ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR DISABILITY ISSUES
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE ADVISORY GROUP ON EMPLOYMENT EQUITY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES
CONTENTS
Monday 5 December 1994
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
Minister Responsible for Disability Issues
Hon Elaine Ziemba, minister
Jamie McKaye, team leader, student affairs, Ministry of Education and Training
Dave Haines, project adviser, passenger mobility services office, Ministry of Transportation
Ontario Public Service Advisory Group on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities
Bruce Drewett, chair
David Lepofsky, member, steering committee
Council of Ontario Universities
Dr Laura Selleck, research associate
Dr Peter George, president
William Hoch, member, committee on employment and educational equity
Dr Susan Weaver, chair, Inter-University Disability Issues Association
Injured Workers' Consultants
Orlando Buonastella, community legal worker
Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups
Karl Crevar, president
Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario
Sebastian Spano, community legal worker
Toronto Injured Workers' Advocacy Group
John McKinnon, co-chair
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:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Tilson
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Harnick
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Ms Harrington
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1544 in room 228.
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.
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR DISABILITY ISSUES
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I call the meeting to order.
Minister, welcome. Ms Ziemba, please introduce the other representatives with you for the record, after which I understand you will be making some short statements, because my understanding is the members want to ask you questions more than anything else. Is that okay?
Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I promise you that if people give me one minute without interruption, I will certainly only take 30 to 45 seconds, but I can't promise you anything longer than that because we might be interrupted again.
I have with me, from the Ministry of Citizenship, Sandra Carpenter and Andrea Maurice; from the Ministry of Education and Training, Jamie McKaye; and from the Ministry of Transportation, Dave Ferguson, Barbara Sorbara and Dale McConnaghy.
I did promise you it would be a very short introduction. I just briefly want to say thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to come back today and to again have the opportunity for people to come and present.
I want to say just from the outset, and this is about all I'm going to say, that I am very supportive of the intentions of Mr Malkowski's bill, Bill 168, the hard work he has done and the amount of input he has had in this process. I want to thank him for that -- less than 30 seconds.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll begin with the official opposition members and questions.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): If I can, I'm wondering if the minister or some of the staff she has assembled have done a cost analysis of the impact of the bill as it's currently drafted and can provide the committee with some sense of what the cost would be of the implementation of the bill as currently written.
Hon Ms Ziemba: I think you might want the answer broken in two parts, one from the Ministry of Education and one from the Ministry of Transportation. I think that would probably give a much better analysis, so I'll turn to Jamie first from the Ministry of Education.
Mr Jamie McKaye: The ministry has not completed an assessment of the financial implications of the bill. We have initiated some discussions with the colleges and universities and the organizations that represent them, but that's at a pretty early stage.
Hon Ms Ziemba: It might be a good idea to have the Ministry of Transportation come up.
The Chair: That would be a good idea.
Mr Murphy: Actually, I'd ask Mr McKaye to stay.
The Chair: Sure, he's staying. Somebody else will be joining us.
Interjection: How long do we have per caucus?
The Chair: From five to 10 minutes, judiciously. Please introduce yourself.
Mr Dave Haines: My name is Dave Haines. I'm with the Ministry of Transportation. As of yet, the Ministry of Transportation has not done an analysis of what the cost impact or implications will be. We of course, as part of the work to be done with the regulations, will be looking at that as one of the aspects of that work.
Mr Murphy: As a follow-up to that, I'm wondering if the two of you could answer a couple of further questions. You've been very helpful so far. One is, have you been formally asked to do so yet by the minister? Second, have you done any kind of an internal or ministry consultation with affected client groups as a ministry in terms of the specific proposals outlined in the bill? Thirdly, have you done any internal studies or commissioned other forms of studies, or do you have them already, on the question of what it would cost and what it would take to impose upon colleges and universities, transportation facilities and others some kind of rule that says, "From now on, when constructing new facilities or doing any further initiatives in your field, what would and could you do to make sure anything new at least was fully accessible to the disabled community?" Those are three questions, if you remember all three.
Mr McKaye: I'll start off from the Ministry of Education and Training point of view. I would say that the request of us from the minister was more in the way of preparing ourselves for the committee's discussions of this matter. We hadn't initiated any real analysis prior to a couple of weeks ago when we learned this bill would be before the committee.
1550
We have initiated some more recent consultation with the Council of Ontario Universities and the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario regarding the costs that would be associated with this bill, and I understand that the Council of Ontario Universities will be appearing later today and will probably be in a better position to discuss that. We certainly require of colleges and universities, whenever they're renovating or putting up new facilities, that they be to code. We've heard estimates from the universities of $5 million to $15 million per institution, depending on their current situation, in terms of getting them up to that code. I'm saying that, recognizing that there are cases where people in the community would say that's not enough, that it's probably not a sufficient standard.
Mr Haines: As of yet, we have not been asked to delve into the issue of either costing or implications into any depth at this point. We have had the bill for some time and we have had a cursory look at it. There have been some informal discussions internally. I understand that tomorrow the Ontario Urban Transit Association will be attending these hearings to make its position known on the bill and its feelings towards it.
As to moving towards at least the intent of the bill, you may be aware that the Ministry of Transportation in 1990 committed to the long-term goal of full accessibility for conventional transit systems. In fact, since July of last year all transit buses which were acquired with assistance from the province will now be fully accessible. GO Transit, of course, is moving towards full accessibility. As early as the spring the trains should be fully accessible. So we've already started in that work although, as my friend from Education said, we obviously still have quite a long way to go.
Mr Murphy: Thank you. I appreciate the answers. You'll forgive me if I think that in terms of an analysis of politically what's going on, we're involved in a public relations exercise, since clearly, through no fault of your own, you have not been asked to do any work in connection to the bill.
I do have one specific question. How much time do we have? A couple of minutes?
The Chair: Three minutes, maximum four.
Mr Murphy: I'll turn it over to my colleague.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Let me ask the minister this, directly: Will you be supporting this legislation?
Hon Ms Ziemba: I support the intent of the legislation and the work that Mr Malkowski has done on this bill.
Mr Curling: When I'm asking you this, I'm asking you as a colleague in Parliament and I'm using the word "supporting" to mean that you will move it to third reading before we adjourn on the eighth.
Hon Ms Ziemba: As you know, Mr Curling, as a colleague who has been in this House much longer than myself, we have three days to go, and how many bills will be passed has already been negotiated by both your House leader and by the House leader of the third party. Those negotiations have nothing to do with myself but have to do with the House leaders' office. That is the work they do, which they do very capably. You might want to discuss it with your House leader, but I think they've already come to an agreement, to my understanding, of the bills that will be passed before December 8.
Mr Curling: I presume you're saying no, then, with all that long explanation.
Hon Ms Ziemba: I didn't say no. I explained the process and the fact that I don't have a right to go into the House leader's office, your House leader's or the third party's, and overturn a decision that they have made.
Mr Curling: We know that, Madam Minister, because we know we have four bills that actually we have closure on and we have seen quick legislation move through, and I think that it is extremely important.
Could I ask you then whether or not what you're asking here, what this bill is asking, is similar to what the private sector is being asked, or is it less?
Hon Ms Ziemba: Bill 168, if you want me to go into a very detailed explanation that I was trying to do last week, was to explain the rights that will be enshrined in Bill 168 versus the rights that already exist under the Human Rights Code. If you want me to do that explanation I can do it.
Mr Curling: No, I just was wondering.
Hon Ms Ziemba: Bill 168 and the Human Rights Code both enshrine that people have a right to certain services and accessibility. The code does provide for that right, and that is what's enshrined in the code at this particular time for the private sector.
There's one part of Bill 168 which, if you want me to respond to it, is the part where we talk about undue hardship or undue financial constraints, and those particular words about what is included in 168 differ from what the Ontario Human Rights Code provides for. That difference, because it has not been tested so far in the definition, there is no definition to that, and because it has not been tested in any way in the legal parameters, it would be very hard to say which provides for a more stringent definition. So we would say that the Human Rights Code at this particular time probably provides for a definition that we understand and that has been tested and tried.
