DRAFT REPORT: VICTIMS OF CRIME
ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP
ONTARIO URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION
DRAFT REPORT: VICTIMS OF CRIME
ADVOCACY RESOURCE CENTRE FOR THE HANDICAPPED
CONTENTS
Tuesday 6 December 1994
Draft report: Victims of crime, J-2248
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 1994, Bill 168, Mr Malkowski / Loi de 1994 sur les Ontariens qui ont un handicap, projet de loi 168, M. Malkowski
Ontario Urban Transit Association
Dave Roberts, deputy executive director
Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind
Karen Fleming, member
Canadian Hearing Society
Lori Dolomont, representative
Donald Prong, representative
Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped
Ron McInnes, president
David Baker, executive director
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Harnick
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Marchese
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1605 in room 228.
DRAFT REPORT: VICTIMS OF CRIME
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): Before we begin with hearings and the deputations that we have, I understand Mr Chiarelli has a motion with respect to another matter that this committee has to deal with.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): This particular matter won't take any more than three or four minutes. The motion is:
That the committee's draft report under standing order 125 on the Relationship Between Victims of Crime and the Justice System in Ontario, Current Status and Improvements, dated May 1994, be adopted with the following changes incorporated into it: recommendations made by Mr Winninger dated June 7, 1994; recommendations made by Mr Chiarelli dated June 1994; recommendations made by Mr Murphy dated May 4, 1994; and
That any dissenting opinions be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 12 pm on Thursday, December 8, 1994; and
That the Chair be authorized to present the report to the House on Thursday, December 8, 1994, prior to receiving the French translation of the report.
This deals with a matter that has been ongoing at the justice committee over I think probably a year now, and we've had a number of subcommittee meetings. There really are three minutes left in the designated time to deal with this particular issue, and at a subcommittee meeting it was determined that this motion would be appropriate in order that the report can be finalized. So I certainly would welcome any comments from any other individuals.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr David Winninger (London South): I was just going to indicate government support for the motion.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I'd like to thank Mr Chiarelli for bringing it forward.
The Chair: We're ready for the question. All in favour? Okay, that's unanimous. That deals with that matter that has been needed to be dealt with for quite some time, and I'm glad we have dealt with it.
ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP
Consideration of Bill 168, An Act to ensure Equal Access to Post-Secondary Education, Transportation and Other Services and Facilities for Ontarians with Disabilities / Projet de loi 168, Loi garantissant aux Ontariens qui ont un handicap l'égalité d'accès à l'enseignement postsecondaire, aux transports et à d'autres services et installations.
ONTARIO URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We're ready for our first deputation, the Ontario Urban Transit Association. I would call upon Mr Dave Roberts, deputy executive director, to come forward. Welcome, Mr Roberts. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Leave as much time as you can within that 20 minutes to allow members of the different caucuses to ask you questions.
Mr Dave Roberts: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm sure I won't need anywhere near 20 minutes. I'll make it as brief as I can. I brought along a written summary of our brief, which I believe has been handed out to you, and with your permission I would like to briefly go through it.
First of all, certainly our thanks for your invitation for us to address you here on this bill.
The Ontario Urban Transit Association represents transit systems throughout the province, serving approximately seven million Ontarians in urban areas. Our members provide regular and specialized services to people with disabilities and have been doing so very successfully for many years. I say this in spite of ever-increasing demand and ever-tightening constraints on resources.
In addition to specialized transit, Ontario's systems are now committed to making all transit services fully accessible to everyone. This is something they all agree with in principle. However, it will take time as vehicles are replaced and facilities are built or modified and, I might add, as funding permits.
As a result of the Minister of Transportation's June 1992 announcement of full accessibility to transit as provincial policy, municipalities with transit systems have adopted implementation plans with strategies and time lines to achieve full accessibility. This is the case for every municipality in the province that has a transit system. These plans were developed by advisory committees involving municipal officials, consumer group representatives etc. In addition, our association and our members have worked very closely with the ministry over the last several years to implement the easier access program, which makes conventional transit easier to use for seniors and those with frailties or ambulatory disabilities.
While we support the general objective of the bill, to make transit facilities and services accessible for persons with disabilities, we do feel the existing programs, particularly the MTO full accessibility initiative and the continued provincial funding support for specialized transit, will be the most efficient and effective way to achieve our objective. I should add that the continuation of funding is probably the most important aspect of that.
We feel that forcing accessibility issues through legislation is not necessary in that it will stretch too thin the limited available funds of both municipalities and the province. This could very well have the effect of ultimately denying services to those who need them most, given the current financial constraints that we have at the moment, and it does run the risk of giving rise to lengthy legal challenges.
We also have serious concerns that the wording of several provisions in the bill, mainly those in part II, "Access to Transportation," will be unworkable and not affordable and will work against the positive initiatives of municipalities and the province in trying to bring about full accessibility in a realistic and cost-effective manner.
Our concerns with specific sections are as follows:
First of all, under definitions, the definition of "disability" in the bill is much broader than the Ministry of Transportation's guidelines for eligibility for specialized transit services. Entitlement to specialized transit is presently linked to physical disability, which would have to be defined separately such that it could be made consistent with MTO policy through regulation.
The MTO eligibility guideline states that those who cannot climb three steps or walk 175 metres to a transit stop should be eligible for specialized transit. It is then the responsibility of municipalities to apply the guideline, in light of local conditions, to their own eligibility criteria, which of course they do.
In spite of the guideline, many systems are often unable to accommodate trip requests from persons with mobility devices due to demands from others who could use conventional transit. Broadening eligibility through the proposed legislation would only worsen this situation unless significant additional provincial funding could be made available. Obviously, full accessibility is the longer-term solution, but that's something we're not quite at just yet.
Under "Access to Transportation," the part of the bill that of course most directly affects us, under section 11, which is the entitlement to public transportation, the provision of public transit is a municipal responsibility. As the section is worded, it will create an excessive demand for specialized transit service which cannot be satisfied without greatly increased funding. It needs to be qualified in two ways. Number one, entitlement to specialized transit must be based on functional disability, consistent with specialized transit eligibility criteria, and number two, the entitlement should only apply where public transit systems exist. Just as a point of clarification, they do not exist in about 700 of the 900 municipalities in the province.
On section 12, which relates to the transit systems that would be designated in regulations, these regulations will need to recognize that conventional transit will not be fully accessible until existing transit vehicles are replaced. This process will be phased in over an 18-year period, based on existing provincial bus replacement policies.
On section 13, to do with curbs and sidewalks, the wording should refer to "new" or "rebuilt" curbs or sidewalks such that it would not mandate accelerated retrofit programs which may well be unfeasible and unaffordable.
Section 14, service plans: Again, the wording should refer to municipalities providing transit services, since the majority, mostly rural ones, do not. In those which do have transit, this has already been achieved through the MTO full accessibility initiative.
