|
|
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY Tuesday 8 February 2005
The committee met at 0908 in the Cartier Room, Ottawa Marriott, Ottawa. 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. It's a pleasure to be in Ottawa this morning. Today will be our last discussion going around Ontario. We will be back in Queen's Park hopefully next week and we're going to do clause-by-clause with all the party members, dealing with the information we have received from the public not only during the two days in Toronto but also in Niagara Falls, London, yesterday in Thunder Bay and today, of course, here in Ottawa. Today we have services in French. We have French interpreters. We also have ASL interpreters. They will be here until 6, or I guess until 7 today. We have closed captioning on the screen at the back, and there are three support service attendants available throughout the day for any help. Can I ask them to show themselves? I see two, but there are three of them. If you need any assistance, please ask them. This discussion today will be broadcast on the parliamentary channel and Webcast on www.ontla.on.ca. Today's hearing will be shown on Thursday 10 February, so a couple of days from today. I should also mention that we will be discussing the matter, as I said earlier, potentially next week in clause-by-clause. Your comments are necessary for us to be able to do a better job. We thank you for being here and letting us know what is important to you and what you want us to do. I will allow everyone up to 15 minutes. Today I will be stricter than yesterday, so whenever the 15 minutes are over, I will ask that we stop, otherwise other people will be waiting and that's not fair. We have a few minutes to start, but we will try to stick to the 15 minutes. So when anyone has a minute, we will comment, and the reply from the speaker means a minute, if we can all keep that in mind. I thank you for listening. The Chair: I would ask that our first deputation, David Thomasson, please start. Thank you, and good morning. Mr. David Thomasson: Good morning. Thank you for letting me present to you. My name is David Thomasson. I am bipolar and psychiatrically disabled. I am on the Ontario disability support program. I welcome your questions at the end of my 11-minute presentation. The ODA must be amended to remove clause 40(1)(r), which allows the minister to exempt organizations from the ODA. I am very concerned that if clause 40(1)(r) remains in the ODA, the Ontario government will exempt the Ministry of Community and Social Services and exclude the Ontario Disability Support Program Act from ODA enforcement. Premier McGuinty, Minister Pupatello and Minister Bountrogianni are well informed, so I contend that the government of Ontario, via the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, is the single largest source of discrimination against Ontario's disabled people. As I speak to you, disabled people across Ontario are being discriminated against by the Ontario disability support program. Prove me wrong at the end, if you can. No one has yet. On January 6, 2004, Jim Brownell, my MPP, wrote to Minister Pupatello: "Mr. Thomasson has visited my office on a number of occasions concerning his desire to have the government of Ontario end discrimination against disabled people under the Ontario disability support program.... On April 17, 2003, I received a letter from Mr. McGuinty, then-leader of the official opposition, indicating that he would take Mr. Thomasson's case under advisement. On July 23, 2003, having not heard anything further on Mr. Thomasson's case I wrote back to Dalton McGuinty.... As the minister responsible for the Ontario disability support program, I would appreciate any help...." On February 4, 2004, Minister Bountrogianni wrote to me: "Thank you for your e-mails to me and the ministry regarding income support for people with disabilities and the upcoming consultations on the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.... Your comments as a member of the disability community are welcome.... Your specific concerns regarding the Ontario disability support program (ODSP) would best be dealt with by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, under whose jurisdiction this program falls. Therefore, I am forwarding your e-mails to my colleague, the Honourable Sandra Pupatello, Minister of Community and Social Services, under whose jurisdiction this program falls." On February 10, 2004, Dr. Kuldip Kular, MPP, e-mailed me: "Thank you for your e-mails regarding ODSP. Please be aware that responsibility for the ODSP program is not with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration but with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Accordingly, I have forwarded your correspondence to Minister Sandra Pupatello, who carries that portfolio." On March 5, 2004, Heather Shantora, special assistant to Minister Bountrogianni wrote: "...You have done the right thing by writing your MPP, Jim Brownell.... [T]he Ontario disability support program is outside the scope of Minister Bountrogianni's ministries. The ODSP falls under the Ministry of Community and Social Services...." Minister Pupatello never responded. Effectively, the McGuinty government has already excluded the Ontario disability support program from the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. On July 2, 2004, Jim Brownell, MPP, wrote to Premier Dalton McGuinty: "Please find attached documentation which was presented to me by Mr. David Thomasson, a constituent of mine in Stormont, Dundas and Charlottenburgh. Mr. Thomasson has visited my office on many occasions and has sent many, many pieces of correspondence to the government of Ontario concerning his view and desire to have the province end discrimination against disabled people under the Ontario disability support program.... Any help your office may provide on this matter would be appreciated." Premier McGuinty, Minister Pupatello and Minister Bountrogianni are still stonewalling. No one has disproved my arguments. The McGuinty government continues to actively enforce ODSP discrimination against disabled people. Premier McGuinty, Minister Pupatello and Minister Bountrogianni could have already stopped ODSP discrimination. Each member of the McGuinty government is accountable for ongoing ODSP discrimination against Ontario's disabled people that was legislated by the Harris Conservatives and continued by the McGuinty Liberals. ODSP discrimination against disabled people will continue until MPPs compel the Ontario government to stop it. I am very concerned that if clause 40(1)(r) remains in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Ontario government will exempt the Ministry of Community and Social Services from ODA enforcement and allow ODSP discrimination to continue. I contend that the Ontario government, via the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, is the single largest source of discrimination against Ontario's disabled people. I offer a test to disprove my argument: Simply explain how the ODSP Act complies with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So far, no one has passed the test. The essential eligibility criterion to be on the Ontario disability support program is that the government of Ontario must agree that the person is medically disabled. Financial need is a secondary and somewhat flexible ODSP eligibility criterion. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code applies to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. Section 47 of the code covers disabled people on ODSP. Every barrier and restriction that applies only to disabled people on ODSP is discrimination because of medical disability. For example, the ODSP Act legislated a quasi-judicial prosecution and punishment process that violates the charter rights of every disabled person punished under the ODSP Act. The ODSP Act empowers the director and bureaucrats across Ontario to use statutory power of decision to judge and punish a disabled ODSP recipient. The initial quasi-judicial director's decision against a disabled person is made by a vague, closed-door process. The ODSP Act does not specify criteria for determining the quasi-judicial director's decision that a disabled person has violated the ODSP Act. The director is only required to give notice of a decision that may be appealed. The ODSP Act does not allow the disabled person to attend or be represented at the quasi-judicial director's decision nor the subsequent quasi-judicial internal review. ODSP bureaucrats use the quasi-judicial administrative process to judge and punish the disabled person in absentia, in secret, without independent observers and without a recorded transcript. The ODSP Act denies disabled people the basic right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a public hearing. ODSP bureaucrats convict disabled people of a violation of the ODSP Act or its regulations and immediately enforce the punishment while the disabled person appeals. The ODSP Act uses a reverse-onus clause to deny disabled people the benefit of reasonable doubt. The disabled person must immediately use the quasi-judicial ODSP Act appeal process despite violations of his or her charter rights by the ODSP process. The disabled person must request a quasi-judicial internal review appeal before the 10-calendar-day appeal