As well in Bill 168 versus the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Human Rights Code provides for a broader definition of "disability," so that if somebody is trying to ascertain their rights under the Human Rights Code, there is a much larger definition than what we think Bill 168 defines.
Mr Curling: Just a last quick one.
The Chair: No, sorry. We ran out of time. Ms Marland.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Minister, your answer to Mr Curling is the same as your opening comments today where you said, "I'm very supportive of the intentions of this bill." I don't want to play language games. I think there's enough gamesmanship going on around this bill. The subject matter of this bill and the people who are affected by this bill are far too serious to have any games played. I'd like to ask you outright, are you supporting the bill as it is drafted?
Hon Ms Ziemba: Again I will reiterate that as it is drafted in Bill 168, we fully support the intent. But, as with every bill, there might be some minor amendments that we'd want to make to that bill. I don't think that any bill comes before a committee without us hearing and listening and making sure that we understand all the various things. I would have some questions about various definitions in Bill 168 that we might want to look at a little bit more closely. As I said, and I started to explain about the Human Rights Code definition of "disability" and Bill 168 and the definition of "disability," I think we would want to have those two move more simultaneously and closely together in definition. It would be very difficult in government if you have definitions that are different from bills that are going through. There are other things that I could probably say as well.
As in any bill, if I might say -- this is not gamesmanship, but I just want to be very clear with you that I can't say I would take the whole bill and just say we would want to pass it the way it is. There are probably things I want to clarify with my colleague and see if he would agree and work with him to make sure that amendments went through. But I might also say that I think very clearly that we would want this bill, if we do prorogue on Thursday, to be carried over into the next session.
Mrs Marland: All right. You know quite well that the House is going to prorogue on Thursday and every bill that is on the books dies when the House prorogues.
Hon Ms Ziemba: Not if you put in the clause, when the House prorogues, if I might just interrupt, because this is what we've had before with bills and this has happened on many occasions, to say that these bills are carried over.
Mrs Marland: I'd like to ask you again, without you giving the same answer that you just gave --
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Ask a different question.
Mrs Marland: I think the minister's quite capable of answering the questions without support from the government members, at least I would hope so.
1600
Minister, the bill as drafted, which is the only bill that is before us, the bill that we are here to debate, the bill to which the deputations will be responding is Bill 168. Do you support Bill 168 as currently drafted?
Hon Ms Ziemba: I might say again to my colleague that with every bill, when they come forward, there are --
Mrs Marland: No, I'm just asking if you support it as drafted. You've already explained that you wanted to make some amendments.
Hon Ms Ziemba: I guess I would like to say that the previous response will stand.
Mrs Marland: All right, so the answer is you do not support Bill 168 as drafted. You've explained that you want to make some amendments. You explained that it won't be possible to do this because there are only three days to go.
The next question I would like to ask you, as a member of cabinet, is were you part of the decision of your government to stay out of this House for five weeks longer than in the scheduled calendar this fall?
Hon Ms Ziemba: There are discussions that we have in cabinet that I don't think are appropriate to bring forward before a standing committee.
Mrs Marland: So you can't answer that question.
Hon Ms Ziemba: I don't think that is part of what we're discussing today; we're discussing Bill 168. I don't think we're discussing a cabinet decision.
Mrs Marland: Yes, but we are discussing Bill 168. We have a room full of people who are interested. We had twice as many people in this room last week in very uncomfortable conditions, in the physical sense, and every one of those people is interested in Bill 168 and this minister is telling us there are only three days to go.
The reason I'm asking about the five weeks that this House was scheduled to sit this fall, according to the parliamentary calendar -- agreed to by all three parties, I may add. The reason we're now down with three days to go, and I presume the reason the government's been moving closure on all its bills in the last two weeks, is because we didn't sit for five weeks, we didn't sit when we were scheduled to sit. If this government was sincere about Bill 168, we wouldn't have a minister coming with a prepared text, where she says, "It is critically important that a thorough consultation and policy process occur before comprehensive legislation is achieved."
We are now having two hours and 10 minutes of deputations. Two hours and 10 minutes of deputations are being scheduled for today and tomorrow. This House sat empty for five weeks when, if the intent of the government was to do anything for people with disabilities in this province, the work could have been done.
Mr Malkowski's bill has been tabled for six months, and I think it's an absolute disgusting sham on the part of this government, more than anything else it has done with the disabled community in this province with all the millions of dollars of cutbacks. The fact that we had 5,000 people with developmental disabilities on the front lawn at Queen's Park is an indication of what we're dealing with today. It's still more of the same, and I yield the floor to my colleague.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): To the minister, I'm wondering how we can proceed from here. I think we've had a lot of good information as a result of certainly my own inquiries as the critic for colleges and universities. We did send a letter out asking the colleges and universities what the impact would be and how they could meet the requirements of the legislation, and you won't be surprised to know that it's going to be very expensive.
The physical access, they've told us, would be anywhere in the range of $5 million to $15 million for institutions. There are specific time frames in the bill, and I'm wondering how you would deal with that. We've done the work, so what are we going to do now?
The other two areas universities were very concerned about, probably more so than the physical because they've made tremendous strides there, are interpretation services and attendant care, two concerns I get from all the universities. I'll be specific and then you can respond.
We had tremendous response from Carleton in that one of my young constituents when I was first elected, a fellow by the name of Martin Anderson, a great leader, tremendously physically disabled, was instrumental in getting a policy at his university. The University of Guelph has responded in detail, the University of Western Ontario, Seneca College, University of Toronto, Fanshawe College and Sir Sandford Fleming have all made pretty good detailed responses. If you can talk about the physical access, the attendant care, which I'm very concerned about, and certainly the area of interpretation services with regard to the plans or recommendations your ministry has with regard to the dollars and cents, I'd appreciate a couple of minutes on that.
Hon Ms Ziemba: Certainly. I'm very pleased to respond because you're actually asking questions about Bill 168, and that's really very important; that's what I thought the standing committee was here to discuss. But I would like to ask the Ministry of Education, because it has done some work in that area and I read over some of its comments earlier. I think they can give you the answers and response that you require.
Mr McKaye: With respect to the cost of making campuses fully accessible, our information corresponds with yours, the $5 million to $15 million for university campuses. I don't have a clear picture of how long it would take to make all the renovations that are necessary. It would be primarily based on the rate that funding could be made available to do those things.
I do have a little bit of information with respect to attendant care costs. As you're aware, these costs are covered by a range of agencies, including the vocational rehabilitation program managed by Community and Social Services, and the long-term-care division of the Ministry of Health. The cost associated with the provision of attendant care is difficult to estimate, since the service is so individualized in nature. Students could require anywhere from half an hour to 24 hours of care, depending on their needs. My understanding of the cost estimates are anywhere from $16 to $24 per hour.
With respect to interpreter services for deaf students, according to the ministry's information there are approximately 680 deaf and hard-of-hearing students who were in receipt of accommodation in the colleges and universities in 1992-93. They have a range of services provided to them, including manual and computerized note-takers, interpreters, and FM systems. The cost of providing full-time interpreter services to one full-time deaf student is estimated to be about $40,000 a year. If we were going to get more information, we'd have to solicit it directly from the institutions and get it from the special-needs offices that are actually providing that service to the students on their campuses.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): It's a good opportunity for us to debate this bill. Before I speak, I heard this morning on the radio Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was speaking in Sydney, Australia, at an international conference on disabilities, and has come out strongly supporting disabled rights and saying that he challenges the world to support disability rights and respect it as a moral issue. He's calling on the world to stop discrimination against disabled people. That was on the air this morning on the news. As a member here and as other members here -- of course, in my role as an MPP, I felt an obligation to speak out on behalf of the wider disabled community and on behalf of deaf people and all to speak about global, holistic access and barrier removal. That's part of what my private member's bill attempts to deal with.