On section 15, the comparability of services, most transit systems which provides both specialized and conventional services do offer similar hours of service. The word "comparable," however, needs to be clarified in that many aspects of conventional and specialized transit are quite different by their nature, particularly with respect to response time.
Specialized transit is a customized curb-to-curb or door-to-door service which must be pre-booked and scheduled in order to accommodate all requests. This typically requires at least a day's notice and cannot be considered "comparable" with a conventional service operating, say, every 10 or 15 minutes on a fixed schedule on a fixed route. Even when conventional transit becomes fully accessible, many with more severe disabilities will still have to use specialized services.
Under part III, "Access to Government Publications," and part V, "Communications," the comments here apply to both. Having to immediately provide, for example, transit materials like maps, schedules etc in Braille and audible formats would be very costly to municipal transit systems and the province, especially where special equipment is required. Again, rather than forcing this through legislation, other mechanisms or initiatives such as the MTO's full accessibility program should be considered so that this can be done in a more feasible and affordable manner.
Finally, under the items dealing with regulations, clause 20(e), just a point that fares and conditions of carriage are set by municipalities and should continue to be so, since the municipality is responsible for any shortfalls in revenues.
Just to sum up, again we fully support the overall objectives of full accessibility and feel that the existing programs are working well, but we do strongly believe that putting legislative constraints on these initiatives could well be counterproductive and could ultimately jeopardize our being able to reach our goal.
An additional comment is that the bottom line for municipalities very simply is funding. Municipalities are as supportive of full accessibility as anyone is, but they simply don't have the funding right now and would not until such time as some additional funding becomes available. They have gone through a couple of very difficult years with the social contract and the expenditure control plan, and the amounts of funds that they've been able to get from senior government have gone down considerably over the last couple of years.
I might also add that we have discussed this matter with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, or AMO, and although they were not able to come to the meeting here today, they will be sending you a brief on their behalf in the next couple of days as well.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you, Mr Roberts. I will allow each caucus three minutes. Let's start with the Liberal Party.
Mr Chiarelli: I just want to refer to a couple of points in your submission. On page 1 you indicate, and I'm quoting here, "Forcing the issue through legislation is not only unnecessary, it will stretch too thin the limited funds of both municipalities and the province, which will ultimately deny services to those who need it most."
When you say "to those who need it most," who are you referring to?
Mr Roberts: The situation that's happening in a lot of systems is that when you have funding constraints like we have right now, there is only a certain amount of trips that they can provide, and the fear is that widening the eligibility criteria is going to make it more difficult for people in mobility devices, for example, to get service as opposed to, say, finding ways of being able to perhaps better accommodate others who don't need a lift-equipped van and can use either conventional service or perhaps taxi service or whatever the case might be.
Mr Chiarelli: The other question I have refers to Part II, "Access to Transportation." You indicate that, "As the clause is worded, it will create an excessive demand for specialized transit services which cannot be satisfied without greatly increased funding. It needs to be qualified in two ways," and you indicate several qualifications here.
Presumably, in the legislative framework that type of concern or qualification can be accommodated by the section dealing with the Lieutenant Governor having the right to make regulations. Are you suggesting that you'd rather not have the legislative framework at all, or are you suggesting that perhaps this is the type of qualification that could be included in the regulations which are contemplated by the act as it's written?
Mr Roberts: If that can be accommodated through the regulations, fine. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on what can go in the legislation, what can go into regulation. Just as long as there isn't something in legislation that basically doesn't provide any controls on what in this case municipalities in particular, and the province as well, can afford to provide.
The Vice-Chair: Now we'll move to the Conservative Party.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The issue of cost sort of jumps out on this whole issue. I come from a small municipality in my riding, specifically Orangeville, which has a small municipal service. They're just holding on by their teeth just operating a general transit system. They implemented it a number of years ago, three or four years ago, and they're having a tough time. So I guess I look at the intent of imposing some of these requirements on municipalities. Do you have any knowledge about other municipalities that might be similar to the one I've spoken of that might just simply say, "We can't afford operating a system at all"?
Mr Roberts: I guess the answer is that we hear those kinds of discussions happening especially in smaller municipalities. I know of none that have actually made that decision to not operate their transit system, but certainly that has come up in councils in a lot of small systems. It also came up in the disentanglement discussions a couple of years ago as well, where it was very clear that the provincial subsidies were the only thing keeping transit systems alive in some small systems.
1620
Mr Tilson: Yet we talk about the replacing of vehicles, the refitting of curbs and sidewalks, the developing plans, and I don't even know what that means -- well, I do know what it means, but as far as economic impact, and that's just municipal issues, and then there are a whole bunch of provincial issues. Has anyone that you know of sat down and actually costed out what this might mean? Maybe it's impossible to do.
Mr Roberts: In fact, the plans have been done by all municipalities that operate transit. This is a requirement of the full accessibility initiative. In those plans, they have had to actually come up with capital and operating expenditure plans, among another things, that would lay out, say, over a number of years how they can replace vehicles, how soon they can get accessible vehicles, as well as the time lines that would allow them to do things like improve some of the onstreet hardware, things like that.
The ultimate cost, of course, is determined municipality by municipality, and I think it's also fair to say that the municipalities crafted these plans basically within the economic framework as we know it today, which meant that they are able to work towards things, but only as financial capability allows.
Mr Tilson: Has your organization discussed the possibility of phasing in many of these programs? It just seems to me, and I have no idea what it costs, but just listing off some of the things that would be required by this legislation, the cost would be unbelievable, particularly for smaller municipalities, but larger ones might be able to sustain it.
Has your association ever discussed the phasing in of some or all of the proposals that are being put forward in this legislation over a period of time in order to enable municipalities to properly budget or forecast some of the things that are being suggested?
Mr Roberts: We have discussed it and I think that's one of the underlying points of our brief, that phasing in makes sense. Phasing in is what municipalities would have to do in order to be able to afford to do these things.
Mr Tilson: That is not what the bill says.
Mr Roberts: Our fear with the bill is that it may preclude phasing in. It may say that all of a sudden this has to be done tomorrow. Again, no one disputes that these things need to be done, but it's a question of ensuring that the bill is not going to be something that is unrealistic or unfeasible from a funding point of view.
Mr Tilson: I return to my first question, then. Having said that, and I'm looking specifically to smaller municipalities, if smaller municipalities had to incur this expense, if the phasing in was not allowed, might that simply encourage the shutting down of transit services?
Mr Roberts: That certainly is possible. For a council faced with that kind of choice, that may be the kind of decision they may have to make.
The Vice-Chair: Now we have three minutes for the government party.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I was looking at your point 16 with regard to access to government publications. There are a number of things that I know have been done within the precinct to facilitate getting information. I'm wondering, with the kinds of technologies that are available today, if even sort of a bulk buying situation across a number of systems might not facilitate getting that kind of information out. If in fact this has been considered by your organization, are you aware of maybe the kinds of technologies that are out there and what might be of use to expediting the request for information?
