disabilities, of the government of Ontario and of representatives of industries and various sectors of the economy in the development of the accessibility standards." In the purpose of both the ODA and the AODA, the province wants to do what is best for Ontarians. If that's so, then why does it take 20 years for disabled Ontarians to regain some self-confidence from our leaders in government? When the ODA was implemented, AACs didn't have the luxury of long timelines when it came to developing accessibility plans for the municipalities, and most municipalities were not able to meet the fall deadlines with detailed accessibility plans. Many AAC members quit or got ill as a result of the frustrations they experienced in the ODA process. When we consider the timeline contained within Bill 118 -- 2025 -- it seems that the province overlooked the sense of urgency among disabled Ontarians to obtain accessibility in Ontario. When the province implemented the smoking ban in public places, business grumbled and groaned, but business responded with smoking areas complete with bright lights, gas heaters for the cold months, and liquor licences, which cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. Phasing in standards will slow down accessibility in Ontario. Bill 118's adding a more significant compliance date such as 2009 would be a better idea. This is 2005, and we have the technology and experience to make accessibility happen faster than the timelines outlined in Bill 118. Municipalities all over Ontario have been over the issue of standards time after time. Some municipalities have adopted their own standards already as bylaws, and are implementing them even as we speak. Many municipalities have gone above and beyond the universal standards in some cases. We have all heard the phrase "Let's not reinvent the wheel." It seems redundant for the province to implement a standards development committee and allow five years for their input when we have Ontario's AACs in place right now. AACs are waiting patiently for their opportunity to propose their ideas on standards. Another section of our society which may be given some more consideration in Bill 118 is the MUSH sector: municipalities, universities, schools, and hospitals. The MUSH sector had to develop accessibility plans but didn't have a timeline imposed on them as to when they were going to become accessible. One main reason for this was funding. Our MUSH sector is cash-strapped and government-driven. Our AAC went to work on that question, and they propose that the days of free handicapped parking are over, that all disabled Ontarians should be charged a fee for their parking permits, anywhere from $5 a year. Whether you park with a permit or without a handicapped permit, it would generate funds to benefit all AACs across Ontario that are cash-strapped. Each MUSH sector could receive up to 25% of this revenue. However, the province would have to dedicate these funds to accessibility in Ontario. The Chair: One minute is left, sir. Mr. Taylor: Accessibility means: being able to use a public washroom any time, any place; being able to get into buildings to apply for jobs, to see your physician or dentist -- to be able to get through the entranceway; being able to purchase a house and not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to make it barrier-free. A barrier-free society means just that: free. When we make accessibility easier for disabled people, we will make accessibility easier for all Ontarians. To make an effective AODA, we must consider what is truly best for all Ontarians by striking a balance between MUSH, public and private sectors. If we collaborate on accessibility and prevent further barriers from popping up, we will have achieved a major step in a multi-step process. If the people of Ontario want accessibility, we must take the bold steps necessary to achieve the accessibility goal for all and be proud of what we have accomplished. The Chair: I want to thank you, Mr. Taylor. There is no time for questioning. Thank you very much for coming, though. SAULT
STE. MARIE AND DISTRICT The Chair: The next one is from the same area, Sault Ste. Marie and District Barrier Busters, Ms. Dorothy Macnaughton. Welcome. Ms. Macnaughton, like the other speakers, you have 15 minutes that you can use for your presentation. If there is time left, we will allow some questions or comments from the membership. You can start any time. Ms. Dorothy Macnaughton: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'm not sure exactly who the members of the committee are that I'm speaking to, so at some point it would be really helpful if the members of the standing committee could perhaps introduce themselves. The Chair: We can do that now if you want. Ms. Macnaughton: That would be wonderful. The Chair: We'll start with the local MPP, please: name and riding. Mr. Ramal: My name is Khalil Ramal, MPP for London-Fanshawe. Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I'm Peter Fonseca, MPP for Mississauga East. Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Ernie Parsons, MPP for Prince Edward-Hastings, otherwise known as God's country. Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I'm Kathleen Wynne from Don Valley West in Toronto. The Chair: And I'm Mario Racco from the Thornhill riding. Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My name is Ted Arnott, and I'm privileged to represent the people of Waterloo-Wellington. Mr. Jackson: I'm Cam Jackson. I am the MPP for Burlington and was the Minister of Citizenship who drafted and designed the ODA. Mr. Marchese: I'm the NDP member from Toronto, Trinity-Spadina. The Chair: You may proceed, Madam. Ms. Macnaughton: Thank you. I appreciate that. I represent a group called Barrier Busters in Sault Ste. Marie. We're actually an ODA committee, and we've been around for about six years or so. We're made up of people with a variety of disabilities, people who have low vision, are blind, who are deaf or hard of hearing. We have people involved in our group who have cerebral palsy, arthritis, a brain injury. We have parents with children with disabilities. So we call ourselves a cross-disability group. Everyone involved in our group is a volunteer. We have no money of any kind. We're fairly informal. We're basically a grassroots advocacy organization. We wholeheartedly support the brief which the ODA Committee submitted. We are an ODA committee in Sault Ste. Marie that has been actively working toward strong, effective legislation to identify, remove and prevent barriers for people with