I would like to ask the Minister of Citizenship a question: Have any feasibility studies or some kind of proposal related to the ODA, any kind of studies to that effect, ever been taken up by the ministry? What kind of impact might come about and would there be any kind of studies like that coming forward? I'd like to know what the implications of that on Bill 168 might be, just briefly, if Citizenship has any feedback for us on that. I know others have already commented on the cost -- but if the ministry would be planning to do some of that.
My last question, though, I would like to ask: Would the government, do you think, be committed to an ODA act at some point, either in the form of a private member's bill on third reading, or perhaps we could look at a discussion of the act in general to take to the people and then hopefully present a government bill? Where do you think our government commitment might lie on something like this?
Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, in response to your first question, the Ministry of Citizenship has, as you know, over the last couple of years, done many various studies and work. We have had two major bills that have gone forward -- one employment equity and one the Advocacy Act -- that have required us to look at various forms of accessibility and rights for people with disabilities. So, yes, there have been various amounts of consultation and work done.
1610
When the Employment Equity Act was going though the Legislature, a committee was struck by the Employment Equity Commissioner to look at the very specific needs of people with learning disabilities because that has been a very difficult issue for a lot of us to understand, to grapple with and to know what the various concerns of that community are and what their needs are. A lot of work has been done. The committee was very large. I think it was made up of roughly 50 people coming from various different sectors: the private sector as well as labour, as well as community-driven organizations, as well as advocacy groups. It was chaired by Dr Shirley Van Hoof, who, as perhaps my colleague from London will know, is from London and chairs the advisory council on disability issues. They have done a remarkable job, being able to come forward to the government and to the Employment Equity Commission with their understanding of the needs and the work that needs to be done for people with learning disabilities.
There have also been other studies that have been funded by the ministry as well as policy work that has been done in the ministry itself. I wish I could go on at great length but I had that in my notes last week, plus, we could give you further information but I know that other people want to answer questions today and we have such a limited time here.
There has been, as I said, in the last number of years a lot of good research work that has looked at various needs of persons with disabilities, whether it's with employment, whether it's education or whether it's just in living. A lot of work has been done with other ministries to understand how those needs should be met and could be met and the way we can reach our goal, which is to make sure we have a barrier-free society in Ontario in a very short time. What that time would be, we don't know, but I think most people in this room would agree, as you stated with Archbishop Tutu, that we do want to have a society that is barrier-free, not only in Ontario but in the world itself.
In direct answer to your question, I think you and I and other members, other ministries and other ministers should sit down to discuss how we are going to accomplish this, because there are two other ministries that are really more directly involved in this bill than our ministry, that need to have some relationship to how we work towards achieving those results that you care about so much and all members in this room care about. I think we can do that and come to an agreement that would be satisfactory to everyone.
I just say on one final note that this does, though, give us a great opportunity to hear from various groups of people who will be coming forward in the next two days. Although I can't be here with you for those two days, I will certainly be looking over the transcripts, I will certainly be reviewing all the remarks and the deputations that are made and will want to have further discussion with you after those two days are over with.
The Chair: Just as a reminder, Mr Malkowski, there are two other speakers who want to ask questions, and there are three and a half minutes left.
Mr Malkowski: Just one very small, brief point then before I pass it on. From the Ministry of Citizenship has there been a specific proposal on an ODA project ever heard within the ministry or briefings? Has anything like that taken place?
Hon Ms Ziemba: I'm sorry, Gary, I don't quite understand the question. Could you just repeat that for me. With the bells going I might just not have heard it very well.
Mr Malkowski: I asked if the Ministry of Citizenship had ever undertaken any kind of project or study on the potential or possibilities of an ODA legislation, or have they looked at any kind of research? Has that been undertaken?
Hon Ms Ziemba: There has been some work done in that area, yes.
Mr Malkowski: Thank you.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I want to thank you all for coming today. I was thinking back to some of the legislation I have had privilege to sit on over the last four years, the awareness of disability issues as well as at times, in fact, how the additional services have been provided. I'm looking at long-term care, the Regulated Health Professions Act, the auto insurance bill, and the members here have already provided us an insight into expanded transportation policy issues.
In my role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Colleges and Universities some time ago, I had a chance to visit Ryerson and see the facility that they have, which is really quite admirable in comparison to what I know may exist in other institutions. It definitely has provided a very useful facility which I hope other universities and colleges look at emulating to help students, be they with a learning disability or another physical disability, be able to make use of that facility.
The accessibility funding that your ministry provides -- and I can think of a number of cheques I've had the privilege of being able to deliver -- what size is that right now? I know they go to churches and a range of other institutions, but what kind of funding are you putting in place to assist different organizations in our community to upgrade their facilities to provide service to seniors and the disabled?
Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you very much for the question. I think everyone in this room has probably had the opportunity to present a cheque to either a church, a Legion hall or to some organization within your riding that provides for access into that building. Many of the buildings that were built many years ago, and the beauty of the architecture, made it very difficult for people with disabilities to enter into that building -- or seniors, even small children, moms with strollers.
Mrs Marland: I had five turned down.
Hon Ms Ziemba: The colleague from Mississauga said that five of hers were turned down. The unfortunate thing is that there is an oversubscription to this very, very popular program, but we also very clearly stipulate that before we approve funding, we have guidelines that must be stuck to very, very clearly. One of those, of course, is that no work must proceed on any of those buildings until we approve them because obviously we'd be swamped with completed projects that perhaps did not follow building codes or were not properly looked into. It says very clearly in those guidelines, when people pick up their brochures, that they must first come and get their approval before we will decide, and we can't just holus-bolus give everybody their grants without looking at their proposals first. It is a very popular program.
We did increase the funding last year under Jobs Ontario Capital funding because we wanted to increase not only the number of people getting into buildings and to increase the number of buildings that would be accessible, but also because it helped us, under Jobs Ontario, get people back to work. So it served many different purposes.
When I said earlier that many members here would have the opportunity to pass out the cheques, it's a very non-partisan view that we take. First of all, it's not a group of political people who sit down and decide, it's a group of community people who decide on the funding, and then we also let all of our colleagues know, if they would like to present the cheques to their community groups, and they have often taken us up on it. Sometimes partisanship comes into play and they say they don't want to, but that is up to them to make that decision.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Haeck. We've run out of time. Sorry, Mr Winninger.
Madam Minister, we thank you and the other ministry staff for coming today to help us with members' questions.
Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank you very much, committee, for giving us the opportunity, all of us, to be here today. I know the deliberations will be very interesting and I look forward to reading those responses and the Hansards as they come forward.
Just one last remark. Mr Curling has finally been able to ask me a question. I know he's been wanting to do so for so long --
Mr Curling: It's a waste of time.
Hon Ms Ziemba: -- in the House and the whip has not been able to give him that time in the House. Thank you very much.
Mr Curling: I don't want to ask any more questions if it isn't on equity.
1620
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE ADVISORY GROUP ON EMPLOYMENT EQUITY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The Chair: We call upon the various deputants we have here from the Ontario Public Service Advisory Group on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities. Please come forward. We welcome you here today. Just as a quick reminder, there are only 20 minutes, so if you want the members to ask you questions, please leave as much time as you possibly can after your presentation. Mr Drewett, can you present the others so we know who they are?
Mr Bruce Drewett: In addition to myself, we have Don Ogner, who is the past chair of the group; David Lepofsky; and to my right, Peggy Malloy. It is a pleasure for us to be here today to comment on Bill 168, commonly known as the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
The advisory group is a group of employees from across the OPS that advises the Ontario government on measures to promote equality and full participation for persons with disabilities through employment equity, human rights and other related initiatives such as the act that we're here to discuss today. Each of us is here speaking in our capacity as advisory group members and we do not purport to speak on behalf of the ministry by which we are employed, just so everyone's clear on that point.
