Accessibility For Ontarians With Disabilities Act Alliance Update

AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) Alliance Update

Major Tide of Opposition Rises in Opposition to McGuinty Government's
Plans to Weaken the Ontario Human Rights Commission -- but
McGuinty Government Has Not Answered Our Important Questions,
and Signals it is Not Listening to Us

March 24, 2006

OVERVIEW

In short the news is this: As a result of the AODA Alliance's successful news conference on March 16, 2006, we got good news coverage despite a flood of other big news stories. (See news articles below). Follow this link to download an MP3 audio of our news conference, listen to it on your computer or MP3 player, and send it to others to listen to.

Our call for the Government to stop its plans to introduce legislation to weaken the Ontario Human rights Commission has now been echoed by many organizations. This includes organizations from within the disability community and ones from other equality-seeking communities. (See a sample of their letters below) For example, advocates from diverse racial communities held a press conference to give the same message at Queen's Park on Monday March 20, 2006.

We note that among others, ARCH, a disability law centre, has now written to the Ontario Government, supporting our call for public consultations before new legislation is introduced. This is especially noteworthy because in a letter to the Ontario Government last August, ARCH had supported the proposal for "direct access" to the Human Rights Tribunal. That is, the very change to the Human Rights Code that the Government says it plans to introduce, and which we oppose.

Despite all this, the Ontario Government still hasn't answered any of the questions in our February 27, 2006 letter to Premier McGuinty. To the contrary, the Ontario Government issued a news release on March 21, 2006 saying that it plans to go ahead with its intended legislation. (See this news release below.) That news release doesn't respond to the sweeping call for public consultations that so many have demanded be held before any new legislation is introduced.

As a result, the AODA Alliance has written to the Premier again. (See our March 23, 2006 letter below) We ask him to answer our previous letter. We also ask the Government to commit that any proceedings in the Legislature on any bill to change the Human Rights Code be fully open, accessible and barrier-free. This means, among other things, that persons with disabilities and the entire public be given ample prior notice of any proceedings in the Legislature so they can arrange accessible transportation. We also ask that there be province-wide public hearings on any bill. These are all steps that this Government provided so effectively when Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, was before the Legislature. They are steps the Ontario Liberals demanded of the previous Conservative Government when it brought forward its Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 bill. They are steps we also deserve here. Please plan to attend the Legislature when any new bill is brought forward. We will let you know anything we hear from the Government on their plans.

We need your help now more than ever to press this issue. This is especially important since the Government clearly has not listened to the incredible mounting tide in opposition to the Government's plans that has emerged in a mere three weeks. We fear the Government plans to try to slip a bill into the Legislature and quickly ram it through when the public is distracted by other big news items.

For example, the public is now focused on the Ontario budget. So far we have not found anything in the budget speech or any public documents released with it that commits to spending any more money on effective enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the law that bans discrimination because of mental or physical disability, race, sex and other such grounds.

It appears that the Government is still listening to the small group of human rights lawyers that has been pushing for the Government to bring forward this new law, and which has been out in front in the media to oppose our message and to defend the Government. For example, three lawyers from that group attended our March 16, 2006 news conference, uninvited. As soon as we finished our formal presentation, they went to the reporters present and gave the Government's party line on this issue. (See some quotes from them in some of the news coverage, below.)

Every one of you can help. Every step you take helps. We urge you to act now to help us. Phone Liberal MPPs. Talk to their staff. Tell them you oppose the Government's plan to weaken the Human Rights Commission. Demand a public consultation on the issue before any legislation is introduced. For helpful tips on how to do this, and how to easily get MPPs' names and phone numbers, check out our action kit that you can download from www.aodaalliance.org

Also, keep writing letters to the editor. The Toronto Star has printed several. Most letters oppose the Government's plans. Write other newspapers too. For a listing of major news outlets, visit:

http://dawn.thot.net/media.html

Call your local media. Ask why they are not covering this important issue. Tell them what it would mean to you if you have to privately investigate your own human rights case, and hire your own lawyer to prosecute it, rather than having access to the Human Rights Commission as the public investigator and prosecutor.

