ODA Update
January 29, 2001

Here is a great sampling of activity which is going on right
around the province at the grass-roots in support of the ODA.
Below you will find:

An article in the Sault Ste. Marie newspaper, The Sault Star, reporting on
recent ODA Activities.

A letter to Premier Harris from the Chair of the Ontario Board
of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, calling for the
ODA, and making it clear that voluntary measures do not succceed
in effectively addressing the barriers we face. As have a number
of disability organizations, the CNIB has helpfully focused
attention on certain specific barriers of concern to persons with
vision disabilities.

Letters to the editor from ODA supporters in Hamilton and
Kitchener. Note how they weave the ODA message into recent issues
in their communities.

The text of an excellent speech on the ODA which an Ottawa ODA
supporter, Kevin Armstrong, gave to his Toastmasters Club. This
is yet another creative way for getting out our message. His
speech is a great model from which others may wish to borrow.

Keep the action going! Don't forget to read, use, and circulate
our most recent action kit. If you need a copy, Email me at
oda@odacommittee.net

 

The Sault Star Tuesday, January 16, 2001 Page B-1 Disabilities Network Advocates Accessibility By BRIAN KELLY If Sylvia Mosher ever wants to meet with Major John Rowswell to talk about accessibility for the handicapped to municipal buildings, they might want to meet somewhere besides the Civic Centre. "I can't even get into city hall without help," she said. The main doors to the building, which opened in 1974, are not automated so she'd need someone to hold one open for her so she could get inside. Mosher uses a wheelchair because of her cerebral palsy. If she wanted to attend a city council meeting during the winter when she cannot access the wheelchair ramp, she'd have to make arrangements to have someone meet her at a rear entrance to let her in. Accessibility continues to be a problem for city residents such as Mosher who have a disability. They continue to wait for the Conservative government to update the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Premier Mike Harris has promised to introduce the legislation since his government was first elected in 1995. Mosher, who is a part-time English student at Algoma University College, said she has no idea why it is taking the Tories so long to lend a hand to the disabled through a strong legislative program. Dorothy Macnaughton might be able to offer some suggestions. She's the spokesperson for the Sault Ste. Marie Disabilities Network. Created last year following a visit to the city by Liberal MPP Steve Peters to gather input for new disabilities legislation, the group has already attracted about 40 members including Mosher. "It's partly a matter of other priorities having come along. Little bit by little bit it looks like (the Conservative government) is going to do somthing but nothing happens," said Macnaughton, who is visually impaired. "Disabled people have been knocked down so many times that they haven't been very vocal." She is hoping the Sault Ste. Marie Disabilties Network, which is one of about 20 similar advocacy groups spread across the province that are affiliated with the Toronto-based non-partisan coalition Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, will be successful in drawing the public's attention to the daily access and transportation barriers disabled people face and encourage the government to implement necessary legislation. The group first met last June when approximately 15 people gathered at St. Andrew's United Church. Now, the Sault Ste. Marie Disabilities Network wants to appear before city council in the near future to ask the mayor and 12 councillors to pass a resolution supporting the cessation of community barriers to the disabled. Approximately 20 other cities in the province have already passed a similar resolution during the past two years to help further pressure the Ontario government. The Sault Ste. Marie Disabilities Network should know by the middle of this week when it will appear before council. It's part of a long struggle to have these problems recognized and acted upon, said Macnaughton. "Disabled people often get marginalized. They feel very isolated. You feel there are times when you shouldn't have to fight for some of the things you have to fight for. They should be guaranteed in law," she said. Such legislation just makes sense, said Mosher. "If Ontario was accessible, everyone would benefit in the long run," said the Sault Star columnist. "As the population grows older, there's going to be more people whose movement is limited." Peters' Ontarians with Disabilities Act would: - require existing barriers to be located and removed in an orderly way; - prevent new barriers from being created in the future; - give everyone a say in how to achieve this quickly and practically. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee website can be accessed at www.oda-committee.net   Top of Page

