INTRODUCTION

The following are amendments which the ODA Committee proposes for Bill 125. This bill's preamble reinforces the goals and vision put forward by the ODA Committee, namely the creation of a barrier-free society that provides full citizenship for and full participation by persons with disabilities in all aspects of Ontario life. The following amendments serve to achieve this goal.

One theme among these amendments involves an important change of terminology in the bill. Through the bill, the term "accessibility" has been used. In our proposed amendments, we replace that term with "barrier-free." This term is more inclusive. To some, "accessibility" appears to connote only or primarily removal of physical barriers. It is important that the ODA address all barriers, and that it be clearly heard and seen to address all barriers.

1. Purpose Clause

Recommendation 1: Replace the purpose clause set out in s. 1 with:

The purpose of this Act is to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities, through the identification and removal of existing barriers and the prevention of new barriers which prevent persons with disabilities from fully participating in all aspects of life in Ontario and to ensure that they play central role in the mechanisms established to achieve this goal.

Rationale: Section 1 of the bill now only refers to improving opportunities rather than achieving a barrier-free Ontario. The language in the preamble is stronger than the bill's "purpose" section. The goal of a barrier-free province should be clearly enshrined in the purpose clause. It is the purpose clause that will be used as a guide to interpreting the rest of the legislation. This proposed amendment makes the bill's purpose clause more suited to the preamble and some of the Government's stated goals as well as those of the ODA Committee.

2. Definitions

Recommendation 2.1: Amend the definition of barrier in s. 2 to read:

"barrier" means anything that prevents a person from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a barrier can be a physical barrier, including architectural barriers, an information or communication barrier such as a method of communication, an attitudinal barrier and/or a technological barrier, and barriers can include a policy or practice.

Rationale: As now written, the definition of barrier is too restrictive. Our goal is to ensure that the definition of "barrier" is as inclusive as possible, i.e. it must include all obstacles against all persons with any disability.

Our amendment removes the current wording: "that is not an obstacle to access for other persons." Whether or not people without disabilities are affected by the barrier should be irrelevant. Under the current definition, stairs in front of a building might not be a barrier. This is because they are a barrier not only to people in wheelchairs, but also to persons without a disability pushing a baby stroller or shopping cart.

Recommendation 2.2: Amend the definition of "disability" to add environmental and chemical sensitivity and brain injury as follows:

(a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, chemical and environmental sensitivities, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device,

(b) an intellectual disability,

(c) a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language,

(c)(1) a brain injury

(d) a mental disorder, or

(e) an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997; ("handicap")

Rationale: brain injury and chemical and environmental sensitivities are added by our amendment. The term "developmental disability" is changed to intellectual disability. The requirement in the current bill that the disability must be shown to stem from bodily injury, illness or birth defect in the first paragraph was removed. This is because the cause of the disability is irrelevant.

Recommendation 2.3: Amend the definition of "Government of Ontario" to include "the legislature and Legislative assembly of Ontario and its officers."

Rationale: This avoids any dispute over whether the requirements of the ODA apply fully to the Ontario Legislature in all respects. As we have learned throughout the years of advocating for the ODA, the Legislature itself has too many barriers impeding persons with disabilities from experiencing full citizenship at the very heart of our provincial democracy.

Recommendation 2.4: Amend the definition of "ministry" to provide:

"ministry" means a ministry of the Government of Ontario and includes any other organization that the regulations designate as a ministry for the purposes of this Act, but does not include an organization ("ministŠre");

Rationale: this amendment would remove the ability of the government to exempt a Ministry from the application of this legislation. There is no reason why any ministry of the Ontario Government should be granted an exemption from the requirements of the ODA. This is particularly so since the Ontario Government has stated that it intends the provincial government to "lead by example."

Recommendation 2.5: Amend the definition of Ontario government publication as follows:

"Ontario Government publication" means a publication or an appendix to a publication in any form, including print and electronic forms, that the Government of Ontario, an officer of the Assembly or an officer of the Legislature issues; or a publication that is created by any organization with funds provided by the Ontario Government.

Rationale: In today's society information is the basis for full participation in all aspects of life, such as education, employment or social interaction. The definition should be broad and expansive rather than one that is narrow and that permits exceptions. The information dealt with in this section is important not only to the public, as citizens and taxpayers, but also to people who are employed in the government and elsewhere. Excluding technical and scientific material, as the provision currently does, could have a significant adverse impact on the ability of a person with a disability to obtain employment or otherwise participate fully in society.
Recommendation 2.6: Delete the definition of "Scheduled
organization" and the related schedule to the bill.

Rationale: Under the bill, an organization outside certain categories is not covered by the ODA unless it is "scheduled" i.e. included in the schedule to the bill. The bill now lets Cabinet add or remove any organization it wishes from that schedule. The bill sets out no criteria or basis for Cabinet determining when and if an organization should be scheduled.

Instead, the ODA Committee believes that the legislation should apply to all organizations, including the private sector. The only policy question is the time frame in which the legislation's obligations should come into effect for particular classes of organizations. Our amendment here helps implement our approach. Our other amendments taken together address this policy question. For example, our other amendments, among other things, delete the term "scheduled organization" wherever else it appears in the bill.

Recommendation 2.7: Add a definition for "organization"

"Organization" means any person, entity, or class or persons or entity carrying out a business, enterprise or other activity that offers goods, facilities or services, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes Every district school board as defined in section 1 of the Education Act and every board established under section 68 of that Act, Every hospital as defined in the Public Hospitals Act and every private hospital operated under the authority of a licence issued under the Private Hospitals Act, A board of governors of a college of applied arts and technology, and Every university in Ontario, and its affiliated and federated colleges.

Rationale: There is nothing now in the legislation that defines "organization" to ensure that those who provide goods, facilities and services are subject to this legislation. Our amendment achieves this goal. Moreover, this amendment ensures that the term "organization" includes within it all those who had been defined as "scheduled organizations" under the bill as currently drafted. In the last recommendation, we proposed removing the term "scheduled organization" from the bill. Here we make sure that bill's coverage definitely includes all those who had been listed in the "scheduled organization" definition.

Recommendation 2.8: Amend the definition of employees of the Government of Ontario as follows:

For the purposes of this Act any reference to "employees of the Government of Ontario" also includes consultants, agents or contractors or anyone else doing work with or for the Ontario Government in order to ensure that all persons paid with government funds for their work or services are covered by this legislation.