Tell them we need the Human Rights Commission strengthened, not weakened. You don't get better human rights enforcement by weakening our human rights law enforcement agency! Tell them the Government has just made vague statements about providing legal advice or supports for victims of discrimination, but hasn't announced a penny or provided any details. The Government shouldn't raid the Human Rights Commission's budget to provide lesser, poorer services elsewhere. We aren't saying the current under-funded Human Rights Commission is good enough. We need it better funded and strengthened.

Every call to an MPP or news station helps! This is how we won the ODA 2001 and the AODDA 2005.

Pass this email on to others and urge them to help. If you are a member of a municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee, get your Committee to pass a resolution as soon as possible supporting the AODA Alliance's February 27 and March 23 2006 letters to the Premier. Those letters are on our website. Send the Government your resolution.

AODA ALLIANCE'S NEWEST LETTER TO PREMIER MCGUINTY

c/o The Canadian Hearing Society
271 Spadina Road
Toronto, Ontario M5R 2V3

March 23, 2006

Via facsimile (416) 325-3745

Premier Dalton McGuinty
Room 281, Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1

Dear Premier McGuinty,

Re: Proposed Reforms to the Ontario Human Rights Code

We write to follow up on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance's February 27, 2006 letter to you regarding your Government's proposals for weakening the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Since we last wrote, a mounting list of organizations and individuals have written to you, urging you not to bring forward your planned legislation to weaken the Ontario Human Rights Commission. From the disability community, this has included well-known organizations such as the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Ontario Association of the Deaf, the Alliance for Equality for Blind Canadians, the Disabled Women's Network - Ontario, Community Living Ontario and the Bob Rumball Centre for the Deaf. Other equality-seeking groups have also presented similar views. Increasing the media's focus on the opposition to your Government's plans.

There is a rising tide calling for your Government to hold an open, accessible public consultation before introducing any bill, and that that consultation not be based on any pre-condition that your February 20, 2006 announcement of plans to weaken the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a "done deal." We hope and trust that anyone in the public who supports your Government's plans would nevertheless agree that it is important for all sides of this issue to be fairly heard, before your Government makes any major policy decisions. Discussions held some 15 years ago, and three provincial governments ago, leading to the last provincial report on this topic, are no substitute for a contemporary consultation that can receive up-to-date views based on current circumstances.

It is important for your Government to clarify its intentions, as soon as possible, re your plans announced on February 20, 2006. As we understand, your Government has not announced any further specifics about your plans since the Government's February 20, 2006 news conference. There is concern in the community that your Government will shortly introduce its bill to amend the Human Rights Code and might try to rush it through the Legislature this spring.

We are also concerned that your Government's February 20, 2006 announcement of plans to weaken the Human Rights Commission leave victims of discrimination such was persons with disabilities in an unfair state of limbo. For those who already have complaints of discrimination with the Human Rights Commission, and who have been waiting for them to be investigated and prosecuted, or whose cases are now being investigated, does your Government intend to change the rules in the middle of the game? Must these individuals now go out and hire lawyers and investigators? For those discrimination victims who haven't yet filed a human rights complaint, is it now a waste of time to do so? No doubt this unacceptable state of uncertainty will leave Ontario Human Rights Commission staff in an untenable position. This all serves to weaken the campaign for a barrier-free province, to which your Government is committed.

The Ontario Human Rights Code is very important to all Ontarians. It is also central to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Therefore, whatever you ultimately do with the Human Rights Code, we ask your Government to ensure that if any bill to amend the Code is to be brought forward, any and all proceedings at the Legislature on that bill be fully open, accessible and barrier-free. People with disabilities will, for example, need fair notice, sufficiently in advance of the date when any legislation will be introduced, or when a bill will be debated, so that they can arrange to attend the Legislature.

Your Government has commendably recognized that Ontarians with disabilities now face pervasive barriers to access to public transit. Your Party properly criticized the previous Government when it failed to ensure that all the Legislature's proceedings on the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 were similarly barrier-free. That Government unfairly gave the public, including the disability community, insufficient prior notice of some of the important proceedings in the Legislature on their 2001 disability bill. That prevented some persons with disabilities from being able to arrange accessible transit.

