ODA Committee Update
dated January 5, 2005
posted March 3, 2005

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE UPDATE ODA Committee Releases Draft Brief Proposing Amendments To Bill 118 - Send the ODA Committee Your Feedback! January 6, 2005 SUMMARY The ODA Committee is here circulating a draft 49 page brief to the Legislature's Standing Committee on Social Policy. (See below) The draft brief proposes amendments to Bill 118, the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The draft brief explains the rationales underlying these proposed amendments, and then provides detailed suggestions on how the bill should be amended. The draft brief's very detailed contents are the product of very extensive work. It seeks to incorporate feedback received from ODA supporters over the past weeks since Bill 118 was introduced into the Legislature. It also incorporates feedback received by the ODA Committee over the past years even before Bill 118 was brought forward. For example, it echoes common themes raised by individuals and community organizations brought before the Legislature's Standing Committee that held public hearings three years ago on the previous Conservative Government's ODA bill. The proposed amendments in this draft brief arise from the 11 principles for the ODA which the ODA Committee formulated and which the Legislature unanimously adopted by resolution back on October 29, 1998. These proposed amendments also draw upon the amendments which the Liberal and New Democratic parties proposed back in the fall of 2001, when the previous Conservative Government's Bill 125(which became the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001) was before the Legislature. Those amendments were drawn from the brief which the ODA Committee presented to the Standing Committee of the Legislature that held public hearings into the previous Conservative Government's ODA bill back in the fall of 2001. The Liberal Party pledged during the 2003 election that they would, at a minimum, implement the substance of the amendments they brought forward 3 years ago. Please also note that this draft brief doesn't include a list of barriers facing persons with disabilities. That is not its purpose. We have provided the Government with that kind of information in the past in extensive detail. This draft brief also isn't intended to separately mention and emphasize each and every different kind of disability, and to separately deal with the different needs of each. Rather it speaks generally about the full range of visible and invisible disabilities, whether they are physical, mental and/or sensory disabilities. We need individuals and community organizations to come forward to give the Standing Committee on Social Policy more supporting information pertaining to different specific disabilities, to supplement this draft brief's more general, global focus. This is ONLY a draft. It is being made public, but hasn't been submitted to the Legislature's Standing Committee on Social Policy. It will be refined and carefully checked before it is finalized. As the ODA Committee did three years ago when the previous Conservative Government's ODA bill was before the Legislature, we are here circulating this draft brief for your comments and feedback. Please send us your thoughts by Friday, January 14, 2005. That feedback will help in the finalizing of this brief. The final brief will then be made available as soon as possible. We know that this gives you a limited amount of time to develop your feedback. However, it is necessary for the ODA Committee to finalize its brief well before the Standing Committee on Social Policy starts its hearings on January 31, 2005. This draft is being released as soon as possible after it was finished. You will note that it still has some blanks to be filled in. This draft doesn't include any of the appendices that it refers to. Most of those appendices can be found on the ODA Committee's website at: http://www.odacommittee.net It is hoped that this draft brief, and the final brief that will flow from it, will help everyone, whether community organizations or individuals, formulate their own written submissions and oral presentations to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. We hope that our brief, once finalized will be endorsed by as many as possible. We also don't pretend that this brief, once finalized, will include every last idea that might come forward. To that end, it is hoped that this brief, both in this draft form and when finalized, will be a springboard to lead you to come up with your own ideas for amendments to supplement these proposed amendments. Make sure you sign up to present to the public hearings. That is your chance to endorse the ODA Committee's brief if you wish, to point out which of these proposed amendments matter the most to you, and most important of all, to come forward with your own additional ideas. If you need information on how to sign up to present at the oral hearings of the Standing Committee, contact us at the email address below. This is admittedly a long, and at times technical document. Much effort has been spent to try to make this information as easy to read and useful as possible for everyone, including those who aren't versed in all the history of the ODA issue and the intricate details of Bill 118. If you would rather receive the draft brief in MS Word form, email us with your request. To ask for that, or to send in your feedback on the draft brief, contact: oda@odacommittee.net It is hoped that this draft brief will hit on the major issues that concern you. Feel free to circulate this to others. DRAFT ONLY AS OF JANUARY 6, 2005-01-06 ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE BRIEF TO THE ONTARIO LEGISLATURE'S STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY ON BILL 118, THE PROPOSED ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Visit www.odacommittee.net INTRODUCTION The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee submits this brief to the Ontario Legislature's Standing Committee on Social Policy to comment on and recommend amendments to Bill 118, the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. OVERVIEW This brief sets out: * Who is the ODA Committee * Extremely Brief Background to Bill 118 * Major Rationales for Our Proposed Amendments to Bill 118 * A Summary of Our Key Proposed Amendments * A Detailed Description of Our Proposed Amendments * A Review of Amendments that Should be Rejected. The appendices to this brief include: * The Ontario Legislature's October 29, 1998 unanimous resolution, introduced by MPP Dwight Duncan, which calls for the passage of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation that fulfils the ODA Committee's 11 principles. * the text of Dalton McGuinty's April 7, 2003 letter to the ODA Committee, promising new disability accessibility legislation. * Amendments which the Liberal Party proposed to Bill 125, the previous Government's proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act. * Bill 125, the previous Government's proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act prior to amendment in Standing Committee in December, 2001. * the text of Bill 118, the proposed new Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. * the brief which the ODA Committee submitted to the previous Ontario Government on achieving an accessible built environment. * the ODA Committee's January 6, 2004 discussion paper on options for initial short-term low-cost actions to begin strengthening of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001. * the December 23, 2004 letter from Ontario Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner Keith Norton, regarding inaccessible new building construction in Toronto. WHO IS THE ODA COMMITTEE? The ODA Committee is a grassroots, voluntary, non-partisan coalition of individuals both with and without disabilities, and of numerous community organizations organized across Ontario. Founded in late 1994, we have united to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities through the prompt passage of a strong, effective disability accessibility law. We are independent of and arms-length from the Ontario Government. As a non-partisan community coalition, we offer our input to any and all political parties. We have extensive experience and expertise with the wide range of disabilities. Through our volunteer efforts we have led the decade-long campaign for strong, effective provincial disability accessibility legislation. We have brought our message to three successive Ontario Governments, the opposition parties, the public and the media. We were formed after former NDP MPP Gary Malkowski brought forward a private member's ODA bill, the first such bill in Ontario history. We have taken active part in all public consultations and legislative proceedings pertaining to the three subsequent ODA bills that have come before this Legislature. The current Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 embodies ideas which we put forward, albeit in a fashion we found disappointing and needing of substantial strengthening. Since we formed in late 1994, we have been consulted by three successive Ontario Governments, by opposition parties, by community organizations across Canada and even by the European