Mr Roberts: I'm sure the technology is there, and a lot of those types of issues were discussed as part of our easier access project as well. It again is a question of cost and how quickly our municipality is capable of doing things. Most municipalities are including these kinds of considerations within their full accessibility program or plans and it's just a question of how quickly they can phase them in, what they can afford to do from year to year.
Ms Haeck: Even with the availability of CD-ROM packages and what have you about being able to create maps and other things, I'm not sure to what degree that's available. I know most of the municipalities have some PCs or other technology within their confines, and that possibly at least some aspects of this may not be as costly. Has anyone really looked at the costings involved?
Mr Roberts: I'm sure the costing has been looked at by local transit systems, certainly. We haven't done that in our role as an association, but our members I'm sure have and they'll take every opportunity to make use of that as they're able. That will certainly help to speed things up but it still, of course, doesn't necessarily guarantee that all changes can be made immediately.
Ms Haeck: St Catharines is the city from which I come. A local entrepreneur has undertaken the development of a taxi service which is a private service. Are you aware to what degree something like this might be available in other communities?
Mr Roberts: As far as taxi services are concerned, a lot of specialized transit systems make very good use of taxi service and it's a far more cost-effective way of providing transit, both for conventional taxis and accessible taxis. The other side of the coin, and I'm not sure which one you're referring to in St Catharines, is that there are also taxi companies that are becoming more accessible as well. But from the consumer's point of view, then, they're paying a taxi fare for this rather than a transit fare.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Roberts, for coming to the committee this afternoon. I'm sorry we are so late in beginning.
DRAFT REPORT: VICTIMS OF CRIME
Mr Chiarelli: Madam Chair, there's one other housekeeping responsibility that we have to attend to, which will take about one minute, with respect to the first motion that we had.
The Vice-Chair: It's a point of order, then.
Mr Chiarelli: It's a point of order. It's a correction to the motion that had previously been made.
The Vice-Chair: To deal with the motion, could we take one moment, please? In order to deal with this, we need consent of the committee to look at a motion that we have passed.
Ms Haeck: Madam Chair, not to deviate from this, but I would think that in some respects this should be coming after the presentations rather than now. We've got the people --
The Vice-Chair: That is up to the committee if it wishes to deal with this point of order at this time. Do we have unanimous consent? Mr Chiarelli has said that it would take one minute, but it's up to the committee. Agreed? Fine.
Mr Chiarelli: The last part of the motion should read, "That any dissenting opinions be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 12 pm on Friday, December 17, 1994," and the last sentence will read, "That the Chair be authorized to present the report to the Clerk of the House on Friday, December 17, 1994, prior to 5 pm, prior to receiving the French translation of the report."
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. That is a correction to the motion that is proposed by Mr Chiarelli. How many in favour of Mr Chiarelli's motion?
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Is that date right, though? Did you say Friday, December 17?
Mr Chiarelli: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: It should be 16, shouldn't it?
Mr Chiarelli: That's correct, 16.
The Vice-Chair: A further correction?
Mr Chiarelli: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of Mr Chiarelli's motion, please indicate. All those opposed? That motion is carried.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you for your indulgence, Chair.
1630
ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994
SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP (CONTINUED)
CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE DEAF-BLIND
The Vice-Chair: Now I'd like to call upon the Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind, and I believe it is Ms Karen Fleming who would like to address us this afternoon.
Ms Karen Fleming: Thank you for inviting me here today. I'm replacing Mr Kerry Wadman, who had a prior commitment.
I, myself, am a fellow consumer member of the CNSDB. I'm a deaf-blind person. I'd like to give you some viewpoints from the consumer background. Before I begin my actual presentation, I'm just going to offer you two brief definitions to help you understand better.
The first definition is the definition of "deaf-blindness." A deaf-blind person is an individual with a substantial loss of both vision and hearing. The combination results in a significant problem in accessing information and pursuing recreational, social and educational goals. Deaf-blindness is a unique disability which requires specialized services, including adaptations in communication methods. The most important requirement for a deaf-blind person is another person who provides intervention.
Intervention is offered as a professional service, it can be paid or voluntary and it facilitates interaction of deaf-blind persons with their environment. Intervention can include translation, interpreting, transliteration, guiding, habilitation and rehabilitation teaching. Most importantly, the intervenor provides services to deaf-blind persons in their preferred communication method. Without an intervenor, I would not be speaking here today. In short, an intervenor is the eyes and ears of a deaf-blind person.
Deaf-blindness is a very, very isolating disability, the most isolating disability. Deaf persons can access the world around them by picking up things through their vision. Blind persons can listen to things, the radio and the TV, and know what's happening in the world around them. A deaf-blind person has none of those options.
How a deaf-blind person accesses information: The key is intervention. The problem is, currently the average deaf-blind adult receives five hours a week of intervention services. That may seem satisfactory to you, but you try to imagine if you were only allowed to use your eyes and your ears for five hours a week.
In addition to intervention, deaf-blind people require information in alternative media, examples like large print or Braille. There are a lot of access devices available for blind people, for deaf people. Most of those devices require adaptation for deaf-blind people's use and adaptations of equipment can be prohibitively expensive. I don't want to go on and on about devices. There are wonderful pieces of equipment out there but they're not all accessible for deaf-blind people, because of a lack of training, the cost of the equipment and the complexity of the use of the equipment. Many devices now require some kind of vision or some kind of auditory feedback.
There is present legislation for people with disabilities, for example, the Mental Health Act, the Substitute Decisions Act and the Advocacy Act. But how will a deaf-blind person access the information to know about these acts? How can we guarantee rights of freedom and choice? You can't learn about them through the TV; you can't read about it in the newspaper; you can't listen to the radio. The only way is through an intervenor. That's why the ODA is so important.
ODA is the great opportunity to focus in on the potential of people and to provide equal access for all people. Barrier-free environments for all; you've all heard those words before. It doesn't just mean a ramp, but Braille on elevators, for example, information available in large print on signs etc.
Although access can be expensive, the alternative is much worse. A person loses his or her rights to freedom and can become dependent on welfare and on social assistance. With ODA and equal access, a deaf-blind person can become a contributing member of society.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We will have questions by the committee, the government members first.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Thank you for your presentation and all the information that was included. That was very helpful to us here on the committee, I think, to hear that.
For the record, unfortunately, the PC members aren't here and aren't able to hear the valuable input you have given us. I think that's sad, but I hope they'll hear the presentation at another time and be sensitive to your needs.
I want to ask you specifically about your presentation. You want the private member's bill here, but are there any changes you want, any amendments, like talking about guarantees of intervention services? You mentioned the five hours a week of intervention services. Why is that? Is it because of lack of funding or because there aren't enough intervenors who are able to work in that area? What could we do to improve that situation specifically?
I understand George Brown College is offering an intervention training program. Has that helped with the availability of intervenors to provide services for deaf-blind people?