It will also be important for the Legislature to hold full public province-wide hearings on any bill to amend the Human Rights Code, and that these hearings be open, accessible, and barrier-free. Your Government did an excellent job of ensuring this for all the Legislature's proceedings on Bill 118, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Your Government has set an excellent precedent for our requests.

To give ample public notice of the date for the introduction of a bill, and for any debates on the bill; is not only important to carry forward the goals of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, but is a crucial component of democratic renewal, a plank in your 2003 election platform. We are copying this letter to the leaders of both opposition parties. We ask all parties to cooperate as much as possible in the scheduling of any proceedings on any bill to amend the Human Rights Code to ensure their full accessibility.

We look forward to receiving your response to our February 27, 2006 letter to you, as well as a response to the matters we address in this letter. We welcome the opportunity to work together with your Government to improve the enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Sincerely,

Catherine Dunphy, Chair, AODA Alliance

cc: Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario via facsimile (416) 326-4016
Sandra Pupatello, Minister Responsible for the AODA (416) 325-1498
Dwight Duncan, House Leader (416) 325-7755
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission (416) 314-7752
John Tory, Leader of the Official Opposition (416) 325-0491
Howard Hampton, Leader of the New Democratic Party (416) 325-8222

RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE OF GOVERNMENT'S PLANS TO WEAKEN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The Toronto Star March 16 06
Letter

Need more funding for human rights
Human rights body needs fixing, not dismantling
Opinion, March 13.

At last - a clear, careful summary by Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Margaret Parsons and Uzma Shakir on why all of us should be very, very concerned about Dalton McGuinty's government's latest bid to tear our social net still further by privatizing human rights protection. Just hire yourself a lawyer. Not enough money? Well, just get legal aid. Oh, you don't qualify because you're on the poverty line rather than sinking under it? And you say your neighbourhood legal clinic has only part-time staff because it has no government funding? You say it's as underfunded as the Ontario Human Rights Commission? Hmm.

Have we come full circle? Our human rights are only as good as the people, time and money we allocate to defend them. We need more funding for the Ontario
Human Rights Commission, not less.

Barb Thomas, Toronto

London Free Press March 17, 2006

Human rights reforms chided
By ALAN FINDLAY, FREE PRESS QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

The provincial government is privatizing the enforcement of human rights complaints at the peril of those who are being discriminated against, disability groups are warning.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance says the governing Grits are weakening human rights by planning reforms to the Ontario Human Rights Commission that will eliminate its role in leading cases to the Human Rights Tribunal.

"It will force discrimination victims . . . to investigate their own complaints," said Gary Malkowski, a former MPP who is also deaf. "It is wrong of the (Dalton) McGuinty government to privatize the human rights enforcement on the backs of those discriminated against."

Attorney General Michael Bryant announced plans last month to focus the commission's resources on broader human rights issues and open up the complaints and tribunal process to allow people to pursue claims on an individual basis in an attempt to reduce a chronic backlog of cases.

But the disability coalition, which held a news conference at Queen's Park yesterday morning, said the plan leaves many complainants in the lurch, either depending on an already strained legal aid program or having to pay for their cases -- often against deep corporate or government pockets -- on their own.

"There's a real sense we've been treated unfairly," said David Lepofsky, former coalition chairperson.

Chief commissioner Barbara Hall has also called on the government to provide more information on how it plans to ensure the complaints process remains accessible to all.

"One of the frustrating things is there aren't a lot of details at the present time," said Hall.

A spokesperson for Bryant said the government will consider all input as it drafts legislation to be introduced this spring.

A handful of human rights lawyers on hand said the government plan is long overdue. Numerous studies, both provincially and federally, have recommended such a move to focus commission resources on broader issues, not individual cases, said lawyer Andrew Pinto.

The Toronto Star March 17, 2006
News

Reforms to rights agency opposed; Activists for disabled decry move by province But changes would streamline system, lawyers say

Premier Dalton McGuinty's plan to revamp the Ontario Human Rights Commission will "weaken" the organization and increase discrimination, activists for the disabled warn.

Catherine Dunphy, of the newly formed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, said yesterday that McGuinty's reforms will cause "very serious problems."