Rationale: As the bill is now written, it does not apply to all persons with disabilities who do work with or for the Ontario Government. It covers only those defined in law as "public servants." Many people who work for the Government and provide government services directly or indirectly, including persons with disabilities, are not in the group defined as "public servants." The definition of public servants in Ontario legislation is: "public servant" means a person appointed under this Act to the service of the Crown by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by the Commission or by a minister; and "public service" has a corresponding meaning ("fonctionnaire," "fonction publique"). is no reason why the ODA should address only barriers facing some persons with disabilities who do work with or for the Ontario Government, rather than all of them.

3. Rights of People with Disabilities Not Reduced

Recommendation 3: Amend s. 3, recognition of existing legal obligations, as follows:

Nothing in this Act or in any regulations or standards or guidelines made pursuant to it diminishes in any way the obligations of any person or organization, including the Government of Ontario, to persons with disabilities.

Rationale: It is fundamentally important that it be made clear in this bill that nothing in this legislation in any way restricts or reduces the obligations of the Government or any other person or organization to persons with disabilities. The ODA must enhance the rights of persons with disabilities. Nothing in it should be allowed to reduce their rights.

All s. 3 of the bill now protects is "the operation of the Human Rights Code." That is too narrow.

4. Obligations of the Government

Recommendation 4: s. 4(1) should be amended as follows:

In consultation with persons with disabilities through the Barrier-Free Council and Directorate and others, the Government of Ontario shall develop and adopt barrier- free design standards to promote accessibility for persons with disabilities to buildings, structures and premises, or parts of buildings, structures and premises, that the Government owns, purchases, leases, or constructs whether or not the building is significantly renovated after this section comes into force. These standards must address all types of barriers, not only barriers to physical access.

For the purposes of this section, the obligation to develop standards can include adopting or adapting existing guidelines.

The standards must be incorporated into regulations no later than six months after they are completed.

Also amend s. 4(3) as follows:

Regulations setting out the time frames for the development and adoption of the barrier-free design standards or other criteria shall be created no later than six months after this legislation is proclaimed in force. The criteria used to determine the time frames may include cost, projected future occupancy, use of the building, and other relevant factors. The regulation shall be developed after consultation with persons with disabilities and other stakeholders affected by the regulation.

The Government of Ontario shall certify that the design of buildings, structures and premises, or parts of buildings, structures and premises, that it owns, purchases, leases or constructs complies with the standards before occupation of the premises or regular use of it by its employees. The certification should be publicly displayed at the site and made available to the public on request. Buildings should be re-certified on a regular basis as determined by regulation.

The standards are not regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act.

Rationale: The provision should specify how the consultation will occur. Preferably there should be an independent agency charged with developing the standards. However in the absence of this type of body, the Government must ensure that the people with the appropriate expertise develop the standards.

The bill at present is too limited both in terms of which buildings are covered and which barriers are to be addressed. Now the bill covers only newly acquired and newly renovated government buildings, rather than all government buildings. It also covers only barriers to physical access, not all barriers. It is important to specify in the legislation that all barriers must be addressed. Barriers other than physical access might include having a space for persons who need to find a safe area during a period of high stress, ensuring that the lighting can be modified for persons with epilepsy so that it does not trigger a seizure, and considering the needs of people with environmental and chemical sensitivities.

This section should apply to current buildings, not just newly occupied buildings. The time line for barrier removal may depend on the type of building. However, failing to include current occupancy significantly reduces the impact of the legislation. The alternative to these proposed amendments would be to force persons with disabilities to have to continue to depend solely on the protracted process of individual Human Rights complaints to remove existing barriers.

Subsection 4(2) should be deleted. It permits the standards to be as low as the standards in the Ontario Building Code. If the goal of the legislation is barrier removal and prevention, then nothing short of barrier removal should be acceptable. The Building Code has many limitations, and addresses only a narrow range of barriers. To accept it as a minimum level beyond which the standards need not go, would effectively exclude the removal and prevention of many significant barriers, including those referred to above.

Subsection 4(3) should be significantly amended. The time frames should be set by regulation rather than guidelines, so that they are enforceable and there is public accountability. There should be a public process for comment on the time lines, with rationales provided by the Government.

There should be no power to exempt any class of building or structure from the application of this legislation if it is to be meet its purpose to create a barrier-free society. Where the cost of physical renovations to a particular site is very expensive, the ministry's barrier free plan may include in the interim effective alternative mechanisms for delivering services rather than prompt physical renovation, such as an alternative location.

By replacing the term "ensure" in subsection 4(4) with "certify", as we here propose, our amendment would signify compliance with a specific process and documentation requirement. This could be similar to elevator inspections, for example. By making the certification publicly available, the public would be able to help evaluate compliance. The purpose of the re-certification is to ensure that compliance is maintained. It also makes a certifying person accountable for his or her decision. Standardized public symbols for certification would be extremely helpful.

It is not enough simply to require the Government to consider compliance with the regulations or standards. The Government must commit not to lease premises that are non-compliant. Where that is not possible, the premises must be brought into compliance. If this section were to permit exceptions, it will perpetuate the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for premises that maintain barriers for people with disabilities. That would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the legislation.

Re Subsection 4(6): For the reasons stated above, this section should be deleted. The standards should be set in regulation. This ensures that there is publication of the standards, consultation prior to their enactment (see amendments to s. 22 below), and the ability to enforce non-compliance.

5. Government Purchasing Goods and Services

Recommendation 5: Section 5 should be amended as follows:

The Government shall not purchase goods or services for the use of itself, its employees or the public that create or maintain barriers for persons with disabilities. Where this is not possible because the goods or services are not available in an appropriate form, the Government shall ensure that the benefits of the goods and services are available for persons with disabilities at no extra cost or effort to persons with disabilities.

The Government, in consultation with persons with disabilities and others through the Directorate, shall develop regulations setting out the standards for barrier-free goods and services.

Rationale: The provisions in the bill in this area now simply ask the Government to "consider" accessibility when purchasing goods and services. This is not sufficient to promote, much less to ensure, a barrier-free society. As a large purchaser or goods and services, the Government can play a leadership role and have a significant impact on society as a whole by demanding goods and services that are barrier free.

The additional section in our proposed amendment recognizes that like the standards for buildings, there must be standards for barrier free goods and services. These must be developed in consultation with persons with disabilities. Without these standards, and without an inclusive process to develop them, it is unlikely that those responsible for government purchasing of goods and services will be able to effectively identify potential barriers. We want to avoid their unwittingly perpetuating the use of government funds to buy goods and services which are not fully usable by persons with disabilities.