David Lepofsky will be speaking on behalf of the group today in terms of our presentation, and we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about his comments or about the brief we've submitted.
Mr David Lepofsky: May it please the committee, you've been provided with an outline of today's remarks which you're welcome to follow if you're able, and if you're not, then you know what we experience when we go to meetings every day.
We appreciate this opportunity to meet with you and we're going to cut to the quick right up front. The situation facing persons with disabilities in this province can only be characterized as critical, and their needs will not be met by promises, their needs will not be met by grand speeches on how much we've done for them, their needs will not be met by partisan politics, and their needs will categorically not be met by anecdotal grand statements about how individual people with disabilities have been able to meet the challenges facing them individually in their conquest over their disabilities. Their needs will only be met when the government of Ontario and the Legislature of Ontario take the following steps:
(1) When they recognize that the society in which we live is riddled with barriers confronting persons with disabilities.
(2) When they recognize that without new government action, those barriers will not be substantially diminished.
(3) When they realize that the costs of removing those barriers in the final analysis are usually exaggerated by those with the worst track record for creating those barriers, and yet the costs of leaving those barriers up are consistently ignored by them.
In that regard, we wish to briefly identify the nature of the problem that we say people with disabilities face, propose the nature of the solution, and respond briefly to some of the worst arguments made in response to the position in support of Mr Malkowski's bill.
We would note at the outset, before doing such, that we view the issue of addressing the needs of persons with disabilities to be categorically a non-partisan issue. That is to say it is not a question on which one can take a different position because one is on the left, one is on the right, one is in favour of large government or small government. We have seen some of the most progressive legislation addressing the needs of persons with disabilities signed into law in the United States by a president not known for his record on leftist issues: George Bush. So we feel this is the kind of issue which could well secure support from all sides.
We also note at the outset that we would welcome all parties endorsing this legislation, we would welcome all parties agreeing to have this bill stay alive while Parliament is prorogued, if it is, and we would welcome all parties supporting the continuation of hearings over the intersession period.
With respect to the position taken by the minister before this committee that she supports the intent of this bill, we would only pass around a copy of a transcript to members of the committee from a proceeding of the CBC national radio program Cross-Country Checkup. I have a copy of the tape, which I'll file with the registrar so you can confirm its accuracy, but at the top of the first full paragraph of the second page, the overleaf page, you'll see a clear indication by the Minister of Citizenship not simply that she supports the intent of the bill, but that she supports the bill. We hope and trust that commitment will be honoured. Intent is not enough.
What is the problem facing people with disabilities? Put simply, we are a substantial and a substantially disadvantaged minority. Our numbers are at least as high as 14%; some would say as high as 17%. Speaking to you as politicians, that's a lot of voters, and most of them are over 18. Of those people, they have a disproportionate share of societal disadvantage. Members of the public consider it outrageous when unemployment peaks over 10%. Current Statistics Canada census data from 1991 suggest that in this province, of those employable-age persons with disabilities, over 50% were unemployed in the year 1991. For them, 10% unemployment would seem like heaven.
Persons with disabilities are disproportionately dependent on social assistance, whereas the kinds of initiatives that we urge would take them off social assistance, cut costs to the public, turn them into taxpayers, and thereby contribute both to economic growth and to individual sustenance by these persons with disabilities.
Persons with disabilities are, in relation to public education, and especially post-secondary education, substantially disadvantaged, as a result of which government data suggest that the proportion or ratio of persons with disabilities who have graduated from university in this province is less than half of those persons who are not. Something is terribly, terribly wrong.
If we have a serious problem, will the existing legal mechanisms available to us solve the problem? The Charter of Rights will not, for it only addresses the government and requires you to be a millionaire to bring a claim and have 10 years to litigate it. The Human Rights Code, while important, will not. Its terms are too vague. Employers, government and private as well as private sector and government service providers, have a tendency of continuing their own practices now and waiting for someone to file a human rights complaint later. People with disabilities just don't have the time to become full-time human rights police officers, filing complaint after complaint, though in the life of any person with a disability any day will encounter an event that could well give rise to a human rights complaint.
Employment equity legislation is important, though the data in our report from the government itself document that after four years of accelerated employment equity, our representation in the public service has gone down, not up. We call that accelerated employment inequity. While we think it's important to have the legislation and the program, we don't have any delusions that it's going to solve our problems.
What needs to be done? We need to identify that there are two problems we face. The first is that our society is full of too many pre-existing barriers, barriers which despite legislation like the building code and the Human Rights Code have not been taken down. But as well, we face new barriers. New barriers are being created as we speak, in technology, in new buildings, in new programs, in the public sector and the private sector. If nothing is done to check this, the disabled people who live in the year 2000 will face more barriers in many respects than we face today. The fact of the matter, for those of you concerned about cost issues, and that's been the subject of debate here, is that it costs little, if anything, to prevent new barriers, but it will cost whoever is in power in the year 2000 a lot more money to remove those new barriers after they are created.
We therefore urge the passage of a strong ODA, such as the bill before you, along with the amendments that we've proposed in our brief so as to achieve the twin goals of removing existing barriers and preventing new ones. We believe this will contribute to economic growth as well as liberating disabled people from the substantial disadvantage from which they now suffer and from which they will continue to suffer if nothing is done about it.
1630
Let me turn briefly to some of the arguments made against this.
There should, one would think, be no one who opposes access and full participation for persons with disabilities. After all, there are those of us who now have disabilities and those of you who don't have one yet. If one needs only one example of the random chance that can lead to disability, ask Lucien Bouchard. The fact of the matter is that everyone either has a disability, knows someone who has a disability, or will likely get a disability later in life. So it's in everyone's interest to address this problem. It can't be sloughed off as somebody else's.
What about cost? One of the common stereotypes about cost is that the cost of accommodating people with disabilities is too high. It is not. The cost of excluding people with disabilities from the mainstream is too high. We are to hear from the universities about the $15 million it will cost them to address the barriers they have created themselves. We ask you to ask them what they would do about it, if this bill isn't good enough, but more importantly, I'd welcome an opportunity to cross-examine their accountants to find out (a) how exaggerated those figures are, and (b) where else the fat is that could be cut.
Speaking personally, I'm a part-time member of the law faculty at the University of Toronto. If that school has barriers, perhaps one way they could pay for some of them is to look to the mansion that the university owns and provides the president of the university to live in. In these days of fiscal restraint, before telling disabled people that they can't access all the premises of the university, perhaps some of the luxuries could be dispensed with.
Finally, for those who are concerned about this as a left-versus-right issue, we say categorically that the effect of barrier removal today and prevention of tomorrow's barriers is to provide for smaller government in the future. The effect of maintaining barriers and leaving the public and private sector free to create more is to ensure the need for larger government tomorrow. This is an area where equality does not conflict with economics; equality promotes economics.
To conclude, we urge that this bill be passed. We urge that it be passed with the support of all parties. We urge that it be passed with the substantive proposals set out in our bill or in any other proposals that may be achieved. We urge that government resources be dedicated to develop any amendments that may be needed quickly, and that the time between the end of this session and the start of the next be used effectively to debate the bill, to hear from the community and to resolve the pressing crisis confronting persons with disabilities.
To those who have said there's a problem with publicity stunts, we don't want any publicity stunts. We want equality.
Mrs Marland: That's a powerful presentation, Mr Lepofsky, and I congratulate you on it.
Yes, society is riddled with barriers, as you have said, but you also said intent is not enough, and I did say last week that this government, or any other government, doesn't need any more white papers, discussion papers. We've got enough reports already in existence. Would you agree that there is enough information in Ontario today to act on your concerns without any more information report dust-gathering?
Mr Lepofsky: People with disabilities have the good fortune of having been studied to death. Those who are still alive would like to see equality before they see more studies, and they are studied to death. We therefore encourage all parties to endorse this action, and we also encourage those who have been surveying the universities and others who are not now complying with the norms of equality to equally survey those who have been the victims of inequality at the hands of those universities. But we would call on all parties to endorse both the need for no more studies but rather action, and to endorse this particular bill.