"The government (has) announced plans to introduce a law this spring to weaken the human rights commission by largely taking away its mandate to investigate and prosecute discrimination complaints," Dunphy told a Queen's Park news conference.

"We oppose these plans. We call on Premier McGuinty not to introduce the legislation he has announced. The government's plan is wrong. It would force discrimination victims like persons with disabilities to investigate their own complaints. How many organizations will voluntarily co-operate with such investigations?
Not many."

Under the changes, the commission, headed by former Toronto mayor Barbara Hall, would end its time-consuming role of probing complaints, allowing people who feel they've faced discrimination to take their concerns directly to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Ultimately, the aim is to have cases heard within one year and make legal aid available for complainants who need it.

David Lepofsky, a well-known activist for the rights of the disabled, said the Liberals "plan to weaken the enforcement agency," almost a quarter-century after people with disabilities successfully fought to get their rights included in the human rights code.

"They plan to rip out most of its teeth. We say that's not fair," said Lepofsky, who read his statement from Braille.

"Before that, it was legal to discriminate because of disability. We won two important rights back in 1982. First, we won the right to a legal ban on discrimination because of mental or physical disability in access to jobs, goods, services, housing and the like," he said.

"Second, we won the right ... to have any human rights complaint that is within the human rights commission's jurisdiction ... investigated by a public law-enforcement agency with investigation powers."

But McGuinty's planned changes would undermine such gains by taking "away that second right."

Gary Malkowski, a former New Democrat MPP and the first elected deaf lawmaker in North America, warned that the reforms would effectively "privatize" human rights enforcement in Ontario.

"The government shouldn't force vulnerable discrimination victims to shoulder the steep cost of hiring a lawyer to fight their case. Underfunded legal aid can't pick up the pieces, especially for the many who don't qualify for it," said Malkowski, speaking through a sign-language interpreter.

However, Mark Hart, of the Association of Human Rights Lawyers, said the government is doing the right thing by trying to tackle the backlog of complaints.

He said the government is finally acting on a 1992 report on the commission by human rights lawyer Mary Cornish that recommended streamlining the process so hearings could be expedited and problems resolved more quickly.

Robert Benzie

The Globe and Mail
Toronto News, Friday, March 17, 2006, p. A12
Disabilities group criticizes rights plan

Murray Campbell

A group representing the disabled is accusing the Ontario government of trying to weaken the structure under which human-rights complaints are investigated.

The newly formed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance believes proposed changes to the provincial Human Rights Commission announced three weeks ago will hurt potential complainants.

The Liberal government said last month that the quasi-judicial Ontario Human Rights Tribunal would take over direct responsibility for dealing with individual complaints about discrimination.

The move takes away the commission's ability to screen complaints to decide which should be forwarded to the tribunal. It is intended to free the commission to deal with "systemic" issues involving groups rather than individuals.

Alliance chair Catherine Dunphy said yesterday that she appreciates that the government has recognized the enormous backlogs the commission consistently faces in the current system.

But she said simply transferring its duties to the tribunal "creates the illusion of swifter justice and will actually make things worse, not better."

Gary Malkowski, a former New Democratic MPP and the alliance's vice-chair, said that without the commission's involvement, people would be forced to investigate their own complaints.

In addition, he said, the government has made no promises about providing complainants with the legal advice they will need to appear before the tribunal.

The Toronto Star March 21, 2006
Letter

Who will benefit from rights plan?
Reform to rights agency opposed

March 17.

The Dalton McGuinty government plans to replace the current human rights system with one that will require more hearings and more lawyers.

People with disabilities - some of the very people the system is supposed to protect - oppose the plan and are speaking out. It seems the only people supporting the plan are human rights lawyers. Hardly surprising, considering the new system will expand their role enormously.

The Liberals need to ask themselves who really stands to benefit from their new human rights system. If they do, I think they will see that it's not the people who should be. The government should abandon its proposed changes and focus on making the existing system work better.

Kevin Brown, Toronto

The Toronto Star March 22 2006
Letter

Involve community in policy decisions
Who will benefit from rights plan?

Letter, March 21.