6. Government Websites

Recommendation 6: Section 6 should be amended as follows:

The Government of Ontario shall ensure that its internet
sites and the content provided on those sites are barrier
free. This includes ensuring that the websites do not
contain content or form that perpetuate attitudinal
barriers, as well as physical barriers.

Rationale: Currently, the bill only requires that the format of
Government web sites be accessible. It is not only the web site
format that must be barrier-free, but the content itself. It is
also important to address the attitudinal barriers to ensure that
people with disabilities such as mental illness do not find
themselves excluded or stigmatized by the web site or the
material on the site.

7. Government Publications

Recommendation 7: Section 7 should be amended as follows:

Government publications must be barrier free in terms of
both format and content. Regulations must be developed and
enacted within six months of this legislation coming into
effect, setting out the standard formats in which material
must be available. Where a needed format is not required in
the regulations, the government must make all reasonable
efforts to respond in a timely way and in any event, in not
more than 72 hours, to any request for
different formats. Whenever a document has been created
in electronic form, it shall be available forthwith in an
electronic form that is accessible on request.

In terms of content of government publications,
information must be available in ways that can be
understood and be free of content which would stigmatize
or otherwise create a barrier for a person with a
disability. Assistance in understanding Government
publications must be made available to those persons who
have a need for that information and whose disability
makes it difficult for them to understand complex
material. Where possible, plain language should be used
in these publications to foster access to them for all.

Rationale: Information is a critical component of everyday life.
People with disabilities should not be disadvantaged by having to
make special requests, be unsure as to whether the request will
be honoured and, if so, when. The inability to access critical
information can affect a person's livelihood, legal rights and
full participation as citizens. There will be times when some
formats are not immediately available. This should be dealt with
within 72 hours. It is also important, as with the web sites, to
address the content of government publications in terms of the
potential to stigmatize people and create attitudinal barriers,
and to ensure that the information itself is able to be
understood by everyone.

8. Government Employees

Recommendation 8.1: Section 8 should be amended to provide as follows:

The Government of Ontario shall create and maintain a
barrier-free work environment in which persons with
disabilities can obtain employment, maintain employment,
fully participate in all aspects of work life, and
advance in their career goals.

Rationale: In its present form, s. 8(1) simply repeats what has
been the Government's obligation for 20 years. The government is
already required to comply with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Under the bill as currently drafted, the Ontario Government can
operate its workplace without regard to the needs of employees
with disabilities. The Government can leave the burden on
employees with disabilities to seek job accommodation to their
disabilities, and file human rights complaints if they are not
accommodated.
Our amendment is intended to take a more constructive and
proactive approach. It obliges the Ontario Government to actively
create a barrier-free workplace for its employees.

Recommendation 8.2: Section 8 should be further amended as
follows:

The obligation to create a barrier-free work environment
includes all aspects of employment including recruitment and
hiring, training, promotion and employment-related
interaction.

Rationale: As drafted, the section in the bill now suggests that
it applies only if the Government decides that they want to
interview the person with a disability. Our amendment is based on
the idea that steps should be taken by the Government pro-
actively to inform the public that Ontario is committed to a
barrier-free workplace environment, and to encourage people with
disabilities to apply for positions and promotions in it.

In addition, the section now suggests or implies that the
accommodation to which it pertains relates only to physical
barriers. This is because the provision now refers only to
"accessibility." It should be amended to make it clear that there
is an obligation to take steps to remove all other barriers,
including attitudinal barriers.

Recommendation 8.3: Amend section 8 to add:

The Minister and Deputy Minister of each ministry are
responsible for ensuring that the obligation to create a
barrier-free work environment is met within their
ministry, including ensuring that all employees
responsible for implementation receive appropriate,
ongoing training. All deputy ministers and assistant
deputy ministers shall receive their training within one
year of this Act coming into force. All other employees who
are to receive training shall receive that training within
two years of this Act coming into force.

Rationale: The current provision says only that managerial
employees are to receive training. It does not specify who is
responsible for this. It is not sufficient to train senior
management, there must be a clear commitment and obligation from
the top down with clear accountability. Our amendment establishes
this on a ministry by ministry basis. As well, the current
provision does not set any time lines for this training. Our
amendment provides these.

Recommendation 8.4: Amend section 8 to add:

All employees must be made aware of the policy, of what
steps are being taken to develop a barrier-free work
environment and of the process for obtaining appropriate
employment accommodation.

Employment accommodation must be provided in a timely manner.

Rationale: Where accommodation is delayed or not provided in a
timely manner, the employee's ability to perform his or her
duties is undermined. This may have long-term consequences both
on career development, and on the employee's relationship with
their colleagues.

Recommendation 8.5: Amend section 8 to add:

A person shall be designated in each Ministry who is
responsible for ensuring that appropriate accommodation
is provided to persons with disabilities who require
accommodation.

Rationale: There needs to be a single person in each ministry who
is specifically responsible and accountable for ensuring that the
accommodation needs of persons with disabilities are met. This
kind of strategy has been successful in other areas such as
occupational health and safety.

Recommendation 8.6: Amend section 8 to provide:

Information provided to the designated person concerning
a person's disability shall not be disclosed to any other
person without the consent of the employee, except for audit
purposes.

Rationale: For many people with invisible disabilities, such as
mental illness, the fear of discrimination and stigma may make a
person reticent to request accommodation. The process for seeking
and receiving accommodation in the workplace should be designed
so as to be barrier-free. This amendment helps advance this goal.

Recommendation 8.7: Section 8 should be further amended to add:

Where a Ministry or employee determines that
accommodation will not be provided, the applicant must be
advised of the reasons in writing. All refusals of
accommodation must be approved by the Deputy Minister.
The applicant for accommodation may appeal the decision to
the Disability Directorate. The directorate shall
consider the appeal in accordance with the duty of
fairness and shall render a decision with written reasons
within 30 days of receiving notification of the appeal from
the person with a disability.

Rationale: Currently the bill provides no internal procedure to
assist Ontario Government employees who seek and are refused
accommodation in the workplace. This amendment would provide a
prompt, accountable process internal to the Ontario Government.
This will reduce the need to resort to filing complaints with the
Human Rights Commission.

