Manitoba Committee Hansard — 29 October 2013 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 11, 40th Legislature, 2nd Session)

40-2-sed11

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff Constituency of Interlake Vol. LXV No. 11 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, October 29, 2013 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James, Hon. Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon, Hon. Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna, Hon. Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon.

Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MELNICK, Christine Riel NDP MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PALLISTER, Brian Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon.

Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC Vacant Arthur-Virden Vacant Morris

705 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tuesday, October 29, 2013 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mses. Braun, Howard, Hon. Mr. Mackintosh, Hon. Mses. Marcelino, Selby Messrs. Altemeyer, Briese, Friesen, Nevakshonoff, Mrs. Rowat, Mr. Smook APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 26–The Accessibility for Manitobans Act Mr.

David Lepofsky, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Ms. Gail Mores, March of Dimes Canada Mr. Kevin Reb eck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Patrick Falconer, Barrier-Free Manitoba Ms. Laurie Helgason, private citizen Ms. Libby Zdriluk, Independent Living Resource Centre Mr. David Steen, private citizen Mr. Samuel Unrau, University of Winnipeg Students' Association Ms. Megan Fultz, Canadian Federation of Students of Manitoba Ms. Jeannette Delong, Abilities Manitoba Ms. Ruth Enns, private citizen Mr. Oly Backstrom, private citizen Ms.

Jess Turner, Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities Ms. Jennifer Frain, New Directions for Children, Youth, Adults and Families Mr. Ross Eadie, private citizen Mr. Rob McInnes, Diversity World Mr. George Pasieka, Canadian Mental Health Association, Manitoba Division Mr. John Ruppel, private citizen Ms. Geraldine Sage, private citizen Bill 24–The Endangered Species Amendment Act (Ecosystem Protection and Miscellaneous Amendments) Mr. Peter Marykuca, private citizen Mr. Christian Artuso, Bird Studies Canada Ms. Doris Ames, Native Orchid Conservation Inc. Ms.

Shaunna Morgan Siegers, Canadian Boreal Initiative Bill 45 –The Competitive Drug Pricing Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Barret Procyshyn, Manitoba Society of Pharmacists Ms. Kristine Petrasko, Canadian Pharmacists Association Ms. Amy Oliver, private citizen Bill 13 –The Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Fund Act Mr. David Carrick, Fish Futures Mr. Paul Turenne, private citizen Bill 28 –The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Hospitals Amendment Act (Admitting Privileges) Ms.

Geralyn Reimer, Manitoba Association of Midwives WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 13 –The Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Fund Act Cherry White and Stu Jansson, Manitoba Trappers Association Doug Tesch, Netley Marsh Waterfowl Foundation Inc. Bill 24–The Endangered Species Amendment Act (Ecosystem Protection and Miscellaneous Amendments) Helios Hernandez, private citizen Cam Dahl, Manitoba Beef Producers Bruce Ford and Elizabeth Punter, University of Manitoba Department of Biological Sciences

706 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 Ron Thiessen, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Terry Galloway, private citizen C-Jae Breiter, Wildlife Society, Manitoba

Chapter David Punter, private citizen Bill 26–The Accessibility for Manitobans Act Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Karen Wittman, The Manitoba Bar Association MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 4 –The Personal Health Information Amendment Act Bill 13 –The Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Fund Act Bill 15 –The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (Minimum Wage Protection for Employees with Disabilities) Bill 19 –The Waste Reduction and Prevention Amendment and Environment Amendment Act Bill 24–The Endangered Species Amendment Act (Ecosystem Protection and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 26–The Accessibility for Manitobans Act Bill 28–The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Hospitals Amendment Act (Admitting Privileges) Bill 30 –The Forest Health Protection Amendment Act (Heritage Trees) Bill 45 –The Competitive Drug Pricing Act (Various Acts Amended) * * * Mr.

Chairperson: Order. Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Human Resources please come to order –[interjection]–correction, the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, please come to order. Thank you, thank you. Our first item of business is the ele ction of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister responsible for Persons with Disabilities): I nominate Mr. Altemeyer. * (18:10) Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Altemeyer has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, congratulations, Mr. Altemeyer, you are elected Vice-Chairperson.

This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 4, The Personal Health Information Amendment Act; Bill 13, The Fish and Wildlife Enhanceme nt Fund Act; Bill 15, The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (Minimum Wage Protection for Employees with Disabilities); Bill 19, The Waste Reduction and Prevention Amendment and Environment Amendment Act; Bill 24, The Endangered Species Amendment Act (Ecosystem Protection and Miscellaneous Amendments); Bill 26, The Accessibility for Manitobans Act; Bill 28, The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Hospitals Amendment Act (Admitting Privileges); Bill 30, The Forest Health Protection Amendmen t Act (Heritage Trees); and Bill 45, The Competitive Drug Pricing Act (Various Acts Amended).

Before we get to the presentations, we have a number of housekeeping items to discuss, so I will ask for your patience as I take us through them. Requests for special accommodations have been made regarding Bill 26, The Accessibility for Manitobans Act. Specifically, a request was put forward to the House leaders to consider this bill first this evening starting with hearing public presentations on Bi ll 26, followed by clause-by-clause consideration of the same bill. After that we will return to hearing presentations on all the other bills listed for consideration.

This divergence from our normal practice is to meet the requests of many of the members of the public who are attending tonight. In addition, we have translation staff here tonight for people who request to make their presentations with a sign -language interpreter and live closed -captioning of the proceedings. Dealing with Bill 26 first will allow the translation and closed -captioning staff to leave following the consideration of the bill.

Does the committee agree with this arrangement? [Agreed] Additionally, one of these presenters, No. 12 on Bill 26 list, David Lepofsky, has asked to make his presentation by telephone, and we have arrangements in place to accomplish this. I would ask if it is the will of the committee to entertain this presentation first and then move on with the other presentations. Is that agreed? [Agreed]

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 707 On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, both for Bill 26 and for the other bills on the agenda, I will note that we have out -of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list. With this consideration in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations on Bill 26? Ms. Howard: I think we should follow our usual practice of hearing from out-of-town presenters first. Mr.

Chairperson: The minister has said –is that agreeable to the committee? [Agreed] And in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations on all the other bills? Ms. Howard: I was not –I did not prepare for that question, but I think what generally makes sense is we group them by portfolio or–[interjection] Oh, just the presenters, out-of-town presenters first, is that the question you're asking? [interjection] Okay, that's what we'll do. It's like playing charades. Mr.

Chairperson: The minister has said –is that agreeable? [Agreed] I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding hour of adjournment. Except by unanimous consent, a standing committee meeting to consider a bill in the evening must not sit past midnight to hear presentations unless fewer than 20 presenters a re registered to speak to all bills being considered when the committee meets at 6 p.m. As of 6 p.m. this evening, there were 40 persons registered to speak, as noted on the lists of presenters before you.

Therefore, according to our rules, this committe e may not sit past midnight to hear presentations. Therefore, how late does the committee wish to sit this evening? Ms. Howard: I would like to suggest that we sit until we're completed business tonight, if at all possible. I recognize that may take us beyond midnight, but I know people have made arrangements to be here. There isn't another night scheduled for this committee so I think we should make best efforts to complete our business tonight. If it just becomes practically impossible, I'm open to reconsidering it, but I think we should give it a shot. Mrs.

Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): I agree with the minister; I think we should sit through the evening and, again, I agree, if it's getting into the wee hours, then we revisit where we go following. But I think sitting through is probably the best way to go. Mr.

Chairperson: Is that agreeable to the committee? [Agreed] Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: on Bill 24, Helios Her nandez; Cam Dahl, Manitoba Beef Producers; Bruce Ford and Elizabeth Punter, University of Manitoba Department of Biological Sciences; Ron Thiessen, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; on Bill 26: Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities; Karen Wittman, The Manitoba Bar Association.

Does the committee agree to have these submissions appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Public presentation guidelines: Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance of the room.

Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members.

Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in atte ndance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. Speaking in committee: Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript.

Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn microphones on and off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations.

708 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 Okay, just for the information of the committee, we've agreed to do this telephone presentation first. So it'll take a few moments to set that up and we'll commence in short order. * (18:20) Bill 26–The Accessibility for Manitobans Act Mr. Chairperson: I now call on Mr. Lepofsky on the telephone to begin your presentation, sir. Mr.

David Lepofsky (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance): Well, I want to begin by thanking the committee very, very much for the honour and the privilege of being able to present to you and for le tting me do it by telephone from Toronto. I'm the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. We're the non-partisan province -wide coalition that advocates for the effective achievement of a barrier -free Ontario for people w ith disabilities through the implementation of our disabilities act.

From 1994 to 2005, I had the privilege of chairing, also in a volunteer capacity, the predecessor coalition which fought for the enactment of our disabilities act. And I want to begin by, on behalf of my coalition in Ontario, congratulating the government of Manitoba, Minister Howard, for bringing forward this legislation and for the opposition party for supporting it. This is a huge and momentous development. Because time is short, I' m going to get right to the contents of what we'd like to propose.

Clearly, what you are trying to do is admirable and commendable, but it needs some refinements so that Manitobans with disabilities at least get the same accessibility rights that Ontarians with disabilities now enjoy. There's no reason why Manitobans with disabilities would deserve anything less. In Ontario, we began fighting for a disabilities act in 1994. In 2001, the Mike Harris Conservative government brought forward our first disabilities act. It was called the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It was a good –it was well intentioned, but it didn't go far enough.

That's what led our –the successor McGuinty government to pass a stronger law, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, under which we're now operating. Now, it's far from perfect, and we've had issues with how it's implemented, but it's certainly a good guide for Manitoba. In some ways, Bill 26 is closer to the Conservative–the Mike Harris Conservatives' Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, and I'm going to explain why, and I'm going to offer you some concrete suggestions of how you bridge the gap and move forward within the framework of the bill that's before you.

First and foremost, I want to endorse–we want to endorse the brief from Barrier- Free Manitoba. Every single thing they're recommending is a good idea. We're going to elaborate and add a few things. As Barrier-Free Manitoba points out, it is absolutely indispensable that your law be amended, that your bill be amended, to set a specific requirement of full accessibility, that the government has to lead the province to full accessibility and that it set a deadline. We have the deadline of 2025.