Much of the current and growing furor over the future of Ontario's Human Rights Commission could have been avoided if the Ontario government had conducted an open and inclusive consultation with the community. Persons with disabilities file by far the largest percentage of complaints to human rights commissions across Canada and we insist on being involved in all policy decisions that affect us. Instead the government has been working with a number of human rights lawyers and excluding us.

If the Ontario government would only provide adequate funding, real will and involve the communities most affected, other ways might be found to make the Ontario Human Rights Commission the envy of all human rights supporters.

John Rae, President,
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Toronto

The Toronto Star March 23 2006

Letter

Hope reforms will redress unfairness
Reforms to rights agency opposed

March 17.

Any reform of the Ontario Human Rights Commission must, in my view as an employer, put an end to its automatic bias against respondents.

The commission, regrettably, appears to have become a court of last resort to which unscrupulous lawyers often lead their clients when no other remedy exists in law for their real or imagined grievances. The respondents must then bankrupt themselves with legal fees to prove their innocence while complainants
are furnished with free legal counselling and ancillary support.

As things currently stand, it should be renamed the Human Wrongs Commission. The proposed reforms, hopefully, will redress this most unfair situation.

John Bruce,
Niagara Falls, Ont.

Toronto Star
Letters On-Line Edition March 17, 2006

Unique aberration only exists here
Mar. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM

Human rights body needs fixing, not dismantling

Opinion, March 13.

We were puzzled by the article by three legal clinic directors opposing the proposed reforms to Ontario's Human Rights Code, which would provide human rights complainants with direct access to the Human Rights Tribunal. The writers refer to the concerns of international human rights experts about the model of "direct access" in British Columbia in support of their position. This is misleading.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women expressed concern that British Columbia chose to "abolish the independent Human Rights Commission." The important role of independent human rights commissions is well recognized under international law, and if Ontario were to abolish its commission, international human rights bodies would likely be concerned. What is being proposed by the Attorney General in Ontario, however, is not the abolition of the commission, but the abolition of the power of the commission to deny victims of discrimination access to a hearing.

This is a unique aberration that exists only in Canada. On that issue, the view of UN human rights bodies has been clear. Both the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in reviews of Canada since 1993, have stated that the "gatekeeping" power of human rights commissions in Canada violates international human rights law. Under international law, a victim of discrimination must have access to a fair hearing and to an effective legal remedy. For too long and too often that right has been denied in Canada, much to our disgrace.

Leilani Farha, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, Toronto;
Bruce Porter, Social Rights Advocacy Centre, Huntsville, Ont.

London Free Press Friday March 24, 2006
Letters to the Editor

Rights changes will let cases be heard

The issue of proposed changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission may not be as straightforward as it appears.

While the article, Human rights reforms chided (March 17), criticizes the government for planning to abandon all the complainants whom the commission presently helps, the fact is that in many cases this "help" is not what it's cracked up to be.

Under the current system, the commission investigates complaints, decides which should be referred to a tribunal, and then represents the complainant at the hearing.

This sounds very progressive. What it really is, however, is a gatekeeping process that prevents all but a tiny minority of cases from going forward.

In 2002-03, less than three per cent of complaints submitted to the commission made it past the first hurdle. Canada has been criticized by the UN human rights committee for this two-tier approach, which it sees as a
violation of the right of access to justice.

While changing the system might leave complainants on their own, at least it would allow them to get their day in court, something most of them are presently denied.

Of course, if the McGuinty Liberals really wanted to fix things, they would give the rights commission enough resources that it could actually "help" instead of just acting as a barrier.

Gaile McGregor
London

LETTERS TO GOVERNMENT ON GOVERNMENT PLANS TO WEAKEN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

March 19, 2006

DAWN Ontario: DisAbled Women's Network Ontario

via facsimile (416) 325-3745

Premier Dalton McGuinty
Room 281, Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1

Re: Proposed Reforms to the Ontario Human Rights Code

Dear Premier McGuinty,

We, DAWN Ontario: the Disabled Women's Network Ontario, are writing to voice our strong opposition to your Government's plans to weaken the Ontario Human Rights Code, announced on February 20, 2006.