Mrs Marland: So you must be concerned by the fact that last week Mr Malkowski said, "We want to permit the disabled community to come and present and give their feedback on the legislation, and I think then this would lead to a government discussion paper or perhaps introduction of a government bill." How do you feel about that?
Mr Lepofsky: Well, enjoying the good fortune of not participating in the political process, I won't accept the invitation to join it here, but I will suggest that anyone who takes aggressive steps to get this on the agenda is taking steps that we encourage and we support. To that extent, we have been and will been congratulating and continue to congratulate Mr Malkowski for having brought this forward. We'd rather see legislation than discussion papers, but we'd rather see something more than nothing.
Mrs Marland: So you wouldn't be happy to see another government discussion paper or another bill introduced, as Mr Malkowski has referred to?
Mr Lepofsky: I think my last answer probably answers that sufficiently, but we'd like to see a law passed. Whatever will get that law passed and whatever will get barriers removed most effectively, we support.
Mrs Marland: When you refer to the problem in society, you also refer to the Human Rights Code and the process that generates from that code, which is going to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I have a constituent who is learning-disabled, whose case has been before the Ontario Human Rights Commission for seven years. The Ontario Human Rights Commission now admits that it has never had investigators trained in learning disabilities, although it has 20 cases on its books. I simply ask you, as a member of this particular advisory group that you're part of, do you feel that when we have something as systemic as the Ontario Human Rights Commission itself with untrained staff making decisions on people with learning disabilities, that makes the whole system fall apart and stands for nothing?
Mr Lepofsky: I think it's fair to say that the Human Rights Commission has been criticized by those seeking justice from it ever since disability was added into the code in 1981. Nobody has found a solution.
One of the things we look to in this bill is to get away from the idea that an individual person with a disability has to go to university and file a complaint against the university they'd prefer to have teaching them and wait the four years for an investigation. Rather, we'd like to see the universities and other service providers themselves proactively identifying the barriers and removing them so that the student can arrive at an accessible premise.
In other words, the Human Rights model of investigation has its limitations in that it requires individual people with disabilities to come forward and make themselves into a litigant full-time. We'd have rather a system that's proactive to work in tandem with it but that is proactive at barrier removal. That's what this bill seeks to do and that's what our proposals in our brief would seek to expand upon.
Mr David Winninger (London South): I certainly appreciated your submission that the removal of barriers under Bill 168 is not inconsistent with economic growth, and also that the step forward taken under Bill 168 advances the interests of everyone and not just the disabled community.
You've spoken to the limitations under the Human Rights Code. I wonder if you could comment on how far Bill 168 goes in better addressing the need for equity and access in education, transportation and government services that may not be completely served now under the Human Rights Code, the Advocacy Act and the employment equity legislation.
Mr Lepofsky: To begin with, the Employment Equity Act doesn't address it because it deals only with employment and not equity in services. The Advocacy Act doesn't address it because it's not a law that aims to provide barrier removal and various access to goods, services and the like. So those are gaps that are left only to the Human Rights Code. The Human Rights Code does provide a guarantee of equality in services, but it does not have a proactive component. In other words, an individual must simply be discriminated against, file a complaint and spend four years or more trying to resolve it.
What this bill as designed, and particularly some of the proposals we've made to enhance it or build upon it, will do will be to take this into a different environment, to provide for those who provide large-scale services and the like to the public to themselves look and not simply go about business as usual -- discriminate now, wait to be sued later -- but instead to go about the process of trying to identify barriers and remove them now. Frankly, the quicker they do that, the more they can integrate it into their business plans, integrate it into their work and accomplish low-cost, effective barrier removal, and at the same time save the cost to the private parties and the government of having to litigate these things on a case-by-case basis.
1640
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I just want to refer to a couple of your comments and then ask you a question concerning them. You had indicated that as far as human rights code type of sanctions are concerned, you considered some of the terms too vague, you indicated that disabled persons didn't have time to be full-time police officers with respect to enforcement of human rights, and you had indicated that the minister's intention was not enough.
Having reviewed those comments, I would like you to address your attention to the structure of this bill. I see some very significant structures to the bill in the sense that it lacks real bite and real effectiveness.
First of all, the structure of the bill creates a number of rights. For example, every person with a disability has a right to be accommodated in a training program in accordance with the regulations. Then it indicates, as I see it, that the only sanction you have is that where a person believes that a right of a person under this act has been infringed, the person can file with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Then it goes on to say that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing goals and timetables for the development, implementation, review and revision of access to education plans etc.
To me, it's very clear that what the bill appears to do is express nothing more or less than an intent, because what it does is create the rights, then it says you can file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, and then it says the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing goals, timetables etc. So this bill is only potentially proactive, if I can use your terminology again, and I'd just like your comments on my assessment of how I'm reading this bill.
Mr Lepofsky: Well, let me begin by saying that if it is your and your party's position that people with disabilities need even more, then we delight in your public acknowledgement of that.
Mr Chiarelli: That's the case.
Mr Lepofsky: Thank you. If you'll look at our brief, you'll see that what our brief does is in fact make specific recommendations to build upon the enforcement processes set out in this bill. We note that Mr Malkowski, in putting this bill together, is not a cabinet minister and did not have the resources of an entire ministry to do all the regulatory/enforcement policy work that could be done. We've tried to back that up here with our brief and give you what you need to add to it and go ahead with it.
You'll see that we suggest several things. First, we suggest that there be a rule-making process which can involve, even if the government does not initiate a regulation, initiation of regulations by affected groups such as Persons with Disabilities and which can provide for hearings or other input with input by affected groups such as universities, transit providers and the like. So rather than litigating this as a suit over discrimination, which I could tell you is quite emotionally charged, it can be addressed as a proactive policy-making process, culminating in regulations. So it isn't simply the way we would like to see it expanded; it would provide for regulation-making not simply at the whim of the government, but at the initiation of private groups towards the government as well.
Similarly, we suggest that there should be a process of enforcement that doesn't simply arise when an individual is denied access as is required, though that's an important component, but we also suggest that there should be a process for complaints in relation to inadequacies of plans and the like, comparable, to some extent, to what's being done under the Employment Equity Act.
In other words, we're not saying, "Take that out," but we've made a number of suggestions of practical things that can be added in that will make it work.
What we think is that the best way to make standards -- let me give you an example, say of trust companies. This level of government regulates trust companies. They put out these instabank machines. Some of them a blind person can use; some of them they can't. Some of them are too high up for a person in a wheelchair to use.
Now, there are two ways of dealing with it: You can go to the Human Rights Code and you can file a complaint, wait 20 years and maybe get a decision that you should have had a bank machine that was accessible, or you could have proposed, as we urge, that a regulation be made to set standards, goals and timetables for accessible bank machines. That would enable the banks, or in this case the trust companies, to be heard, for us to be heard and then the government to make an appropriate standard that enables people to work towards it.
I use that example because some financial institutions are putting in new bank machines that we're not going to be able to use, and they're being built right now.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lepofsky. We've run over the time, but, Mr Murphy, do you want to make a very brief comment?
Mr Murphy: I just want to thank you very much for a very effective presentation. Two quick questions -- and hopefully if you can answer --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Murphy, no. We won't have time for questions because we went way over the time, sorry.
I want to thank you, Mr Lepofsky and the Ontario Public Service Advisory Group on Employment Equity for Persons with Disabilities, for participating and responding to Bill 168.
Mr Lepofsky: We thank you and we hope you've got lots more meetings ahead on this.
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES
The Chair: We call upon the Council of Ontario Universities. Dr Selleck, perhaps you might introduce the rest. I didn't know who would be introducing everybody.
Dr Laura Selleck: I've asked Dr Peter George, who is the president of the Council of Ontario Universities, to make the introduction and some opening remarks.