deadline expires. The quasi-judicial internal review appeal is an "informal administrative process." The disabled person cannot attend or be represented at the quasi-judicial internal review. ODSP bureaucrats judge the disabled person in absentia, in secret, without independent observers and without a recorded transcript. Unless immediately appealed, ODSP quasi-judicial director's decisions and internal review decisions are final and equal in force of law to decisions by the Ontario Superior Court. The quasi-judicial ODSP process does not obey the rules and responsibilities of the Ontario Superior Court nor the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. ODSP bureaucrats exercise the force of law without obeying the rule of law. The internal review decision must be appealed to the Social Benefits Tribunal within 30 days or the internal review decision is final and cannot be appealed. At the Social Benefits Tribunal, the disabled person is denied the presumption of innocence and the benefit of reasonable doubt. ODSP only permits a disabled person to defend after he or she has been deemed guilty by the quasi-judicial director's decision and internal review process. ODSP Act quasi-judicial prosecution and punishment denies disabled people the right to notice of charges before conviction, the right to counsel before conviction, the right to defend before conviction, the right to plead innocent before conviction, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses and evidence before conviction, and the right to a public hearing before conviction. The ODSP Act quasi-judicial prosecution and punishment process exercises the force of law without obeying the rule of law. It is just one example of ODSP discrimination. Every restriction and prohibition that applies only to disabled people on ODSP is discrimination because of medical disability. I contend that the Ontario government, via the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, is the single largest source of discrimination against Ontario's disabled people. No one has proved me wrong. ODSP discrimination has not been stopped. I challenge anyone to clearly explain how the Ontario Disability Support Program Act complies with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No one has met my challenge. The ODSP Act violates the code and the charter. On December 11, 2002, Dalton McGuinty wrote to me: "I agree that discrimination against persons with disabilities is totally unacceptable. Rest assured that my team and I will do our utmost to ensure they are treated with the respect they deserve." The McGuinty government has enforced ODSP discrimination throughout the ODA consultation process. Effectively, ODSP discrimination is already excluded from the ODA. ODSP discrimination against Ontario's disabled people will continue until MPPs compel the McGuinty government to stop ODSP discrimination. I am very concerned that if clause 40(1)(r) remains in the ODA, the McGuinty government will exempt the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act from ODA enforcement. The ODA must be amended to remove clause 40(1)(r). Please ensure that the ODA has very strong arm's-length enforcement provisions to compel the Ontario government to end ODSP discrimination. Ladies and gentlemen, if you can prove me wrong, I will apologize and publish a retraction. No one has proved me wrong yet. I welcome your questions. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thomasson, for speaking to us on Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2004. As you know, we have already had second reading on this, and all the honourable members supported the second reading. Of course, after all the discussion, we will be going back to third reading. I thank you for your presentation. I have about one minute for each side to ask questions. We'll start with Mr. Jackson. Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Thank you, David, for your compelling presentation. I understand your single recommendation here, which is the elimination of clause 40(1)(r) in the Liberals' new bill. Do you also support the notion that the Human Rights Code should be reintroduced into this bill so that it becomes the test not only for accessibility standards but for the test that the government must -- Mr. Thomasson: Yes, I think that's a very good idea. One of my very great frustrations in life right now is how difficult it is to get the Ontario Human Rights Code enforced against the Ontario government. You see, Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution legislated quasi-judicial, unconstitutional and illegal prosecutions against disabled people that intimidated them from appealing. While we're talking here, while the consultations are occurring, disabled people are discriminated against by Dalton McGuinty. John Fraser, his executive assistant in his constituency office, has known since August 2001. Your government screwed disabled people, then Dalton's government screwed disabled people; If you prove me wrong, I will apologize and I can get it published. But they are still wrong; they have not proved me wrong. They are still discriminating against disabled people right now. Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Thank you, David, for coming this morning and telling us your story. It seems you got responses from your MPP, Jim Brownell, and from other people -- Dalton McGuinty and all the ministers. It seems like you have some technical problem that's not being dealt with in Bill 118. Your technical problem may be that there are some kinds of criteria to be eligible and -- Mr. Thomasson: Sir, if you will permit me, my arguments have stood the test. You are offering false information. I am a debater also. I've seen your remarks in the Legislature before, so I hold you in high disrespect, with the greatest of offence. This government is discriminating against disabled people. You are screwing people with the force of law. You are letting bureaucrats exercise the powers of Ontario Superior Court judges, and then you are punishing them for appearing and intimidating them into letting the quasi-judicial prosecutions stand. The problem is that you are discriminating against disabled people. If you prove me wrong, I will apologize. But if you stonewall, your government will continue to screw disabled people, and some of your constituents in every single riding will continue to be punished by illegal and unconstitutional ODSP discrimination that could have already been stopped. The Chair: Thanks. We are just trying to stay within the 15 minutes. Mr. Ramal, my apologies. I know you wanted to speak on the matter. That's fine. I think we heard your comments, and we thank you for your comments. ONTARIO COMMUNITY SUPPORT ASSOCIATION The Chair: We are going to the next deputation. It's from the Ontario Community Support Association, Valerie Bishop-de Young. You can start any time you are ready. Ms. Valerie Bishop-de Young: Good morning. Please call me Valerie. My presentation will be brief and fairly structural and concrete. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Welcome to our beautiful city of Ottawa. The Chair: We are pleased to be here. Ms. Bishop-de Young: I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an expert in disability issues, by any stretch of the imagination. Locally, I work with a not-for-profit organization that provides services to seniors and people with physical disabilities. Provincially, I am the president of the Ontario Community Support Association. OCSA is the acronym. I believe you have a copy of my presentation. Ms. Bishop-de Young: Just briefly, let me go over who OCSA is and what we do. We represent 360, plus or minus, not-for-profit community agencies across Ontario, with 25,000 staff and over 100,000 volunteers. We serve about 750,000 people a year. Volunteers are many and donate almost seven million hours of service annually. Our services are targeted to seniors and people with disabilities, including but not limited to attendant care services, such as the services the committee is providing here today, home maintenance, personal support, home support services, supportive housing, and assistance with activities of daily living, such as housekeeping, meal preparation and laundry. Our paid staff are community college graduates. They work alone, in isolation, in people's homes and apartments. Our member agencies are not-for-profit. They work close to the budget line. Our message is that Ontarians want public policy that provides the right services, at the right time, in the right place to help people live independently with dignity for as long as possible. We see this as the right of every Ontarian. We believe in measurable outcomes based on informed and effective strategic policy formulation, people-centred, community-focused priorities that respond to population needs, and shared accountability between the public and private sectors, community and citizens. We support public policy that has transparent benchmarks and outcomes and not Utopian ideals. We need to focus on good health and safety, best practices, accessibility that goes hand in glove with affordability, and meaningful legislation and follow-up. We applaud the spirit of Bill 118. We see it as a framework for proactive policy with respect to people with disabilities, but we would recommend some adjustments with respect