That has been an absolutely central part of what's made our bill contribute to progress, and without it, we would be considerably further behind. Now, you might wonder, or some of you may wonder, well, why do that? Well, it–because it, actually, it creates a yardstick by which all action can be judged. Without a deadline, you're basically saying, well, we'd like to achieve full accessibility but we may never get there, or we're not prepared to say when we will get there, if ever, and it may not be in our lifetimes or anyone's lifetimes.

Let me put it to you this way: If the deadline was 2090, I can't imagine that there is a public servant or a politician who'd say, well, no, that's too–that's not far away enough, we can't get there. On the other hand, if I said a deadline of 2014, you'd probably all say that's too soon. That proves that really the debate isn't whether we need one but simply when it should be. And if there's some debate within the government or the opposition when it should be, consult with the business community quickly and with the disability community and come up with a designation that you can live with.

That's what happened with us: Some with us–within the disability community thought the government's 20 years was too long. But, even if it was, it served a really important role. So that's my first recommendation: You've got to set a deadline, and it will guide everything. The next thing, your law –the second point I'd like to make is this: Your bill is c ommendable because it sets out the –a regime for developmental – developing accessibility standard. That's pivotal to what we're doing in Ontario. I will tell you, however,

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 709 that your law falls short and is much closer to the Mike Harris bill that we've all no w recognized did not go anywhere near far enough, because it does not require accessibility standards to be made; it merely says, they may be made. That's what we got in 2001, and we found out over the next couple of years that no one was making any, and w e tried to get them made.

The only thing that led to progress for us is a requirement in law that they must be made now, at least discretion of the government which ones to make, when to make them and what to –excuse me– what to include in them. We absolutel y need a mandatory requirement that accessibility standards be made. The next thing that we learned is that once accessibility standards are made it is pivotal that any recommendations that are brought forward must have a representation of 50 per cent of people with disabilities or their representatives at the table otherwise, they get outnumbered.

They get outmaneuvered and the resulting standards that will be proposed will be inadequate. Our law didn't require 50 per cent originally, but –in 2005–bu t we quickly learned about this deficiency, and in 2007 we got election commitments from the government that no one has opposed since that there be 50 per cent disability representation around the table. It's absolutely vital. The next recommendation I'd like to make is this. It is absolutely critical.

You've got a good regime in the law–in your bill for how to develop the standards, but the problem is, even if one is made, the act allows the government –another government or the same government–to learn around–turn around and repeal it or gut it without any need to consult with anyone. It's really important. It's got a great regime for consulting and working collaboratively to develop it, but then someone else could come along and say, after you did all tha t hard work we're now slashing the whole thing and we don't need to consult with anyone. It's absolutely critical to change that.

You need to embed in legislation protections that once there are gains made under this legislation through standards, that you don't turn around and cut them back without the appropriate consultation process. Obviously, government has to be able to amend things. It'll learn by doing and so on, but it's important not to have that risk that one government makes progress and another one comes along and cut it without even needing to have a moment's public consultation or a moment's public debate. People with disabilities deserve better than that.

Because time is short, I've got lots of other ideas, but I want to–I'm going to shorten our contribution to two others. One is in the area of enforcement. Without effective enforcement, a law like this doesn't get you very far. In fact, it doesn't get you far at all, and while you've got some good enforcement tools, they're not –it's not mandatory that the government ever use any of them. It provides that you can have inspectors, but it doesn't require that you appoint any or that you appoint any in any of our lifetime.

So it's important to beef up those enforcement provisions not only as Barrier-Free Manitoba has recommended, but also to require that the powers that are in the act are actually exercised. One thing you might want to consider is to require the minister to make an annual report of what its plan –the plans will be for enforcement and what has been done in the past year for enforcement as part of the reporting mechanisms. The final thing I'd like to propose to you in terms of concrete suggestions is this: let's use a measure to achieve accessibility that could have a huge impact and won't cost the government a dime.

What's that? The government spends a fortune every year on capital and infrastructure spending and on procurement. Could you amend this bill to require that whenever the government spends money on procurement or c apital or other infrastructure projects, that that money can never be used to create barriers, perpetuate barriers or exacerbate barriers? All you're –I'm not suggesting you increase your procurement or your infrastructure budget by a dime.

All we're sugges ting is that you make it clear that anyone who wants to get government money to– either selling goods or services to the government or to–for a capital project of any sort, that they've got to make it clear that that money won't be used to make things worse for people with disabilities and at least it'll stay neutral. If not, it will make things better. I hope those ideas are successful –are helpful. I think Manitoba can be– Mr. Chairperson: One minute, sir. Mr. Lepofsky: –proud in attempting to develop this legislation, but please learn from what we've learned.

We learned that the Mike Harris bill didn't work, and support for progress came not only from the disability community but from others, and that led to our disability fact that we passed in 2005. So make your access –make it mandatory to have–make a goal that must be met by a deadline and

710 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 full accessibility and require the government to develop accessibility standards, not just permit them to, and require enforcem ent steps to be taken and to be made accountable to the public. Thank you again, and I welcome your questions. * (18:30) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Lepofsky. The floor is open for questions. Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister resp onsible for Persons with Disabilities): Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Lepofsky.

It's nice to talk to you again, and it's been a while now since we first met but you were a big part of us being in this position now, so I want to thank you for that. I want to respond to some of your concerns. First of all, we will be bringing forward an amendment tonight to require significant progress to full accessibility by 2023. We have had some discussions and some debate about how to phrase that, and those will proba bly continue, but I agree that there should be a timeline. In my view, it should be meaningful.

I think a 10- year timeline is meaningful because I do think folks who will be working on this will likely still be here in 10 years – maybe not me, but other people–and I also think that significant progress is, frankly, an achievable goal. I'm not sure that full accessibility in a decade is an achievable goal. So that's one of the thing–one of the amendments we'll be making tonight. We do currently have an Acces sibility Advisory Council who will be spearheading the standard development.

They are made up half of people with disabilities and half of people who represent sectors that are affected by the standards, and they will work to construct committees and take advice, but they are the ones that will forward the recommendations. And I think to your point about permitting government to do things or requiring government to do things, I think what we've done in this bill is put in place a number of reporting mechanisms, a number of reviews, so that any government will set standards, and that's certainly the intent of this government.

I think, given the fact that we have broad support from the opposition, if the government were to change, I believe that would continue. There is an annual reporting requirement from the minister. There is a five -year review requirement of progress on the bill. In respect to your comment about government procurement, there is right now a procurement initiative, ongoing, to look at how w e do some of the things that you're talking about, require accessibility built into our projects.

So I think we are making progress on a number of your concerns, and I just wanted to share that with you and thank you very much for your advice on how we make this bill stronger and more meaningful. Floor Comment: Well, Minister, I want to– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lepofsky. I have to recognize you, sir, before you reply. Mr. Lepofsky: Oh, sure. Thank you. Thank you, Minister, and it's been a privilege to have met you back when you were getting started on this, and I think you've come a tremendous way, for which you can be proud.

In our experience, the public service, as they advise the government how to draft this kind of legislation, sort of gets caught in a bit of a dilemma because at times they're looking at themselves as being the regulated body worried about, oh, what are we going to have to do, and at times they're worried about advising government, don't tie your hands, don't give yourself too many commi tments, this might be hard, give yourself a lot of flexibility. And when I reread this bill this afternoon, it read to me like a bill that was all about saying, good intentions, lots of flexibility.

And what we found in Ontario is good intentions are great , but lots of flexibility means you can end up with the –people move on to other issues and the ball gets dropped. And, in fact, that's become a bit of a –more than a small issue in Ontario right now, even with greater benchmarks than you've got built in. And if there's something we've learned from the Ontario experience, it's that you don't write a law for the people sitting around the table there tonight. You're excited about this and you're looking forward to being proud about achieving it and collabor ating on it.

You've got to write a law for the people who are going to be doing this three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 10 years down the road, and making sure that they are directed to take actions because, invariably, they will find flexibility means we don't really have to do as much as the people may have thought they had to do when they were sitting where you're sitting today. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, I just want to remind – I want to remind everybody we only have five

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 711 minutes for questions and answer s, so just keep that in mind when you're putting your question, and I also advise the presenters that we have other people who want to ask questions. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, I'll be brief. I just want to say thank you for your comments, Davi d. They're very helpful. I raised some of these issues when I spoke at seven–at second reading, particularly the need for specific targets and goals, and I just want to say thank you for your presentation. Floor Comment: Well, thank you. I'd just give you one other– Mr.

Chairperson: Mr. Lepofsky. Mr. Lepofsky: Well, thank you. I'll just give you one other idea that you might want to build in, and that is this. We're–and we learned in Ontario that this is totally worth doing. What about putting a provision in the bill that requires the government to undertake a review of all provincial statutes and regulations for accessibility barriers? Ontario's now in the midst of doing that. It's something that –it needs to be done that wouldn't otherwise be done, and it's the kind of –you could set a benchmark, say, get it done in the next three years.

It –that doesn't commit the government as to what they'll do with that review. You may end up amending laws, you may not. You–obviously, the government has to decide that on i ts own. But at least you get the process going. Anyway, again, I appreciate very much on behalf of my coalition the opportunity to participate, and I –we can only reiterate that Barrier -Free Manitoba has brought superb ideas to the table that are not just practical and workable, but they're balanced and they take into account the needs of people with disabilities and the obligated sectors, and we encourage you to give them serious thought.

Mr. Chairperson: I'll allow one more question, briefly, please. Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): Thank you, David, for your presentation. I'm the PC critic for persons with disabilities. I want to thank you for your comments and your suggestions. I think they're valid and they do provide some thought to strengthening the bill. I have a question for you. If –one of the amendments that we're looking at is time periods. If the impact of a barrier is quite substantial, the barrier needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

So we're looking at amending the legislation to provide the Accessibility Advisory Council to have, you know, more strength. What is your opinion on that? Floor Comment: I think that that's a good idea– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lepofsky. Mr. Lepofsky: I think you got to look at two things, one of whi ch is targeting the efforts at the barriers that affect most people and building on one of the things that Barrier -Free Manitoba's raised. You've absolutely got to change the definition of disability. The–there is no benefit in saying only long- term disability.

I don't know who's got long-term ones and short-term ones except for people like me who are totally blind–oh, you know, I have been for decades and will be the rest of my life, I expect –and our legislation has a very broad definition of disability; it has not gotten in the way of anything. It has not impeded development of standards. It has made –it has liberated the government and those who are developing recommendations to be able to target problems without looking over their shoulder going, well, do es this fit that technical definition?