DAWN Ontario is a progressive, volunteer-driven, feminist organization promoting social justice, human rights and the advancement of equality rights through education, research, advocacy, coalition-building, resource development, and information technology. Our mission is to generate knowledge, information and skills to advance the inclusion, citizenship, human rights and equality of women and girls with disabilities. We work to illuminate the causes and multidimensional consequences of the growing inequality of wealth, income, power and opportunity in Canada; and to move this critical national problem onto the front burner of Canadian politics and public discourse. We seek to bring forward the distinctive perspective of women with disabilities in the campaign for full equality both for women, and for persons with disabilities.

DAWN Ontario fully supports the position regarding human rights reform of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance expressed in the February 27, 2006 letter to you from its chair, Ms. Catherine Dunphy. DAWN Ontario was actively involved in the work of the AODA Alliance's predecessor, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, in its campaign for strong effective disability accessibility legislation.

Women with disabilities are often doubly-disadvantaged. They need a strong, effective and properly funded Ontario Human Rights Commission, not a weakened one, to investigate and prosecute organizations that discriminate against them. Women with disabilities will rarely be able to afford to hire their own lawyer, conduct their own investigation, and prosecute their own human rights cases. They shouldn't have to depend on over-worked, understaffed Legal Aid clinics. Nor should they have to hope for lawyers to take their cases pro bono. Pro bono, in the end, is charity. We heartily commend lawyers for doing pro bono work. However, charity is no substitute for a public investigation and prosecution of human rights complaints.

We commend you for wanting to improve the human rights process enforcement. If your Government wants to tackle the Human Rights Commission's backlog, it should restore the Commission's budget. Mike Harris slashed it despite promising in 1995 to increase it. Harris weakened the Commission by budget cuts. Your plans would finish the job by legislation. Your plan is for a weakened Commission that just monitors, does public education, and may bring its own complaints or intervene in some others before the Human Rights Tribunal. This wrongly reduces the Commission to a shadow of its former self.

Your plan is being marketed as having the benefit of eliminating the "gate-keeping" role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In reality however, this is just an illusion. Your plan doesn't eliminate the existence of a gate-keeper at all. All your plan does is transfer this job to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. That is not an improvement.

We are not saying the present situation at the Human Rights Commission is acceptable. It is not. The Commission needs to be properly funded. We need its practices and procedures to be improved. What we don't need is your plan to dump onto the backs of vulnerable discrimination victims, like women with disabilities, the Human Rights Commission's duty to investigate and prosecute discrimination.

Those marketing your Governments plans claim that two reports, produced in the 1990s, have recommended direct access to the Human Rights Tribunal. Yet of vital importance, both those reports also insisted on the importance for human rights complainants to be effectively represented at any human rights hearing into their case. Your government hasn't promised this publicly-funded representation in its recent announcement. Your Government has been strikingly vague on this critical point. Why is this?

We add our voices to the growing list of those who your Government didn't consult before announcing these radical changes to the enforcement of our human rights, and who urge your Government to call off those plans. We too call for an open, accessible public consultation on how best to reform the human rights enforcement process, before any new legislation is introduced. That consultation should not be based on any pre-decided plan to weaken the Human Rights Commission. Your Government should embark on any consultations with an open mind. You and your Party were rightly critical of the Harris Government when, in 1998, then-Citizenship Minister Isabel Bassett held consultations on what to include in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, because she announced before the consultations even began that Government had already made important decisions on what the ODA must not include. We urge your Government to be true to your word, and not repeat that kind of unacceptable consultation.

We commend your Government for its open consultations on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. That is the model you should follow in this case. During your AODA consultations, we and the disability community weren't told you were planning to weaken the Human Rights Commission, and privatize its duties. Why is this plan being sprung on us now?