Ms Fleming: In the past, there weren't enough intervenors. It was a big problem. Now, with the program at George Brown, there are a lot more intervenors available but the biggest problem continues: lack of money. There are still many people who get no intervention service because they're on waiting lists. They can be on a waiting list for 10, 20 years. They're basically waiting for another deaf-blind person who's receiving service to die. Then they can get access to more service.
Mr Malkowski: Just to follow up on that question: So the government has provided funding. Is there a problem because of the lack of intervenors, though, or a lack of funding? Is that the basic problem?
Ms Fleming: Lack of funds.
1640
Ms Haeck: This bill attempts to deal with post-secondary education. Yesterday, we heard from the Council of Ontario Universities. They indicated that they had made some efforts to address a number of concerns. In the case of someone who is attempting to attend a post-secondary institution who is part of the deaf-blind community, what kinds of services are currently available, particularly at the university level? If you have information about the college level, I would be interested in hearing about it as well.
Ms Fleming: Presently, in Ontario there aren't a lot of post-secondary education opportunities available. If deaf-blind persons want to go to university, they can apply for vocational rehabilitation services and funding for that. The deaf-blind person will need an intervenor and a note-taker and some way of translating notes either into Braille or large print, so computer equipment, definitely.
Right now, there is a program through educational support services for part-time students. Its primary focus is on deaf students, but they will accept and pay for an intervenor, but they don't cover the extra costs like transcription into Braille or large print.
The Vice-Chair: Now we'll go to the Liberal Party.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you very much for your presentation. It certainly was informative to me, personally. I want to bring to your attention a statement that was made by the previous presenter and I want to ask you a question or two about one of those statements and the bill which is before us.
If I can quote from the brief of the Ontario Urban Transit Association, it says, "Forcing the issue through legislation is not only unnecessary; it will stretch too thin the limited available funds of both municipalities and the province, which will ultimately deny services to those who need them most."
I want to address your attention to the phrase "to those who need them most" and to your comment that a deaf-blind person, on average, has five hours of intervention per week. The previous presenter is talking about having to make those choices about people who need it most. Obviously, a deaf-blind person needs it more desperately, if you can put it that way, than someone who is only deaf, and choices have to be made, as I interpret that previous comment. But my understanding also, of the bill which is before us, is that by regulation the government "may" adopt plans and timing for implementation.
I'm asking you if you contemplate, under those regulations, that there would be a phasing in, in terms of time, according to need. In other words, they would address resources and timing perhaps firstly to deaf-blind persons because there's more of a need, as opposed to other people, if they can be defined as having less of a disability. Do you contemplate the government phasing in according to need the people with disabilities or do you contemplate this legislation getting up to speed and the resources and the implementation being made concurrently for all classes of disabled people within a very short time frame? It's a long question, I know, but I think it's important for me personally that I get some idea of your conception of staging and timing versus the need question.
Ms Fleming: I understand your point. Of course, if it could all happen overnight and there would be services for all disabled people, that would be the perfect situation, but really we know that can't happen that way. Nothing happens overnight. I think the key with ODA is that the needs of disabled people become noticed and that some kind of legislation is set up, some kind of funding and services and supports can be increased so things can change. It's not going to happen overnight. I think it will be a slow phase-in process with different additions.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank you, Ms Fleming, for coming to our committee. You've been very helpful.
CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY
The Vice-Chair: Our next presentation is the Canadian Hearing Society. I believe we have three people who are with us today, Ms Lori Dolomont, Mr Donald Prong and Ms Loretta Tarsiuk, if you could come forward. Please introduce yourself. You have 20 minutes for your presentation, and I hope you will leave some time for questions.
Ms Lori Dolomont: Good afternoon. I'm Lori Dolomont, and this is Donald Prong. Unfortunately, Loretta Tarsiuk was unable to be with us for the presentation today, so the two of us will just proceed. We'd like to present the Canadian Hearing Society's position paper, which I believe has already been distributed to the committee.
For over 50 years, the Canadian Hearing Society, a non-profit charitable organization, has been providing services for deafened, hard-of-hearing and deaf consumers. Due to consumers' demand for accessibility to society in general, we provide sign language interpreting, oral interpreting, a hearing aid program, audiology, sign language classes, counselling and advocacy.
Since we know accessibility enables our consumers to contribute to society, we support the Ontarians with Disabilities Act legislation.
For people who are deaf, deafened and hard of hearing, the ability to contribute to society depends on their successful participation and education. Our consumers, many of whom are professionals or have post-secondary degrees, find it difficult to continue with their further education because the post-secondary institutions throughout Ontario are not equipped to provide full communication access.
For instance, when these people want to return to school to upgrade their skills or get another degree, they must depend on limited government support. However, vocational rehabilitation services would not cover the costs for communication access, such as sign language interpreters, oral interpreters, assistive listening devices and/or notetakers, for someone who has already reached an identified vocational goal, since VRS gives financial support once and no further. Also, VRS does not provide support for part-time students. There is limited funding which exists through the educational support services at the Canadian Hearing Society for some part-time students. These are the most common barriers which are faced by our consumers.
1650
A truly equitable society would enable any person to have full access to services provided at any postsecondary institution. Deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing individuals should be able to register for any course without getting VRS approval, as is the right of hearing Ontarians. It should be the college's or universities' responsibility to provide this access. More specific recommendations are included in the attached paper on post-secondary education.
In response to the drastic reduction of positions requiring manual labour, the government has established training programs, such as Jobs Ontario, enabling people to gain required technological skills and experiences to meet the needs of the current working society. Unfortunately, most of the training programs do not include communication access in their budgets, which causes frustration among our consumers.
Many travellers who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing often find that they do not get as much information as their hearing counterparts because most of the information is delivered verbally through a public address system. All travellers -- not only deaf, deafened and hard of hearing but all travellers -- can benefit from visual information systems, such as, for example, on the GO trains, when they're announcing the stops, why not have route maps which have visible blinking lights which show each station the train has pulled into?
The Ontario government has a lot of public videotapes explaining its systems and services. Unfortunately, again, these videotapes are not closed-captioned. ASL videotapes would be essential to ensure communication of complex legislation, such as employment equity and human rights.
Once the Ontarians with Disabilities Act legislation is established, our government can be proud that its mandate is finally accomplished. This can lead to an expansion of visible professionals from our consumer group. More businesses which depend on advanced technology will benefit from our consumers' new skills and new experiences. This will definitely be compatible with the current Employment Equity Act.
The Ontarians with Disabilities Act: Everyone should consider its importance in Ontarians' lives. One must remember that the government was made by people for people, and for too long opportunities and full participation have been limited for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people. ODA is the government's chance to change things for the better.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Ms Dolomont. Now we will have questions from the committee. Would you like to start, Mr Tilson?
Mr Tilson: Thank you for your presentation. The question I asked the first presenter is similar, the issue of cost. I suspect when you go to -- and I assume you have, your organization has gone to universities or others and you have made representations that certain things should be done to improve the plight of the disabled. I suspect the answer that's been given is: "We don't have the money. We don't have the financial resources to make the changes that are being asked for." I suspect that's the answer.