I'm not sure whether your definition of disability would just freeze out people with learning disabilities, for example. You have to take a serious look at that. I sure wouldn't want you to and I don't think you'd probably want to either. But I think you're right.

You want to focus on making sure you've got a broad definition of barriers, a broad definition of disabilities and your recommendation of having –focusing efforts on the biggest barriers that hurt the most people first, as well as focusing on the things that are the easiest to fix first so that you can get some wins in and get people excited about the progress you're making. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Lepofsky. Time for this presentation has expired. Before we move on, it has been brought to my attention that presenter No. 1 and presenter No. 6 would like to exchange positions on our list.

Is that agreeable to the committee? [Agreed] I now call Gail Mores, director of community engagement and accessibility services for the March of Dimes Canada. Ms. Mores, do you have any written materials for the committee? I see you do. Our staff will distribute them for you. Good evening, Ms. Mores, you may proceed.

712 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 Ms. Gail Mores (March of Dimes Canada): Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, honourable members. My name's Gail Mores. I'm director of community engagement and accessibility services at March of Dimes Canada. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill 26. Over the past few years March of Dimes has been a part of the consultation processes that have led to the development of this legislation.

My colleagues, Jerry Lucas and Steven Christianson, briefed many of you last November, providing both an update on how similar legis lation's working in Ontario and, more importantly, on how the accessibility for a Manitobans' act could improve upon the Ontario law and make Manitoba a model of inclusion and accessibility. * (18:40) I'll first take a few minutes to explain the role of March of Dimes in working with government to develop accessibility legislation or to learn about best practices in other jurisdictions.

We have collaborated with representatives of governments ranging from Korea and Australia to the US and the UK. W e remain active with the United Nations Disability Committee. Across Canada, we are in the process of advancing the learning dialogue about accessibility legislation in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, whose newly elected government is committed to introducing similar legislation, Alberta and Saskatchewan. In Ontario, we continue to work with the provincial government to refine and improve the accessibilities for Ontarians with the disabilities act.

Let me state up front that we believe Bill 26 is a good example of how to legislate accessibility, one that recognizes the intersection of aging and disability and one that complements existing human rights codes to help achieve inclusion and create a barrier-free society and economy. This is clearly a made-in-Manitoba approach, something that is critical to the sustainability and efficacy of the legislation.

But the one thing that is consistent, regardless of where such legislation exists or is in the process of being introduced, is how transformative such law–a law actually is and how few people fully appreciate its transformative nature. Accessibility legislation will ultimately touch every aspect of the economy and society in ways that very few other laws ever do. To quote the former Ontario Community and Soc ial Services minister, Charles Beer, it is an instrument for transforming our attitudes towards people with disabilities.

Its overriding goal is to achieve meaningful and tangible improvements to the lives of people with disabilities. The last thing you want to do is enact legislation of this magnitude only to relegate the administrative functions of support, outreach and compliance to minimal levels of staff with inadequate resources. Our accompanying written submission, which you have, gets into the det ail of where we recommend greater consideration. In sum, clarity of obligation will help ensure compliance.

And while this sounds too obvious, we all know of regulations that have passed the face of uncertainty from obligated sectors. Timelines: We think an ultimate overall deadline or point of measure is something the government ought to include in the legislation. You may want to identify your measures of success and when and how they are determined. Bill 26 won't solve everything, and this has been the case with accessibility legislation everywhere. But that doesn't mean that complementary initiatives to help advance accessibility can't be used.

In Ontario, for example, accessibility require - ments for many existing homes was not to be included in the law. It was identified that similar objectives could be achieved in another way and complement the AODA. We helped to introduce the home renovation tax credit, a tax incentive available to homeowners who want to conduct accessibility renovations, and, giv en the aging population, that complementary measure is doing wonders across the province. Leadership: Immediate application of the law should apply across the government and specifically to the Legislative Assembly. Of course, this means MLA offices.

But , as we experienced during a set of 2013 by -elections in Ontario, shouldn't also– shouldn't that also apply during the electoral cycle to campaigns and campaign offices of candidates seeking election to the Legislative Assembly? There are many questions over –on how Ontario's AODA would apply to candidates and parties –which accessibility standard would regulate them, or if their offices and staff volunteer training were even required to comply with the law. Certainly, a learning experience for many, but s omething we really feel should never have been left as a question.

As we look back on the Ontario legislation and consider what could've been done better, we pause to consider many elements of the process need improvement and possible reconsideration, a nd you

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 713 too will experience that exact sentiment in the years ahead. But it is important to remember the tremendous opportunities in front of us to proactively address the ever -changing challenges of tomorrow through accessibility legislation. And while it 's a long journey, Manitoba's Bill 26 is a solid example of how we can begin realizing those opportunities. Thank you very much. I would be pleased to address any questions you may have. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Mores. The floor is open for questions. Ms.

Howard: Thank you very much and thanks for making the journey to be with us tonight. I know we met earlier in the year with some other folks from your organization, and one of the things they talked to us about is the work that they have done with organizations, businesses that are subject to the Ontario act, and I know that will be one of the questions going forward. As we develop the standards, people who have to abide by those standards will want help on how to do that.

So, if you could talk more about the work that you've done in Ontario to provide that assistance, I think that would be a valuable contribution tonight. Ms. Mores: Certainly. We took the opportunity to create a consultation service with a partner from the for-profit sector, a n architectural firm, and together what we've done is we've provided consultation services to the broader public sector business community and the not -for-profit sector.

We help them by taking the burden of pulling together the policies, procedures and pra ctices that they require to comply with the legislation by saying, for a price, we will come in and we will audit your policies, procedures and practices, we will develop a training program for you based on your policies, procedures and practices, and we w ill help your business become more accessible. That may mean by sending staff in to do an accessibility audit to find out if the built environment is truly accessible. It may mean coming in and rewriting all of their policies.

It may mean developing a trai ning program or, if the company is large enough, a train-the-trainer program so they can continue on doing an in- house program. We have online e -learning solutions as well, and we continue to do that to help people as they make their way through compliance.

Our learning on this is there's a whole bunch, particularly in the private sector, that don't know about the legislation, that are very reluctant and confused even though the legislation states in the province of Ontario if you have a business or an operation that serves at least one person and you employ at least one person in the province of Ontario, you must comply with the regulation. It's pretty simple; everybody has to do it. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, I notice in your comments and in your brief you had a discussion about the inclusion or not of private residences.

Do you think that there should be a date, even if it was a longer time, when all private residences that are newly built should be accessible? Ms. Mores: That's a dream. I think the reality is the concept of visitability, which is something that I know comes from Manitoba and one that I myself think is a marvellous concept, is something that we should look towards.

I believe, quite honestly, that what we should be doing is making some legislation so that when contractors and builders are starting to develop a new neighbourhood, that a certain percentage of those homes be developed to be visitable or have complete barrier-free-design type of thing. Mrs. Rowat: Great. Thank you for your presentation this evening. You've provided us with an extensive amount of information and some very good ideas on how we can strengthen this process, so I appreciate that.

Could you just share briefly what your thoughts are on timelines and the significance of ti melines in implementation of deliverables? Ms. Mores: Thank you. As the previous speaker said, they're critical. I have been working around this particular legislation since it was enacted. What we know is with every piece of the legislation with the exception of the one in the built environment, they've all become now law and we're now moving towards it. They're still having some issues around the legislation comp–finalizing what those standards are for the built environment one.

And that's the one that co ncerns me the most, quite honestly, because that's the one that's going to take the most amount of money and the longest time to do it, because what we're talking about is having the capital dollars to renovate and modify existing buildings, and that one concerns me. What I do think that we did that was a really good win–and it was an easy win –was to have the customer service regulation be the first one that became law because that's the one about the

714 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 attitudinal issue. When I talk to my friends who have disability and I talk to them, they say, you know, it's great to get into a building –that's wonderful; I get really excited when I'm actually able to use the washroom in a building. But the thing that is the greatest barrier to me is the attitude of the peo ple.

If I'm going shopping with a friend who uses a wheelchair, quite often the clerk will speak to me as if my person, who has much more education than I, is–you know, doesn't have a voice for herself, because people see the disability instead of the human being first. What we need to do is that customer-service piece or the attitudinal, the sensitivity piece is absolutely essential. What I can tell you positively, I have noted and my –I have been told by people that I live –work and live with who have disab ility, that there is a difference.

It's like eating an elephant; it's one bite at a time, but there is a difference. * (18:50) Mr. Chairperson: Time for this presentation has expired. Thank you, Ms. Mores. Now call Mr. Kevin Rebeck, president, Manitoba Federation of Labour. Mr. Rebeck, do you have any written materials? I see you do. Our staff will distribute them for you. You may proceed. Mr. Kevin Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour): The Manitoba Federation of Labour, or the MFL, is pleased to share its views with the committee on Bill 26, The Accessibility for Manitobans Act.

For those not familiar with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, we are chartered by the Canadian Labour Congress to represent the interests of CLC -affiliated unions in Mani toba and their over 96,000 members. Because those numbers include persons with disabilities, and because we advocate on workplace safety and health and workers compensation issues, there's a great deal of interest in Bill 26 within our ranks.

Let me say at the outset that we commend the NDP government for introducing what has been described as historic because it's one of only a very few occasions over the last 50 years that any government in Canada has moved to comprehensively address disability an d accessibility rights. The bill is landmark because it sets out an entirely new and potentially powerful legislated framework to promote and protect the human rights of the 200,000 Manitobans with disabilities.

In its response to recommendations of the Accessibility Advisory Council published in March this year, the government outlined a clear agenda to prevent accessibility barriers by using this bill to lay out a framework for the development and implementation of accessibility standards leading to a barrier-free society.

Analysis of Bill 26 by the persons with disabilities community identifies its strong points among the following: that persons with disabilities should have barrier -free access to those things that will give them equality of both opportunity and outcome; that the responsibility for preventing and removing barriers to accessibility rests with those who create and perpetuate them and not by those faced by them; that the whole range of disabilities are addressed, not just physical disabi lities; that it enables the enactment of accessibility standards by regulations that specify what barriers must be prevented or removed, and that will apply to all sectors.

It centralizes the development of accessibility standards in one single council. It makes one specific minister responsible for the overall implementation of the proposed legislation. It requires that public sector bodies, including municipalities, develop and publish accessibility plans addressing the identification, prevention and r emoval of barriers. It provides mechanisms for the active enforcement of accessibility standards enacted under this proposed law, and it provides for administrative penalties for non-compliance and maximum $250,000 fines for parties found guilty of an of fence under the new law.