In order to remove workplace barriers, including attitudinal
barriers, and the fear that requesting accommodation may be
perceived negatively, senior management has an obligation to
educate all employees as to the procedure for applying for
workplace accommodation and for addressing refusals of
accommodation.

Recommendation 8.8: Section 8(5) should be amended to provide:

The Management Board Secretariat shall, out of the money
appropriated annually to it for this purpose, which shall
not be an amount less than that appropriated in the
fiscal year in which this Act comes into force, authorize
prompt reimbursement to a ministry for eligible expenses
that the ministry has incurred in fulfilling the
ministry's obligations under subsections (1) and (2). The
amount reimbursed should be sufficient to meet the full
range of employee accommodation needs.

(6) The reimbursement shall be in the amount that the
Management Board Secretariat determines and be made in
accordance with the standards established by the
Management Board Secretariat. The standards shall include
all types of disabilities, be made available to all
employees, and be developed in consultation with
employees with disabilities of the Government of Ontario,
such consultation being conducted through the Disability
Directorate.

Where the Management Board Secretariat receives a request
for funds by a ministry in accordance with subsection
(5), a decision on that request shall be made within 14
days, and shall be provided in writing. If the request for
funding is not granted in full, detailed reasons for the
refusal shall be provided in writing. The ministry
requesting the funding shall have the right to appeal any
refusal to the Disability Directorate, in accordance with
the procedure referred to for above regarding refusals of
accommodation.

Rationale: The government should not be able to limit the extent
to which the Ontario Government's own workplace is barrier free
by appropriating inadequate amounts of funding, or by failing to
make that funding available to ministries on a timely basis.

It is important that everyone understand the standards, that they
be comprehensive and expansive, and that they be developed with
the input of persons with disabilities. It is also important that
there be a prompt, effective internal appeal route within the
Government if a person is refused funding for a workplace
accommodation. This is needed to reduce the need for Human Rights
complaints, and to ensure accountability by Management Board in
making decisions on the funding of individual workplace
accommodations.

9. Government-Funded Capital Programmes

Recommendation 9: Section 9 should be amended as follows:

Capital funding for projects shall be made available only
where there is a barrier-free plan incorporated into the
project that meets the standards set out in regulations to
be enacted within six months of this Act coming into effect.
The standards must include barriers pertaining to all
disabilities.

Rationale: Government funding should not be used to create
barriers by funding projects that do not meet the same standards
that the Government itself must meet. The language of the current
sections of the bill is limited in scope.

10. Ministry Barrier-Free Plans

Recommendation 10.1: Section 10 should be amended as follows:

Ministry Plans

Each ministry has the duty to ensure that the funding,
services, programs, practices, legislation and
regulations it administers and that its workplace are
free of barriers through the development and
implementation of barrier-free plans to identify, remove
and prevent barriers within the time frame set within
regulations to be enacted within six months of this
legislation coming into effect.

The regulations shall be developed by the Directorate in
consultation with persons with disabilities and others with
appropriate expertise.

The Barrier-Free plan that each ministry shall make and
implement shall include the comprehensive identification,
removal and prevention of barriers to persons with
disabilities in the Acts and regulations administered by
the ministry and in the ministry's policies, programs,
practices and services, as well as the ministry's
workplace. The plan shall contain specific action steps
and time lines for the identification, removal and
prevention of barriers consistent with the requirements
set out in the regulations. Except where not practicable,
the plan shall specify who is responsible within the
ministry for taking actions set out in the plan.

Rationale: The goal of the ODA is the creation of a barrier-free
society. The plans are a mechanism for achieving that goal, but
under the current provision, the plans in and of themselves do
not necessitate comprehensive barrier removal.

We propose that the plans be called "Barrier-Free Plans" rather
than "Accessibility Plans" to ensure that the focus is on all
barriers, not merely physical barriers.

It is important that there be clear regulations in place to set
time frames for compliance. It is also important to provide a
specific mechanism for consultation. As the bill is now drafted,
the only consultation in this section is with the Directorate,
not with the broader disability community nor with the provincial
council, both of which could provide the needed expertise.

As well, this amendment seeks to enhance accountability within
the plans, by providing that the plan should specify who within
the organization is responsible for taking the various steps or
actions which the plan sets out.

Recommendation 10.2: Section 10 should be further amended as
follows:

The Barrier-Free plan shall include,

(a) a report on the measures the ministry has taken to
identify, remove and prevent barriers to persons with
disabilities;

(b) whether the Ministry has met its obligations set out
in the plan for that year and, if not, the particulars of
its non-compliance and the reasons for this;

(c) the measures in place to ensure that the ministry
assesses its proposals for Acts, regulations, policies,
programs, practices and services to determine their
impact on removing and preventing barriers against
persons with disabilities, and the persons responsible
for this activity;

(d) a report on the Acts, regulations, policies,
programs, practices and services reviewed during the
year, the recommendations made to ensure that they are
barrier free, and whether the recommendations were
adopted.

(e) a list of the Acts, regulations, policies, programs,
practices and services that the ministry will review in the
coming year in order to identify barriers to persons with
disabilities,and the persons responsible for this activity;

(f) the specific measures that the ministry intends to
take in the coming year to identify, remove and prevent
barriers to persons with disabilities; and

(g) all other information that the regulations prescribe
for the purpose of the plan.

Rationale: The barrier removal plans should be effective action
plans to implement the legislation. The regulations need to set
out specific time frames and obligations. Where the plan is not
complied with there needs to be a justification. This is also an
avenue for creating a much-needed enforcement mechanism.

Recommendation 10.3: Section 10 should be amended further to
provide:

In developing and implementing its barrier-free plan, a
ministry shall consult with the Barrier-Free Council, the
Disability Directorate, and with persons with
disabilities who may be affected by the plan.

Rationale: The Government has emphasized that it intends to
assign an important role in the development and implementation of
strategies for barrier-removal and prevention to persons with
disabilities. This amendment would provide for that direct input.
It would include both the Barrier-Free Council and the Disability
Directorate as well as persons with disabilities who may be
directly affected by the plans.

Recommendation 10.4: Section 10 should be further amended to
provide:

A ministry shall make its Barrier-Free plan available to
the public in an accessible format within ten days of the
plan receiving the signatures of the Ministry's minister and
deputy minister.

Rationale: These plans must be accessible to all.