My question to you is, whether it's post-secondary groups or others, have you been able to make suggestions as to how it could be made feasible? Maybe my assumptions are wrong in the first place. I don't know.
Ms Dolomont: I would like to refer this to Donald Prong. He is a vocational rehabilitation counsellor and has been involved in education of the deaf for many years.
Mr Donald Prong: What's important to me is that we're looking at deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students and people who are taxpayers as well, and they should be equal members of society. To me, there's no question about that. I think the government does need to prioritize needs, but I think we need to straighten out what our priorities are. I don't think we're spending our resources in the best way at the current time. As was presented earlier, we talked about maybe having to decide what those priorities for our resources are, but we are also taxpayers and often feel as if we get no services in return. I think that's one point I would like to emphasize.
Secondly, the colleges and universities seem to have very weak policies in place regarding special-needs students. This is something I have experienced through my negotiations with the various colleges and universities in Ontario. They're given a large sum of money, and then they decide how they prioritize use of that money, and often that is delegated in some ways by the government.
Hard-of-hearing, deaf and deafened people are only asking for equality. Our access to colleges and universities is very limited. For example, OISE is the only institution that has accepted responsibility to provide for the needs of its students. I don't understand why other institutions are not able to do it. Is it due to limited awareness? Is it just lack of exposure? And who should be doing that? Who should be educating these institutions about their responsibilities? Does that fall on the government?
Mr Tilson: Do I still have time?
The Vice-Chair: Yes, you have one more minute of your four minutes.
Mr Tilson: I appreciate all of the things that you're saying, and there's no question -- I never like to pat Mr Malkowski on the back too much because he and I come from different parties. Notwithstanding that, to give him credit, he's made more of an awareness of the disabled issues many of you are speaking about today, so I do give him great credit for that, against many odds, I might add.
But notwithstanding that issue, there's the public awareness issue, but there's also the issue, and I am quite concerned, as to the response you might want us to say: "Well, here's where there's waste. You might have a certain amount of money designated for certain things, for a particular disabled issue. You could do away with this following issue of waste." Has your organization got into that type of lobbying, whether it be universities or municipal governments or provincial governments?
Mr Prong: I would have to say that we have not to date. I understand that the College Standards and Accreditation Council has initiated some of that work, and it would appear that the government is taking some action in priorities for colleges and universities.
I feel that it's everyone's responsibility to be on watch for waste, not any particular group, and I'm not pointing fingers at the government. I think it is a shared responsibility, I would agree. But I believe we also need your cooperation in order to ensure that disabled people do have full access and are able to fully participate. Quite often, we don't have the opportunity to be involved in initiatives such as this.
1700
For example, we requested to be able to present to the committee today, and through our negotiations with the government, or the setup of the meeting, we were told that we needed to bring our own interpreters for the committee. I'm wondering, where is the access there? I'm wondering if people are having, say, even monthly meetings, who is responsible to provide interpreters for those?
We pay property taxes for services, and we just expect to be treated equally with our neighbours. It's an issue of access. I think everyone needs to think about people as equals, because we are human too.
You're right, it is a money issue, and we need to look at how to best prioritize the use of those limited funds.
Ms Dolomont: If I could just add to Donald's comments, I think we also need to be aware that there are many consumers and employment counsellors, not necessarily within the Canadian Hearing Society. I see many good people out there who are very skilled and very creative in their problem-solving skills, but unfortunately they can't get jobs because they're unable to access training.
I feel the government could benefit from the contributions of many deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people, but they have to get into the system first, and in order to do that, you're right, funds are needed to make programs accessible for them. We know taxes are important. That's where our access will come from. That's where programs come from. But we need to be able to get in the door to those classrooms first, before being able to contribute to society, and we often have to fight for any degree of access.
People invite us to be involved in training but then don't provide the access, such as interpreters, due to lack of funding. So you don't see deaf people involved in psychiatry or many of the other professions and deaf people are not looked at as well-rounded individuals. But I think you need to open up your minds and see that deaf people are able to contribute equally if we have that access.
The Vice-Chair: Now we have questions from the government members, beginning with Ms Haeck.
Ms Haeck: Thank you very much for your presentation. I've looked a bit through the appendix that you've attached, and on page 10, number 4, you actually provide a list of shall we say physical plant issues with regard to proper lighting and such like.
Yesterday, when the Council of Ontario Universities was here, they indicated that they felt funding was a concern, but also that they were trying to make some inroads when they were making additions or changes in their buildings. I'm wondering if you are aware to what degree consultation with the disabled community is going on to make sure that some of the things you have listed on page 10 -- very valid points, needless to say -- are being incorporated to any physical plant change that is occurring.
I understand even the pile in the carpet frequently will affect how someone who is in a wheelchair can easily move through a building. Obviously the lighting is something that's extremely important for yourselves, and as well, even being able to get through hallways for someone who is visually impaired. They find that certain lighting works better than others.
I think Ryerson again provides a very good example where in fact their special unit for the disabled gives us the means at hand to judge -- what shall I say? -- the accommodations that really work for the disabled community and, as you very rightly point out, virtually for everyone else. Are there committees that are working with the disabled community to make sure that colleges and universities are making the appropriate physical plant changes?
Mr Prong: A few years ago there was a group called Access 2000, and the purpose of that was to see all colleges and universities, as well as any other public institutions, any type of school, the airports, to be sure that they could share some creative ideas to meet the needs of disabled consumers. Unfortunately, that group seems to have folded. They didn't have enough volunteers. Now various disabled groups are trying to set up their own groups and set up their own projects to deal with some of these issues, but again there's lack of funding. There is in fact very little funding provided for this type of work, so it's a real struggle to get these kinds of committees up and running, and we haven't had a lot of luck to date.
Ms Haeck: I know when they were building the courthouse in St Catharines the administrators invited members of the local disabled community to walk through and make sure that things were as they should be. In fact, they found that there were many problems. Brock University is part of St Catharines. I'm wondering if you necessarily always need a formalized structure. Can it be on a more ad hoc basis as things move along with changes being anticipated at a facility?
Ms Dolomont: Many committees do work in that way, but there's nothing concrete for us to work with. There is nothing such as ODA that you can use to get your point across to people. You can set up committees and have discussions and have studies. I think people have had enough of that and are waiting for something concrete we can use to make these changes happen.
People spend a lot of their time and their energy trying to educate people and get burned out. So we're looking at one piece of legislation that can get that point across and save us a lot of that work. You're correct, people can network with disabled groups, and we have the human rights charter, which is nice, but it's not specific enough. I think ODA will give people the structure they need to carry on with this work.
Both of us, when you brought up the ideas of committees, looked at each other thinking that we've been involved in so many committees and have seen nothing happen because of that. We're looking for something official and something we can use to work with, but we need that structure to enable us to do this work.