And, finally, it requires an independent and comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the proposed law four years after it's passed and every five years thereafter, all reports of the review being made public. These highlights are just the tip of the spear that Manitobans will use to take away the unfairness and injustice long faced by persons with disabilities across our province. One of the community organizations that the MFL counts among its social justice allies is Barrier-Free Manitoba. Its analysis of Bill 26 identifies a number of areas where a good bill can be made better.

In support of that organization, I'd like to echo a few of them and urge the government to take them to heart. The first one I was about to push you on was on timelines, and I heard you address the first presentation and say that there is a timeline of 2023 being put in place, and that's great. I was going to push you for 2025 and you're exceeding that, so

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 715 I commend you for that amendment and look forward to it. Further adjustments that could be made is under clause 3. The bill reads as follows: What is a barrier? For a person who has a long- term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment, a barrier is anything that interacts with that impairment in a way that may hinder the person's full and effective participation in society on an equal basis. We recognize that this is the phrasing used in

article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but Barrier -Free Manitoba points out that the government's last policy document accepted the recommendation from the Manitoba Accessibility Advisory Council that Bill 26 would use a definition of disability that embodied an inclusive, broad meaning of impairment including long-term physical, mental, intellectual, invisible, episodic or sensory impairments. It's not clear to us that the current wording of Bill 26 meets this inclusive approach to disability.

We further ask the minister should be required to give public wr itten notice to the council if the terms of reference of an accessibility standard are withdrawn. These amendments will lead to predictability and accountability in the standard development process, and they'll promote the best decisions in a transparent way. There's also concern about clause 6(4). It reads: Private residences excluded –6(4)–an accessibility standard may not impose any requirement on the owner or occupier of premises that contain one or two dwelling units.

If the intention is that the accessibility standards developed under this law will not apply to private owner-occupied single or duplex housing units that are being used exclusively for residential purposes, then it should say so. In its current form it could also be interpreted to exclude commercially owned and operated one - or two-dwelling unit properties where no accessibility standards would apply.

And finally, in support of Barrier -Free Manitoba, we suggest that the timing of the minister's release to the first plan, as required in clause 5(3), be moved from the 2015- 16 fiscal year to no later than April 1, 2014. There are long -term benefits associated with this important initiative that have been documented elsewhere. In Ontario, a team headed by Dr.

Kevin Stolarick, research director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto, the impact of five standards through which the accessibility for Ontarios with disabilities act was implemented –the study reviewed the economic impact of increased accessibility on individuals on markets and on social units. It was found that there are opportunities at all three levels to realize substantial economic gains by removing barriers to people participating fully in the province's economy.

The most significant gains will be realized in workplaces and schools, enabling increased workforce participation among persons with disabilities. It will not only increase their individual and their family income, but could also increase the GDP per capita by up to $600 per annum, or in provincial GDP terms, 16 to 18 billion. Enabling people with disabilities to achieve parity with the general population's average educational can mean an additional boost to Ontario's GDP per capita of up to $200.

The bottom line is, when society tolera tes barriers to accessibility, the result is large pools of untapped human capital that could help drive the province's prosperity.

Businesses can benefit from these standards in three ways: first, increased access to retail and tourism opportunities could result in accelerated growth in these sectors; second, there is the capacity to support accessibility -focused businesses able to serve global markets which are grappling with these very same challenges; and third, our universities, colleges, and other i nstitutions can help educate the next generation of workers and develop new intellectual property that can prepare businesses to compete in the growing number of markets defined by accessibility requirements.

The point must be made that there are costs associated with doing nothing and tolerating the current social exclusion. Continued exclusion means significant costs from the entire province through increased health -care demands and poverty -related social programs. These costs are born by persons with disabilities, their families and the communities they live in.

The study concludes with the following assessment: What we have learnt, however, leads us to conclude that every day that people who want to learn, cannot; people who want to do, do not; and businesses that wish to serve these markets must wait to see what will be required. The report goes on to say Ontario is losing extremely valuable contributions from its citizens. Releasing the constraints that limit full participation in the

716 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 economy will create a significant force for economic growth. My final thought on this is that we should all remember that the measures we take to remove barriers to accessibility for persons with disabilities can benefit everyone in society. Some of the examples are curb cuts that enable people with dis – with mobility challenges to more easily transition from sidewalks to road services. Those same curb cuts help parents pushing strollers or people moving along with hand dollies and large packages.

Elevators and escalat ors are used by people moving boxes, either by hand or on carts– Mr. Chairperson: One minute. Mr. Rebeck: –and closed captions on televisions meant to assist the hearing impaired are meant –are there to assist the hearing impaired, but they are the – only t he fourth largest group in society who uses them. The largest is people exercising in gyms, followed by those who are in sports bar watching their favourite sport while interacting with friends, and the third group being those who are watching television trying not to disturb their partner while they might be sleeping.

It's plain to me that everyone comes out ahead with Accessibility for Manitobans Act. Thank you. * (19:00) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Rebeck. Order, please. Questions. Ms. Howard: Thank you very much, Kevin, for coming and making your presentation. I wanted to respond to a couple of the things that you've raised; first, on the definition. It's also my intention tonight to bring an amendment that ensures that that definition is ref lective. I believe the current definition does achieve that, and that's why the United Nations used it.

But I've heard that not everybody sees themselves reflected in that definition. That's important, so we'll take the phrase long-term out of the definit ion and we'll replace the term impairment with disability, and hopefully that will be as inclusive as we mean it to be. The other thing on private residences is a good point that's been raised. Our intention was to exempt only private residences, not a whole building where there may be a private residence, so we'll bring forward an amendment to clarify that. I want to tha nk you for raising the work of the prosperity institute.

We –I think we brought somebody from there to speak at one point in time, and one of the great learnings from this journey has been working with many members of the business community who I think have also realized that this is not a cost, this is an opportunity. Having more people be able to come into your store or your restaurant or your hotel is a good thing, and that's been a real strength of the process that we've used to date. Mr. Rebeck: I think that's great, and thank you for listening to those suggested changes and acting on them and being a leader in that. Mrs.

Rowat: I thank you for your presentation, Kevin, tonight, and I think you've raised some very good points, and we also are looking at some amendments with regard to definition and timelines, et cetera. So we appreciate, I guess, your support in that area. I just have a question for you. With regard to– you had mentioned or had commented about exclusion and poverty -related programs, t he exclusion of. We've actually committed to raising the rental allowance portion of EIA to 75 per cent of median market rates or rents.

This is a move that we've had some debate on in the House, and we haven't been able to move it forward. And we feel that this is critical and a very important policy point for all Manitobans, all vulnerable Manitobans. So we're just wanting to know what your perspective is on raising the rental allowance and the debate that we've been having with regard to that. Mr. Rebeck: Well, I think that's a different bill, of course, and there's lots of areas in public policy areas that we need to address to make things equitable for people and to raise the standard and bar.

I think the point I was raising under the measures that the rest of society pays in a number of areas, including poverty areas, is that if we don't make these changes and create a more accessible environment for training, for participation in business and the economy and employment, then they become more reliant on other systems that put pressures on all of us. Mrs. Rowat: Thank you, Kevin, for that comment.

But just specifically to the policy of increasing the rental allowance and how that would definitely provide additional supports financially for indi - viduals with disabilities, what is the position on your organization on that?

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 717 Mr. Rebeck: So I do know that we've had some discussion on that. I don't have our policy paper on that. There are a number of factors that fall in that line, in creating supports for t hat, so I don't want to misspeak on behalf of my organization and the debates and position there. Mr. Gerrard: Thanks, Kevin. Yes, I'm glad that you brought up the point that this shouldn't be just long-term disability and that short -term disabilities are also important, and I'm pleased that the minister is going to move in that direction.

I also note –and thank you for bringing up the discussion of the importance of when we are bringing in changes to make spaces more accessible, that we help a lot of other people who don't have disabilities often too. Mr. Rebeck: Thank you very much, and I appreciate the work of the committee and government in moving this agenda forward. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation, Mr. Rebeck. Now move to the top of the list as per our agreement, Mr. Patrick Falconer, Abilities Manitoba–[interjection] Sorry, representing Barrier - Free Manitoba. Mr.

Falconer, I see you have some written materials. Our staff will distribute them. You may begin when ready. Mr. Patrick Falconer (Barrier- Free Manitoba) : Thank you. The ministers and other community members, I've the honour and responsibility, a little bit of both, to formally submit Barrier -Free Manitoba's written brief to you this evening. Barrier-Free Manitoba along with many others celebrated the historic tabling of this legislation back in April of 2013. Kevin has mentioned we don't use those terms lightly. It's indeed both historic and it is landmark.

We want to congratulate the mini ster and government for taking this incredibly important bill forward, but we recognize that the congratulations don't stop there. The bill was developed through recommendations where you had representation from business, seniors, the municipal sectors in terms of an advisory council, and they contributed and did a lot of heavy lifting on this, and we want to acknowledge that.

We'd like to acknowledge that the opposition parties, the Liberals and the PCs, have played a major role in terms of supporting this legislation, both in consultation with us and in terms of debate in the House. So we believe, we've always said that this is non- partisan legislation; this is good public policy. We believe this is a major public issue, and we appreciate, applaud and v ery much are aware of the support we have had from all of the parties.

As you may know, certainly, I know, Barrier-Free Manitoba has worked tirelessly over the last five years in efforts to secure this strong and effective legislation. It's hard to fatho m, but this actually is our 13th substantial paper report related to this legislation. So this won't be the first time that we've spoken or made our views known. Indeed, you–what you have before you is a fairly lengthy document. We took the liberty, if you will, of trying to submit it to you beforehand yesterday so you had a chance to look at it. It's a 24- page document along with a three -and-a-half page

summary. My intent – my hope would've been to have read the entire thing word for word because it's very w ell crafted, but I don't think that's possible or of any particular interest to you. Perhaps when I go to bed tonight I'll try to re-read it. We believe this legislation is a once -in-a- generation opportunity to enact strong and effective accessibility rig hts legislation that will address widespread systemic discrimination while providing meaningful benefits to all Manitobans.

Bill 26 as written gets us ever so close to realizing this opportunity, but we feel that it falls short in 11 areas that are outline d in our brief. It needs to be strengthened before it goes on to third reading. Our brief, as you look at it, outlines three paramount concerns. There will be other people who will speak those concerns. I'm going to move on to what we call eight priority areas. Most of them are relatively straightforward and all of them are important. They're not paramount concerns, but they're priority concerns. We have worked to look for progressive, pragmatic and realistic legislation.