Union. In the 1995, 1999 and 2003 provincial elections, two successive provincial governments and opposition parties have all set out their election commitments on disability accessibility legislation in correspondence addressed to the ODA Committee, and have specifically pledged to work together with the ODA Committee in developing legislation to fulfil their election pledges. Over the past decade, we proposed three successive resolutions concerning disability accessibility legislation. The Legislature passed each of these unanimously. These included the Legislature's October 29, 1998 resolution,introduced by MPP Dwight Duncan, which mandated that the disability accessibility legislation that this Legislature should enact the 11 principles which The ODA Committee itself had formulated. (See Appendix _.) Those 11 principles have been accepted by all parties in the Legislature as the yardstick by which all such legislation, including Bill 118, should be measured. Our activities are amply documented on our website at www.odacommittee.net DEDICATION We dedicate this brief to the many wonderful individuals who have donated their time and energy to our decade-long grassroots campaign for a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities through strong, effective legislation. We especially dedicate it to those who, we regret, didn't live long enough to see their dream of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation become a reality. EXTREMELY BRIEF HISTORY OF BILL 188 The ODA Committee formed on November 29, 1994, to campaign for a strong, effective new Ontario law, to be called the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This law was sought to make Ontario barrier-free for all persons with disabilities. In the 1995 Ontario election, Conservative leader Mike Harris promised to pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in his first term. On October 29, 1998, the Ontario Legislature unanimously passed a resolution, requiring the Ontarians with Disabilities Act to fulfil the ODA Committee's 11 principles to make it strong and effective. On November 23, 1998, the Harris Government introduced its three-page Bill 83, a proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It was widely criticized as being ineffective. The Harris Government allowed it to die on the order paper. In the 1999 Ontario election, the governing Conservative Party promised to come forward with a stronger bill. On November 5, 2001, Conservative Citizenship Minister Cam Jackson introduced Bill 125, the conservative Government's second attempt at an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. After some 15 of its 34 sections were amended during clause-by-clause debate in a Standing Committee of the Legislature, it was passed into law on December 13, 2001 as the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001. That bill was widely criticized as being disappointing. This was because it didn't make barrier-removal and prevention mandatory, because it didn't include effective enforcement and because it didn't require barriers to be removed and prevented in the private sector. In the 2003 provincial election, the Liberal Party promised to enact a strengthened Ontarians with Disabilities Act to fulfil the 11 principles for the ODA referred to above, and to (at a minimum) incorporate the substance of amendments to the previous Government's Bill 125 which the Liberal Party proposed when that bill was before Standing Committee. In the winter/spring of 2004, the Liberal Government held a public consultation on what to include in its new disability accessibility bill. On October 12, 2004, the Liberal Government's Citizenship Minister, Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, introduced Bill 118, the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, into the Legislature for First Reading. On December 2, 2004, the Legislature unanimously voted for Bill 118 on Second Reading, i.e. approval in principle. The Liberal Party made election pledges regarding the ODA in the 1995, 1999 and 2003 Ontario elections. The conservative Party made election pledges regarding the ODA in the 1995 and 1999 Ontario elections. The NDP made election pledges regarding the ODA in the 1999 and 2003 elections. For a more detailed chronology of the decade-long campaign for strong, effective disability accessibility legislation, visit www.odacommittee.net/161.html KEY RATIONALES FOR AMENDMENTS PROPOSED IN THIS BRIEF We commend the Ontario Government for bringing forward Bill 118, the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, after holding a thorough, open and accessible public consultation. This bill includes important improvements upon the current Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001. We also are very appreciative that all three political parties unanimously voted in favour of this bill in principle on Second Reading. We are delighted that there is now all-party support for the ODA Committee's core message (which we spearheaded ever since the previous Government introduced Bill 125, its proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001) that the existing Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 needs to be strengthened. We note that the author of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001, former Conservative citizenship Minister Cam Jackson, speaking on behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party as its Disability Critic, stated (second day of Second Reading debate on Bill 118, November 22, 2004): "I think it is important that disabled people have a strengthened Ontarians with Disabilities Act." Bill 118 is a good bill. Having now had some two months to carefully study its provisions and to further consult our membership, we welcome this opportunity to offer amendments to make Bill 118 even better. We commend Citizenship Minister Dr. Marie Bountrogianni for inviting proposals for amendments to ensure that this bill most effectively fulfils the Government's goals. In the Legislature she stated (first day of Second Reading Debate on Bill 118, November 18, 2004): "As I have indicated, I want to be as non-partisan as possible. If a member from any of our three parties has a workable suggestion for improving the bill, I am more than prepared to listen." In this brief, we take the Minister up on her invitation. We propose these amendments in the spirit of support for the bill. We offer these proposed amendments on behalf of the province-wide ODA Committee. They reflect input from our membership gathered since Bill 118 was introduced on October 12, 2004 for First Reading. They also reflect the accumulated thinking on the issue of disability accessibility that the ODA Committee has amassed over the past decade through innumerable public forums around Ontario, through our constant solicitation of feedback from our membership, through policy and legal research, and through exchanges with others interested in this issue from around the world. We express our gratitude to all who have provided us with ideas and feedback, and to all who have invested their time and effort in this decade-long grassroots campaign. Our proposed amendments cannot reflect every last idea that may have been brought to our attention at some point or other. We have therefore actively encouraged community organizations and individuals to bring to this Standing Committee and to the Government their own ideas for amendments, to supplement our proposals. We hope that our proposals serve as a catalyst for even more good ideas that others will devise during the current public hearings on Bill 118. We, for example, have attempted to aim our proposed amendments to apply to the full range of visible and invisible disabilities in our society, and at the full range of life activities which Bill 118 addresses,including access to goods, services, facilities and employment. Others may come forward with proposed amendments that are specific to their own disability, or to a specific area of activity, such as employment, that is of greatest importance to them. We here propose a good number of amendments to Bill 118. It should not be inferred from the number of our proposed amendments that this isn't a good bill. As indicated above, our amendments try to make it even better, so it will fully live up to the Government's stated objectives. We recognize that this is a very different kind of bill - it is unlike any other bill that has come before this Legislature and unlike any other legislation in Canada. We want this bill to boldly go where no Canadian legislation has gone before. Because Ontario is embarking on a new enterprise, there is ample room for fine-tuning, without implying that the initial bill was somehow wrong-headed. Our package of proposed amendments have several rationales or themes. First, our proposals aim to make sure that this bill most effectively implements the 11 principles for disability accessibility legislation which the ODA Committee formulated, which the Legislature unanimously adopted by resolution on october 29, 1998, and which Premier McGuinty promised to enshrine in this legislation. (See the Ontario Legislature's October 29, 1998 unanimous resolution, Appendix _ and Dalton McGuinty's April 7, 2003 letter to the ODA Committee, Appendix _) Second, we seek in these amendments to the extent feasible to implement the substance of specific amendments which the Liberal party had itself proposed on December 11, 2001, to the previous Conservative Government's Bill 125, the bill which later became the current Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001. Those proposed amendments are included as Appendix _. In his April 7, 2003 letter to the ODA Committee (Appendix _), Premier McGuinty pledged that if elected, his Government would at a minimum implement the content of those amendments. Premier McGuinty wrote: "...The legislation and regulations will include timelines, standards and a mechanism for effective enforcement, and, at a minimum, will reflect the substance of amendments to the Conservative bill offered by the Liberal party in the fall of 2001." We recognize that because Bill 118 is structured differently from the current Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001, not all those earlier proposed Liberal amendments to the Conservatives' Bill 125 are appropriate. We refer where appropriate to the 2001 Liberal amendments that we seek to draw upon. We note that when the previous Government brought its Bill 125 before a Standing Committee in the fall of 2001, the New Democratic Party also proposed a package of amendments to that bill at the request of the ODA Committee. The NDP's proposed amendments were virtually identical to those proposed by the Liberals. The NDP and Liberals supported each others proposed amendments. In this brief, where reference is made to proposed amendments to the previous Conservative Government's Bill 125, the text referred to is that which the Liberal Party proposed in 2001. However in each case where we refer to the Liberals proposed 2001 amendments to Bill 125, it should be remembered that the NDP made similar proposals. Third, our amendments work within the structure of the Government's bill. They fine-tune it to make it as effective and practical as possible. Fourth, we recognize that financial resources available to the provincial government, and to the private and broader public sectors, are limited. They need to be spent carefully and wisely. Fifth, we recognize that the bill must give the Ontario Government and organizations in the public and private sector that will implement this bill sufficient flexibility to deal with the myriad of different issues that will arise during its implementation. Nevertheless it is important that the bill set time lines for important steps that the Government must take, when implementing the bill. Some of these time lines should be fixed calendar dates. Others should be triggered by the happening of important events. Either way, it is important to ensure that persons with disabilities don't have to lobby successive governments to make sure that they actually take the key steps needed to effectively implement this bill. Sixth, we are keenly aware that there has been much debate over the bill's 20-year time line for achieving full accessibility in Ontario for persons with disabilities. Many won't live to see the end of that 20-year period. On the other hand, the task of making Ontario fully barrier-free for all persons with disabilities is a major undertaking. The ODA Committee has always recognized that this cannot be completely achieved overnight. Some measures can be implemented quickly. Other measures will take much longer. It would undoubtedly be desirable if that 20-year period could be reduced. However, this brief's proposed amendments don't focus on the end date for achieving full and complete provincial accessibility. Rather, as a core theme, they focus on making sure that important progress is made in a timely fashion along the way, with special emphasis on ensuring real and substantial progress during the earliest years of this bill's implementation. This bill must be designed to ensure effective progress not only now, when the busy Legislature's attention is temporarily focused on this bill. It must also ensure effective progress throughout the next two decades. It must be sufficiently durable to effectively cover each and every successive Ontario Government and each and every successive minister that will be responsible for this bill's implementation over that period. A major goal of our amendments package is to ensure that while the Government has reasonable latitude and flexibility, the bill sets key benchmarks and time lines for Government action to ensure that this bill will be effectively implemented, regardless of which party is in power, and regardless of which individual serves as Citizenship Minister. The painful experience of the last decade, campaigning for this bill, has left the indelible message with Ontarians with disabilities that effective disability accessibility legislation must not just say what Government "may" do: it must make it clear what Government "must" do, and when it must do it, to effectively steer our province on the path toward full accessibility by the bill's ultimate deadline. Seventh, but certainly not least important, and building on all the foregoing, where the bill gives the minister or the government a discretionary power, it is important that that discretion be appropriately structured and constrained. The minister and the Government shouldn't be given open-ended and indefinite discretion. The bill should provide not only time lines for its exercise, as indicated above. It should also set the criteria for the exercise of discretionary power concerning this bill's implementation.It should as well ensure that governmental discretion over the bill's implementation is exercised in an open, public and transparent way, so that the government, and the minister responsible, will be readily held accountable for their actions. In our decade-long experience with three successive provincial governments, and seven successive citizenship ministers, we have experienced extremes from open accountability and supportiveness on the accessibility issue to closed recalcitrance. We have encountered ministers who were themselves readily open to talk and meet shortly after taking office, all the way to a minister who refused to meet with us for over a full year after taking office. The bill should assign the necessary responsibilities to the minister and the government, to ensure that progress cannot be held up depending on the personality of the individual occupying the minister's post. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS PACKAGE The ODA Committee's detailed amendments package is summarized as follows. Bill 118 should be amended to: * Set specific time lines by which the Ontario Government must take each major step necessary to implement this bill's major elements. * Set key benchmarks that must be achieved at key points during the bill's 20-year implementation period to ensure that progress is steady, serious and substantial. * Reinforce the process for developing proposed accessibility standards, to ensure that it is arms-length from the Ontario Government. The Government can take part in that process, and will have ultimate say over whether a proposed accessibility standard should be enacted into law, but shouldn't have control over the process of developing proposed accessibility standards. * Ensure that the process of implementing the bill, including the development of accessibility standards, is open, publicly accountable and transparent. * Implement measures to ensure that persons with disabilities and disability community organizations can take full and meaningful part in the process of developing accessibility standards. * Close unnecessary loopholes in the bill. * Limit and properly constrain the exercise of the minister's and government's discretionary powers under the bill. * Ensure that the bill applies to all major activities where barriers can arise against persons with disabilities, and * Ensure an orderly transition from the current Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 to the full operation of this new bill. THE ODA COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS PACKAGE FOR BILL 118 PART I: SCOPE OF THE BILL 1. TO WHOM THIS BILL APPLIES The bill should apply to the Ontario Crown and to all public and private sector organizations within provincial jurisdiction. However, the wording of s. 4 doesn't achieve this. On the issue of who this bill covers, s. 4 of the bill states: "4. This Act applies to every person or organization in the public and private sectors of the Province of Ontario to which an accessibility standard applies." The words "to which an accessibility standard applies" are too narrow. They unnecessarily constrict the scope of this bill's reach. Until an accessibility standard is developed, this bill applies only to the Ontario Government. For example, s. 29 of the bill imposes obligations on municipalities regarding the operations of municipal accessibility advisory committees. These should apply regardless of whether any accessibility standards have been developed and adopted. Yet s. 4 of the bill suggests that the bill wouldn't apply to a municipality or its accessibility advisory committee until and unless an accessibility standard regarding municipalities has been developed and enacted as a regulation. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 4 of the bill be amended to delete the words "to which an accessibility standard applies." Subsection 6(3) of the bill defines those to whom accessibility standards should apply. It states: "6(3) Despite subsection (2), an accessibility standard may apply only to a person or organization that (a) provides goods, services or facilities to the public; (b) employs persons in Ontario; (c) offers accommodation to the public; (d) owns or occupies a building, structure or premises that is open to the public; or (e) is engaged in a prescribed business, activity or undertaking or meets such other requirements as may be prescribed." This provision is too narrow. It should be clarified to ensure that accessibility standards created under the bill also apply to all businesses, organizations and individuals who, among other things, are involved in the design and construction of the built environment. This is critical to ensure that new construction of commercial and residential properties developed for resale to the public, including new residential homes and condominiums, are accessible. As well, this provision should be clarified to ensure that standards can cover companies and organizations involved in the design and manufacture of products for sale to the public. It shouldn't only apply to those companies that sell products to the public. The principle of universal design, which the Government has supported and which the Ontario Human Rights Commission has strongly endorsed, needs to take root well before the retailer is in position to sell the product to the public. As now drafted, it would be open to the Government to later define these as "a prescribed business." However, it is far preferable to ensure that these organizations are covered now. Persons with disabilities shouldn't have to lobby to get them included later. By not including these specific activities here, this provision unjustifiably limits the assured effectiveness of this bill. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 6(3) of the bill be amended to make clear that accessibility standards made under this bill will apply to, among others, (a) all businesses, organizations and individuals that are involved in the design and construction of the built environment, (b) organizations involved in the design or manufacture of products for sale to the public. PART II: ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS 2. STREAMLINING THE PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES Under this bill, the minister is required to establish Standards Development Committees. These committees will then each prepare proposed accessibility standards for a sector of the economy or a subject area that cuts across all sectors. It appears that the Government contemplates that each Standards Committee will include representation from the government, the sector of the economy to be regulated, from persons with disabilities, and from other possible stakeholders. We strongly endorse this new direction in this bill. This is a substantial improvement upon the current ODA 2001. The previous Government announced that under the ODA 2001, accessibility standards could and would be developed. The ODA Committee repeatedly pressed for the promised accessibility standards to be developed under that legislation. We were promised that persons with disabilities would be put in the driver's seat, setting the standards and determining the time lines for barrier removal and prevention. Yet no mandatory accessibility standards were ever developed under the ODA 2001. Section 8 of Bill 118 creates the process for establishing Standards Development Committees. The basic framework is good. However, it is desirable that this process be further clarified, refined and streamlined, while still leaving the Government sufficient flexibility. There are several areas for refinement of s. 8. It now requires that the minister establish standards committees. However, it doesn't impose a time frame for this to happen. It is important that there be a reasonably prompt time frame for the first Standards Committees to be established. The minister should then be left with flexibility to add to and alter the initial set of standards committees that are established. Section 8 doesn't identify a minimum range of Standards Committees to be established. This is an area where it is reasonable to leave the minister with a good measure of flexibility. We will undoubtedly all learn as we go along. However, on the face of s. 8 as now drafted, it would be open to the minister to only establish one or two Standards Committees, without running afoul of the legislation. It is desirable that the bill ensure that this doesn't happen. If Ontario is to become fully accessible, as this bill promises, there will need to eventually be a sufficient number of Standards Committees to cover the economy. The bill shouldn't leave this entirely open-ended. The bill should instead identify certain Standards Committees that must be established within the initial time frame to be set. It could make it clear that these mustn't and will not be the only Standards Committees that shall be established. It would also be helpful if the bill also included criteria for establishment of additional Standards Committees. As well, the bill should provide a mechanism for members of the public to apply to the minister to exercise his or her discretion to appoint a further Standards Committee in a designated area. Once such an application is made, the minister should be required to consider that application, to decide on it within a specified period of time, and, if the application is refused, to give reasons for the decision. This would fulfil the last line of the 7th of the 11 principles, approved unanimously by the Ontario Legislature, which this legislation is intended to fulfil. That principle states: "7. As part of its enforcement process, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a process of regulation-making to define with clarity the steps required for compliance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It should be open for such regulations to be made on an industry-by-industry basis, or sector-by-sector basis. This should include a requirement that input be obtained from affected groups such as persons with disabilities before such regulations are enacted. It should also provide persons with disabilities with the opportunity to apply to have regulations made in specific sectors of the economy; For example, in 2001, after detailed study of the public transit sector, the Ontario Human Rights Commission found that there are too many barriers impeding access by persons with disabilities to public transit. The Ontario Human Rights Commission publicly recommended that to rectify this, provincial public transit accessibility standards need to be set. Despite this, no such standards were developed by the Ontario Government. A formal application process, suggested here, would have provided an excellent avenue for that issue to be pursued." It is therefore recommended that: * Section 8 of the bill be amended to: (a) identify the minimum number of standards 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 persons with disabilities; (b) set out the criteria that the minister should apply when deciding what Standards Committees to establish, e.g. based on priority needs of persons with disabilities, available resources for supporting the work of the Standards Committees; (c) provide that interested parties can make an application to the minister to establish a Standards Committee. When such an application is received, the bill should provide a prompt, uncomplicated process for the minister to post the application, receive input on it, and then make a decision, giving reasons for granting or refusing the application. Section 8 of the bill provides little if any detail on how members of the Standards Committees are to be selected by the minister. It indicates that they should come from among persons with disabilities, from the regulated economic sector and from government. It is undesirable for the process of selecting persons to sit on the Standards Committees to become too cumbersome. These Standards Committees cannot practically become mini-parliaments. On the other hand, it is important that the bill include safeguards against these committees being stacked by a government of the day, in a manner which might meet short term political exigencies, rather than ensuring the standards committees's effectiveness. The best approach is to ensure that the selection process is open and transparent. The ODA Committee unsuccessfully urged the previous Government to exercise its discretion to use such an approach when selecting members of the Accessibility Advisory Council, re-created under the current ODA 2001. At a minimum, Bill 118 should set fixed terms for Standards Committee membership. A government should not be able to dismiss Standards Committee members at will. The bill should require the minister to publicly invite applications for persons to be appointed to these committees. It should require the minister to make public the names of persons who apply, the criteria to be used for their selection and the names of those ultimately appointed. The bill should also set timelines for these actions. Under the previous Government, it took the Government a full year to select a mere 12 persons to sit on one body, the Accessibility Advisory Council of Ontario. It is desirable that such delays not be permissible under this bill, especially since several Standards Committees will need to be established. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 8 of the bill be amended to: (a) require the minister to publicly solicit applications and nominations for positions on Standards Committees; (b) set fixed terms for membership on Standards Committees; (c) require the minister to make public the criteria for appointing members to Standards Committees, the list of persons applying for membership on Standards Committees, and the persons appointed to Standards Committees; (d) Set reasonable time lines for these actions, and for appointments to Standards Committees to be made once applications have been solicited, to ensure that this process is expeditious. 3. CLARIFYING MANDATES OF STANDARDS COMMITTEES Section 8(6) of Bill 118 gives the minister power to set the mandate for each Standards Committee. It states: "8(6) The Minister shall fix terms of reference for each standards development committee and shall establish in the terms of reference the deadlines that each committee must meet throughout the various stages of the standards development process." We understand that the Government contemplates that some Standards Committees will address individual sectors of the economy e.g. the hotel sector or the restaurant sector. Other Standards Committees are expected to address a class of disability barriers that similarly cut across a range of different sectors of the economy e.g. barriers in the built environment, or barriers to employment. This is a good approach. Some barriers are sector-specific and may be better dealt with by a sectoral Standards Committee. Other barriers are more generic, such as barriers to accessibility of the built environment or barriers to accessibility of websites. It may be more efficient to have these generic barriers addressed at a Standards Committee that is dedicated to that generic area. Of course, any sectoral Standards Committee should have the flexibility to develop sector-specific solutions as "add-ons" where worthwhile. However, s. 8 of the bill is worded awkwardly. It doesn't make clear that a Standards Committee could be appointed to address a generic class of barriers that similarly cut across several sectors of the economy. It is desirable for the minister to be able to appoint such a generic Standards Committee, so that each sectoral Standards Committee doesn't have to re-invent the same wheel in the case of similar barriers arising in multiple sectors. To give the minister this flexibility, it is therefore recommended that: * Section 8 of the bill's wording be clarified to: (a) make it clear that the minister has the option to appoint a Standards Committee to address a generic class of barriers that can similarly arise in multiple sectors of the economy such as barriers in the built environment or website barriers; (b) let a sector-specific Standards Committee then add to the generic Standards Committee's generic standard where circumstances in that specific sector warrant. The bill gives the minister complete discretion over the terms of reference of each Standards Committee. Section 8(6) of the bill provides: "8(6) The Minister shall fix terms of reference for each standards development committee and shall establish in the terms of reference the deadlines that each committee must meet throughout the various stages of the standards development process." It isn't practical for the bill to exhaustively detail the mandates of Standards Committees. It is desirable for the minister to have flexible discretion over the terms of reference of Standards Committees. However, it is also desirable for the bill to at least set some minimum bedrock requirements for the mandates of Standards Committees. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 8(6) of the bill be amended to include mandatory minimum terms of reference for Standards Committees, while giving the minister discretion to add to these statutory minimum terms of reference. Section 8(6) of the bill requires the minister to set terms of reference for Standards Committees. However, it doesn't fix time lines for doing so. It is beneficial for there to be some outside limit on the time that the minister can take for doing this, at least for the initial Standards Committees that will be established. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 8(6) of the bill be amended to impose a time line for the minister to set the terms of reference for a Standards Committee and for these terms of reference to be made public. 4. PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS Attention now turns to what happens once the minister has created a Standards Committee, chosen its members, and set its terms of reference. The bill provides that once a Standards Committee is established, it shall develop accessibility standards in accordance with ss. 9 to 13 of the bill. The bill's overall framework is positive. Past experience with the existing Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 with related legislation such as the Building Code and the Ontario Human rights Code, as well as the experience in other parts of the world such as Australia with accessibility standard-setting, demonstrate the need for these new provisions. They also show the need for some important additional features to be added to the bill to ensure that they work effectively. The concerns in this regard which amendments are needed to address include the following: Making the Standards Development Process Arms-Length from the Government of the Day It is vital that the accessibility standards development process be undertaken at appropriate arms-length from the Ontario Government. This is not the case now under Bill 118. Under the bill, the entire accessibility standards development process is now carried on under the minister's open-ended discretion, direction, supervision and ultimate control. The Government should of course have a role to play in the process. However, it too must obey the standards once set. The Government is in a bind if it both makes the standards and must obey them. If the standards development process is made arms-length from the Ontario Government, it will help protect it from the back and forth pendulum of partisan politics. The ultimate decision of whether to adopt a proposed standard would, under the recommendations below, still ultimately rest with the Government of the day. It will thus be inevitably subject to that political process. However, each Standards Committee should be able to develop standards recommendations based on their best expert opinions, without being controlled by the Government of the day. Once the Government has received the best expert advice available, it should remain up to the Government to decide whether to heed that advice, and to take the political heat for its action or inaction on that advice. To accomplish these goals, we propose that a new public official be created who would function at arms-length from the Government. This official should be called the Disability Accessibility Advisor, and should have a fixed term appointment. This official would oversee and support the work of the Standards Committees. He or she should be given a mandate to give independent advice to the minister and the government, to recommend priorities for action, to give the Legislature and the public periodic public reports on Ontario's progress toward the goal of full accessibility, and to serve as a public, independent advocate for progress. It is not intended and certainly not necessary that the creation of this public official lead to the establishment of a large new government bureaucracy. It is also important that this official not serve as, and not be used as, a public speaker or public relations spokesperson to advertise for the government of the day. This proposal doesn't require radical changes to the bill. It is therefore recommended that: * The bill be amended to establish an independent public officer, to be called the Disability Accessibility Standards Advisor. This official will operate at arms-length from the Government, and will serve for a fixed term e.g. five years. The Disability Accessibility Advisor will have lead responsibility for developing standards, including supporting each Standards Committee. The Accessibility Advisor would be required to: (a) make recommendations on as for which a Standards Committee shall be established, beyond those which the amended bill would require be established; (b) make annual public reports on progress achieved toward a fully-accessible Ontario, and on areas where progress is still needed. Setting Time Lines for Standards Committees' Work Undoubtedly the work of Standards Committees will be challenging and potentially time-consuming. It is nevertheless important that the bill fix time lines within which Standards Committees must complete at least some stages of their work. Otherwise, there is the risk that the standards development process could drag on indefinitely. There is no magic "correct" time line in this regard. We understand that there needs to be reasonable flexibility in the legislation in this regard. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 9 of the bill be amended to: (a) fix reasonable time lines for Standards Committees to complete important stages of their work, including deadlines by which the first accessibility standards must be completed; (b) empower the minister to grant reasonable extensions of these time lines for an individual Standards Committee, when that Standards Committee requests such based on sufficient reasons. (c) require the minister to give reasons for any extension granted. Empowering Persons with Disabilities in the Standards Development Process It is critical to the success of each Standards Committee that there be sufficient and effective involvement of persons with disabilities. We have been warned from the experience in Australia that it is necessary to take proactive steps to ensure that each Standards Committee is balanced, and that persons with disabilities who are at the table can truly fully participate. We anticipate that from the disability perspective, there will be individuals with disabilities at these tables, as well as representatives of disability community organizations. It is important that both be present. We aren't concerned only about the raw numbers of persons with disabilities who are at the table, as compared to representatives of other stakeholder perspectives. As significantly, disability community organizations and individuals with disabilities who will participate in Standards Committees will need reasonable funding to take into account the time and effort they contribute to this process, and to ensure that they can undertake the needed research and preparation to be able to effectively contribute. Disability community organizations that will take part in this process are overwhelmingly non-profit charities with very tight budgets. Individuals with disabilities face staggering unemployment rates, multiples of the national average. The fortunate ones who have jobs will face difficulties simply volunteering the time needed to take part in a Standards Committee, especially if Standards Committees meet during business hours. The current Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 provides provincial funding for members of the Accessibility Council of Ontario. It doesn't require municipalities to do the same for members of municipal accessibility advisory committees. There is some precedent for this kind of funding. The disability sector will need financial support to enable them to meaningfully participate. This certainly doesn't have to amount to a large allocation from the provincial budget. It is therefore recommended that: * The bill provide that reasonable funding be provided for persons with disabilities and disability community organizations who take part in a Standards Committee, and that the Accessibility Advisor oversee that funding to ensure that this operates at arms-length from the government. To further empower persons with disabilities in the process of developing accessibility standards, it is critical that the bill make it clear that both the new Standards Committees, and the new Ontario Accessibility Standards Advisory Council, are empowered to undertake public consultations as part of their work, including consultations with persons with disabilities. Under the current ODA 2001, the previous Government, and a previous chair of the Accessibility Advisory Council appointed under that legislation, took the position that that Council didn't have a mandate to undertake public consultations. (For the correspondence with the ODA Committee on this issue, visit: www.odacommittee.net/letters/Jan-30-2003.html, and www.odacommittee.net/letters/Mar-18-2003-b.html This was counterproductive, given the previous Government's stated purpose for that Council's very existence as a vehicle for persons with disabilities to have input into the implementation of the ODA 2001 and the time lines and standards to be set for barrier removal and prevention. When Bill 125, the previous Government's proposed ODA 2001, was before Standing Committee, the Liberal Party proposed an amendment to make it clear that the current Accessibility Advisory Council (now to be replaced under Bill 118 by a new Accessibility Standards Advisory Council) would have a mandate to hold public consultations. The previous Government used its majority to defeat that proposed amendment and later, as just mentioned, opposed that Council holding public consultations. Building on the Liberals' proposed amendments to the ODA 2001, it is therefore recommended that: * Sections 8 and 31 of the bill be amended to make it clear that Standards Committees and the new Accessibility Standards Advisory Council have the mandate to hold public consultations, including consultations with persons with disabilities, and can do so without requiring the minister's prior approval. Ensuring Openness, Transparency and Accountability of Standards Committees and of the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council It is critical that the workings of the Standards Committees, and of the new Accessibility Standards Advisory Council, be open, accountable and transparent. This will help ensure public confidence in their work. It will help inform and educate the public, including directly affected stake-holders, on the important issues that this bill addresses. It will help ensure that each Standards Committee and the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council aren't dominated or ostensibly run by the government of the day. This was a concern with the operation of the Ontario Accessibility Advisory Council under the previous Government. Under the previous Government, it was also very difficult for us to find out what, if anything, was being done to develop standards that were promised under the current ODA 2001. The best, least intrusive, and most cost-effective way to achieve this is by ensuring that the work of each Standards Committee and of the new Accessibility Standards Advisory Council is conducted in public, not in secret. A Standards Committee should be able to conduct work in closed session only where circumstances require this, i.e. in accordance with Freedom of Information and Privacy legislation, e.g. in the rare event that confidential business information might be disclosed to the Standards Committee. It shouldn't be necessary for interested members of the public to have to resort to the costly and time-consuming process of making applications for access to information concerning Standards Committees under Freedom of Information legislation. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 9 of the bill be amended to require that the meetings and work product of each Standards Committee, and of the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council, including any interim reports to the minister, shall be public, and open and accessible to the public; and that a Standards Committee or the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council should have authority to hold a meeting or part of a meeting in private only where required to protect the privacy interests of individuals or organizations as are reflected in Freedom of Information and Privacy legislation. Further Ensuring Effective Operation of the New Accessibility Standards Advisory Council Beyond the foregoing, it is important that the new Accessibility Standards Advisory Council be structured in a way that ensures that it operates at arms-length from the government of the day, and that the government doesn't use it as its public relations arm. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 31 of the bill be amended to (a) incorporate the same provisions for the appointment of members to the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council as are recommended above for members of the Standards Committees. (b) Ensure that the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council operates at arms-length from the Ontario Government, and that the government of the day cannot use the Council as its spokesperson. (c) remove the words "At the direction of the Minister" at the start of s. 31(4) to enable the Council to take action without first requiring a request from the Minister. Clarify Phases of Standards Committees' Work Section 9 of the bill is currently drafted to suggest or imply that a particular Standards Committee will work on producing only one single final product, being a comprehensive standard for the particular sector. This could hold things up for a long period. The Standards Committee presumably couldn't report out a proposed on anything until everything is decided upon. It is far preferable that each Standards Committee be able to report out individual proposed standards one at a time if the Standards Committee wishes. It shouldn't have to report out only one comprehensive final product. It may be that the Government contemplated that Standards Committees should be able to do so, and that s. 9 simply needs to be clarified. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 9 of the bill be amended to make clear that a Standards Committee can report out its recommendations in a series of individual recommendations over time, rather than having to report out only one comprehensive standard all at once at the end of the process. Similarly, currently s. 9 of the bill speaks in terms of fixing a single target date for compliance with a standard. It would be preferable for this to be clarified to ensure that each Standards Committee could set a series of target dates for different barrier-removal activities. For example, short term, readily achievable measures can have shorter time lines set, rather than letting everything wait until everything is done. This is critical to making the bill's enforcement provisions effective. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 9 of the bill be amended to explicitly provide that a series of time frames be set related to specific barriers, rather than only one time frame being set to apply to all barriers. It is important that each Standards Committee divide its activities into stages. They should address short term, readily achievable results, mid-term goals, and long term goals. Section 9 now contemplates this in general. However it would benefit from some further clarification. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 9 of the bill be clarified to provide that each Standards ommittee identify readily achievable goals, midterm goals, and long term goals. Among other things, each Standards Committee should be mandated to identify short term measures that are readily achievable, e.g. without undue cost, and that these be addressed by an accessibility standard that will be developed within a specified short time frame, e.g. no more than two years. Clarify Standards Committee's Decision-Making Process The bill says that each Standards Committee will develop a standard to be proposed to the minister. It doesn't specify how the Standards Committee is to make decisions. Need each recommendation be unanimous? Is a majority vote sufficient? What if there is disagreement on specific issues? It is quite possible that reasonable disagreements will arise among Standards Committee members, given the novel area to which this bill pertains. The bill can't and shouldn't micro-manage the Standards Committee's deliberations. Nevertheless it is desirable to include in the bill key features to address the bedrock basics to streamline the process and accommodate the real possibility of divergent viewpoints. Where there are differences of opinion, it is important that a majority of the Standards Committee be able to report out its proposals, without being log-jammed by dissenting views. On the other hand, it is also important where there are disagreements that the minister have the benefit not only of the majority's recommendations, but as well of the dissenting viewpoint or viewpoints. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 9 of the bill be amended to provide that: (a) a majority vote will be sufficient for the Standards Committee to report out a recommended standard. (b) A minority report can be issued in the case where there is real and substantial disagreement among the members of the Standards Committee. Appointing Effective Standards Committee Chairs Critical to the effectiveness of the Standards Committee will be the role of each Standards Committee chair. Absent an effective chair with an appropriate mandate, there is a risk in this uncharted area that a Standards Committee could encounter real difficulties in moving forward. On the other hand, the Standards Committee chair shouldn't be so domineering as to prevent full participation by all Standards Committee member in the committee's deliberations. It is therefore recommended that: * the bill provide for the appointment of a chair to each Standards Committee, and that there be some expeditious, non-bureaucratic mechanism for public oversight of this appointment process. Ensuring Appropriate Technical Support for Standards Committees To be effective, these Standards Committees will require appropriate technical support. Section 12 lets this happen, but gives the minister total and unfettered discretion over this. It provides: "12. The Minister may retain, appoint or request experts to provide advice to a standards development committee." As emphasized above, the work of each Standards Committee should be free of control by the government of the day. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 12 of the bill be amended to provide that the Accessibility Advisor provide the Standards Committee with technical support, and that the Accessibility Advisor and/or Standards Committee be empowered to retain the assistance of others when technical support is needed. 5. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS Section 3 of the bill properly states that it shouldn't operate to reduce the obligations owed to persons with disabilities. It states: "3. Nothing in this Act or in the regulations diminishes in any way the legal obligations of the Government of Ontario or of any person or organization with respect to persons with disabilities that are imposed under any other Act or otherwise imposed by law." It is also important that the bill make it perfectly clear that no accessibility standard may be set which is lower than that required under the Ontario Human Rights Code. It is therefore recommended that: * Section 9 of the bill be amended to provide that no accessibility standard shall be set that requires less action on removing and preventing barriers than is required under the Ontario Human Rights Code. 6. PROCESS FOR ENACTMENT OF PROPOSED ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD INTO LAW Under this bill, effective progress toward a barrier-free Ontario is entirely contingent on these accessibility standards not only being developed by Standards Committees, but thereafter being enacted into law in the form of regulations. As now drafted, sections 9 and 10 of the bill provides that, once a Standards Committee has developed a proposed accessibility standard and submitted it to the Government, that standard doesn't become "law," and hence doesn't become mandatory and enforceable, until and unless the Government enacts it as a regulation. The decision whether to enact it as a regulation is left to the unfettered discretion of the Ontario Cabinet. Once a Standards Committee submits a proposed accessibility standard to the minister, Cabinet doesn't have to render a decision on whether to enact it as a binding regulation a along any time lines. This creates the risk that a recommended standard could be left on Cabinet's desk, indefinitely, without action being taken. Under the bill, the disability community would then have no recourse. While it languishes on Cabinet's desk, the proposed standard remains voluntary and unenforceable. A government could claim to be "studying it" indefinitely. This problem is easily remedied. It is recommended that the bill be amended to provide that: * When a Standards Committee submits a proposed accessibility standard to the Government, the Cabinet has a fixed period to review it and to enact the standard as a regulation, or to vary it. If Cabinet takes no action within that time line, the standard will automatically come into force as a regulation. If Cabinet varies it from the terms submitted by the Standards Committee, Cabinet shall give written reasons for doing so. 7. STREAMLINING INITIAL ACTION TOWARD BARRIER REMOVAL AND PREVENTION DURING BILL 118'S EARLIEST START-UP This bill now contemplates the completion of an extensive process of accessibility standards development, before this bill will require organizations to take any steps toward removing or preventing barriers. In the meantime, the current ODA 2001 is expected to remain in operation. The ODA 2001 extends discretionary annual accessibility planning to public sector organizations such as provincial ministries, municipalities, colleges, universities, public transit providers, school boards and hospitals. If Ontario is to become fully accessible for persons with disabilities within the time lines that this bill contemplates, it is desirable, if not necessary, for organizations in the public and private sector to take some steps at the earliest stages of this bill's implementation, before the potentially time-consuming but important process of the Standards Committees can be completed. Such interim measures should be realistic, aimed at readily achievable short-term successes, without need of the fulsome work of the Standards Committees to have been completed. Such initiatives should help organizations gear up for their eventual responsibilities once the work of Standards Committees has been completed. Such interim measures should also reinforce the work of public sector organizations as they continue in the interim period to make annual accessibility plans under the current ODA 2001. It isn't practical for the bill to exhaustively detail such interim measures. However, it is possible for the bill to provide a basic framework for initial action. This can be based on input that the Government received through its extensive 2004 consultation prior to drafting this bill, and from input that this Standing Committee receives during public hearings on this bill. As well ideas can be derived from a January 6, 2004 Discussion Paper which the ODA Committee published shortly after the current Government took office, entitled: "Discussion Paper on Options for Initial