Mr Malkowski: I have a question for Donald Prong. In your experience as a vocational rehab counsellor, you send your students to colleges or universities in Ontario or send them to a college or university that has a sign language environment, for example, George Brown or Gallaudet. Perhaps you could give a little bit of an idea what is spent in terms of cost of mainstreaming a student or spending it on a student who would go to a sign language environment.
Then a second part: Many hard-of-hearing or deafened students need real-time captioning, and often colleges and universities will set up real-time captioning, but is that beneficial for only deafened and hard-of-hearing students? There are many hearing students who I think would tend to look at and use the captioning. If you could give me what you have seen as your observations on real-time captioning, is it beneficial just for that group or is it beneficial for everybody?
1710
Mr Prong: In response to your first question, I've sponsored several students to attend Gallaudet University, and there are a lot of people who think that's a waste of money, it's too expensive. It might be $20,000 or $25,000 per student for one year, and they may need five or six years to complete their education in the States. That includes cost of tuition, books, transportation, room and board.
There's a lot of money spent on students going out of the province. Some people think we'd be better off to spend that money with an interpreter going to university here. The student here can apply for OSAP and we would pay for any remaining costs. Interpreting services in Ontario for one student may be $50,000 for one year, so which is cheaper? Going to Gallaudet?
But I also need to say, and we'd like to emphasize, that we do get tax back when we send the students to school in Ontario, because the interpreters themselves have to pay tax on that money. We're also creating jobs here in Ontario versus spending money outside of the province. Of course, hopefully, if a student goes to Gallaudet, they'll be returning to Ontario and bringing those skills with them. So there are some positive side effects of that as well.
As far as your second question, about captioning, is concerned, it's a very good point that there are many colleges and universities that do provide such service, real-time captioning, and many of the hearing students find this quite fascinating and even look into it as a job opportunity as students themselves, thereby creating more jobs here.
Whatever the teachers say is typed word for word, so whether it's a deaf, a hard-of-hearing or a hearing student, any of them could benefit from those notes.
Mr Malkowski: Do you feel that there should be a college or university similar to Gallaudet established here in Ontario? Do you think that it would save taxes in Ontario?
Mr Prong: Yes, for sure.
The Vice-Chair: A very good question.
Mr Prong: That will create jobs that will bring tax money.
The Vice-Chair: We have to move to the Liberal Party.
Mr Chiarelli: I apologize for missing the first part of your presentation, but I've since read through your brief and I've heard your comments since I've been back in the room. I want to draw your attention to one statement that you make in your brief, that this bill, ODA, as you refer to it, "is the government's chance to change things for the better."
I compliment the member for having introduced the bill and having created this opportunity for dialogue, but we have seen from the minister and the government side that this bill perhaps has an uncertain future as to when it will be dealt with and what its final form will be.
I guess my question to you is: In the interim, although you say this "is the government's chance to change things for the better," are there any other government actions that can be taking place right now that could improve the situation for the disabled without the legislation being in place?
Interjection.
Mr Chiarelli: I have a couple of supplementary questions and observations.
The Vice-Chair: We are running over time.
Mr Chiarelli: We should have equal time.
Interjection: Yes, we should.
Mr Chiarelli: It's up to the Chair.
Ms Dolomont: I would say that we do recognize that the government has taken some steps to improve and to continue improving services. I think we have seen improvements to access. The government is attempting to listen to people, but we also believe that once ODA is instituted, things will be much easier for us. I think improvements will be faster if ODA is instituted and if the structure is in place. It has been a very slow but ongoing process for us, but we do feel that the government is listening. Access is still an issue.
Mr Prong: If I can just add to Lori's comments, I believe the governments, including municipal governments, have been trying to do their best. It's a very big problem. The largest problem we have is dealing with individual businesses, because there is no legislation. If I have my own company, I can decide what I want to do. There's no legislation for disabled people. I think ODA would help to rectify that.
I go to the States quite often for various events and the hotels there, once I tell them I'm deaf, have rooms all set up for me. They've got captioning there, they've got TTYs, they've got flashing lights in the hotel rooms. That's a business. The reason that happens is because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That's had a very big impact on businesses, and I would be looking for the same results here in Ontario.
Mr Chiarelli: Very briefly, I guess what I'm trying to say is that although the legislation may be very useful, sometimes it's been said that you can't legislate common sense and caring. My sense is that there is a lot that can be done now. For example, in your brief you indicate, "Unfortunately, most of the training programs do not include communication access in their budgets, which causes frustrations among our consumers."
I think the administration costs, for example, in Jobs Ontario fund is something in the order of $16 million. I'm not trying to be unduly critical of the government, because I'm sure that the same type of insensitivity has applied to previous governments, but it would have been probably an easy thing for that program to have incorporated some additional funding to assist disabled people.
In the same context, I have a file in my office which was originated by a practising lawyer in the province. He has done an analysis of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. This is a committee which is dedicated to making sure that judges are appointed in an objective and fair manner. They have referred in their 1993 report to the fact that they have made some 90 recommendations for appointments and they have referred to appointments of women, racial and ethnic minorities, but there was no reference to disabled people. Indeed, to the best of our information, they have not interviewed one disabled person for the bench.
I guess what I'm saying is that whether it's this government or a new government or the previous government, it's that type of sensitivity which can parallel legislation. You can't necessarily legislate common sense and caring; that's something that has to be inculcated in all of the legislators in all of the parties. In that regard, I compliment the member who sponsored the bill because this dialogue, without even passing the legislation, is going to be helpful here at Queen's Park.
I guess what I'm trying to suggest is that while the disabled community is being tenacious on this type of issue and the legislators becoming sensitized to it, there is a lot more that can be done short of passing this legislation.
The Vice-Chair: I think you may have answered your own question, but would you have some brief comment?
Mr Chiarelli: Do you have any comments on my statement?
Ms Dolomont: Yes. I would like to add that I think you're correct, that sensitivity is the key; I would have to agree with that. The problem is that if we're not out there working with hearing people in our everyday lives, how are they going to increase their sensitivity? It's only through exposure to us.
The few times that I have been able to get into a classroom at university it was a very enriching experience for me, but the students there, the hearing students, also learned from me, and the professor learned from me. I was the only so-called disabled person they had ever met so far. It was a learning experience for all of us and they became more sensitive. They would have to stop and think, "Lori is here now. Does she have something to say?" and make sure I was included, that I was able to go to meetings. If I came here and spoke with my hands, you would not be able to understand me. You are the people who are dependent on the interpreter, so people need to hear us as well. It's not that one language is better than another. Most people are not bilingual in sign and English.
ODA: some people think access means that it'll only benefit us, but it'll benefit everyone by increasing sensitivity. I think ODA will happen first and the sensitivity will come later. I really think that once you get to know us as a person, that's when the sensitivity will be developed.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before this committee, to the Canadian Hearing Society equity training program.
1720
ADVOCACY RESOURCE CENTRE FOR THE HANDICAPPED
The Vice-Chair: Now I would like to call forward the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, and I believe we have three people: David Baker, executive director; Ron McInnes, president; and Mimi Shulman, vice-president. I will note that we are starting at 5:22 and you have 20 minutes. Could you introduce yourselves before you proceed?