Dr Peter George: I'm Peter George. I'm president of the Council of Ontario Universities. May I take this opportunity to introduce the other members of our delegation: Susan Weaver is the coordinator of services for students with disabilities at the University of Western Ontario and chair of the Inter-University Disability Issues Association; William Hoch is the manager of the office for ability and access at McMaster University and a member of the IDIA and the COU committee on employment and educational equity; Laura Selleck is a research associate at COU who works with our equity and status of women committees.
I want to leave most of the time for questions, as you expressly asked in your communications with us. I'm very pleased that on such short notice we were able to have Susan and Bill here. As university officers responsible for providing services to students with disabilities, they can explain what the Ontario universities have already been doing and how Bill 168 might affect this work.
Our brief mentions some of the Ontario university initiatives to increase access. It includes appendices with data on the growing number of students identifying themselves to us and to our special-needs offices, as well as a report on the wide range of educational equity initiatives at specific institutions. These examples include: revised admission selection processes, provision of special residences, library and computer facilities, and special services to help graduating students with disabilities find employment.
Our brief also comments on some cooperative activities involving all of the universities, including the work of university special-needs officers with their counterparts from the college system, a barrier-free checklist for college and university campuses which will be distributed by COU later this month, and a new working group on barriers to graduate studies.
These activities demonstrate the Ontario universities' commitment to expanding educational opportunities for students with disabilities and to others who have been limited in their participation in post-secondary education. We do, however, have some concerns and reservations about the process for developing Bill 168 and its approach, which I'll ask Bill Hoch to describe.
1650
Mr William Hoch: Our intention in being here today is to recognize the commitment that we have to the principles of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the fact that we fully support expanding access and the issues involved in Bill 168. We are concerned, however, about the apparent isolation with which some of the clauses and some of the regulations that will be written are being established.
If we have done anything wrong, it would be to not effectively communicate the strengths and the positive attributes that our universities have already undertaken. Every university has support services, has the ability to provide services to any person with a disability, regardless of disability and regardless of need. The issue in some cases, however, boils down to a lack of what we would consider to be effective partnerships from various government service areas. Those partnerships, when you're trying to establish programs, require commitments and cooperation between government departments, and we're not always seeing that. That's not passing the buck on our part; that's the reality. There are ministries that will refer people to us in order to avoid paying their share, and we consider that an undue burden.
The time lines in the legislation represent a concern to us because they're not specified. We recognize that we have a way to go. In some cases, we have a significant way to go, because many of our institutions are significantly aged in terms of their buildings and some of them are designated historical landmarks and these things require significant change and certain types of special legislation.
We are, however, of the impression that this bill focuses really only on four significant areas: post-secondary education, transportation, government publications, and communications. It does, as David Lepofsky said, ignore the general needs of persons with disabilities, and from our point of view, we are concerned that higher education is being targeted as the only area of need.
In addition, the recognition that all barriers and systemic issues must be eliminated with this bill would prove impractical. I would point out simply that the government has spent an enormous amount of money in making this facility accessible, and yet trying to get here, trying to find your way into this building, trying to get to this hearing room presented an obstacle in itself.
We face those same obstacles, yet they're challenges for all of us. Access to post-secondary education is not an unconditional right; it's a right that bears with it responsibilities for admission, responsibilities for achievement. Everyone has the right to achieve and everyone has the right to that education and we are attempting to provide that, based on what people present to us. In many cases, persons coming to us are voluntarily disclosing. That means that we have a responsibility to keep information confidential. We also have responsibilities to work with students in areas that provide information on a limited basis to the institution, yet we're not faced with the resources that will provide us entirely with those.
We heard before from David Lepofsky about concerns about luxuries. There aren't luxuries in a university system. We have millions and millions of dollars of deferred maintenance; safety is an aspect that must come first, according to the Ministry of Education. Those things must be dealt with even before access. How we are going to deal with those remains a question.
The final issue is the one of cost, and people have spoken before about $5 million to $15 million. The reality is there is a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar liability there in making our universities reasonably barrier-free. That's our estimate. We can't prove it today, but we believe, in an unaudited fashion, having worked with and spoken with all of the university people, that that's a significant issue. Where does that quarter of a billion dollars come from? Transfer payments today were flagged at the same level. Mr Axworthy is talking about decreasing transfer payments. The reality is that we want to continue to provide service, we want to increase that service, and yet we're faced, like everyone else, with extremely difficult times.
Dr George: We're happy to turn it over now for questions from members of the committee.
Mr Malkowski: I have one question for you. You were saying, in theory, that perhaps maybe a student levy, we were talking about that, for a more holistic approach for students to get in. Why not disabled students and non-disabled students have access or a levy, something like that?
For example, note-takers can go a long way to help both disabled and non-disabled people. There are lots of services that all students can use, is the point. Why not look at something like that, a sharing of information at universities, and to show what successful accommodation has done for those said departments or whatever? You were saying earlier that your problem was communications, that you haven't got the good message out. Then what's your strategy to do that?
Dr George: May I just reply briefly. We have produced a number of reports, and continue to produce reports, on our general contribution to achieving goals of equity of access to post-secondary education. Those are available, they're in the public domain, and we're quite happy to make them available. Most of those reports are sent to all MPPs on publication, but if there are ones that aren't in your hands we're happy to deliver them.
On the issue of a levy on fees in principle, that would an interesting issue to explore. The fact is, however, that ancillary fees are governed by protocols in which students have a veto over the initiation of such fees. That was part of the agreement reached with the Minister of Education and Training around the tuition issue this past year. We're not at liberty to propose or to put in place increases in student levies to achieve these kinds of goals. These are things that would have to be done through the initiative of student governments.
Ms Haeck: Hello, Dr George. We haven't had a chance to meet each other in these environs for a while. Going back to my days on public accounts and definitely the review that was undertaken by that committee into university funding, also raises the spectre that -- and I know this is a matter of the newer university and thinking of the one in my own community, Brock, which doesn't have a particularly large reserve fund, but there are some universities, shall we say, that are little more well-endowed with regard to reserve funds. The one probably across the street is the best example. I'm wondering, in light of the kind of bequests and the reserve funds that they do have, what information can you provide this committee as to their commitment to making use of some of those moneys -- not just the government moneys but the moneys that they already have on hand -- to make sure that some of these initiatives could be accomplished?
Dr George: That is not information that I have to hand, but the fact is that any earnings of those funds that are directed towards the operating costs of the institution will be handled --
Ms Haeck: No, no, reserve funds; they're not operating.
Dr George: No, but the fact is that I'm talking about the earnings of reserve funds. One of the commitments of boards of governors generally, under the current fiscal environment, is to maintain reserve funds intact and to use the interest or proceedings of those funds to help defray some of the operating costs of the institution. Those issues are dealt with through budgetary advisory committees and then approved by the board, and expenditures of those funds are consistent with the priorities as established by the university boards of governors in the end. It would be an issue that would have to be discussed with each of the institutions to see how they're making use of those reserve funds and the interest earnings accruing to them.
Mr Curling: I want to thank you for coming forward. I must confess to you, though, that I'm not quite worked up about this process. This is very serious legislation, a very serious bill, and even considering the fact that Larry O'Connor from the government has stated in the House that this bill has the full support of the entire caucus, now I'm hearing that the life of this bill has a couple of hours and then it just expires, like a mission impossible.
1700
I agree with you that the targeting of the post-secondary institution is somehow skewed or biased in a way. It's almost like saying, "If you made it this far, you should make it the rest of the way." Elementary and secondary schools of course should be seen as some greater access to that.
Notwithstanding all of that, even with the cut in funding to post-secondary institutions, do you see, in any way, that there is more that can be done, regardless -- because this bill won't see the light of day -- that post-secondary institutions can do more for people with disabilities?