Short-term Low-cost Actions to Begin Strengthening of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001." (See Appendix _). For example, there are some accessibility standards that could promptly be created, even on an interim basis, without the need to resort to the standards committee process, the Minister should be permitted to proceed directly to the establishment of those standards through a more brief Ministry public consultation process with affected stakeholders. Here are three possible examples of such initiatives. First, it would be worthwhile to promptly establish a standard on website accessibility. These could build on the internationally recognized W3C standards which the Ontario Government has itself opted to implement under the existing ODA 2001. Second, under the previous Government, the Ontario Government sponsored the creation of voluntary standards on customer service for customers with disabilities. These were developed by the Canadian Standards Association. The minister could work toward implementing those as an interim standard. Third, in 2001, after extensive consultations, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released revised policy guidelines on implementing the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Those excellent policy guidelines mirror core principles underlying this bill. An interim standard on implementing the duty to accommodate could be readily developed based on those policy guidelines. Beyond the foregoing, we understand the Citizenship Ministry's Accessibility directorate may have received input on accessibility standards that have been developed around Ontario and elsewhere in various contexts. There may be other examples where interim initiatives could be easily and promptly undertaken. It might be considered worthwhile to phase such interim measures in, first extending them to the public sector before extending them to the private sector. There might be a short list of readily-achievable measures that could also be developed for implementation in large private sector companies pending the development of accessibility standards by Standards Committees. This could include, for example, having larger private sector organizations adopt their own internal accessibility/accommodation policies, and having them designate an existing employee with responsibility for addressing disability accessibility issues. The development and promulgation of such readily achievable interim measures shouldn't be left to unfettered ministerial discretion, nor should the bill simply provide that the minister "consider" taking such steps. Rather, the bill should require the minister within a designated time frame to bring forward draft standards in designated areas, such as ones suggested above. It is therefore recommended that: * The bill be amended to require that (a) the minister make public within a designated time proposed short-term interim measures on accessibility, aimed at modest-cost, readily achievable progress during the interim period before Standards Committees can develop accessibility standards. (b) the minister thereafter undertake a time-limited public consultation on these proposed interim measures, and (c) Within a prescribed time, and without the need to submit same to a Standards Committee, the minister adopt such interim measures as he or she deems fit, with such measures to have the same force as an accessibility standard created under the bill. PART III: ACCESSIBILITY IN AREAS REQUIRING SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE MEASURES 8. ACHIEVING AN ACCESSIBLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT For this bill to achieve its goal of a fully accessible Ontario for persons with disabilities within 20 years, one important area that must be effectively addressed is the removal and prevention of barriers in the built environment. In so noting, we once again strongly emphasize that physical accessibility is only one of the many areas that needs to be effectively addressed. Unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of the discussion of this bill among some of the MPPs who spoke during Second Reading debate focused on physical accessibility. In addressing this topic here, we do not retreat from our core message that to be effective, the bill must effectively address all kinds of barriers, facing persons with all kinds of disabilities. To that end, this bill's definitions of "disability" and "barrier" appear sufficiently broad and inclusive. At present, there are serious problems with the way in which Ontario legislation deals with barriers to accessibility in Ontario's built environment. We addressed these in a brief which we submitted to the previous Government on achieving an accessible built environment, which is included as Appendix _ to this brief. In summary, there are too many separate, piecemeal laws that address accessibility of the built environment. None of them are adequate to meet the task. These include, for example: (i) The Ontario Building Code: (which many in the construction and development field think is the only law they need to obey.) It doesn't apply to pre-existing buildings that aren't renovated, and to residential construction even when undertaken by developers for later re-sale, e.g. residential homes. Its accessibility standards constantly lag behind the times. It doesn't require any retrofit of existing buildings, except where renovated. It tends to deal with the inside of buildings, not the surrounding built environment. That latter area appears to be left to the separately enforced Planning Act and related legislation. The previous Government initially contemplated actually eliminating rather than strengthening the Building Code's disability accessibility requirements. Pressure from the disability community led the previous Government to back down. Afterwards, we heard promises for years, never fulfilled, that the Ontario Building Code would be improved to better address disability barriers. (See the speech to the Legislature by previous Citizenship Minister Isabel Bassett on First Reading of Bill 83 on November 23, 1998.) (ii) The Ontario Human Rights Code: which requires barriers to be removed and prevented, including physical barriers. However, it provides statutory detail on who must do what and when. (iii) Condominium Legislation: This legislation governs the operation of condominiums, which are used by many as their places of residence. We have received reports of this legislation operating to impede efforts by condominium owner/residents and property managers who wish to take action to make these properties accessible to persons with disabilities. (iv) The Planning Act and related legislation: These laws govern the environs of land development including the surrounding outside, and don't have sufficient mandatory accessibility standards for the built environment. Beyond the foregoing, professionals and others involved in the area of designing, building and regulating the built environment often don't have the requisite training and knowledge about barrier-free design and legal requirements. That includes, for example, architects, municipal building inspectors, and the like. The resulting problems are exemplified in the December 23, 2004 letter which the ODA Committee recently received from Keith Norton, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights commission, to City of Toronto officials, included as Appendix _ to this brief. Under Bill 118, there is a risk of duplication of effort. Contradictory new accessibility standards may be developed at the same time when Standards Committees develop new accessibility standards under this bill, while the Ontario Government simultaneously revises the Ontario Building Code. This bill cannot be expected to itself set out in it all the details for any building to become accessible. However, it can put in place a system for harmonizing the currently disparate, insufficient and uncoordinated provincial legislation that speak to varying degrees to accessibility of the built environment. It can also require that those working in this area have the requisite training, knowledge and expertise. It is therefore recommended that: * The bill be amended to: (a) require that by a deadline to be set in the legislation, the Ontario Building Code, the Planning Act, and Ontario's condominium legislation are all harmonized vis à vis more effectively achieving accessibility of the built environment; (b) require that accessibility standards for the built environment be progressively extended over time to apply to old buildings, not just new buildings or new renovations; (c) ensure that accessibility standards apply to new residential construction by developers, particularly vis à vis properties developed for later resale, e.g. condominiums and houses built not under the direction of the person intending to reside in the property; (d) require municipal building inspectors to receive appropriate training in disability accessibility legal requirements; (e) require professionals involved in designing the built environment, such as architects, to receive training in barrier-free design. (f) require periodic coordinated and comprehensive review of all legislation governing accessibility of the built environment e.g. every 4 years.