Mr Ron McInnes: I'm Ron McInnes. I'm president of ARCH. With me is David Baker, and as you've noted, our vice-president, Mimi Shulman, was scheduled to be here, but unfortunately emergency dental surgery is the only thing that has kept her from making an appearance.
First of all, we'd like to congratulate Gary Malkowski on introducing Bill 168 into the Legislature as a private member's bill, and we'd also like to thank the standing committee for the invitation to present this brief to it.
By way of background, I should tell you that ARCH is a legal centre serving Ontario's disabled community. It's governed by membership derived from 52 member organizations, and you'll find with our brief a package that lists all of those member organizations. Our primary functions include test case litigation, acting as counsel in the law reform process, public education and outreach.
ARCH has been retained as legal counsel by the Ad Hoc Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. However, at this point the committee's work is entirely procedural, so we are here today to present a brief on behalf of ARCH which is intended to provide this committee with some information and the benefit of ARCH's experience in this area.
I'd like to go back first to some issues on human rights and the emergence of an independent voice of persons with disabilities in the 1970s, at which time there followed an emphasis on human rights and barrier removal. The initial focus at that time was getting persons with disabilities included in the Human Rights Code, and that was achieved in 1981. But notwithstanding that, change has been very slow. We have general language about accommodating persons with disabilities to the point of undue hardship, but it requires a great deal of interpretation.
But really, the major problem with the Human Rights Commission has been procedural. People hesitate about filing complaints, although thousands are filed every year, and if you've seen the statistics, you'll know that the largest group filing complaints are persons with disabilities. But while thousands may be filed, only a very few go to boards of inquiry. Our information is that over a recent six-month period only five complaints were referred to a board of inquiry; that is, to an adjudicator. That's five cases in total, not five disability cases. It's easy to see that the human rights process is overwhelmed in this province.
The process of barrier removal is not going to be achieved through that method. The government has chosen not to implement the recommendations of the Cornish task force report for financial reasons, and I think we've been on record as supporting those as improving the human rights process.
However, it's our feeling that an Ontarians with disabilities act would reduce the reliance on expensive, adversarial litigation. Resources could be directed at barrier removal rather than legal fees.
We are in a period of economic uncertainty and we are concerned with the costs of maintaining persons with disabilities in a state of dependency. I understand that today the Legislature passed a bill which will cut tens of billions of dollars out of compensation paid to injured workers. If Ontario was as successful as other jurisdictions in securing re-employment of its injured workers, it's our view that this amount or more could be saved.
We also have employment equity legislation but, in our view, this cannot operate in isolation. The government with its equity program has demonstrated this with a hiring goal of persons with disabilities of 7.1% but a hiring rate of about 0.5%. If the goals of employment equity are to be realized, systemic efforts at barrier removal must be made.
We've also included in our brief some information as an example of the case of Wheel-Trans operated by the Toronto Transit Commission and the parallel service and noted that the refusal rate as a percentage of unaccommodated ride requests has increased by 50% annually and now stands at 8.44%. This is not taking into account those people who are not refused but are offered a one-way ride with no guarantee of a way back or those people who just can't get through on the telephone lines.
So we come then to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed by a Republican President in the United States in 1990. George Bush became an advocate of this legislation during the 1988 campaign and, according to a poll conducted after the election, after Mr Bush had announced his support for this legislation, there was a great swing in the disabled vote and this accounted for between 1% and 3% of the President's margin of victory, which in that election was only 4%.
So the reason for dealing with the Americans for Disabilities Act -- the ADA -- is that while there are significant differences between the ADA and the ODA, there are important similarities. We feel that both entrench the goal of equal access in a number of key areas where barriers currently exist, and that the method and timing for barrier removal is left to regulations. It isn't going to be an overnight type of operation.
The regulations provide clear guidance to service providers about the standards they are to achieve in the ADA, but really prescribe the means which are to be used to meet those standards. In fact, those standards are so clear that enforcement is not an issue, although they can be enforced either by a government agency or by an individual complainant, and we feel that that same process could work here.
However, standards are of only theoretical interest. Persons with disabilities are interested in results. There has been a massive study of the effect of the ADA in the United States and it has shown that the number of barriers that were studied had decreased by nearly 50% compared to January 1992. That was a study in April 1993. So I think people in Ontario would be very gratified if in a period of 15 months 50% of the barriers that confront them were removed.
So we see ADA as an example of something which can be used in Ontario and ODA as something which builds on a base which is proven.
At this point I'll ask David to continue more specifically with the Ontario bill.
1730
Mr David Baker: The importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act was noted by Bob Rae, then the Leader of the Opposition, and in communication with leaders of the disability movement during the last election he indicated his support for the concept of an Ontarians with disabilities act. The precise quote is noted in our brief.
Following the election, the Minister of Citizenship asked the human rights research and education centre at the University of Ottawa and ARCH to conduct a broad consultation with persons with disabilities across the province. I have the material that was submitted to the government in 1992 with me. The importance here is that a lot of the work has been done and is available to the ministry, and we urge the ministry to carry on with that work in support of Mr Malkowski's bill.
The paper itself was never released and there has not, as the committee will be aware, been an official announcement by the ministry or the government of support for the ODA. Nevertheless, persons with disabilities across the province of Ontario remain very interested and keen to pursue the idea of an Ontarians with disabilities act.
ARCH has been requested by a large number of local communities to stage seminars in conjunction with local organizations; an example was the Windsor session, which I attended. There was a large room packed with registrants, persons with disabilities, in excess of 100 persons, and we were told by the organizers that they had to turn away at least as many people as they were able to admit to that hearing. I think that will give you some idea of the level of awareness and support across the province among persons with disabilities.
In conjunction with that, I would note that it would be important for the committee, if it were at all possible, to hear from persons from outside Ontario as an accommodation. You'll be aware that many of these people would have a great deal of difficulty coming to Toronto even should there be hearings here in Toronto to present to.
In terms of the content of the bill itself, we obviously cannot comment on the content of the report itself that was provided to the Minister of Citizenship. However, we have shared with you, in an appendix, the product of consultation which ARCH annually goes through with its 52 member organizations concerning the priorities identified by these disability organizations. I would suggest you may wish to take a look at them. Certainly, that's the basis upon which ARCH establishes its priorities, and it may be of assistance to the government.
I would point out, though, that Mr Malkowski's ODA does address some of the very important issues on that list, which the government to date has not yet been able to address, notably transportation, human rights, post-secondary education and training. An important initiative of the government has been, as Mr McInnes has noted, employment, in particular employment equity legislation.
We do point out that for persons with disabilities, where good data is available, namely from the United States, over a 20-year period, the position of highly educated persons with disabilities, those with post-secondary education, has improved marginally; but for every other group of disabled persons, their position within the job market has become worse over the last 20 years, and we have no reason to believe that anything would be different in this country.