Recommendation 10.5: Section 10 should be further amended to
provide:

The Ontario Human Rights Commission shall review all
plans where there has not been compliance. The Commission
has all of its investigation powers available to it in
addressing this responsibility, as are provided under the
Ontario Human Rights Code for the investigation of human
rights complaints. It can seek an order from the Ontario
Human Rights Board of Inquiry to require compliance with the
plan, in accordance with the procedures for hearings
provided for in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Rationale: The bill now simply requires a ministry to make a
plan. It neither requires the ministry to comply with the plan,
nor provides any avenue for enforcement. This amendment would
correct this important omission, by providing an enforcement
mechanism.

11. Municipalities

Recommendation 11.1: Section 11 should be amended as follows:

Each year, the council of every municipality shall prepare and
implement a Barrier-Free plan.

Rationale: Now the bill exempts municipalities with a population
of fewer than 10,000 from this requirement. Our amendment
eliminates that exemption. All should participate in this
process.

If the goal is to create a barrier free society, then this
provision must include all parts of the province regardless of
the size of the community where they live. A person with a
disability should not have their needs ignored because of the
size of their municipality. Concerns with respect to cost can be
dealt with in terms of time frames and expectations for removing
barriers. There is no good reason for not requiring all
municipalities to plan to remove and prevent barriers.

Recommendation 11.2: Section 11 should be further amended in a
fashion that is fully consistent with the amendments we propose
for s. 10, to include, for example, the following:

The barrier-free plan shall include the comprehensive
identification, removal and prevention of barriers to
persons with disabilities in the municipality's by-laws
and in its policies, programs, practices and services as
well as the municipal government's workplaces.

All of the provisions with respect to the development,
implementation and enforcement of provincial ministry plans
should be applied here.

Rationale: During the Legislature's debates over Bill 125,
Government members have emphasized how important municipal
government activities are to the daily lives of Ontarians. These
amendments seek to make sure that barrier removal and prevention
activity at the municipal level will be no less effective and
accountable than that at the provincial government level.

12. Barrier-Free Advisory Committees

Recommendation 12.1: Section 12 should be amended as follows:

Each year, the council of every municipality of more than
10,000 people shall establish or continue a barrier-free
advisory committee. A majority of persons appointed to this
committee must be persons with a disability. The
mandate of the council is to review drafts of the
municipality's barrier-free plans, advise the council
about their implementation, monitor the effectiveness of
the plan, and to advise the municipality on barriers
facing persons with disabilities within the territory of
the municipality and on means by which the municipal
government might address these.

Municipalities of fewer than 10,000 people must either
establish a barrier-free advisory committee, or hold
public consultations which include people with
disabilities on these plans.

Rationale: Now the bill totally exempts any municipality with a
population under 10,000 from having a disability advisory
committee, even if the municipality could readily establish one.
Our amendment recognizes that it may not necessarily be feasible
for some small municipalities to have a full barrier-free
advisory committee. However, input from persons with disabilities
either through such a committee or through some other method of
public consultations should still be required in those
communities. Our amendment gives these small communities the
choice of the mechanism for doing this.

The other changes in this amendment offer more detail about the
committee's mandate.

Recommendation 12.2: Section 12 should be further amended to
provide:

Duty of Council

The council shall seek advice from the committee on the
accessibility for persons with disabilities to a
building, structure or premises, or part of a building,
structure or premises,

(a) that the council owns, purchases, constructs or
leases or

(b) that the council currently occupies whether as owner
or lessee or

(c) that a person provides as municipal capital
facilities under an agreement entered into with the
council in accordance with section 210.1 of the Municipal
Act.

Rationale: Currently the bill does not require retrofitting of
any existing municipal government buildings that are not
subjected to substantial renovation. This amendment extends the
Barrier-Free Advisory Committee's advisory activity at the
municipal level to existing municipal government buildings. We
expect that these are the bulk of municipal government buildings.

Recommendation 12.3: Section 12 should be further amended to
provide:

Functions

The committee shall perform the functions set out in this
section and all other functions that are specified in the
regulations.

The Barrier-Free Advisory Committee shall prepare annual
reports to the municipal Council recommending changes to the
Barrier-Free plan, reporting on implementation and
effectiveness of previous plans and making any other
recommendations necessary to identify, remove and prevent
barriers in the territory of the municipality.

When the Advisory committee makes recommendations to the
Municipal Council, the Council shall respond to it within 14
days. If the Council decides to decline the Advisory
Committee's advise in whole or in part, it shall provide
written reasons for its decision. Recommendations and
reports from the advisory committee and responses to
these from the municipal council shall promptly be made
public. The Municipal Council shall fulfil all reasonable
requests for information by the Advisory Council within the
mandate of the Advisory Committee's work. Reasonable
compensation including reasonable expenses shall be
provided by the Municipal Council for the members of the
advisory committee.

Rationale: Now the bill gives the advisory committee various
tasks but requires them to be volunteers who pay out of their own
pocket for the expenses associated with this activity. As well,
the bill now does not require the municipality to respond to any
advice it receives from the advisory committee. These amendments
strengthen the role of the advisory committee and make the
municipality openly accountable for its conduct when it receives
recommendations from the advisory committee.

13. Municipal Goods and Services

Recommendation 13: Section 13 should be amended to parallel the
amendments proposed above for s. 5, regarding the conduct of the
Government of Ontario. It should, for example, provide:

The Government shall not purchase goods or services for
the use of itself, its employees or the public that
create or maintain barriers for persons with
disabilities. Where this is not possible because the
goods or services are not available in an appropriate
form, the Government shall ensure that the benefits of
the goods and services are available for persons with
disabilities at no extra cost to persons with
disabilities or effort.

The regulations developed under s. 5.1 shall apply to
municipalities.

Rationale: The bill now requires municipal governments to
consider accessibility only when purchasing goods and services.
Simply "considering" accessibility is not sufficient to ensure a
barrier-free society. As purchasers of goods and services,
municipal governments across Ontario can demonstrate leadership
and have a significant impact on society as a whole, by demanding
goods and services that are barrier free.

The additional provision recognizes that like the standards for
buildings, there must be standards for barrier free goods and
services and that these must be developed in conjunction with
persons with disabilities. Without these standards, and the
consultative process to develop them which we propose, it is
unlikely that those responsible for municipal procurement in
various communities all over Ontario will be able to adequately
identify potential barriers.

14. Duties of Other Organizations, Agencies and Persons

Recommendation 14: Public transportation organizations Section 14
should be amended to read:

Each year, every public transportation organization shall
prepare and implement a Barrier-Free plan. The provision
regarding transit providers should be similarly amended to
parallel the development, implementation and
enforcement of Ontario Government ministry barrier-free
plans.