We believe that the amendments we're asking for are also progressive, pragmatic and realistic. We distributed the brief to you earlier and it's here now, so I'm not going to go through everything in great detail, but I'll run through the eight areas that we have. Some of them, again, are straightforward. There's a

WHEREAS clause. The

WHEREAS clause talks about the built environment, and it doesn't include any discussion or appreciation that we're talking about social, economic and physical infrastructures. When I talk to people about barri ers and accessibility, the first thing they think of is one; they think of, well, a wheelchair. People jump

718 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 immediately to the conclusion that this is talking about physical disabilities and the

WHEREAS clause feeds into that kind of bias, and we feel that a slight wording of that

WHEREAS clause would provide a much fuller, holistic and meaningful context for the bill, not a big change, not a change in substance, just a change in style and in wording. Second one is the –we understand that the –as currently written, the bill does not apply or standards would not apply to the Legislative Assembly. We are here today. The Legislative Assembly has a central role to play in the business of government.

It has a central role to play in the citizenship of all Manitobans, and we believe there must be some kind of a way to address the issue that if there are standards developed for the rest of Manitoba, business and government, that it also applies to the Legislative Assembly. We understand there is some complexity in doing that, but we feel it would be a major shortfall if there was not an obligation for this Assembly to be able to have the same standards apply to them. * (19:10) Number 3: Kevin Rebeck has spoken to this, the issue of the minister's first plan –timing currently using for 2015- 2016.

We had hoped, perhaps optimistically, that this bill would've been passed in June of 2011. We waited until April 2013 when it was introduced. We thought that this bill was going to be passed by June of 2013–we hoped. We understand other things have happened that have delayed the passage of this bill. Now we're talking about perhaps December, December 5th – December 3rd would be lovely, International Day of Persons with Disabilities –it's going to be passed. Had it been pas sed in 2011, had it been passed in June of 2013, we would be well ahead in implementation.

The fact of the matter, it is not, so we have a constrained timeline. We're saying, no, don't wait for another year and three months –15 months–before there's even a plan as to how it's going–implemented; have that plan tabled for April of 2014. I understand it's a constrained timeline. We're saying it's been waiting a long time, right, and we believe that that kind of quicker timeline is both necessary and appropriate. Item 4: Throughout the bill, there is a number of places where people are required to provide information, information the minister provides, information that public bodies provide.

Nowhere in the act is there any requirement that information be available in accessible formats. It's somewhat ironic that a bill which deals with accessibility would require information to be provided but not accessibly. Not a big change, just again a tinker, but it's meaningful, it's substantial and it's symbolic. Number 5: It's been talked about, the residential exclusion clause. We feel that it is written much too broadly. Our own view would be that there is no need for this clause.

There is an extensive process laid out in the bill for how regulation–how standards will be developed, the kinds of consultation which will occur, and in those processes there's a way for people to decide what things could apply to what. We do not believe that any sector should be categorically excluded from possibly the development of accessibility standards five years, 10 years, 20 years from now. We believe the process will provide for wise and effective standard development.

This precludes one whole sector, and not only does it preclude that sector, but it's described in a way which is way too broad and open to misinterpretation. Number 6 in my series of seven: Clause 9(2) deals with the issue of considerations that the council must have in establishing timelines for compliance. There are two areas which we feel should be added. One is –and it's been talked about –the impact of a barrier; David Lepofsky spoke about that.

The issue is, if you're looking at timelines for compliance and for removing barriers, that look at what the impact that barrier is as being one of those considerati ons. The second thing we've asked for is that there be regard given –not driven–regard given to existing legal requirements pertaining to that barrier. We've been told in some consultations that that is implied. We like the word implied; we just don't think implied means the same thing to more than five or six people or even two people. If this is what it means, then say it.

Clarity and precision, to us, would be a strong attribute of strong legislation, rather than expecting that these things are implied and understood. Number 7: There is nowhere in the bill where there is a requirement that the–there's a public release of council recommendations for accessibility standards. If the minister receives a recommendation for standards and decides to act upon those standards, then it obligates her to be able –or him–to be able to release those standards as being part of what they do.

If, however, after months and months of serious labour and investment of time as volunteers to develop standards, a recommendation's made and a mini ster says, I'm not going to act upon

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 719 that, we have no way of knowing whether that recommendation was ever made, it will ever see the light of day. We're asking people to spend a considerable amount of time and effort to be able to be part of this process, and we think, if their recommendation– Mr. Chairperson: One minute, sir. Mr. Falconer: –from a council, they should become public at some point in time whether or not the minister decides they want to act upon them.

And 8 –number–last one –there is a prov ision in this, 33(3), which deals with information which must be provided by the public sector in accessibility plans. There was a clause which talks about looking at measures to address any proposed laws, policies or programs. We'd like to be able to see obligation – organizations have to actually look back at existing laws, because that's where many of the barriers are. This clause doesn't require that and, indeed, it works against that by saying that if they have measures to deal with those kind of existing things, they need not report upon them.

So we believe striking the –any proposed, we think would be a strong improvement to the bill. Thank you for your time. May I say just one more thing? Sorry –may I report to you that there is food in the hallway, tha t you can tell the people behind me that there is food in the hallway. Should they grow hungry over this period of time, they may and you may go and enjoy. It's from the Barrier -Free reception. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for that. The floor is open for questions. Ms. Howard: At first I thought you said there's fluid in the hallway. I was worried we were being flooded in there. Okay, phew.

Thanks very much, Patrick, and thanks for all your work on this. It has been a journey, and it's been an honour to be on the journey with you and the folks that work with you. I just want to talk very briefly, some of the things you've raised were going to address the issue of the Legislature. We are going to bring forward an amendment to make the Legislat ive Assembly Management Commission responsible for how this bill will apply to the Legislature. That's typically the way we handle this because MLAs are not accountable to each other, we are accountable to the public.

The LAMC is a place where all the parties are represented and we can come together and talk about how to make sure that we're abiding by this. So there will be a way that this will apply to the Legislative Assembly. We're also going to bring forward an amendment to make sure information is available in accessible formats. So those will be addressed. We're not going to address everything that you've raised, all legislation is imperfect, but I want you to know that without you and the work of Barrier-Free, we would not be here discussing any legislation. So thank you for that. Mr.

Falconer: It has been –it's been a journey I've never been on before. I've never been on a journey for five years to build a secure systemic change. It's been an honour. It's been a pleasure to work with you on this and it's been a pleasure to work with all those who are concerned in the House and outside the House, so thank you. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, I'd like to just have you comment a little bit further on the application of the act to private residences.

I mean, one earlier comment was that maybe it could be that you would make it a target to a certain proportion of newly constructed private residences, but I think that what you're suggesting is that there are aspects of the construction of private residences, that the code could be changed that would make it easier for people with disabilities, whether it's the size of the front door or whether it's the position of light switches or the accessibility of washrooms. Just could you expand a little bit on what you said? Mr.

Falconer: I believe there is a standard in England where all new -build housing must have some zero -grade entrances. So I think there's, you know, precedence where there has been regulation looking forward. We have the situation of Vancouver, who I think has introduced some very important changes in terms of the building code in Vancouver. So I think there are ways looking forward. I'm less convinced there are ways to look backwards unless there are major renovations. The issue for us is don't categorica lly exclude something which might make sense.

We have this long process where you go through a long committee process and then it goes for a public review and then it goes for –it goes to the minister who develops recommend–standards, and then it goes for public review process. Trust the process. If it makes sense, and housing will make sense at some point in time, let that standard process –development process deal

720 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 with that. Don't categorically exclude something which 10 years from now say, well, why didn't we include that? Well, it doesn't make sense to categorically–we don't categorically exclude small business; we don't categorically include non- profit organizations. We seem to categorically exclude the Legislative Assembly, although there's a way to address that. Why would we categorically exclude any party as being possibly something where it might make sense? From our point of view is trust the process. Mrs.

Rowat: Thank you very much, Patrick, for your presentation and providing the information that you have this evening. I really appreciated the time and–that you've given me and to our staff in educating us on this whole process. It's been a –very interesting and it's very, very important legislation, and I agree that it –we have to do it right. and so I'm hoping that a few of our amendments today will be supported and lead towards a stronger piece of legislation. * (19:20) My question for you is with regard to your comment grand goal and target dates.

With regard to proposed standards or, you know, what the community would indicate as a need within the community and priorizing that as something that needs to be done, is –there appears to be some concern that there's not enough clarity with regard to the minister having a timeline and responding to that position presented by the disability community. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Because it is a concern. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Falconer, I have to recognize you. Mr. Falconer: I'm so sorry.

You know, I started gaining weight over time, and I always said, you know, I'm going to do something to lose some weight. I'm going to do something, and I did lots and lots of stuff and, you know, finally, I could have said, you know, I'm going to do it, and here's my timeline for doing it and here's my plan. And you know what? You know, I –it worked. Why? Because I was serious. I had a plan. I had a timeline. I had something to be able to drive what I was going to be able to do.

I think all of us, when we l ook at change in our own personal lives, you know, let's take away the legislation in your own personal lives. Is it good to say, well, we'll just do our best. We'll do our best through time and that's really good. Maybe it works for some of you. It's never worked very well for me. To say here's a firm thing I want, I can describe it in conceptual terms as a goal and I can establish a way of getting there and a timeline for achieving that. Wow, that makes a difference. Throw away the timeline. It's –I've got great intentions.

I got great ideas, but you know what, other priorities come up and I just don't get around to them. That's the concern that we have. Mr. Chairperson: Time is up for the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Falconer. Now, for the attention of the committee, presenter No. 18 has brought it to the attention of the Chair that she has some special needs. She also has staff in attendance who are at the end of their shift already, so she would like to present next. Is that agreeable to the committee? [Agreed] On that note, I call Ms. Laurie Helgason. Ms. Helgason, do you have any written materials for the committee? Ms.

Laurie Helgason (Private Citizen) : No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, you may proceed. Ms. Helgason: Okay, I'm just waiting for the mic to be set up. I want to thank you, Chair, and your honourable members, for getting this legislation off the ground. You've done a great job. I think you have done an admirable job, but I do believe there needs to be some changes. My name is Laurie Helgason. I have some concerns about this bill. My biggest worry is that this bill has no teeth and no timeline. Without a realistic timeline of when things are supposed to be equal for us, it'll never happen.