to clarity, transparency and some accountability issues, particularly around the development, implementation and enforcement of standards. One of the first questions is, what are the standards? The bill itself refers throughout to the standards, but the standards are to come after the enactment of the bill, and that presents questions. In evolving the standards, in developing them, health and safety should be a key priority for standards development, please. A barrier is in the eye of the beholder. To be meaningful, we have to address realistic goals. Let's start with health and safety issues. That means looking at things like accessible washrooms, accessible meeting space, flashing fire alarms, wheelchair ramps -- the basics. Let's start there and get that sorted out. There is a balance between accessibility and affordability, and the standards have to address that as well. We ask you to define "dwelling." There is no definition in the act. Is the act intended to apply to personal homes, subsidized housing? We respect people's right to choice. We would look to guidelines for standards development to ensure timeliness, transparency and accountability. We ask that the standards committees be established no later than four months after the royal assent of the bill. We feel that a third of a year is certainly long enough to get things going. The success of the committees is dependent on identifying and removing barriers, not disabilities. We would ask that the committee composition guidelines look at including caregivers, staff and volunteers, people who have expertise by working with people with disabilities. We think there's a lot of value-added in what they have to say. There is a maximum time frame for the implementation standards, and that is at no more than five years after the committee establishment, but there is no minimum. We would ask that that be identified. What are the specified industries, the sectors, that are subject to this act? We think there would an opportunity for fuller discussion if those were identified. We would ask for clarity regarding the enforcement -- the carrot and the stick, as it were. With respect to the stick, when are the penalties applicable? Are they applicable after the standards are submitted to the minister or after year 2025? This point ties directly to transparency around which sectors are in fact identified and covered by the act. With respect to enticements and incentives, what are the incentives? How accessible are the incentives? How will people or organizations be able to access them? What's the process? Even better, we see an opportunity for some encouragement for inclusion and accessibility issues. We ask that the act encourage inclusion and accessibility by supporting integration between ministries, between acts and legislation, and also among identified sectors and professionals. We would ask that the act support disability sensitivity training to the sectors. Our offer: OCSA is a provincial, non-profit organization. We work with member agencies that advocate for and work with people with disabilities, and staff and volunteers who provide care to people with disabilities. Our training program, Capacity Builders, is a recognized source of expertise and training to volunteers, staff and others throughout Ontario. Minister Bountrogianni is very familiar with OCSA. OCSA is available to both this committee and the ministry to help develop province-wide disability sensitivity training to any and all sectors covered under the proposed act or others, and we offer ourselves as leaders in standards development to help facilitate those standards within one or more sectors. I've left you our contact information. I'm here locally. OCSA is based in Toronto. Thank you. The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. I will ask Mr. Marchese if he has any questions. One minute. Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Thank you, Valerie. Two quick things, one on enforcement: I have to tell you that I'm particularly worried about the fact that there is no enforcement in the bill. Inspectors do not have to be hired; the language is that they may be. With respect to compliance with standards, a director may review an accessibility report re compliance but doesn't have to, and there is no tribunal named to adjudicate on matters of lack of compliance. They might say there's enforcement here, but it's not there. Does that worry you? Ms. Bishop-de Young: Yes, of course it does. It identifies that there are penalties, but there is no mediating force to implement those or to order or to monitor what's happening there. I would say there's significant concern to be had with the enforcement of the bill. The spirit of the bill is wonderful, but right now, as it's presented, it's a toothless tiger, I fear. The Chair: Mr. Ramal, you have a question? Mr. Ramal: Yes. Thank you for your presentation. You raised a concern about the sectors. Would you like to see categorizing the sectors; for instance, government buildings first, restaurants and hotels second? How do you see that we can implement it within the time frame? Ms. Bishop-de Young: I like your recommendation that the government should be first. I think that's a great idea -- role-model the act. I believe the legislation needs to be harmonized, and yes, I'd like to see a timetable. I think it would open up an opportunity for fuller discussion from representatives of those sectors, frankly. The Chair: Thanks very much for your presentation. We'll move on to the next presentation. Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, while we're waiting for the next deputant to come forward, in your preamble to welcoming everybody, you made a reference to the fact that we were going to begin clause-by-clause next week. Is that the decision? The Chair: Possibly. That is what we are working at. Mr. Jackson: But at this point, there's not a definitive decision that the committee will be called on the 15th? The Chair: Mr. Jackson, hopefully before we return to our offices, we will finalize the decision among ourselves, but it's my objective that next week we will try to find the time to get together. That is my objective, but it's up to us to finalize that, as I understand. So we will discuss that -- Mr. Jackson: Thank you very much. I just wondered if the decision had been made. The Chair: No. I have to speak to you and everybody else before we do that. The Chair: We'll move on to our third presentation, WATS.ca. We're right on time. Mr. Derek Featherstone: Good morning, everybody. By way of introduction, My name is Derek Featherstone, and this is my colleague and associate, John Foliot. We're here today as accessibility advocates and concerned citizens. I just want to give you a bit of background on our role and why it is that we have a specific interest in accessibility. In particular, we want to look at Web accessibility and how that has an impact on Bill 118. We are Web developers by vocation and consultants who spend a lot of time working with various organizations to make their Web sites accessible to deliver accessible Web content. We also provide a lot of training and work with developers in a hands-on environment. We've seen a lot of different things over the past five years in terms of how the Web has evolved and how it's very important for service delivery and information delivery. Based on those experiences, we've got quite a bit of first-hand understanding of some of the problems that face developers, as well as the people who are actually using the Web. Just a few quick points as we work through our presentation: We'll give you a brief overview of how we see accessibility and the Web; then look at the current status of accessibility and Web accessibility with regard to legislation, some interesting cases that have been seen in the last few years on accessibility, specifically Web accessibility; and then present our recommendations for the committee in terms of moving forward. When we view Web accessibility, we try to view it as something more than just making Web sites accessible to people with disabilities. We focus on making things universally accessible. One of the reasons we do that is that we're not only looking at accessibility as a benefit to those who absolutely require it and need it to get the information they need; it's also important to other people who may not necessarily have disabilities but also, for some reason or another, require some of the same features that accessible Web sites provide. For example, somebody who has an auditory impairment may require text transcripts of multimedia, such as this Web cast, for example, as this will eventually be on the Ontario Legislature's Web site. A person who has an auditory impairment may not be able to actually get the benefit of seeing that Web cast or hearing that Web cast, and we need to provide text transcripts and alternative media for those people. That's not something that is just for persons with disabilities. That's actually a very useful feature for somebody who might be in a library or in another public access centre, where it might be loud in a community centre and they can't actually hear the audio properly. So a text transcript, while useful to those with auditory impairments, is also useful to other people as well. So while we're looking at addressing Web accessibility for people with permanent disabilities, we're also looking at temporary situations as well, for other people. The same holds true for mobility impairments. In addition to people who have varying degrees of quadriplegia or paraplegia, we're also looking at temporary conditions, like people in a cast. If you've ever tried to write with your wrong hand or your correct hand in a cast, you know you don't have the same level of fine motor control you have normally. It's the same thing with visual impairment. Cognitive impairments could also be a temporary condition, something that happens where you're not necessarily very conscious of your normal environment. It also helps to address language issues. We look at technological restrictions as an important component to Web accessibility. With the advent of technology, we no longer see things where we're browsing Web sites on a standard desktop computer. We now have a situation where, as technology continues to evolve, we get handheld devices that are Web-capable, cell phones that are Web-capable, and yes, as you'll see on the slide, even Web-enabled fridges. Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): Is that a refrigerator? Mr. Featherstone: It is a refrigerator, and it does exist. The interface with the Web through that type of medium is certainly outside the realm of the norm, but at the same time, it's there. Addressing Web accessibility helps with some of these situations as well. In summary, we view universal accessibility as making your Web content available to anybody and everybody, regardless of the type of technology they're using to access. Just a brief overview of current legislation. There are several countries that have specifically addressed Web accessibility in their legislation: Australia, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. Each one of those has specifically addressed Web accessibility. Mr. Featherstone: And Ontario. The ODA does do that. Mr. Jackson: I put it in there. That's why I know. Mr. Featherstone: As we progress, we'll make some recommendations as well in terms of ways to improve that. There are some things we've seen in our work with various universities and other public institutions where, while the legislation does exist, I think we would all agree that there are areas for improvement. Mr. John Foliot: Yes, we are aware of the ODA, and we do say in our written presentation that within the different countries, often at state or provincial levels and even occasionally at municipal levels, you'll see policies and laws in place. As we look at the laws and the standards and guidelines being used in the laws, we really have two major guidelines that are shared across the Internet on an international level. The forerunner, of course, is the W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium, who have released the Web content accessibility guidelines. We have provided a fair amount of information here, but in short, they've taken the guidelines and broken them down into three levels of severity or priority: Priority 1 insists that a Web content developer must satisfy the checkpoints under that heading or the information will be significantly removed from some groups. Priority 2 is checkpoints that should be satisfied, otherwise one or more groups will find it difficult to access information. Finally, priority 3 is recommendations, things that may be addressed, otherwise some groups may experience difficulty accessing the information. I guess the thing that's important to point out is that this series of guidelines is approximately five years old now. The W3C are currently in a draft position: They're rewriting their checkpoints. What's also important to understand, however, is that they are not standards; they're guidelines. While they are an official recommendation of W3C, many of the checkpoints within the Web content accessibility guidelines are subjective in nature. They are not measurable standards and do not stand up to rigorous tests. Often, they are subjective. I'll give you a very brief example. One of the checkpoints insists that any time we present an image within the body of a Web page, we must provide alternative text that is meaningful to people who will not see the image. But what is meaningful? Who decides what is meaningful? It's a subjective test. So while it's flawed, it's the best we have right now. The other law that we have is section 508 in the United States. We certainly would like to point it out to the committee members, specifically because they have linked some benefits to US vendors and whatnot in terms of ensuring Web accessibility as we move forward. I've been told that we're running out of time, so we'll skip over the significant judgements. Suffice it to say that at a legal level, in terms of challenges before the courts, there is very little precedent and very little law already tested. Essentially, we have a win, we have a loss and we have a draw. The Sydney Olympic Organizing Committee was chastised and they had to pay out a payment. They were found to be guilty of providing Web content that was inaccessible. Recently, in New York state, the New York State Attorney's office reached an out-of-court settlement with Ramada.com and Priceline.com, again in the area of Web accessibility. In the case known as Southwest Airlines, the actual case was thrown out, specifically on a technicality, but it was seen as a loss. In conclusion, we have a couple of recommendations. They're based on both our knowledge and experience, and it's information we would like to share with your committee. The first recommendation is that we need to lead by example. We recommend that all provincial Web sites or Web sites that operate under the public purse in any way, shape or form be mandated to meet, at an absolute minimum, the W3C priority 1 and priority 2 guidelines. We further recommend that the criteria be met within no more than 24 months of the enactment of the legislation. We assure the committee that with the way things move on the Web, that's lots of time. Second, we recommend that incentives be put in place. The legislation should be constructed in such a way as to offer incentives for businesses and privately held Web sites to, again, meet priority 1 and priority 2 guidelines. Regulations and incentives patterned after US section 508 should be considered. We would even go so far as advocating specific tax benefits or incentives to businesses that meet or exceed the guidelines. We would like to see more education. We recommend that any public learning institution that provides curriculum for Web designers or Web developers and is receiving full or partial funding from the provincial government be mandated, as part of the overall curriculum for Web developers, that at least one course that teaches the principles and techniques of accessible Web design be provided. As advocates and as people who work in the field, we find that the lack of experience and the lack of knowledge of the people who are actually making the Web sites is probably the single, largest barrier. Finally, enforcement: This is probably the hardest thing, because we do not have rigorous measurements. However, we would recommend that all sites covered by the legislation provide a written accessibility statement and policy directly attached to the Web sites. We further recommend that these accessibility statements be reviewed annually to ensure ongoing compliance, and that a level of accountability be attached to a specifically named accessibility commissioner -- or pick your term. The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have the material in writing, and we will certainly include it. Mr. Foliot: May I just say in closing that we've also provided the presentation as an accessible presentation on-line, and the address is there. ACCESSIBILITY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO The Chair: The next presentation is from the accessibility advisory committee to the city of Ottawa, Alf Günter. Good morning, Mr. Günter. The Chair: You can start any time you are ready. Mr. Günter: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You have my text, but I will be deviating from it somewhat in my oral presentation, so I ask you to listen. The accessibility advisory committee commends Minister Bountrogianni for developing this piece of legislation. We think it lays a foundation for a truly accessible Ontario, and we are pleased to see that it has enjoyed the support of all parties in the Legislature. I regard the implementation of this act as similar to building a house. When this bill has been promulgated, we will have the foundation and the basic structure in place. However, we will not have detailed specifications for everything we want to do, we will not have a plan in detail of how we're going to do it, nor will we have our inspection procedure in place. So there is still a great deal of work to be done. Indeed, how successful we are depends upon where we go after this bill is approved. In truth, the amount of work involved is closer to building the venue for an Olympic village than it is for building a house. Fortunately we have up to 20 years, and fortunately we have the resources of Ontario. There is much that is good about the current act, Bill 125, and I commend Mr. Jackson for the work he did in bringing it forward. He did the best that could be done under the conditions that he was working. We must