Rationale: The same mandatory activities for barrier removal and
prevention at the provincial ministry and municipal government
levels should apply to transit providers, given the importance of
public transit to persons with disabilities.

15. Organizations

Recommendation 15.1: Section 15 should be amended to read:

15.(1) Each year, every organization not otherwise
covered by ss. 10, 11 14 or 16, shall prepare and
implement a barrier-free plan based on the requirements
for its class of organization as set out in the
regulations.

Rationale: Every organization should be covered by the ODA. The
only questions to be addressed in this regard, which the
regulations should address, are: (i) what the time frame is for
different classes of organizations, and (ii) what must be
included in their barrier-free plan. This should be determined by
regulations based on the class in which the individual
organization falls.

Recommendation 15.2: Section 15 should be amended to provide:

The barrier-free plan shall require the comprehensive
identification, removal and prevention of barriers to
persons with disabilities in the organization's by-laws,
if any, and in its policies, programs, practices and
services as well as its workplaces.

Beyond this, the provision should be amended to parallel the
provisions regarding the development, implementation and
enforcement of provincial ministry and municipal barrier free-
plans, except for the proposed amendments regarding government
consultation with a municipal advisory committee or the
provincial Barrier-Free council.

Recommendation 15.3: Section 15 should be further amended to
provide as follows:

The classes of organizations shall be set out in
regulations passed no later than six months after this
legislation comes into effect.The regulations setting out
the requirements for each class of organization shall be
passed no later than one year after this legislation
comes into effect.

Rationale: These amendments make the barrier-free plans effective
for organizations covered in this provision. The time lines in
this provision ensure that regulations needed to make the
provision work are developed along reasonable time lines.

16. Agencies

Recommendation 16.1: Section 16 should be amended to read:

16.(1) Each year, every agency shall prepare and
implement a barrier-free plan.

Rationale: Currently, s. 16 requires agencies only to prepare a
"policy" rather than a full "plan," and does not require annual
planning. There is no good reason for these lesser duties.

Recommendation 16.2: Section 16 should be further amended to
provide:

The barrier-free plan shall require the comprehensive
identification, removal and prevention of barriers with
respect to the provision of services and facilities, as well
as with respect to the policies, programs and
practices of the agency, and the agency's workplaces.

Again, the provisions regarding the development, implementation
and enforcement of these plans should be amended to parallel the
provisions for provincial ministry plans, except for the
requirements of consultation with the Barrier-Free council.

Rationale: This harmonizes the bill's various planning
provisions.

17. Joint Barrier-Free Plans

Recommendation 17: Section 17 should be amended as follows:

Two or more ministries, municipalities, organizations
specified by a regulation made under clause 22 (1) (g),
or public transportation organizations that are each
required to prepare a barrier-free plan and to make it
available to the public may prepare a joint barrier-free
plan and make it available to the public.

Ministries, municipalities, organizations specified by a
regulation made under clause 22 (1) (g), and public
transportation organizations that prepare a joint
barrier-free plan and make it available to the public are
not each required under this Act to prepare an individual
barrier-free plan and to make it available to the public if
the joint plan meets the requirements of this Act for the
individual plan.

Where one or more ministry, municipality, public
transportation organization, organization or organization
prepares a joint barrier-free plan, each entity is
required to comply with the obligations under this Act
and the plan as if they had individual plans.

Rationale: This is a housekeeping amendment to bring this
provision in line with the earlier amendments proposed above.

18. Regulations for Barrier-Free Plans and Policies:

Recommendation 18.1: Section 18 should be amended as follows:

The Lieutenant Governor in council shall specify by
regulation the requirements for the preparation and
content of barrier-free plans under this Act. The
regulation may set out different requirements for classes
of ministries, municipalities, organizations or agencies.

Exemptions

Where an organization or agency cannot comply with the
regulation because of undue hardship within the meaning of
the Ontario Human Rights Code, it may apply to the
Minister for an exemption from the regulation. The
exemption cannot exceed a period of one year. The
minister shall give reasons for granting an exemption,
which he or she shall make public. Any person affected by
the exemption may refer the grant of the exemption to the
Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Commission may
investigate the circumstances of the exemption. If, in
its opinion, the exemption was unwarranted, it may apply to
the Ontario Human Rights board of inquiry for a
hearing to determine whether the exemption should be
modified or rescinded.

Rationale: Under the current bill, the Ontario Government has
sweeping authority to exempt anyone and everyone from this Act.
It need have no reason and needs to give no reasons. This
undermines the very purpose of the bill.

Our proposed amendment provides a more accountable, less
arbitrary approach. Exemptions should only be available, if at
all, on an individual case-by-case basis and must be justified on
an appropriate standard. The regulations may set different time
frames for different classes in order to deal with the challenges
faced by small business and others. However, there is no basis
for a total exemption.

19. Barrier-Free Council

Recommendation 19: Section 19 should be amended as follows:

The Minister shall establish the Barrier-Free Council of
Ontario comprised of 12 members, a quorum of which shall be
seven.

Members

A majority of the members of the Council shall be persons
with disabilities.

Each member of the Council holds office for a term of two
years and may be re-appointed. In the first year
appointments may be made for one and three year terms as
well, in order to ensure continuity. A member may be
appointed for a maximum of three consecutive terms.

The members of the Council may select a Chair and Vice-
Chair.

A majority of the members of the Council constitutes a
quorum.

The purpose of the Council is to:

(a) provide for and facilitate the participation of
persons with disabilities in the development of
Government policies and programs relating to or affecting
persons with disabilities;

(b) establish a central mechanism to ensure that the
concerns of persons with disabilities respecting policy
and program development and delivery are conveyed to the
appropriate ministries and offices of the Government; and

(c) ensure that the concerns of persons with disabilities
will be promoted in and considered by the Government,
especially in matters of policy and where the concerns
affect several ministries or offices of the Government.

(d) facilitate consultation with persons with
disabilities around Ontario on the development of
standards and regulations under this and any other
legislation, regulations, policies and programs that
affect the rights, obligations or interests of persons
with disabilities.

(e) Evaluate the effectiveness of this legislation and
regulations and standards, developed under it and make
recommendations for new or amended legislation,
regulations, standards, programs and policies;

(Note: The first 3 paragraphs are taken almost verbatim from
Disabled Persons Commission Act. 1989, c. 4, s. 1., Nova Scotia
legislation passed in 1989.)