Dr George: There's always more that can be done. The question here, I think, is one of self-identification of students who have disabilities, but I would remind you and the committee that in the last four years we have had close to a 50% increase in the number of students who have self-identified and who have received accommodation from our institutions. I submit that a 50% increase in that number is a very significant achievement during a period when, as you know, government and total funding has been under siege. But I would ask any of my colleagues to contribute to the answer, if they wish.
Dr Susan Weaver: I think it's fair to say that the universities are doing more all the time. The targeted funding we receive from the ministry has not increased since the envelope was first announced, and in fact for some universities, because of the realigning of the allocation, some of us actually saw a reduction in the funds we received, but our numbers of students have gone up significantly while funding has stayed the same or in fact decreased. We're doing more and our institutions are contributing more outside of the envelope of funding.
We're not doing enough; there is no question that we're not doing enough. We're working with students who self-identify. There are many, many students in our institutions who have not identified, for whatever reason. The numbers we've provided in our brief today are certainly not the numbers of students with disabilities in the universities in Ontario.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Thank you very much for your presentation. I can understand some of the frustration the presenters must be experiencing at a time when our universities seem to be built on shifting sands, what with the federal axe about to fall, OCUA funding review under way, and I know that Joan Homer -- I see her in the audience today here on behalf of colleges -- is also very concerned about the implications this would have in terms of the costs associated with addressing some of the shortcomings in our physical plant in particular.
I'm not sure what I have in terms of a question for you, except to say that I am very sympathetic to what it is that Mr Malkowski is attempting to do through this legislation. Perhaps I could ask, what is it that you are doing to further address some of the needs of a community that is being targeted by Mr Malkowski's bill, in some creative process under way which will allow us, with no more new money, to meet these needs?
Dr George: The rider "no more new money" is like the shifting sands you began your metaphor with: Shifting financial sands is what they are; educational research bases are very strong indeed.
But I think every institution is reviewing these initiatives continually. I think we have had a tremendous amount of mileage out of the disabilities envelope of the Ministry of Education and Training. That money has not increased in real terms, but it has been used to leverage funds within the institutions and certainly to leverage the realization of our obligations to service the disabled population of students. I think it has heightened awareness, has led to much greater sensitivity and approachability in counselling services, and I think this is bound to continue. So we needn't look just at the size of the disabled envelope, which we all agree is insufficient, but also its leverage effect both on the resources and on the attitudes prevalent in the institution.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee this afternoon. It's good to see Western represented again.
Mr Chair, you should all know this has been a tremendous focus, certainly in my riding at the University of Western Ontario, and other ridings, because I know some of my colleagues on this committee and where they've been involved in the colleges and universities. I think we've made tremendous gains in the last decade; some of the things we're talking about now never would have been discussed publicly. One of the greatest gains I've noticed in talking with the commissioner for students with disabilities, with the university student councils across the province, is the ability of disabled people to come forward and talk frankly about their needs.
So I have a question. Given the concerns of the previous advisory group on employment equity, which I very much relate to from a personal point of view, I think the following should happen, and I'm wondering if the universities and colleges can respond in some way, as this bill is about post-secondary education.
I think we need a 10-year plan, and for those of us who know about the gains being made with regard to the learning-disabled, all kinds of learning disabilities, I think the plan will change from time to time, depending on new technology and depending on availability of new resources, but I think the one resource that is truly missing is the human resource. We've noticed in at least seven of our universities where the students have been called upon themselves to be part of the solution in helping people with learning disabilities, sometimes given credit for course work, sometimes being paid. That's an area that is totally untapped.
The greatest caregiver my own son had was a caregiver his own age, and when I say "caregiver" it is in many formats that I speak. That's an untapped resource of young people who want to be with their peers, at football games, when they're studying, when they have to get up in the morning, when they have to eat. Have we really looked at that resource? I'm not trying to pass the buck in this regard; I know that dollars and cents are extremely important, one of our greatest liabilities right now at the universities given the present discussions. But have we really looked at a resource? Does government have to do everything? Is there not some way we can be using these people with these boundless energies in caring for others in this capacity? I don't know. Have the universities looked at it?
Dr George: May I offer a personal commentary rather than one associated with my role as president of the council? I think there are basically two issues here. One is investment in physical capital, the need to make our institutions more physically accessible and to provide the kinds of infrastructural investments that will increase access to learning opportunities. I think the other, that Ms Cunningham puts so well, is the human resource aspect of it, and I'm thinking here of the challenge to the students, to the majority of students in our institutions. I think there is a tremendous unleashed potential among those students, in many ways. I know at certain times of the year they engage in quite intensive charitable activity, in cystic fibrosis shines and so forth. There are some institutions that actually have student-community volunteer systems in place.
The idea of challenging the student government and student associations to provide mentorships and student buddies for disabled students is a very interesting and challenging one. I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to add to this. Bill?
Mr Hoch: I think, without exception, there is not a university institution that does not have that type of program in place. But the reality is that when your numbers are growing 50% or 100% a year, it's impossible to keep pace in terms of finding volunteers, volunteers who are trained, because there is some training necessary in order to do some of these things, for a number of reasons: so that students can have proper notes, or so that they can be cared for, if it's a care situation, in a way that's not going to harm them. The reality is that those things are happening now, yet we're still not, in many ways, able to keep pace with the growth, and the growth is just tremendous.
The Chair: Mr Hoch, Dr George, Dr Weaver, and Dr Selleck, thank you for taking the time to come and give this presentation to this committee today.
1710
INJURED WORKERS' CONSULTANTS
ONTARIO NETWORK OF INJURED WORKERS GROUPS
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT VICTIMS GROUP OF ONTARIO
TORONTO INJURED WORKERS' ADVOCACY GROUP
The Chair: We invite the Injured Workers' Consultants, Toronto Injured Workers' Advocacy Group, and Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario to please come forward. We welcome you here today. As you notice, 20 minutes goes by very quickly. It doesn't allow much time, obviously, for you to make lengthy presentations and also give time for the members to ask some questions. So as a reminder, do your best to allow as much time as possible for the members to ask you questions, okay? Perhaps one of you can introduce the rest.
Mr Orlando Buonastella: Yes. We represent four organizations. My name is Orlando Buonastella, from Injured Workers' Consultants; it's a legal aid clinic that represents injured workers. With me are: Sebastian Spano, who works at Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario, another similar legal clinic, funded by the Ontario legal aid plan; John McKinnon, who represents the Toronto Injured Workers' Advocacy Group, which is a coalition of legal clinics in the field; and Karl Crevar and Joan Crevar, who represent the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, obviously, from the name, an injured worker group association of 34 groups spread across all communities of Ontario.
We're here in support of the intent of Bill 168. We, as injured worker groups, have spent the whole summer trying to convince the government not to go ahead with de-indexation of WCB benefits on another bill, Bill 165.
We find it a bit ironic that the government is not listening to us in terms of our appeal not to cut the cost-of-living increases for injured workers, so we're not able to convince the government on that front, it seems -- and we hope there's going to be a change tomorrow -- yet we are here supporting a bill that is very positive in its intent and is not getting due government support, we find, although we would like to appeal to all the members here and to the government members to make it a bill that's successful, that it either is passed this session or, if for some reason it isn't -- and it would be regrettable -- that there be a consensus among all parties to put it in the book, so to speak, so it can be continued in another session.
Before we talk some more about the details of this bill, we would like to commend the work of Gary Malkowski. Mr Malkowski has been very helpful to injured workers, not only in his riding but throughout Ontario. It was Gary who helped us have access to this building on June 1, when we had several problems with the staff to get access, and it has been Gary Malkowski who raised a lot of our concerns in terms of injured worker legislation. Keep up the good work, Gary.
Without any further comment from myself, I'll turn it over to Karl Crevar.
Mr Karl Crevar: Good afternoon. First of all, I want to thank the panel here for giving me the opportunity to be able to present to you our views from the injured worker community. I don't profess to know all the details of the bill itself, Bill 168, which Mr Malkowski introduced in the House, which we do support very firmly. In the injured worker community, one of the main issues that has arisen is the problem of getting injured workers back into the workforce, because there are barriers, barriers in the workplace.