move forward to not lose the good things in Bill 125. We have to retain the planning and reporting requirements, and we have to strengthen the monitoring and enforcement. The present bill should be given third reading as quickly as possible, royal assent, and proclaimed in its entirety. This is important. As we move forward, the government needs to set priorities for which sectors it's going to tackle first. I don't think we should try to do everything at once. We have Bill 125 to guide us in the public sector. That's the place we should be starting: the ministries themselves and the municipal governments, hospitals, universities, schools and transport systems. Then we can move on to big business, which I think will be quite happy to do this, and such areas as medical health units, doctors' offices, dentists' offices, whatever, because these are really important for disabled people and there's a lot of work to be done in that area. Finally, we'll probably end up with the mom-and-pop shops; they're the last ones that you'll tackle. We need standards committees. On those standards committees, we really need to have three groups involved: first, representatives of the government, including somebody from the disability directorate. It's also very important to have representatives of the group that is being impacted, because the more we can get them to buy in to this in every stage of the development of a barrier-free Ontario, the easier it is going to go for everybody, the more they realize that accessibility is for everybody and that it's going to be a profit to the province in the long run, and to their own business, if they have better accessibility. And then we do need a third group of experts -- that is, people who have worked with the disability community or who have disabilities themselves -- to bring their insight into the regulations, into these standards. Having used the word "regulations," I will go on to say that as soon as a standard has been approved, we should not delay in turning it into a regulation. I believe that's the proper procedure. There are going to be literally tens of thousands of organizations impacted by this legislation. It is important that each one of these groups develop a plan. First of all, they need to look at their facilities compared with what the standard says they should be; in other words, develop a shopping list. We need to prioritize them. In terms of prioritizing them, we need to look at what has the greatest impact on the person with a disability. For example, if you have a shop of some sort and there are certain problems inside, if there are no means for the person to get into the building, you'd better start tackling that as your number one priority. If you have such means, then perhaps you should look to see if your ramps, if you have any, are safe for people who have vision problems, and so on. I think the plan should be prioritized and then people should be encouraged to develop their plans such that they do the work in a staged manner over a certain period of time, which of course has got to be not more than 20 years, but hopefully in many cases it will be less. If you allow people to do what's easiest, they will do the things that don't cost much money, and you'll find that after 80% of the time has gone, they've done 80% of the items but only 20% of the work. They'll have left all the big items. So it's really important to try to set priorities. Every organization must be required to file their plan with the directorate, if only to be catalogued. If it's in electronic form -- I expect most will be -- so much the better. It can be easily accessed. These plans must be available for anybody to look at, for members of the public. I would encourage, since the government is not going to have enough inspectors to inspect everybody's work to see if the work is being done, that they simply do spot checks. You will need a few inspectors in the directorate for spot checks. But also, try to make use of inspectors who are already in place. You have health and safety inspectors and fire inspectors going into the buildings. Try to train them to be on the lookout for things. But you're going to have to depend, to a very large degree, on the general public, so the public must also be able to access these plans, and if they find something that doesn't look right, indicate to the directorate who will then look into it in more detail. I said earlier that you have to have various organizations onside, the various parts of the business community and whatever. In terms of dealing with the plans, you have to realize that they will change with time. Things change over a 15-year period. So they may not do things exactly in the order the original plan said, but as long as they're making an honest effort, nobody should be clamping down on them. However, there will be people, there always are people, who test the bounds of what's acceptable. There are people who drive 30 kilometres over the speed limit and who have to be brought back, and you're going to have the same thing here. There are going to be people who don't buy in to the process. Again, I say use the carrot as long as it will work, but at some stage, in a few cases, you'll have to bring out the stick. I'm not sure what a tribunal should be. I think anybody who is going to assess a fine has to have a means of appeal. I'm just saying that the tribunal has to be something that's going to meet often enough that people will get justice served in a short period of time, say, three months or so, and also it must be seen as being impartial. Thank you for letting me appear before you today. We're about to embark on an exciting journey that will make Ontario the envy of many other jurisdictions, a place where the disabled are truly integrated and where they are able to make a considerable contribution to the well-being of our province. The Chair: You have less than a minute each to ask questions. Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Thank you very much, Mr. Günter. I'm a former municipal politician from Peterborough. One of the things that I've been thinking about as I've been working through this is that most municipalities in Ontario have a property standards division, which is a number of inspectors who look after inspecting buildings and the building code within a municipality. Would it be your feeling that we might be able to use that group of individuals, who are out there anyway doing inspections, to actually look at how we could enforce this legislation to make sure that all new buildings and retrofits are in compliance with this act? Mr. Günter: Yes. That is exactly the way I see it. I don't think these people would actually go face to face with the people who have the facility. They might bring it to their attention, but if they feel quite strongly, then they should bring it to the attention of the directorate, which actually makes the decision about what should be done. That's the way I see it. Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Alf, for your comments. I'm very pleased to hear you talk about proclaiming in its entirety. You're the first person to state that for the record. I appreciate it because, as you know, when the ODA, Bill 125, was proclaimed, there were sections that had to be proclaimed once the council was put in place, once the access committees, like the Ottawa one, were put in place. There are about 25 sections of this bill which the current government has failed to proclaim, such as the penalty clause which governs your access committee -- if you didn't file, there would be a $50,000 fine to your municipality -- and so on. My concern and my question to you is: The government has said that it will, at some point in the future, delete sections of the bill that are not included in their new Bill 118. Would you recommend, for the purposes of safety and protection and to have a complete bill -- should we not include the duties of the government of Ontario, the Web site, which we just heard from, a whole series of sections that are in the ODA 125, and transfer them over into the new Bill 118, so we have a complete bill? Mr. Günter: I'm not really an expert on the legislative process. I know I believe what David Lepofsky has to say. I'm listening to you and it sounds sensible, but I really don't have an opinion on that subject. I'm sorry. Mr. Marchese: Three quick things, Alf. First, on the notion of what should be proclaimed: Most governments have a problem with that when they pass bills. Some things get proclaimed and others are expected to be proclaimed and never are. That was a weakness of the previous bill, and so it's a worry about what things are left to be proclaimed. Second, on the issue of inspectors: Municipal inspectors are overworked, and other provincial inspectors are overworked as well. They need training. So it's hard to rely on those folks, in my view. That's why the government "should" hire inspectors, rather than "may." My question to you is about exemptions. In opposition, the Liberals opposed a government permitting exemptions from the act. Do you think the minister in this case should permit exemptions from the act? Mr. Günter: I don't think they should permit exemptions per se, but I do think that there needs to be sort of a grandfather clause. If people have -- The Chair: Another 30 seconds. Mr. Günter: OK. If you have a structure -- I