The Minister shall pay the members of the Council the
remuneration and the reimbursement for expenses that the
Lieutenant Governor in Council determines.

The Council is authorized to undertake the following
activities:

(a) consult with persons with disabilities and others,
including those with relevant expertise, on the
implementation of this Act;

(b) recommend to the Minister or the Ontario Human Rights
Commission that where there are problems in the
implementation of this Act or regulations, standards or
guidelines made pursuant to it steps to enforce the
legislation be taken, and request a report on the actions
taken.

(c) undertake research about the barriers facing persons
with disabilities in Ontario, and on strategies in
Ontario and elsewhere to address these;

(d) provide programs of public information related to
this Act;

(e) consult with persons with disabilities and others,
including those with expertise, and make recommendations to
the Minister with respect to the accessibility for and full
enjoyment by persons with disabilities to services, goods
and facilities provided or funded by the Government of
Ontario;

(f) consult with persons with disabilities and others,
including those with relevant expertise, and make
recommendations to the Minister with respect to actions
that should be taken to improve the access for persons with
disabilities to employment opportunities in Ontario;

(g) recommend the development or enactment of new
standards or regulations to improve the effectiveness of
the legislation;

(h) respond to specific requests from the Minister.

For the purposes of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act the report of the Barrier-Free
Council or any other information provided to the Minister is
deemed not to constitute advice to the Minister for the
purposes of disclosure.

The council shall be provided with adequate resources to
carry out its mandate effectively.

The council shall be authorized to contract with any
person to assist it in carrying out its mandate.

In order to ensure an inclusive council, the Minister
must ensure that:

There is representation as much as is practicable of the
full range of disabilities and of the different regions of
Ontario and of gender, ethnicity and of First Nations. Each
member of the Council is an independent
representative to the Commission and does not represent
the concern of only one disability or group.

There should be a public nomination process whereby any
individual may apply or be nominated to become a member of
the Council. The names of nominees should be made
public, to afford an opportunity for public input
including input from persons with disabilities.

The appointments to the Council shall be reviewed by the
Public Appointments Committee.

The Council shall provide an annual public report to the
Legislature on its activities.

Rationale: The Ontario Government has emphasized in its public
statements on this bill that the new provincial council is a key
element of this bill, and provides a means for the disability
community to participate. The bill does not provide the council
with power to fulfil that role. These amendments are designed to
achieve the Government's stated objectives.

If the council is to have any real impact it must have the
authority to consult, conduct independent research, make
recommendations for change and hold the government accountable.
It must also be able to communicate directly with the public in
the collection and dissemination of information. It should have a
means for effective accountability to the disability community,
who should have an avenue for input into the selection of its
members. As with other items in this bill the narrow term
"accessibility" is replaced with the more effective term
"Barrier-Free" in the council's name.

20. Barrier-Free Directorate of Ontario

Recommendation 20: Section 20 should be amended as follows:

20. (1) The Minister shall establish and maintain the
Barrier Free Directorate of Ontario. The employees who
are considered necessary shall be appointed under the
Public Service Act to form this directorate.

(2) Mandate

The mandate of the Barrier-Free Directorate is to remove
barriers and ensure that people with disabilities in
Ontario are able to participate fully in all aspects of
life in Ontario by:

(a) Improving people's understanding and knowledge of
disability issues;

(b) Providing expert counsel and consultation to
government ministries in the development of integrated,
coordinated public policies, programs and services for
persons with disabilities, their families/support
structures, and organizations that represent persons with
disabilities and other stakeholders;

(c) Working with government ministries and offices and
the disability community to provide expertise, and
identify and resolve issues of concern;

(d) Acting as a vehicle for collaboration and partnership
with the disability community; and

(e) Providing leadership, coordination, research, policy
development, education, communication, consultation and
negotiation.

(f) participating on behalf of Ontario at federal and
interprovincial meetings;

(Note: Drawn from the British Columbia and Saskatchewan programs)

Duties

(3) The duties of the directorate are as follows:

(a) support the Barrier-Free Council of Ontario;

(b) conduct research and develop and conduct programs of
public education on the purpose and implementation of
this Act;

(c) consult with ministries, municipalities,
organizations or any person or entity that prepares a
barrier-free plan to assist in the preparation,
implementation and monitoring of that plan.

(d) consult with the persons and organizations to develop
and make recommendations to the minister and others on
standards, guidelines and regulations related to the
subject-matter of this Act;

(e) examine and review Acts, regulations, and programs or
policies established by Acts or regulations and make
recommendations to the Barrier-Free Council and the
Minister for amending them or adopting, making or
establishing new Acts, regulations, programs or policies
to improve opportunities for persons with disabilities;

(f) carry out all other duties related to the subject-
matter of this Act.

Rationale: The Government's statements about this bill emphasize
the central importance of the directorate in its strategies for
achieving a barrier-free Ontario. This amendment is aimed at
clarifying and strengthening the mandate of the directorate so
that it can more effectively fulfil the Government's stated goals
for this office.

This section was amended to give the office a clear mandate
within which to work, and to require that it report both to the
Minister and the Barrier-Free Council.

21. Future Legislative Review of ODA

Recommendation 21: Section 21 should be amended as follows:

The Executive Council shall undertake a public review of
this legislation after three years to determine the
following:

(a) whether it is successful in achieving a barrier-free
society;

(b) whether changes are necessary to improve the
effectiveness of the legislation

(c) whether persons with disabilities are able to
participate fully and effectively in the implementation
of the legislation

The Government of Ontario shall consult with persons with
disabilities and other interested stakeholders on the
matters referred to in subsection(1) s part of the review
provided for in that provision, and shall report to the
public on the results of any review conducted.

Rationale: After the six and a half year wait for this bill,
persons with disabilities should not have to wait another full
five years before it is reviewed again. If it is reviewed in
three years, then any amendments that are needed could be enacted
by or before the five year target now set in the bill for its
next review.

22. Regulations

Recommendation 22.1: Section 22 should be amended to add the
following:

In order to ensure the full participation of persons with
disabilities in the development of regulations, any
regulations to be created under this legislation must be
published in draft form no less than 90 days prior to the
date they are to be enacted. There must be an opportunity
for public input and comment, in writing or in the form of
public forums or hearings before the regulation is
enacted. Where the Barrier-free Council requests in
writing that public hearings or forums be held by the
minister or the directorate with respect to a proposed
regulation, such hearings or forums shall be held within 45
days of the written request. Following the comment
period there must be a public report produced by the
Government of Ontario summarizing the comments, and
providing the Government's reasons for accepting or
rejecting proposed changes. In addition, the Barrier-Free
Council may consult with the public on the proposed
regulations, and provide its recommendations to the
minister arising therefrom.