The white paper promised us equality in 20 years, and now 20 years have gone by and we're still second -class citizens. While most of you enjoy shopping wherever you want, we're restricted in where we can go. People often tell me that I can't expect businesses to become accessible – it's quite an expense –when most times all that's needed is a $15 asphalt patch. I can't take a bus in winter, even though it's accessible because the sidewalks aren't plowed, and many others can't get there. I'm not the only one that feels that way.

People with walkers and canes, they have a hard time getting to the bus stop too, and if you have trouble at all with getting dizzy, it's almost impossible to navigate sidewalks that are filled full of ruts. I think there needs to be a firm relationship between the

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 721 Province and the City so–the municipalities –so that they understand what the meaning of accessibility is. I even –our buses are fully accessible, but now they've made them so that carriages can be open on them. I know that's against the law in t he States for the baby's safety. We didn't do that here; instead, we fill them up full of carriages, five or six at a time, and when I–the–when the bus gets to my stop, and I go–I'm the one that has to wait in -40 for the next bus. I don't think that that makes it very accessible. They can fold up; I can't.

So I think we need to really think about what it really means to be accessible. When sidewalks aren't plowed, I take the highway, and that pisses off the semis to no end, to see this wheelchair coming towards them down the highway. But, you know, I can't just stay at home all the time. I do need to have a life and I'd like to have quality of life. If you have to take Handi -Transit, that reduces you to two grocery bags. Who among you without a disability goes shopping and just takes two bags of groceries home? Come on, when you get paid, just buy in bulk and you do a big shopping and you take it home.

That's the way I did it before I was in a wheelchair, and that's the way I'd like to do it again, but I can't. There are other disadvantages to being a second-class citizen. Last year, for a full year I was homeless, and there were no shelters here in Manitoba that were accessible. I think that's disgraceful. I called Family Services. I called all –a lot of you I called, and said, look, I don't have anywhere to stay. I'm on oxygen. I'm in a wheelchair. There are no shelters. What am I supposed to do? And there isn't anything for me to do because there's nothing–nowhere for me to go.

So I ended up staying in a place that was not accessible, and on the charity of someone –on someone else's charity. They didn't like it that much but I've since met a lot of women with disabilities that are homeless and that–I can tell you there are a lot of things that women w ill do to make sure there's a roof over their head, and I think you can only imagine what those things might be. One of the bigger things that bothers me is when I go out to places far from home, I have to take Handi-Transit to allow for enough oxygen just to get there.

And I'm not –I can't get Handi -Transit for social occasions, so I have to call everything medical and get to a nearby hospital and hoof it from there. Another thing that bothers me is we're talking about we can't grandfather old buildings so they aren't–so they're accessible. Why –we can –we don't need to grandfather them. It's not fair. Every building in London and Manchester is accessible, for sure. And the way it works is if you want to access that building, I give them a tag, and that lets them know a person with a disability wants to enter their building.

After two weeks and it hasn't become accessible, I give them a second tag. This lets them know that they've got a reasonable amount of time that they must make it accessible. If I give them a third time, there's a date on that tag that lets them know that the government is coming by this date, and you–they will make you accessible and it will be charged to you in your taxes. So if –from start to finish the whole process is six weeks. I–we can't do this in under 10 years? I think we can. I think we can be fully accessible in under 10 years.

I think it just takes the will to do it, and the will to want–the 170,000 of us, voting members of the public, to want to. I mean, even the places we vote sometimes aren't accessible. We have to somehow get in there and vote. I've done it. I've had to be carried into the voting booth. If a reasonable amount of time passes–oh, sorry– the disability movement in England made sure that all buildings that needed to become accessible became accessible by tagging them all. So here in Manitoba we have no timeline for becoming accessible. And if in England it can be done in six weeks, why have we waited for 20 years?

Why should we wait another 20? This can be done just as quickly as it was done in England. An accessibility plan without a timeline and enforceable steps is not solving the problem of inaccessibility here in Manitoba. Here in Manitoba we can be fully accessible in less than 10 years. There's no reason it can't be done. If they can do it in England, we can do it here. Our buildings are not older than the buildings in England. * (19:30) Bill 26 does not have a timeline for when we're going to become fully accessible and it does not have measures for when accessibility will be enforced.

We're still doing what we were doing 10 years ago, saying it should happen and hoping it will by using pretty words. We need this bill to have teeth to be able to make it accessible for those of us here that have been waiting so long to be a full citizen of Manitoba. I pay taxes just like everybody else. I vote just like everybody else. Why can't I go to any store

722 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 just like anybody else? It's not fair and it needs to stop. That's all I have to say. Short. Mr. Ch airperson: Thank you, Ms. Helgason. I'll open the floor to questions. Ms. Howard: Thank you very much, Laurie. It's nice to see you. I just want –I don't have a question for you, but I want to thank you for your presentation. I want to thank you for making it real for us and giving us some real, tangible examples of the cost, both human and financial and emotional, of not moving forward with accessibility.

So I want to thank you for making that real and I want to thank you for the research you did into som e of the processes in England. Throughout this process we tried to learn from other places and I think you've given us another example of some places we can learn from. So thank you. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you, Laurie. It's a very powerful presentation and example of the problems.

I think what you're saying is that having one timeline or target for 2023 is not good enough, that there are certain things like accessibility to every grocery story which should be done in–if not six weeks, at least something that 's a little more credible in terms of time. Ms. Helgason: I think 10 years is quite reasonable. I don't think that there's anything that can't be done in 10 years. I've been seeing that in some areas where they have older buildings they've raised the side walk to meet the top step to make it accessible.

Now, if the City can raise the sidewalk to meet the top step, then–of the buildings that I'd like to enter, I don't see that that's a big problem. Why can't we do that everywhere? Mr. Gerrard: Thank you. Mrs. Rowat: Thank you, Laurie, for your presentation. It was full of experience and it provided a lot of thought, you know, for all of us here, and I think there's an opportunity where we can all learn from this, and I believe that your advocacy and your commitment to ensuring that Manitobans have access to shopping –and I agree. I can't imagine just having two bags of groceries. I agree with you.

That is–[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Helgason. [interjection] Mrs. Rowat. Mrs. Rowat: I wasn't finished. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank you, Laurie, for what you've–for taking the time today in presenting, and I know that it's been a long day, but it's definitely a day that we all recognize as a significant day. Ms. Helgason: Okay, I thank you, Ms. Rowat. The big thing that I'm really concerned about is the whole business of there being absolutely no accessible shelters. I think that's almost criminal, and it really affects me badly.

I have a home now, thank God, but I could lose that if they decide to go condo. You never know. So I sure don't want to be in those –that place again with no hope and nowhere to go. Thanks very much. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation. Now, for the at tention of the committee, our person who is doing the closed-captioning is working alone, and it's a very intense process, I'm sure, and on that basis I'm going to call a five -minute recess to give her some rest. Resume in five minutes. The committee recessed at 7:34 p.m. ____________ The committee resumed at 7:48 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I call the committee back to order. We did have a little technical difficulties with closed captioners, but this is 13 minutes we're into. When I call a five -minute break the next hour, let's try and keep it to, say, 10 minutes. But we will proceed here. And I have another presenter with similar circumstances to the last presenter. So I'm wondering if the committee will agree to hear that presenter next. Is that agreeable? [Agreed] I call Ms. Libby Zdriluk, Independent Living Resource Centre. First of all, how do you pronounce your name, please? Ms.

Libby Zdriluk (Independent Living Resource Centre): I was just going to say you did pretty good. You almost got it, there. Zdriluk. Only one in the province, so, yes. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, well, being a Nevakshonoff, I can relate to you.

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 723 Ms. Zdriluk: Awesome. Mr. Chairperson: So do you have any written materials for the committee? Ms. Zdriluk: No, I do not. I was making some edits, and– Mr. Chairperson: Okay, that's fine. You may present, then. Ms. Zdriluk : Okay. Good evening. My name is Libby Zdriluk, as you know. I work for the Independent Living Resource Centre, or ILRC. For those who do not know, ILRC is a unique agency in that its programming is community directed and it remains one of the leading employ ers of persons with disabilities in Manitoba.

ILRC provides resource and programming for the disability community, and they've been breaking down barriers for years. That's what I want to talk about: barriers. * (19:50) I'm a 27 -year-old woman and single , living with a disability, and I'm transitioning into the next phase of my life into adulthood, experiencing greater levels of independence. I want the same options as anyone else: gainful employment, home ownership, family, equal access to transportation and continuing education opportunities. I want to be able to hang out with my friends, go shopping when I need to, or simply catch a good movie downtown.

I want to continue to do all these things, and this could not be possible unless barriers are taken down. This legislation is designed to take down barriers and we need to make sure it is done right. I'm glad to live here in Manitoba, knowing we are a better province than many in terms of disability rights and inclusion. This act, Bill 26, is certainl y a huge step forward for securing the 'partic' –for securing participation in the community for persons with disabilities. This leap forward will create greater community- living opportunities and continue to move away from institutionalization.

But our work is not yet done. Barriers exist. Some of biggest barriers are how people are not aware and transportation is not fully accessible. We are missing ramps. We still have developers needing to be reminded that the disability community wants to be involved. It falls on the provincial government to ensure that community stakeholders, grassroots groups and leaders in the disability community have a real voice in how this act is monitored and maintained.

When the act is finally rolled out–and we have waited long for this, many papers and discussions, paper after paper after paper–who is responsible for monitoring? I would go so far as to say that the Minister responsible for Persons with Disabilities should appoint a third-party community group in the role of co-ordinator for the Province to ensure this act is implemented, understood, remains strong and that the general public is well informed of the strides we've taken to get here. When all is said and done, Bill 26 shouldn't be a copy or a watered -down ve rsion of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

This is our own, this is Manitoba-grown and this is our chance to set a precedent for the disability community in Canada. There must be a strong response to those who fail to follow the legislation. The fines f or noncompliance are still too weak. Developer and private sector fines must have real effect and they should scale with time. ILR–if ILRC can break barriers over the years, certainly this act can do so and certainly the Province can do so. This legislation provides an opportunity to teach the general public about the awesome, untapped potential of the disability community.