tend to think in terms of structures, which isn't fair -- that has been built to, say, 1995 standards, you may have a ramp that isn't of the proper slope to 2005 standards. I think, if it's functional, if it doesn't put the person with a disability in an inferior position, that should be acceptable as built facilities. The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. The Chair: We will move on to the next presentation, from the Canadian Diabetes Association, Karen Philp. Good morning. Again, there are 15 minutes in total, and I will be watching the time, just because there are many people waiting. I would ask anyone who has questions to keep in mind that the minute includes your comments, your question and the reply to your question. Thank you. Dr. Karen Philp: Thank you, members of the committee, for inviting Christine Flammer, associate director for the Canadian Diabetes Association, and myself, Karen Philp, to speak with you today. We want to start by commending you, the minister, and the government of Ontario for inviting Ontarians to review and recommend amendments to Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, at these public hearings. Second, we thought it was important to give a little bit of background about the Canadian Diabetes Association, if you're not already familiar with us. We represent two million Canadians who live with diabetes. That includes people who are affected by diabetes or work with diabetes. So we work with professional people like doctors, endocrinologists, nurses, diabetes educators, as well as the people with diabetes themselves in 150 communities across Canada, including nine regional leadership offices in Ontario, at Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Barrie, Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton, London, Kitchener and, of course, Toronto. We also serve and support people with diabetes through research -- almost $6 million this year -- education; individual camps like Camp Huronda here in Ontario; our professional conference, which brings approximately 3,000 professionals from across Canada together annually to discuss new clinical practice guidelines for the care and management of diabetes; and, of course, advocacy. Our advocacy priority is that Canadians living with diabetes deserve the drugs, supplies, education, care and financial support needed to manage their disease, no matter where they live in Canada. However, we also receive a significant number of calls each day from individuals living with diabetes in Ontario and the rest of Canada, and we need to try to help them address the challenges they are facing in managing their diabetes daily. We receive many calls from Ontarians who think they may be facing discrimination in public places, particularly their workplace, as they try to manage their diabetes. That's why we're here today. Generally speaking, the Canadian Diabetes Association supports Bill 118 as good legislation that may help achieve the objective of removing barriers for Ontarians living with disabilities, allowing them to participate fully and productively in society. However, we would like to clarify with members of the standing committee the position of the Canadian Diabetes Association on diabetes as a disability. In the proposed legislation, under the definition of "disability," the legislation includes diabetes mellitus as an example of a disability under this legislation. Our association's position, developed by our many members and adopted by our elected board of directors, is that: "People with diabetes have the right to be assessed on an individual basis to determine if their diabetes constitutes a disability as defined within the specific context." We believe that with proper care and treatment, most people with diabetes can achieve an optimum quality of life. Although diabetes can be a potentially disabling disease, particularly if complications ensue, it does not, in and of itself, constitute a disability. With this in mind, however, according to the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in 2003, people with diabetes comprise only 6% of Ontario's population, and yet they accounted for 32% of heart attacks, 30% of strokes, 51% of new kidney dialysis patients, 70% of amputations and 28% of cataract surgeries. It is the disabilities arising from the serious complications of diabetes -- blindness, amputations, kidney dialysis, for example -- that pose the greatest barriers for Ontarians living with diabetes. We believe this legislation can help them, but it could also, if minor amendments were made, help Ontarians living with diabetes today and in the future. For the majority of the more than 708,000 Ontarians living with diabetes, it is discrimination in managing their diabetes, whether in restaurants, schools, universities or the workplace, that impacts the majority of them in public places. It's accommodation and respect for the need to test blood glucose regularly, to eat a snack, to inject insulin or take oral medications that should, in our view, be considered a requirement under this bill. You will see from the two case studies outlined in the submission we handed out today that people living with diabetes face most incidents of discrimination in the workplace because others often do not understand diabetes and its management. Often, employers are concerned about the potential loss of work time and productivity, which may influence their willingness to hire, continue to employ or promote a person living with diabetes. For those in our case studies, the issue is lack of understanding of diabetes management and outdated medical guidelines that do not recognize the best available scientific evidence on how to manage diabetes optimally that leads to the discrimination. Lack of awareness of what the benefits are to the employee, the employer and the rest of society resulting from ensuring that individuals with diabetes have the opportunity to achieve optimal management of their disease is also an issue. In our view, it's a lack of awareness of how diabetes can be effectively managed that leads to a response from the employer that encourages people with diabetes to conceal their disease from their employers and colleagues simply to avoid negative reactions, rejection or outright discrimination. As a result, insulin injections may be missed or blood glucose testing or a meal skipped, and the result may jeopardize the individual's own health and perhaps her or his safety on the job. This is the worst of all worlds. However, there is good news. In our experience, bringing together medical experts, diabetes educators and employers to understand and be aware of the best practices can result in positive benefits for all. Education, in our view, is key to ensuring that employers and work colleagues understand that Ontarians who effectively manage their diabetes do not pose a threat to colleagues or to the efficient operation of their business. In fact, it has been proven that people with well-managed diabetes often miss fewer days of work due to illness because managing their blood glucose effectively requires that they live generally healthier lifestyles. To date, in our efforts, we have relied heavily on the Ontario Human Rights Code, which requires an employer to accommodate a person with diabetes up to the point of undue hardship. Reasonable accommodation of a person with diabetes may include altering an employee's work schedule to include regular breaks to eat a snack, monitor blood glucose levels or administer insulin in a private location. While the association generally endorses the improvements to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act contained within Bill 118, we would like to see a clear and greater statement in support of, or some consistency with, the Ontario Human Rights Code on accommodating Ontarians living with diabetes in this proposed legislation. Second, the Canadian Diabetes Association supports and applauds the expansion of the application of mandatory standards to the private sector. We work with the private sector all the time. We understand that the intention of this bill is that the accessibility standards should apply to all public and private institutions, including private business and, we also assume, non-government organizations like ourselves. Third, in reference to the 20-year timeline to achieve the goals of this proposed legislation, the Canadian Diabetes Association would like to acknowledge that it takes time and resources for society to make Ontario truly accessible to all persons with disabilities. We have advocated for over 50 years on behalf of Canadians living with diabetes, so, needless to say, we understand that some things just take time. However, we also believe it is important that you consider ensuring that short-, medium- and long-term indicators of progress are in place under this legislation to help Ontarians measure their real progress toward achieving a truly accessible Ontario as laid out in Bill 118. We believe that members of this committee should seriously consider legislating some form of mandatory annual review of progress under this bill. Finally, the Canadian Diabetes Association supports the principle of appointing a standards committee to develop accessibility standards by sector. Building on the expertise of those already working toward increasing accessibility for Ontarians living