Rationale: The Government has stated that under this bill,
persons with disabilities will have input into the setting of
standards and the making of regulations. The bill does not
provide for this at present. This amendment would better provide
for that. We would prefer if the amendment could provide where
possible an opportunity for input through hearings, rather than
in writing, to ensure better communication and to avoid barriers
in the process.

Recommendation 22.2: Section 22(1) (a) should be amended as
follows: designating an organization that is to come within the
definition of "ministry" or "Government of Ontario" in section 2.

Rationale: This amendment is designed to make this section
consistent with the proposed amendment to s. 2.

Recommendation 22.3: A series of technical housekeeping
amendments is required as follows:
Section 22(1)(b) should be deleted since there is no longer a
category of "scheduled organizations;"

Section 22(1)(e) should be amended to remove the provision for
making regulations defining "significant renovation." There is no
need for such a provision because that term was removed from the
section it refers to by our package of amendments.

Section 22(1)(f) should be amended as follows: governing the
preparation and contents of barrier-free plans or policies under
this Act including the mechanisms for ensuring compliance where
this obligation is not met.

Rationale: This amendment specifically allows clearly for
regulations to be made which deal with compliance.

Section 22(1)(h) should be amended as follows:

Regulations must be enacted within six months after this
legislation takes effect specifying a time period within
which the Government of Ontario or any ministry,
municipality, organization specified by a regulation made
under clause (g), public transportation organization,
agency or other organization or person or class of
organizations is required to comply with an obligation
described in this Act if this Act does not specify or
otherwise provide a time period for that purpose;

Section 22(1)(i) should be amended as follows:

upon approval of the Minister after consultation with the
Barrier Free Council and providing written reasons,
exempting a person, a ministry, a municipality, an
organization specified by a regulation made under clause
(g), a public transportation organization, an agency, any
other organization, a building, structure or premises or a
class of any of them from the application of a
specified provision of this Act or the regulations, such
exemption to only last for a maximum of one year (subject to
a further application), and only to be granted on a showing
that compliance is not reasonably possible;

Section 22(1)(j) should be amended as follows:

respecting any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in
Council considers necessary to facilitate the
implementation or administration of this Act including
the creation of mechanisms for enforcing the obligations
under this legislation, and remedies for non-compliance.

Section 22 should be amended by adding:

No regulation may be adopted which has the effect of
creating a barrier to persons with disabilities,
preventing or delaying the identification and removal of
a barrier in any sector or which conflicts with the
purpose of the legislation.

Rationale: This ensures that the bill's very substantial
delegation of power to Cabinet to make regulations does not
undermine the goals of the legislation.

Recommendation 22.4: Section 22 should be further amended to
require Cabinet to make regulations within three months of the
Act coming into force, designating which Minister or ministers
and which ministries will be responsible for fulfilling duties
which the Act otherwise assigns to the "Government of Ontario."

Rationale: Currently the bill assigns various obligations
globally to the "Government of Ontario." It does not generally
say who must fulfil these. In the interest of accountability and
efficiency, and to enable persons with disabilities to know where
to go to have their input, these duties should be assigned
promptly to specific ministers or ministries, by regulation. This
amendment would meet this need.

23. Enforcement of this Act

Recommendation 23: The Act should be further amended so that it
includes the following:

Enforcement

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human
Rights Board of Inquiry have jurisdiction with respect to
compliance with and enforcement under this legislation, and
have with all necessary modifications all the
authority and jurisdiction as is provided to them under
the Code. The Minister of Finance shall within 3 months of
the enactment of this bill place before the
Legislature a proposal for providing additional funding
to the Commission and the Board to address these new
responsibilities.

Rationale: This bill provides no independent, arms-length agency
with the power to take enforcement proceedings under the bill.
While the ODA Committee has preferred the establishment of a new,
expert disability enforcement agency, the time constraints for
the consideration of this bill have led us to recommend that for
now, this responsibility should be given to the Ontario Human
Rights Commission.

24. Municipal and Provincial Election Act Amendments

Recommendation 24: The bill's revisions to the Municipal
Elections Act and the provincial Elections Act should be expanded
as follows:

(a) to require that no polling station shall be located
in a location which is inaccessible, absent a showing
that it was impossible to locate a polling station within
five miles;

(b) to require that ballots be adapted to enable voters
with disabilities wherever possible to mark the ballots
themselves in private;

(c) to require the government holding the election to
provide American Sign language interpretation or other
like accommodation where needed for voters who are deaf,
deafened or hard of hearing, to enable them to
participate fully in the voting process;

Rationale: Currently there are significant barriers facing
persons with disabilities in provincial and municipal elections.
These amendments would address some of the most obvious ones, but
should not exclude consideration of the removal of all barriers
in the election process.

25. Municipal Act Licensing Authority

Recommendation 25: Section 28 of the bill now extends municipal
licensing authority to impose conditions regarding the licensed
business to be physically accessible. This should be amended to
include a requirement of the business to become barrier-free, and
not merely to address physical barriers.

26. ODA To Bind the Crown and Override Other Legislative
Barriers

Recommendation 26: The bill should be amended to provide
explicitly that it

(a) binds the Crown in Right of Ontario;

(b) supersedes any legislation, regulations, bylaws or
policies which provide lesser protection for persons with
disabilities.

Rationale: Bill 125 does not provide that it binds the Ontario
Crown. This amendment is needed to ensure that it does, and that
it supersedes provincial laws and the like which provide persons
with disabilities with lesser protections.

27. Establish Certain Time Lines in Bill

Recommendation 27: The bill should be amended to provide that
notwithstanding anything else in the Act or regulations,

(a) The government of Ontario shall become barrier-free
within five years of this Act coming into force; and

(b) The Ontario Legislature shall become barrier-free
within five years of this Act coming into force.

Rationale: The Citizenship Minister stated on CBC Radio's "Metro
Morning" programme on November 6, 2001 that he believed the
Ontario Government could achieve compliance in five years. This
amendment entrenches this. Moreover, a legislative time line for
the Legislature is important, since barriers at the heart of our
provincial democracy have yet to be addressed.