The Canadian National Institute for the Blind Ontario Division 1929 Bayview Avenue Toronto, Ontario Canada M4G 3E8 (416) 486-2500 Fax: (416) 480-7503 www.cnib.ca/on Honorary Patron: The Honourable Hilary M Weston Lieutenant Governor of Ontario January 24, 2001 The Hon. Michael Harris Premier of Ontario Legislative Building, Room 281 Queen's Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 Dear Mr. Harris: In my capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Ontario Division, I am writing to ensure that you are aware of the importance we place on the enactment of meaningful legislation with respect to the Ontarians With Disabilities Act. In our view, sound legislation is needed to remove barriers that hinder access by the blind and visually impaired to the many community services that sighted people enjoy. Based on my dialogue with clients, volunteers and staff throughout the province, it is evident that the many informal, voluntary efforts which have been made in the past to improve the independence of blind citizens are not working in a meaningful way. An effective ODA could significantly contribute to enabling blind and visually impaired persons to attain a level of independence that would both enhance their quality of life and would also make good economic sense. While there are clearly a number of issues which ultimately should be addressed, we offer two specific recommendations: First of all, the legislation should emphasize the importance of enabling young and working age blind persons to develop the skills that will permit them to become citizens who contribute to society, by ensuring proper educational support, access to state-of-the-art technical equipment and an environment that motivates employers to give these individuals an opportunity to show their worth. There are currently 10,000 individuals of working age in Ontario who are clients of the CNIB. It is disheartening when we examine the statistical data produced by Stats Can (HALS) and learn that approximately 75% of working age blind persons are still either unemployed or underemployed. We firmly believe that consumers of social services can be converted into a pool of talented contributors to the economy of this province. While legislation is not the sole driving force, it could meaningfully contribute to establishing a policy direction. I have enclosed a video tape of a recent Global news report that depicts what can be done to build independence when all the elements - a determined individual, an enlightened employer, a helping hand (CNIB) and the technical tools and training come together. Our dream is that this becomes the rule, rather than the exception. The second recommendation relates to the need to improve accessibility to information. This is a universal problem for all blind and visually impaired individuals, including the 50,000 who are clients of the CNIB in Ontario. While this is a more difficult area to economically justify legislated initiatives, we believe, with the advancement in today's technology, that there is potential to make meaningful strides at a very small cost. And the payback is a segment of society who can better function independently. Mr. Harris, we would like the opportunity to share our first hand knowledge and offer specific recommendations for consideration as part of drafting the new Ontarians With Disabilities Act. The CNIB has an eighty-three year history of service to persons who are blind, visually impaired or deafblind. With over 10,000 volunteers and 500 staff serving some 50,000 consumers across the province, we are in an excellent position to offer your government the benefit of our experience and expertise and believe that we can make a positive contribution to an important piece of legislation. My colleagues and I can be reached through the offices of the Executive Director, CNIB Ontario Division, 1929 Bayview Ave., Toronto, ON M4G 3E8, Tel. 416-480-7689. Sincerely, A. Jameson, Chair Ontario Division Board cc. The Hon. Helen Johns, Minister of Culture, Citizenship & Recreation Dr. Penny Hartin, Executive Director CNIB Ontario Division Mr. David Lepofsky, Chair Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee   Top of Page

Letters to the Editor Hamilton Spectator January 18, 2001 44 Frid Street Hamilton, Ont. L8N 3G3 By Fax: 526-3558 Disadvantaged Hit Hardest RE: "Drive Clean Test Results Challenged" (Jan. 13 Spectator) I agree with Mohamed Bouchama, executive director of the Toronto- based Automobile Consumer Association, that Drive Clean burdens those least able to afford it. Ontario once again pays lip service to re-employment for the disadvantaged including the disabled. These people the likely owners of older cars are forced to bear almost the entire burden for clean air. Many of those whom Ontario claims to want to help most to get back to work are on workfare at $300-$500 a month, or the Ontario Disability Support Plan at $700 a month. If these people cannot find the average $550 Bouchama claims is the cost of repairing vehicles for Drive Clean (or more, considering this group's cars are probably older) they have to set opportunity aside. These are the unemployed, single mothers, visible minorities particularly the disabled - re-entering the workforce after ODSP has stripped them of assets with a means test and benefits that have not increased in 11 years. With Drive Clean they are deprived of their car most valuable tool to find, and qualify for, that difficult-to-get re-entry job. They must give up those opportunities to which a car might entitle them, spend that much longer on benefits, and suffer that much more indignity and poverty. Where is this Ontario government's much crowed-about employment initiative? Where is the promised Ontarians with Disabilities Act to prevent much of this discrimination? Where does the fastidious Ontario Human Rights Commission stand right now? Where are the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario? Geoff Langhorne Hamilton Top of Page   The following letter appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on Monday, December 11, 2000, page A8 Disabled deserve access I was shocked to read the Dec. 4 story about the opposition to a group home in a Kitchener neighbourhood. At that time, the major complaint of those opposing the group home was "having to look at the poor disabled people." In a December 6 story, the complaint had changed to a more palatable objection to the possibility of parking congestion. Both complaints have the same root idea. The people who oppose the group home have the notion that because of their economic affluence, they have the right to decide "where the poor disabled people" live. Persons with a disability have as much right to live in a neighbourhood as anyone else. Premier Mike Harris should take notice of attitudinal barriers that people with disabilities face. He promised during the 1995 election campaign to pass legislation dealing with the discrimination faced by persons with disabilities. Disability advocates who want to hold the premier accountable to his promise have had difficulty convincing him that the legislation is indeed necessary. A good example of the reasons why legislation is necessary is seen with the Lackner Woods case. I work with a municipal committee that tries to make sure that issues of physical access are brought to the attention of those who plan municipal buildings. Building access, however, is much easier to achieve than attitudinal access. Brad Ullner Waterloo   Top of Page