This bill on equal access for all should be passed, it must be passed, and it should have consensus from all members of the House around this table. Simply because it was introduced at such a late date does not mean the issues are going to go away. The issues are here, they're going to stay, and they're just growing.
I find it somewhat disturbing when we talk about introducing legislation, bringing in an act for those who need assistance, for people with disabilities, and we talk about dollars and cents. What is a life worth today? In our view, in my personal view, a life comes before dollars and cents. When you look at the issues within the disability community and injured workers that they face every day because of the barriers -- they have the right to live, they have the right to exist, yet we sit around the table and we have to bring in legislation to recognize that. The human value must come first, before the dollars and cents.
If you look at the rate of unemployment of persons with disabilities, which runs around 60%, and that's not including injured workers with disabilities as a result of a workplace injury, the numbers are staggering. It's time we looked after those who cannot help themselves.
I know I've been one to go on talking, and we do want to leave some time open for you and my colleagues here do have some other things they want to address. Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to present.
Mr Sebastian Spano: As you heard from Orlando Buonastella and Karl Crevar, we agree with the principles in the bill and we think it is about time that the government did act to take some perhaps more ambitious steps in trying to address the problems of access, the disabled generally. While we agree with the bill in principle, we have a number of concerns with the bill as it is drafted, and we'd like to bring these to your attention when you're considering them.
One of the problems we see is enforcement. We believe the act is weak in that respect and needs to be bolstered. Perhaps the first solution we recommend is to eliminate the clause in the act enabling the making of regulations that could exempt certain institutions, persons, service providers, from complying with the act. There is a section here under which perhaps certain institutions can apply to the government for a special regulation to exempt them from complying with the act. We think this is totally unnecessary, and also it's quite dangerous.
There should be no blanket exemptions for anybody. If any particular institution has a concern that it cannot comply with any part of this act, then it can address those concerns or direct them to the Ontario Human Rights Commission where it would be properly dealt with. I think giving a kind of blanket exemption would certainly, or most likely, circumvent the Ontario human rights processes set up in the Ontario Human Rights Code. What we recommend is simply case-by-case adjudication.
I think you got a taste of it earlier with the group before us, a taste of what some institutions might potentially argue and call for. The group before you argued that cost is a big concern, that they may not be able to comply. We think they should not be given an opportunity to come out of the terms of the act.
1720
What we do recommend, though, is that perhaps the Ontario Human Rights Commission could be bolstered. There are a number of ways you might be able to do this: You could certainly provide additional funding for enforcement, you can add to the budget of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, or you can create a separate fast-track appeal process for dealing with complaints under this act. You can also make money available for compliance by perhaps making funds available to the institutions and agencies that would be affected by this act to help them comply, to help them make accommodations for the disabled; perhaps some funds as well to staff at the Human Rights Commission to assist these employers on how to develop these programs.
Finally, the other concern we have with the exemption clause, if I can go back to the exemption clause, is that it seems to set a lower standard for undue hardship when an agency or an employer is trying to argue that it can't comply. It simply talks about an "undue financial burden," and we think this is totally inconsistent with the standard that's set out in the Ontario Human Rights Code, which specifically mentions that it ought to be undue hardship that the employer or agency must demonstrate.
On that point, I'll close. Thank you.
Mr John McKinnon: I just wanted to make a couple of comments about two things: about the purpose clause, and about the issue of ministerial accountability for the implementation of this legislation.
With respect to the purpose clause, we did have an opportunity to review the brief of the Ontario public service advisory group, and they raised some concerns about the scope of the purpose clause. It may be helpful to consider addressing some of the escape routes in there, because we think it should be equal access not just to services and facilities but also, since the government is one of the largest procurers of goods in the province, we think the bill should guarantee equal access to goods as well as services and facilities, and this might be a useful addition to the bill.
At the same time, in terms of the barriers, we believe the goal should not just be aimed at the deliberate and systemic barriers, but that it would also be useful to specify that we're aiming at the unintentional barriers as well; also, not just the removal of existing barriers, but hopefully we're going to put in place some legislation which will prevent the formation of new barriers as technology and service delivery progresses.
The second point I wanted to deal with was the issue of ministerial accountability for the implementation of this legislation.
We believe that it's very important that the minister who is designated as responsible for this legislation actively study the dimensions of the problem. Statistical analysis should be done and the figures should be obtained about the problems we're dealing with and the problems we're trying to address. This should be reported annually to a committee of this Legislature, and it should be done in the context of public hearings so that the people whom this bill is supposed to benefit have an opportunity annually to evaluate the success of this bill in front of the Legislature. We think that public hearings and ministerial studies of the dimensions of the problems are important key tools to ensuring that this bill is implemented in the most effective way possible.
Just to wrap up, we appreciate that Bill 168 may not be perfect or may not be any particular party's or any particular disability rights organization's idea of the ideal law. However, there does appear to be a broad consensus among the people who are most concerned that this bill would be a significant step in the right direction.
Injured workers support the bill because injured workers need all the help they can get. If you think that the workers' compensation system is addressing all the concerns of injured workers about barriers to access to service and facilities, you're sadly mistaken; and not just services at the Workers' Compensation Board -- although if you take a look at the statistics, you'll find that among the permanently disabled, even a year to three years after the injury there is still a 79% unemployment rate among injured workers with permanent disabilities -- but also, injured workers need access to the service and facilities at Queen's Park. As Mr Buonastella mentioned, Mr Malkowski has helped us, but there are obviously still significant problems with injured workers getting here and being heard.
So, as we've spent the past six months trying to stop the government from proceeding with a bad bill, Bill 165, we're worried that nothing may be done to implement this bill and to pass a good bill, and we urge all the parties to bring this bill into the Legislature and to give it serious consideration. And if you wanted to table Bill 165 and proceed and vote on Bill 168, then you have our blessings on that.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Mr Curling: And thank you for your presentation. I just want to correct you a bit, and I stand very humbly in trying to correct you. The minister did not support this legislation as it is written, she said; she says the intent. Neither did the government. The entire caucus did, though, as stated in the presentation made by Mr O'Connor.
I was concerned when I heard the minister's presentation and she did not request any kind of cost assessment from any of the ministries, like the Ministry of Transportation. That told me the whole story; that told me this legislation would not see the light of day.
Because of the short time we have here to question you -- and you indicate some concerns, like any legislation that comes before us, where you'd like some amendments -- I won't even deal with that now because of the time element. I think what our caucus will do is request further time, when this House recesses or prorogues, to hear this bill. Maybe that's one of the requests that will get the full support of all the members here, that when it prorogues on Thursday, not only will a motion pass to keep it alive but also that the hearings will continue so we can continue the direction or the intent the minister stated.
I want to thank you for making your presentation. My great concern is that regardless of the intent of Mr Malkowski, I think his caucus and this government will not listen to him. If we are quite serious about this situation, we'll proceed with it in this manner.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): After that quite non-partisan comment, I'd ask a question to the presenter. Karl Crevar made a comment that it's unfortunate that in this day and age it takes legislation to move on some of these issues, that it should be just the way we do business and just the way we operate as a society, to provide access for all people. But if it's not done through legislation, how? That would be the question I would ask.
Mr Crevar: Don't misunderstand what I said. My concern was that, as shown in the past, it takes legislation to address a problem that's been there for many, many years. People with disabilities have a right as human beings, we have a right to everyday living. Those were just my personal comments on that particular question.
Mr Malkowski: I just wanted to have the opportunity on the record to thank you for coming with your presentation. It was very helpful, and I very much appreciate your time. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other question? We'd like to thank you, Mr Buonastella, Mr McKinnon, Mr Spano, and Mr and Mrs Crevar, for coming and participating in these discussions. This committee is adjourned until tomorrow.
The committee adjourned at 1730.