In fact, the limited data we have from our recent census would support this, that if people do not have access to post-secondary education and they have a disability, the kinds of jobs that disabled people found 20 years ago are no longer available. Things are changing faster than human rights legislation has been able to keep up with.
The Vice-Chair: I would ask you, Mr Baker, if you would allow time for questions.
Mr Baker: Yes; I'm sorry. I'll simply make two very brief points: first of all, that the bill itself aims at government and quasi-governmental issues as a priority which, I think, in light of the economic climate and so on, should make it a useful first step. Finally, we would urge that all parties work together to ensure that this bill does not die on the order paper on Thursday, that it is continued and that there be intersessional hearings continued to permit the many people across the province with disabilities, and of course others, to make submissions to you.
Mr Chiarelli: I appreciate your brief; it's indeed very informative. I have a question about the research that was done for the Minister of Citizenship, as to why that is not available to the public. Was that a consultant contract and it's the property of the ministry at this point and therefore you're not at liberty to release it?
Mr Baker: That's correct.
Mr Chiarelli: Have you or any advocates whom you're aware of asked the government why that report is not being released?
Mr Baker: We didn't feel it was appropriate for us, as the people having authored the report, to take that initiative.
Mr Chiarelli: Are you aware that any other group has asked for the report?
Mr Baker: I really can't answer that question. I know that people were very aware that this work was done, because it involved consultations with every disability organization in the province and over 5,000 individuals. It was quite an extensive consultation.
Mr Chiarelli: Perhaps either during this session or after this session I can ask Mr Malkowski whether he's aware of any reasons why that report cannot be made or whether it was shared with him by the ministry in the preparation of his private member's bill. It would be interesting for the committee and the Legislature to know that, particularly since the report is so pointed and directed at this particular area.
Do you have any suggestions as to the progress of this bill other than the fact that we try to create some committee hearings? It's conceivable that the Legislature will not come back, and I guess I alluded to this earlier, that it has a very uncertain future. Do you think it would be useful just having the committee hearings, knowing that perhaps the election would interfere and we'd have to start with the process all over again?
Mr Baker: We obviously would like to see the hearings continue into the winter session. I don't know if that will be possible. That's certainly a matter, as we understand it, for the House leaders.
The idea of the bill itself I think is relatively simple, and whatever the particular issues that are included, the idea of setting the goal of equal access and then, by regulation, developing the means and the timetables and the budgeting, if you like, and the consultation through which to achieve that is something which we would urge be approached on a non-partisan basis, or a partisan basis, as people see fit.
We would like to see it move forward. I think the American example shows that it works and that it works in an economy which is less interventionist, if you like, than our own.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to move to the government party. We have two people with questions, Mr Malkowski and Mr Winninger, to divide up three minutes.
Mr Malkowski: Just a brief question. Has ARCH done studies looking at the rights of disabled people, the Human Rights Code, other services, disabled people filing complaints, how much is spent on the legal process, how much time is spent? What are the costs of that? Is it beneficial to go through the legal process, through a lawyer? Are there any pros for disabled people there? Or do you feel that this legislation would reduce the time and energy and expense in trying to get equity? What would be the most beneficial for the disabled people, and not necessarily for the lawyers?
Mr Baker: Maybe I could refer to a case I was involved in today where the human rights complaint was filed in 1984. The issue involved in the case was a disabled child's right to be in kindergarten. She is now in high school. We have hearing dates scheduled into June of next year, and it would be very fortunate indeed if there's a decision in the case before she graduates from high school.
I should say that the expense involved in litigating that issue has been substantial for all concerned, including the Ministry of Education and Training, which is one of the parties to the proceeding.
From the standpoint of persons with disabilities, I don't think there is any question but that the preference is to see whatever resources are available to ensure equity for persons with disabilities are committed to removing barriers and giving equal access, rather than providing people such as myself with a permanent income and pension plan.
Mr Winninger: I'd also like to thank you for your presentation and I am sorry you had to wait almost an hour to deliver it. Towards the end of your paper you suggested there be hearings and clause-by-clause review to make a stronger bill. I am just wondering if you have any thoughts at this stage as to what improvements or changes could be made to the bill.
Mr Baker: I think ARCH sees its role in coming before the committee as providing information, rather than specific advice. We are counsel to a coalition which is establishing itself and, in that capacity, we would be taking instructions from a client, which we feel is more consistent.
As we've said, the issues which are addressed seem to coincide with the information we have from our member organizations as to what are priority issues out there, particularly those within governmental control. They appear to follow a format of setting out the goal and then providing the means, by regulation, following a period of consultation, of achieving the goals.
The enforcement mechanism through the Human Rights Commission perhaps could be reviewed. The commission has problems. On the other hand, it could be said that this represents solutions to some of those problems.
I know that Mr Malkowski is constrained in a private member's bill from proposing the spending of resources on a new enforcement mechanism such as that which is proposed under the Employment Equity Act. That may not be desirable, but I know that couldn't be done in a private member's bill.
Mr Winninger: Is the definition of disability under the bill satisfactory at this stage to ARCH?
Mr Baker: I don't think ARCH specifically has a position on that. I think the desire would be to see a broad definition and then use the regulations to prioritize or, as Mr Chiarelli has said, to pay attention to the most important issues first. That could be done by regulation, we feel, so that as long as the definition is sufficiently broad as to prevent constraint or prevent things being done which would be desirable, we feel that would be appropriate.
The Vice-Chair: Our time has expired. I want to thank the group named ARCH for coming forward today, and all the rest of the people who have been interested enough to come forward to hear this committee.
Now we have some further business.
Mr Malkowski: I move that the standing committee on administration of justice continue with hearings in clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 168 when the Legislature reconvenes in the spring, as well as pending the House leaders' agreement.
The Vice-Chair: I'll just repeat that. Mr Malkowski has moved that the standing committee on administration of justice continue with hearings and clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 168 when the Legislature reconvenes in the spring, as well as pending the House leaders' agreement.
Mr Chiarelli: Can I have a point of clarification from the member? Is he suggesting that the committee meet during the recess, or is he suggesting that it reconvene, if and when we have a new session of the Legislature, in the spring? I'm not sure I understand his intent.
The Vice-Chair: It says "when the Legislature reconvenes."
Mr Malkowski: That's right.
The Vice-Chair: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favour, please indicate. Any opposed? That motion is carried.
I have one other suggestion to cover the business of the committee over the next couple of months: That, for the purpose of committee business over the recess, the Chair, in consultation with the subcommittee and, in the case of a private member's bill, in consultation with the sponsor of that bill, shall have authority to make all arrangements necessary for the orderly consideration of all matters referred to this committee.
Do I have a mover of this motion?
Mr Chiarelli: Do we have any --
The Vice-Chair: It's just in case something might come up.
Mr Winninger: I so move.
The Vice-Chair: Moved by Mr Winninger. All those in favour? Any opposed? That motion is carried.
I thank the committee members, and if there is no further business, this committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1745.