disabilities. We attempt to increase public awareness and understanding of the challenges facing people with disabilities. A few of our Barrier Busters are happy to be here today: Tracy Roetman, Gerard Taylor and Catherine Meinke, who is also a member of the accessibility advisory committee in Sault Ste. Marie, as I am myself. Living in northern Ontario has challenges, and particularly in the winter, the highway north of Sault Ste. Marie is often closed. Even if it weren't, we couldn't travel the distances involved to get to hearings in Thunder Bay; that's why we're here today. We have quite a few other people in our community who would have loved to have been able to come, but due to physical limitations, the limitations imposed on them by other disabilities, they weren't able to travel the distance. We are pleased that this government has examined carefully the current ODA and has developed Bill 118 and the proposed AODA, creating accessibility standards with penalties if the standards aren't adhered to. At the present time, organizations named in the ODA, such as municipalities, school boards, transit authorities, colleges, universities and hospitals, struggle to develop accessibility plans and their own standards. Some municipalities took advantage of purchasing a copy of Peterborough's accessibility guidelines, which they willingly shared. This provided an excellent base from which to create accessibility standards. Unfortunately, there is no consistency across the province. It's encouraging that this act will apply to the private sector, something which ODA committees have been requesting for years. Our Barrier Busters group feels it's important to put a face on the reality of living with a disability day in and day out. That will help you to understand the impact of this proposed act on our lives. During my presentation, I'll give you some examples, real-life examples of what people have faced. A person in our group who is in a large electric wheelchair can't get into her doctor's building. It's an older building, so it doesn't fall under the current ODA, and it actually wouldn't fall under the AODA, because it's not about to be built nor is it about to be renovated. She can't get into her doctor's building independently because there is no automatic door opener. The doors are too heavy for her to manage. If she does manage to get in with help, she must get a key for a small elevator which doesn't accommodate her larger wheelchair very easily. The door into her doctor's office is small. She can squeeze in, and when she gets into the examining room, there are no lifts. To make it possible for her to visit her doctor independently, this building must be totally accessible, with the same standards as a new municipal building or, under the new AODA, a new restaurant. She wants to be able to have full access to these facilities by herself. This act will have a positive impact on people's lives only if accessibility standards are implemented within a shorter time frame, such as 10 years. Many people with disabilities are already older and won't likely be around in 20 years to enjoy the level of accessibility which this act is designed to create. Many of our group have mobility impairments or are in wheelchairs. They would appreciate a parabus service that parallels the regular bus service sooner rather than later. Here's an example: Because the Sault Ste. Marie airport is outside of the urban service line, if someone wants to travel to the airport, they must charter the parabus at $60 an hour, compared to the cost of a limousine ride of $22 for someone without a disability. Volunteers with our organization who also serve on accessibility advisory committees deserve the same service I have on a regular bus. They want to be able to arrive at meetings on time, not an hour later, and leave when the meeting ends, not an hour before the meeting ends because that's when the parabus can pick them up. Many of us face attitudinal barriers. Public and private sector workers need to be educated about the act, whether it's the ODA or the AODA. Many of them don't even know it exists. They need to be educated about how barrier removal and prevention will benefit everyone. For example, they need to know about the principle of universal design and how it makes sense not just for people with disabilities. Sensitivity training will educate everyone about what it's like to experience the impact of a disability. We deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, the same as everyone else. There's also a need for greater understanding of the role of guide dogs and service dogs. The public and private sectors need to understand that materials in alternate formats should be readily available for people like myself or for people who are learning disabled. Public libraries should automatically receive funding from the province for a service providing access for print-disabled consumers, such as the CNIB library offers. It shouldn't be an add-on cost. Libraries -- this is just an example of one of many public institutions -- should receive funding to make their buildings physically accessible. That's only the tip of the iceberg. I should be able to receive a menu in large print from any restaurant. I shouldn't have to ask a waiter to read what's on the menu, because many times I'm met with a gigantic sigh -- "Oh, I have to read the menu to her." That may not seem like a big thing, but it is to me, because I'm frustrated enough by the limitations imposed by my disability. I don't need someone to make it harder for me. One of the people in our group was recently watching TV -- I wanted to relay this to you because she was quite impacted by this -- and there was an ad speaking about how to access literacy programs. It directed people who can't read to look up "Learn" in the Yellow Pages. So these are the kinds of issues that people deal with. What a difference it can make to have the knowledge, the skills and the right attitudes. We want to know that by having an effective AODA, children with special needs will be guaranteed access to neighbourhood public schools, the specialized help they need, and consistent home care. Parents need appropriate financial assistance and respite care. A parent shouldn't have to quit her job -- and this is the real-life situation -- to take on the daunting and time-consuming task of searching out funding for her severely disabled son. There needs to be a one-stop-shopping approach. As special-needs students leave high school, particularly if college is too difficult for them, many of them fall thr |