We are educated, we are entrepreneurs, we are leaders and we have families. We are involved in the community and many of us choose t o remain connected to it. Some of us are gamers, others are teachers, et cetera. Employers should be encouraged to hire people with disabilities to truly see our capabilities and the amounts that we can contribute, not because of fear of accommodation. I want to participate fully. I want opportunity, education, employment. If this legislation is just a discussion point without set dates, goals, targets, impact, real fines for not following the law, then why am I here?

If I am to represent the average young person with a disability, then it falls on the provincial government to ensure there are tools for me to make sure that my potential is realized, and all I need is for the barriers to be continued to be taken down. And, more importantly, let's not allow barriers to be built in the first place. We've come a long way to get to this point. We must recognize the hard work of the community collaborative agents like Barrier -Free Manitoba.

We must thank all those who came out in support of this act over the year s and the tireless efforts of the accessible legislation advisory committee.

724 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 There are many who must be recognized, but one specifically remains: the Minister responsible for Persons with Disabilities, Jennifer Howard, who brought this forward. Thank you, Minister. From the white paper to the made- in-Manitoba paper, are finally here. Let's not blow this opportunity. Let's do it right. Let's become the model of inclusion not only for Canada, but for the entire world. Let's continue to be known for our commitment to human rights and have people say, they are including everyone.

It is the expectation of the community at large and community of persons with disabilities that the new accessibility act be far -reaching and precedent-setting. This is an excelle nt opportunity for the Province of Manitoba to respond to the needs of the community as a whole and create legislation that will resonate for generations to come. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Zdriluk. Floor is open for questions. Ms. Howard: Thank you very much, Libby. Thanks for coming out and making your presentation. I want to address the issue of fines. You may be right; they may not be high enough.

The $250,000 level for a fine is one of the higher fines that we have in legislation, and what I'm going to propose we do is see if that's going to work, and if it doesn't work, we can revisit it. We're probably a few years away from ever having to levy a fine, hopefully. We're going to take some time to develop the regulations. Then the re'll be a process of education. We want people to comply and we hope that most people will.

When we get to fines, not only do we have the fines that could be levied by the courts, we're also going to have a system of administrative penalties, which will be immediate consequences that the inspectors, the director will be able to levy. We have more flexibility to design a system there and we're going to look at things like, as mentioned before, if we have the ability to say, you have to comply, if you don't in this many days we're going to do it for you and charge you for the cost of doing that. I think that's a good thing to look into.

So my mind's not closed on fines, but I'd like to have some experience of how it's going to work first before we change it. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Zdriluk, any comment? Ms. Zdriluk: That's very encouraging and I hope that, as we move to making more of a reality, that we can continue to address fines in a productive and accountable way. And it seems like what you'd proposed, hopefully, will be added to the final bill, so thank you. Mr. Chairperson: We have a few more questions. First of all, though, our closed- captioner's indicated as having some difficulty hearing, so we all need to speak up, okay? Mrs.

Rowat: Thank you, Libby. It was a pleasure meeting you on my visit to the Independent Living Resource Centre. You were our greeter and you were very pleased to see Rob, so I really appreciate, you know, you coming today and presenting. I think what you shared was very interes ting, and I believe that the organization that you work for, when you talk about unique and creative ways of providing supports for individuals with disabilities, that the Independent Living Resource Centre is one of those organizations. So thank you for y our presentation today and keep up the great work. Mr.

Gerrard: Yes, thank you for your presentation. You were talking about, sort of, give me the tools to help break down barriers, and I think what you were talking about was if there's a building that you can't get into or a room you can't get into or whatever it may be that there needs to be a very clear process for you as a person with a disability to act and ensure that barrier is broken down. Is that what you're saying? Ms. Zdriluk: Essentially, yes.

And the way I look at it is, you know, like being a young person–well, still relatively young; I'm not 30, so I don't think I'm dead yet–but best thing that comes to my mind as an example of the need for barriers to be broken down, when you're young you want to be integrated with your friends and be part of your community, and I think a lot of the barriers are, the social barriers, as a result of the physical barriers.

Limited to being social and getting that experience as a twentysomething and getting to do all those things that your able -bodied counterparts would do and missing out on key moments in your life, if you will, because the physical barriers of a building are there, just as a small personal example. I don't know if that makes sense. Thank you. * (20:00) Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation.

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 725 Okay, again I seek leave of the committee. Presenter No. 20 is in the same position that the previous two presenters are in. Do I have leave to call that individual? [Agreed] I call Mr. David Steen, Society for Manitobans with Disabilities. Mr. Steen, do you have any written materials for the committee, sir? Mr. David Steen (Private Citizen): I do. Mr. Chairperson: Our staff will distribute them on your behalf. You may begin when you're ready. Mr. Steen: Thank you, S ir. I want to make sure I'm in the right committee.

The Chair's got me disoriented here, and he seems to have trouble knowing what committee he's in and having time – trouble with his timing. So I'm really out of whack on all of this–in all jest, Sir. You introduced me for –as Society for Manitobans with Disabilities. I am not here in that capacity. I am here as an individual and I'm also – because I'm here as –in my individual capacity. I'm not speaking on behalf of Barrier -Free Manitoba which I'm involved with through work- related stuff. So I'm here in a personal capacity. Having said that –Ian [phonetic], I need a copy of that paper as well.

Oh, thanks, Don [phonetic]. What I'm going to do is read just a bit from the first page, and with the Chair's permission, I would ask, then, that the presentation be read into the minutes. Is that good process? Can I do that? Okay. Let me just tell you that I've had a disability and lived with the disability for 60 years. During this period I have witnessed many improvements in the services and supports available to Manitobans with disabilities. I have benefitted personally from many of them.

Notwithstanding the array of services and supports available, I continue to experience exclusion, stigmatization, paternalism and discrimination based purely on my disability. By the way, I was introduced outside in our event as a cantankerous person. I'm sitting here, I'm hot and I'm tired. I'm grumpy and I'm not getting any less cantankerous, and that was coming from my friends. So, by the time I'm done tonight, you know, I'm going to have to beg forgiveness all around. So 60 years with a disability.

I continue to experience on a daily basis the many ways in which our soc iety excludes people to acts of omission and commission. I'm constantly subjected to the conspicuous stares, pointing fingers and whispered comments of an uninformed public that does not understand how my disability foreshadows their future. Disability is one of the fastest growing cohorts in the Manitoba population. The UN Convention defines disability as follows.

"Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with var ious barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." I am subjected on a daily basis to the paternalistic policies of public services like home care that is causing me grief tonight because of their inflexibility that deny me the ability to control my life in my home and in my community. A service intended to do for me has morphed into a service that does to me. Rights enjoyed by others are denied to me.

I'm regularly denied choices in the marketplace that others take for granted. I regularly endure poor customer service from businesses that have failed to make their establishment accessible and inviting and that have failed to provide proper training to their staff. That happens every time you go out, and it's insulting. Notwithstanding great efforts to facilitate my vote on election day to the use of accessible facilities and new technology, I'm unable to engage in other political activities or play out my rights and obligations as a citizen the day a fter the election. This has a bit of an aside.

You are a witness and part of a process tonight that has a huge variety of accessibility features built into the process. As a result of that, some people are getting for the first time the opportunity to see the democratic process at work. I want you to be aware that there are many hundreds and thousands of others who don't have that opportunity because of barriers that are in the way. Be aware of that. I am increasingly aware that even though my tax dollars helped build our Manitoba health-care system, I am effectively denied access to many aspects of this system at a stage in my life when I need it most.

Now, that's the positive stuff. If the rest of the submission could be read into the record, I will delay reading that. A couple of extemporaneous comments. I want to talk about political will. The changes in our society for the last 60 years have been tremendous.

726 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 Think about the telephone. Think about communi - cations. Think about physics. Think about space exploration. You name it, we've done wonderful things. In fact, it makes you stop and say, why the hell can we not get doorways two inches wider? What is so earth shattering about that? And I want to come back to that in a minute. The other issue is we' ve changed public attitudes. We changed public attitudes to the ParticipACTION stuff. We changed public attitudes around seatbelt legislation. We changed public mindsets around drinking and driving.

We've done tremendous stuff, but I can't walk into a stor e and have the clerk talk to me as though I was able to make a decision. Why? There are many reasons for it. Two of them that I'll talk about –one is public education, and we need to do a whole lot more of that. The other, which I want to dwell on tonight, is political will. If we had had the same political will that Jennifer Howard has demonstrated to this Legislature and to this community 60 years ago, I wouldn't be here tonight. We need that political will. We need the political will, not only here tonight, but we need it going forward.

You, as people privy to the political process, have got an awful lot of challenges on your plate. Jennifer Howard has just inherited a whole bunch more. I've seen her juggle all kinds of issues. I'm not sure she's going to be able to maintain them all. I think there's too many balls in the air, but we'll see how thing goes on. She's demonstrated remarkable ability so far. But that political will got us here. Now what? The now what , is that, I think I'm going to be dedicating myself to the whole process of ensuring that that political will continues.

So I've handed out a little placard that I'm hoping that we will be able to use in the next couple of years with some momentous events coming along. I'm sorry that my MLA is not here tonight so I could take a few shots at him, but, nonetheless, I would suggest to you that political will is the issue that we need to address and we need to address it on a very strong basis. I'm struck by Kevin Rebeck's comments about closed-captioning and who gets to use them. I grew up in rural Manitoba, Parklands area. Now I live in the Interlake.

Do you–can you imagine what our forefathers, our ancestors, were thinking about when they built garages 300 yards from the house. In 40-below weather wi th a blizzard coming, what in your mind were your thinking about to put the garage that far away? Well, now, we have attached garages. What a concept, okay? What that speaks to, and what Kevin was speaking to, is a concept of universal design, that the benefits that come with that are applicable not just to people with disabilities, but to people of all walks of life. Ramps are used more by women with baby carriages than by the disabled.

So we're talking about a much broader concept, and I think that as we go forward, this legislation is not about the disability community, it's about making it a better world for all of us, and we need a political process, and we need political will to ensure that that happens. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Steen. Floor is open for questions. Ms. Howard: Thank you, David. Great presentation. I don't have any questions for you. I know well your views on this. I just do want to, on your behalf, ask the committee's agreement that your presentation appear in the record as written. Mr.

Chairperson: Minister ha s said –is that agreeable? [Agreed] I am also speaking to you today as a person who has been active in the voluntary sector. I have served on the board of several of the 250+ disability organizations in Manitoba. I have done so out of self -interest, and li ke thousands of other board members serving in a similar capacity, I have done so as a contribution to the well -being of one of my communities. Each and every volunteer, through their gift of time and expertise, is making a public statement about the issue s that are important to them.