with disabilities will help achieve the legislation's objectives not only more quickly but without duplication of effort. This will also ensure the greatest transparency and broadest awareness across government, business and industry, as well as the general public. We are extremely pleased by the intent of this legislation, particularly if it includes non-government organizations and other experts on the standards committee. We are pleased to offer today our expertise and knowledge in the development of these accessibility standards, particularly as they relate to diabetes and to people living with any of its serious complications. In conclusion, on behalf of the Canadian Diabetes Association, we would like to thank you for inviting us to speak today on Bill 118. The Chair: Thank you very much. We have just over a minute each. We'll start with Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Thank you very much, Karen. I appreciate your brief very much and support increased access to supports, especially government-based supports in the health field, especially for juvenile diabetes. Although this bill doesn't address that, there are sections of the bill that I'd like you to comment about; for example, your reference to the Human Rights Code. The current ODA was designed to cause the government of Ontario to reach the highest standard first. It ties employment opportunities for all employees in the government to the human rights standard. Do you support the retaining of that section in the new legislation, and by extension, do you wish the standard of accommodation under the Human Rights Code extended to government services that are accessed by the public? Mr. Marchese: A few quick things, and thank you for your comments. You talked about an annual review of progress. This is something that many people have spoken to, and that has to do with monitoring progress. There's no mechanism here to deal with that. It should either be an individual or a public body doing it, but unless we do it, we have no way of knowing what is going on. So we agree with you. The other part has to do with discrimination as it happens in managing diabetes. One of the things that many people have spoken to is education, and you spoke to that as well. Do you think education or an education component should be built into the legislation, or do you think we should just leave it to chance, that it may happen and the government may do something, or not, in that regard? Dr. Philp: There are benefits you should seriously consider by incorporating it into the legislation. I think it should be the mandate of the committees, as well as the secretariat or agency, to actually ensure that public education is provided. Without public education, the word doesn't get out; so yes, obviously. Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): Thank you for your presentation. Diabetes is something that, as one of Minister Smitherman's parliamentary assistants, falls on my table every day. It's a health tragedy for many Ontarians who are afflicted with diabetes. We brought up many examples in the workplace and how at times others may not understand the disease. Within the workplace, many workplaces have health and safety committees. Are they implementing certain standards within the workplace, and would you see somebody from those health and safety committees being part of the standards committee that will be set up under this legislation? Dr. Philp: It's a patchwork across Ontario, as you may be aware. Some of them are and some of them aren't. We get a lot of calls from people who work in, it tends to be, smaller industrial sectors where they're not perhaps as able to put forward their need. They're scared, and there are all those sorts of issues out in the workplace. So having them on the standards committee would be really beneficial in ensuring that their perspective is brought forward, and maybe some sort of standardization across the province would -- Mr. Fonseca: Can you give me an example of a best practice? Dr. Philp: In health and safety? Not off the top of my head. Mr. Fonseca: In relation to diabetes. Dr. Philp: In diabetes, the Railway Association of Canada -- we used a case study in this submission we've provided. Basically, they were using really outdated medical records or medical guidelines prior to 2001. The union and the local individual, who had been managing his diabetes very poorly in Thunder Bay and it resulted in his becoming sick, tried to approach the industry, and they said, "No, no, no." So through advocating with us, we were able to get them to actually sit down with medical doctors. They sat down -- it was the education component again -- and got to learn what diabetes was all about. Now, I would say they have the best medical practice guidelines for employing people with diabetes in safety-sensitive positions in Canada. They are very good. The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES: The Chair: We will move on to our next presentation, and that is from Jeff Willbond. Good morning, sir. We are doing very well with the timing. Let me remind everybody that we are discussing Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. Today's proceedings will be shown on TV on Thursday, February 10. We thank you, sir, for being here this morning. Please start any time you are ready. Mr. Jeff Willbond: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for some clarification, I'm actually representing People with disAbilities: A Community Coalition. There has been a change in the scheduled agenda for today. This afternoon someone was going to be representing the coalition, and that would be me this morning. The Chair: But you are Mr. Willbond -- Mr. Willbond: Yes, I am Jeff Willbond. The Chair: -- representing a group. Good morning, members of the standing committee. As stated, I am Jeff Willbond, and I'm here this morning representing People with disAbilities: A Community Coalition. Thank you for the opportunity to share our support and thoughts on the proposed Bill 118. I would like to commend Minister Bountrogianni and the province for holding public hearings on the bill prior to its receiving third reading. Who are we? The People with disAbilities community coalition is made up of organizations, groups of persons with disabilities and groups for persons with disabilities that have an interest in improving the quality of life for persons with disabilities in Ottawa. Coalition members share a common goal, which is to build a community in which persons with disabilities have equal access to the same opportunities as every other citizen within our community. In collaboration with the city of Ottawa and other organizations like the Ottawa Hospital, we have discussed and agreed on several key changes in Bill 118 that will enhance the lives of persons with disabilities. I just want to give you a flavour of what the disability community looks like here in Ottawa, so I'm going to touch on some local demographics. We know that after the amalgamation, with the new city of Ottawa, it's estimated that our population is about 845,000 people. Of that, 15% are people with disabilities. As we know nationally, persons with disabilities are no longer considered a minority concern or issue. They're now a major part of our population, especially because of the maturing population and advancements in medicine. In a local consumer survey report titled Maximizing our Assets: Partnering for Participation and Inclusion, we came across some very interesting key findings here in Ottawa. This was a survey that was done a couple of years ago, so it is a little out of date, and I apologize. However, I'm going to give you some of our findings: -- Sixty per cent of people responding to the question, "Are you prevented from doing things that interest you or participating in activities happening in our community?" answered yes. -- Fifty-two per cent of the people responding to the question, "How much money do you have to live on?" said that they have less than $15,000, and 21% said they have less than $10,000 a year to live on. -- Thirty-two per cent of those individuals who said they were prevented from participating said that one of the reasons was the cost of participation in our community, the cost of services and programs. -- Forty-eight per cent of survey respondents said they do need help with things like washing, bathing, transferring, dressing and toileting, so we know that there is a strong emphasis on home care and health care, or a need. -- Twenty per cent of respondents who have a permanent place to live indicated that they weren't living where they wanted to, and 42% indicated that a house or apartment that they could afford but was not necessarily accessible. -- Seventy-seven per cent of respondents indicated that they are not working or volunteering, citing lack of access, training opportunities and employer sensitivity as major reasons. In fact, what we're looking at here are some real, true systemic barriers. The purpose of my presentation today is not to identify or dwell on accessibility barriers for Ontarians. You know that all too well. We have a very good idea of what the barriers are. What we're discussing during these public hearings is the process and Bill 118 itself. Also, my focus is to embrace the vision of not creating new barriers for tomorrow. My experience personally, besides