What is the ODA? Toastmaster's Ottawa Luncheon Troopers Speech #3 Delivered before the Luncheon Troopers on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 By: Kevin Armstrong Note: Nearly all of this speech has been cobbled together from bits and pieces provided in ODA Committee emails. Imagine going to a restaurant with a group of friends and being told at the door that, while your companions can enter, you cannot. Or imagine inside the restaurant being told that you cannot order from the menu or use the washrooms. We normally don't imagine such scenarios happening in a country like Canada. Well... Think again. Madame Chair, fellow Toastmasters, and guests. Why is it that for so many Canadians, exactly these kinds of scenarios are harsh reality? One reason could be that they have disabilities. A better reason is that there is a distinct lack of legislation that would make mandatory the removal of barriers and impediments that make precisely these situations a reality. Today I am going to share with you what I have learned over the last couple of years about the disabilities' communities in Ontario. After putting this topic into an appreciable context, I will briefly discuss the concept of what is known as the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Then, I will sum up with some thoughts about why this topic is important for all Ontarians. Can I see by a show of hands how many people here know someone with a disability? (nearly all, if not all, raise their hands - with no hesitation). Our collective response here demonstrates an important point: In fact, everyone in Ontario either has a disability, will acquire a disability, or knows someone with a disability. Now already we can see that this is not a narrow or parochial topic; it touches all of us. In fact, there are 1.5 million persons with disabilities in Ontario today. On average, this group has 4 times the unemployment rate as the rest of Canada, and the earning power of those of working age is radically less than for other Canadians. Now we have some context to the topic of persons with disabilities. Let's look at one snapshot from these 1.5 million. [note: the following is adapted from a London Free Press article circulated to ODA Committee people through email] One person I've come to know of over the last couple of years is a woman named Cathy. She lives in London, Ontario. Twelve years ago, she was diagnosed with Multiple Slcorosis. What this means for her on bad days is that she barely has enough energy to get from her bed to her computer - which is her lifeline to the world. She engages herself on these bad days by negotiating with her body. Just a half-hour to make a to-do list for her home support worker, check her email, and maybe get a bite to eat. Just a half hour and then the fatigue of MS takes over. But MS isn't the only challenge in her life. She has to book transportation a week in advance. Lack of accessible washrooms continues to keep her out of many public buildings, and that's assuming these buildings are accessible. These are just a few barriers that Cathy is continually confronted with. So we can see, there are Physical barriers - like lack of adequate transportation and accessible buildings and public spaces. There are Informational barriers too. These arise because of a lack of alternative formats to the printed word, and lack of translators available where information exchange is so important, like hospitals. But perhaps above all, there are Attitudinal barriers. These are the impediments caused by a certain norm with respect to thinking about persons with disabilities. It is an accepted, but uncritical, judgment about contributions and abilities in general with respect to persons with disabilities. It leads to a despairing view of what can be hoped for. Yet, it was people like Cathy and 19 other persons with disabilities that came together some seven years ago to form one of the most impressive grass roots civic movements in recent history in this province. They did this by starting the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. Now, this movement has hundreds of supporters, 100 supporting organizations, and over 20 regional and municipal council resolutions in support of its aims and principles. Their goal is to secure the passage of an effective legislation that would make mandatory the identification, removal and prevention of barriers - Physical, Informational, and Attitudinal, in Ontario. Why is an ODA so important? Well, if the government is impress us all with continued investment in new infrastructure, it would be foolhardy to have it done according to existing codes and standards which would only guarantee that the many kinds of barriers we are already well-aware of will be structurally engrained? Some have argued that this legislation should be merely voluntary, not mandatory. Yet just as with taxes, this legislation needs strong management and enforcement measures. Some have suggested that only certain sectors be addressed in ODA legislation. Yet buildings are the same, whether in private, public, or voluntary sectors. Some have raised the issue of cost. There is no question that an ODA, if it is effective, will incur some costs. Most all legislation does. However, if implemented on a sector by sector basis is a smart, methodical and planned manner, the costs would not be prohibitive at all. This is especially so once the benefits of an ODA become evident. The concept of "cost" instead should be seen as an investment. And this brings me to my conclusion: What are the benefits of an ODA? Why is this something all Ontarians should think about? First. This is manifestly not about charity. This is about making an investment in untapped potential and opportunities. It is about creating the conditions where equal partners can begin to get on with the business of jobs, education, health, families and most generally, life. Second. Persons with disabilities are not the only beneficiaries of a strong, effective ODA. As the population ages, there will be more and more persons who will appreciate safer, easier access in public spaces. Families with children and pregnant women as well are other examples of the wider benefits of an ODA. Indeed, an ODA that made it mandatory to remove barriers would instill a smarter, more intelligent approach to everything from urban planning, to school playground design, to homes and buildings. New designs, new capital acquisitions, new infrastructure would have simply more thought going into the process. That can't hurt! To conclude, I want to repeat a notion I've heard on this issue: The idea that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable - and I believe this to be true. Yet when this issue of an ODA reaches you as it will in the near future, I urge you to support a strong, effective ODA that includes MANDATORY measures mostly because it makes so much good sense, for all the reasons I've mentioned. In the end, justice and good sense probably aren't that different at any rate. Either would do for the 1.5 million persons with disabilities in Ontario - and, as I've argued, for the rest of Ontario too. Thank you

Top of Page

 

Website maintained by Barbara Anello

Please email your feedback on the website.

Last updated January 29, 2001