I would urge you, as elected officials, to take note of the strong statements made daily by Manitoba voters. The number of volunteer hours dedicated to disability issues constitutes very strong support for a growing issue. I h ave also worked in the voluntary sector and had the opportunity to see the incredible good work done by many organizations. The energy, resources, commitment and expense required to perform this good work is beyond calculating. And the unfortunate thing is that so much of this good work is unnecessary! Why? Because much of the work consists of removing barriers, ramp by ramp, so to speak.

We are forced into a repetitive, never ending mode of fixing the same problem over and over again, at great cost to all taxpayers, when a systemic response would have eliminated many of the barriers. Surely we can work smarter not harder? Surely our energies and our tax dollars can be

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 727 shifted from the performance of the unnecessary to the performance of much needed indiv idualized care? I am speaking to you as a person who is a consumer of goods and services in the private sector marketplace: Like each of you, I am a purchaser of goods and services in the marketplace; everything from gasoline to groceries and household pr oducts. Unlike you I do not have the same choice of retailer or product. My choices have been limited by barriers imposed by various businesses; architectural barriers, attitudinal barriers, and procedural barriers.

These businesses have lost my consumer dollar and I have lost choice. Is this simply an issue to be resolved through the play of market forces? Or has there been an effective denial of my rights? The playing field is not level. The Province addressed accessibility issues pertaining to the use of service animals in public and commercial spaces. Does the Province not have an obligation to finish the job and address the accessibility issues of other people with disabilities? Addressing accessibility issues has positive economic benefits.

Barri er Free Manitoba has noted the following: "A new Canadian study, just released by the University of Toronto -based Martin Prosperity Institute, has concluded that "releasing the constraints that limit full participation in the economy will create a signific ant force for economic growth." And its findings are clear: "The demand for accessible goods, services, buildings and employment is not just large but growing, and will overtake the demand for their conventional counterparts.

Of further importance is our finding that the impact of increased employment accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities will increase the average incomes of all Ontarians." The already exemplary performance of the Manitoba economy could be further enhanced for the benefit of all Manitobans. Through my vote and my tax dollar, I am also a participant in the public sector (broadly defined). I believe that the concept of rights and the concept of citizenship are inextricably linked. The rights and obligations of the individual, and the rights and obligations of the state are central to a discussion of citizenship.

Through the democratic process, we define and redefine the "rights" of each. As we have seen, there is an ongoing process to redefine rights. Recent events in the Mid -East serve as an example of "rebalancing" the relationship between the respective rights and obligations of the individual and the state.

From the disability perspective, one could ask, "Do people with disabilities have citizenship rights?" And "are those citizens hip rights different than the citizenship rights accorded the rest of the population?" In the Canadian context, there can be no distinction between the rights of one and the rights of another. In practical terms, however, the state, through its actions and inactions, has placed barriers or failed to remove barriers to the effective exercise of my rights. The state, in this case the Province of Manitoba, has effectively created a second class of citizen.

My status and the status of people with disabilities as second class citizens is not acceptable! Immediate "rebalancing" is required and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities sets the high water mark for the definition of rights for all Manitobans with disabilities.

So I am here today in an effort to • Raise the profile of disability issues • Seek a "rebalancing" of the rights accorded to Manitobans with disabilities • Challenge all MLA 's and all Parties to create and articulate a Vision for Manitoba that is big enough, rich enough to em brace Manitobans of all abilities; and to proactively do those things necessary to make this Vision a reality within my lifetime. • Request all party support for Bill 26; knowing that it represents an important but first step The arguments in support of this have already been well researched and documented by Barrier Free Manitoba.

I would suggest that, as elected officials, you have an opportunity to move forward on a number of fronts. • You have the opportunity to create and implement a Vision for Manitoba That responds to the everyday reality of a growing segment of the population That is founded on clearly articulated and widely supported principles of human rights and social

728 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 justice including the principles embodied in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. • You have the opportunity to demonstrate leadership The continuing high rates of discrimination against people with disabilities have been consistently documented by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC) for the last decade. Discrimination on the grounds of disability now exceeds all other grounds combined. And what action of a systemic nature has the Province taken to address this embarrassing and unconscionable situation?

Manitoba is both in the s potlight and under the microscope. The advent of the Human Rights Museum juxtaposed against Canada's signing of the CRPD will focus all eyes on Manitoba. The universal question is, "can Manitoba walk the talk?" Manitoba has a unique opportunity to demonst rate proactive leadership and raise the bar, through systemic means, on the articulation and enforcement of human rights.

It has the opportunity to abandon the ramp by ramp approach and demonstrate to the world how rights -based progressive legislation can create a better society for all Manitobans. • You have an opportunity to recognize your self-interest, invest in your future and prepare for the inevitable The increasing incidence of disability has been well documented elsewhere. This increasing incidence is in large part the result of aging. An interesting convergence is taking place; seniors are developing functional limitations and people with disabilities are aging.

Although the mindset and language used by each is different, the results are the same. B oth groups are experiencing issues of accessibility. The high incidence rates have led some people with disabilities to refer to the rest of the population, those without disabilities, as TABs, that is "temporarily able bodied". In other words, if you're not disabled now, you soon will be. Many TABs will soon be encountering their own accessibility problems and seeking redress, which will not be forthcoming unless we can move beyond mere words and take action today.

Self -interest demands that the profile of disability issues be raised, and substantive accessibility legislation enacted. If it is not, you too will be making presentations to a future Standing Committee. These incidence figures represent a growing cohort of the population with similar issues. Again, the mind set and language used by members of this group may be different but issues and voting patterns may be very similar. Those in the political arena should take note. People with disabilities are not a homogeneous population. Disability plays no favorites.

As a result people with disabilities are as diverse as the general population. With diversity of population comes diversity of viewpoint and opinion. But I am confident that there would be widespread support for

Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

Article 9–Accessibility 1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabiliti es access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.

These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to inter alia: a. Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilitie s, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces; b. Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services. 2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures: a. To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public; b.

To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities; c. To provide for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities;

October 29, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 729 d. To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms; e. To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public; f. To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information; g.

To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet; h. To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost. I am equally c onfident that people with disabilities would agree that the time for research, studies, reports and white papers has long passed, and, that the time for concrete action is now!! Thank you for listening. Mr.

Chairperson: Any further questions? Mr. Gerrard: One of the things which you point out is that it is imperative to change. Is addressing people with disabilities, if you're going into a store or a supermarket or grocery, now, do we need a, you know, a major public advertising campaign? Or what would you suggest? What's the most effective way to change that? * (20:10) Mr.

Steen: What Ontario did is that they put forward as one of their first standards something called customer service standards, and the customer service standards in effect required that businesses, places of business, train and educate their staff on how to deal with disabilities. If that were to be –if we were to model our behaviour on Ontario and such a practice were to occur in Manitoba, we should see some fairly significant change fairly quickly. Mrs. Rowat: Thank you, Mr. Steen, today, for your presentation and also for your very wise words at the Rotunda reception today.

I believe that you are a true advocate for persons with disabilities and I believe that you will ensure that Bill 26 does become the best legislation in Canada. So thank you very much for all that you've done for us. Thank you. Mr. Steen: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation. Just a correction for the rec ord. Mr. Steen requested that it be noted he presented as a private citizen, not on behalf of the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities. I now call Mr. Samuel Unrau, University of Winnipeg Students' Association. Mr.

Unrau, do you have any written m aterials for the committee, sir? I see you do. Mr. Samuel Unrau (University of Winnipeg Students' Association): Yes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Our staff will distribute them. You may begin when ready. Mr. Unrau: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you honourable members. It is with great pride that I'm here today to present on behalf of the University of Winnipeg Students' Association as their accessibility director.

At their last annual general meeting, the UWSA put forward a motion to change the title of this directorship to accessibility director to fulfill the need of the students and the true role of my position, which is to provide an accessible space and to ensure that education at University of Winnipeg is as accessible as possible.

I additionally have the privilege of representing students provincially and nationally as the students with disabilities commissioner for the Canadian Federation of Students, both which I am proud to say call–support the call for accessibility legislation on a provincial and national level. I can speak for the UWSA board when we say that we are excited to see this legislation come forward at is it–at it is long overdue. While society has generally molded to accept other types of marginalization as normal, there hasn't been a general trend to eliminate barriers faced by persons who are disabled by such.

It is our hope that through this process outlined in Bill 26 we can work towards an accessible and inclusive province. To understand the importance of Bill 26 we have to examine the current realities. In Manitoba and in Canada generally we have an ever -present stigma towards disability. We see this in community when accessing goods and services, while participating in sports and recreation, when attaining gainful

730 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 2013 employment and when accessing education. Achievements done by persons with disability or persons who are disabled by barriers often are highlighted as extraordinary and their actual achievements themselves are downplayed. Our society thrives on the concept of compromise instead of addressing accessibility concerns in the beginning. Lastly, there are still government policies that act as barriers to peoples of various abilities, an event that is currently not experienced by their able -bodied counterparts.

This i s what I've noticed from my lived experience, and as you examine the lived experience of Manitobans, this list will only continue to grow. Together, this speaks heavily for the need for comprehensive and functional accessibility legislation. As mentione d, the UWSA is thrilled that this legislation has come forward, as it contains a lot of positive elements in which Manitobans who are disabled by barriers can be excited about.

As is, the legislation could work for the disability community, although with s ome amendments –and I've already heard from Minister Howard that some are going to be proposed here tonight, which we are very excited about–can actually make this legislation even stronger and knock the ball home for people with disabilities. The UWSA categorically supports Barrier -Free Manitoba's recommendations here tonight and we would like to share some of our recommendations as well.

Currently there is a concern in regard to the requirement to actually establish standards, as currently as it appear s worded in the current draft that it is up to the minister's discretion to provide the recommendation towards the council to start the process. This provides very concern–or this provides concern to me. Although the political will, currently, right now, under Minister Howard, is to continue on with this process, in a change –what is the plan for their successor?

We propose that there should be an amendment that also gives the council the ability to recommend terms of reference for a proposed accessibility s tandard and that those terms of reference also be made public. As mentioned by prev

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-2-sed11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 2nd hansardpdf sed11.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ebc99d6b7b5e5163056527d622f226afa4f7b166

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).