representing the coalition today, is that I drafted two accessibility plans for the city of Ottawa. I was the special-needs consultant to the city of Ottawa, and therefore I have a really good flavour of the ODA and the work that was required within the public sector. The momentum of accessibility planning has been incredibly successful in the sense that it has sensitized the public sector, it has identified and removed barriers and it has developed a plan that has been successfully implemented, largely across Ontario, within different cities. I want to see that momentum of accessibility planning continue, especially followed by the repeal of the ODA. I think accessibility planning is going to be that much more critical. The coalition recognizes and supports ongoing accessibility planning. This process has proven to be successful. The process has engaged municipalities, schools and hospitals in becoming sensitized through assessing, auditing and developing best practices. Although standards will be developed, we recommend that the process of accessibility planning continue with a stronger emphasis on a report card back to the province and public. Accessibility planning needs to be part of an organization's budgetary plan. The date on which the accessibility plans were required was not coinciding, for instance, with the city of Ottawa's budget planning cycle, which created some new barriers. Accessibility planning can incorporate new standards as developed. Indicators have been developed and should be applied for monitoring outcomes. It has been my experience that we've had an accessibility plan, we've implemented it, but we've had some difficulty in terms of monitoring. So within Bill 118, not only should we carry on with the momentum of accessibility planning, but we should also look at indicators of measuring and monitoring the plan. For the development of standards committees, we suggest the establishment of standards development committees for various industries, sectors of the economy or cases of persons or organizations to develop proposed accessibility standards. Standards development committees should be established within six months of the passage of Bill 118. Create a disability accessibility adviser to oversee and support the work of the committees to function at arm's length from the government. This adviser would recommend priorities for action, reporting to the Legislature, and serve as a public advocate for progress. Standards committees should hold public consultations on accessibility, as we are today. Further consultation with appropriate private sector associations -- for example, with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce -- will determine realistic action and time frames for the private sector. For the development of proposed standards, we are suggesting and recommending harmonizing of all legislation that deals with accessibility of the built environment, such as the Ontario building code, the Planning Act, condominium legislation and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Each standards committee should set a series of target dates for different barrier removal activities. Education and training for municipal building inspectors, and professionals such as architects and developers, are critical. Technical standards need to be harmonized provincially. When I'm speaking with regard to technical standards -- the Ontario building code, CSA, best practices -- it has been my experience, working with municipalities, for example, that the city of Toronto and the city of Ottawa have both developed technical standards that have been very costly and resourceful, and this could be something that the province could simply harmonize, rather than recreate the work that has already been done. A high priority should be to develop accessibility standards for the Legislature and ministries. I have a question: How will public policy silos be broken down with issues of income -- ODSP -- health care and home care within the Ministry of Health? We have three ministries in Ontario that each have a definition of "disability." The Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Citizenship and the Ministry of Health all deliver services and programs for persons with disabilities, and all have a very distinct definition. To give you an example of a conflict in policy when I'm speaking about some of these policy silos, within the Ministry of Health, OHIP will remove and replace your hip, especially if you're a maturing person and you've had some deterioration of your hip. If you are in an accident and you lose a limb or you lose a limb to cancer, OHIP will not replace your limb with a prosthetic. It then falls under the responsibility of the assistive devices program. So that's an interesting conflict right there within policy. We believe in a prioritized approach with a series of target dates, starting with health and safety standards and determinants of health. As said in some of the previous presentations, we think the prioritizing of standards should really emphasize health and safety first, and, in terms of quality of life, look at the determinants of health, which are income, housing, employment and transportation. In conclusion, as a dear friend once said to me, "The benefits of accessibility equal inclusion." The moral argument is that it's the right thing to do. The legal case is, not only is it not nice, it's not legal. We need to manage it before the courts manage us. The area I like to focus on is the business case for persons with disabilities and for our society in general, and that's the economics, the baby boomers, cash, demands for service, customer service and consumer focus. One challenge that I want to quickly identify before I wrap up is that here in Ottawa we have all three levels of government, which is unique in comparison to the rest of Ontario. We have quite a bit of a federal government presence here in Ottawa, and I'm just wondering how Bill 118 is going to partner or what relationship the province will have, considering that we have a lot of facilities here in Ottawa that fall under public works with the federal government. I thank you. The Chair: You only have one minute left. Mr. Marchese, it's your floor. Mr. Marchese: Thank you, Jeff, for all the suggestions you've made. It has been my view since we debated this bill in the Legislature that the bill is a good bill but is hardly extraordinary in terms of potential and what it could do. I think much of it has to do with the recommendations you make, which are very much in line with the ODA's recommendations and those of so many other individuals. My sense is that these changes and recommendations need to be made in order to make it a very good bill or a strong bill. Do you agree with that, or do you think we could just live with this bill as it is? Mr. Willbond: Live with the ODA as it is? Mr. Marchese: As it is, or do you believe we need to make some of the amendments that you suggest in order to make it effective and strong? Mr. Willbond: Absolutely, yes. The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. The Chair: We'll move on to the next presenter, just to keep on time. The next presenter is Greg Bonnah. Good morning, sir. You were the first one here this morning, I believe. Mr. Greg Bonnah: Thank you for granting me the time to speak to you. For your information, I am the parent of a disabled child. I write the education column for Access Now. I am an education advocate for Disabled and Proud and sit for Integration Action on the special education advisory committee of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Today I am here to present my point of view on how I, as a parent of a disabled child, envisage a better Ontarians with Disabilities Act. My vision of the future is a government that thinks of the child as a whole. Let me explain. My child was adversely affected by what the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Health, calls an adverse event to a vaccination. A simple scratch test has been available since before my child was born. Had he been given this test, we would have known he was allergic to the vaccine and not given it to him, and we would have a normal child today. But some bureaucrat decided not to make this test mandatory in order to save the Ministry of Health a few dollars. What about the additional costs to my child, my family and the Ministries of Education and Community and Social Services, not to mention the lowly taxpayer? Let's see how these entities have fared by the Ministry of Health's decision to save a few bucks. My child's life has been devastated. His adverse event was Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. His brain was seizing every four seconds, and we were seeing between 60 and 100 seizures per day. The neurology department at CHEO, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, told us that Zachary would never walk, talk and/or play, and that 70% of the children with his syndrome died within the first year; otherwise, they lived out their lives in a vegetative state. We were advised that brain surgery was necessary and that it would be best if we put him away and continued on with our lives. So today, instead of having a typical 14-year-old teenager at home driving me crazy and worrying about his pimples or girls, he is strugg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||