We look forward to hearing that your Government will give your plans a serious second thought, and will change your direction. We certainly hope your Government doesn't try to rush its planned legislation through the Legislature this spring. Your Government made strong election commitments about democratic renewal. What better place is there for an open, fair, democratic consultation than in the area of a law as fundamental as the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Anello
Acting Chair, DAWN Ontario

cc: Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario via facsimile (416) 326-4016
Sandra Pupatello, Minister Responsible for the AODA (416) 325-1498
Dwight Duncan, House Leader (416) 325-7755
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission (416) 314-7752
John Tory, Leader of the Official Opposition (416) 325-0491
Howard Hampton, Leader of the New Democratic Party (416) 325-8222

March 15, 2006

Premier Dalton McGuinty
Room 281, Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1

Dear Premier McGuinty,

RE: PROPOSED REFORMS TO THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

We are writing in support of the letter to Premier dated February 27, 2006 from the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Alliance.

We (added by webmaster Ontario Association of the Deaf) are a 120 year old consumer organization of deaf people that provides leadership, educational resources and activities that promote and protect the rights, equality and access of deaf Ontarians.

While we support your objective of improving and strengthening the Ontario Human Rights Code, we share the AODA Alliance's concerns that the proposed changes announced February 20, 2006 could weaken the current Ontario Human Rights Code by creating new barriers for Deaf victims of discrimination. We join the AODA alliance in calling for open, fair and accessible public consultations before any reforms are made to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

We value the resources and services provided by the Ontario Human Rights Commission despite its understaffing and very limited financial resources. In the spirit of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, we strongly urge the Government of Ontario to invest funding in community legal clinics and the Ontario Human Rights Commission by strengthening the Ontario Human Rights Code and enforceable mechanisms. We urge you to remove and not create new barriers facing deaf people who need their rights protected and upheld by community legal clinics and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission needs to be fixed and strengthened, not dismantled. Deaf people deserve quality and effective investigations and prosecutions provided by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and community legal clinics.

We look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely

Jennifer (Jackson) Thériault
Executive Director

cc: Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, via FAX (416) 326-4016
Catherine Dunphy, Chair, AODA Alliance, catherine.dunphy@rogers.com
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission,
(416) 314-7752
Howard Hampton, New Democratic Party Leader, (416) 325-8222
Sandra Pupatello, Minister Responsible for the AODA, (416) 325-1498
John Tory, Conservative Leader of the Official Opposition, (416) 325-0491

The Honourable Michael Bryant
Attorney General
McMurtry-Scott Building
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

March 16, 2006

Dear Minister Bryant

Canadian Paraplegic Association Ontario (CPA Ontario) provides services and supports to Ontarians living with spinal cord injuries and other physical disabilities to achieve independence, self-reliance and full community participation.

CPA Ontario was pleased to participate with the Government of Ontario during the consultation and passage of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA, 2005). The spirit and intent of that legislation has paved the way for a province that is truly inclusive and free from barriers.

It is with interest that we learned of the Government's intention to introduce legislation that would see changes to the human rights system in Ontario. We concur fully with your comments to "improve and strengthen the promotion, advancement and enforcement of human rights.".

While we welcome the intent of this initiative, we are quite concerned that adequate and accessible consultation occur with the community of stakeholders most likely impacted by these changes. CPA Ontario contends that it is essential that the community of people with disabilities have an opportunity to be heard and to feel confident that any proposed changes will respect the intent of the AODA legislation, most particularly that no new barriers are placed in our way.

CPA Ontario supports the concerns and recommendations presented by the AODA Alliance to Premier McGuinty in their correspondence of February 27, 2006.

CPA Ontario is committed to working with the government in any meaningful way to ensure that open consultations are held on proposed changes to the Human Rights legislation. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue further at your earliest convenience.

Yours Sincerely

Linda Kenny, Director, Provincial Services
CPA Ontario, 416 422 5644 ext. 243
Linda.kenny@cpaont.org

c.c. Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Hon. Sandra Pupatello, Minister of Community and Social Services
Ms Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ms. Catherine Dunphy, Chair, AODA Alliance
Mr. Bill Adair, Executive Director, CPA Ontario
Mr. Michael O'Brien, Chair, CPA Ontario Board of Directors

March 16, 2006

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty
Premier, Province of Ontario
Room 281, Main Legislative Building
Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1

Mr. Premier:

We are writing to express our grave concern with regard to the announced intention of 'reforming' the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the corollary revisions to the Ontario Human Rights Code. We join the large number of groups, organizations and individuals that have been appealing to you directly in recent days, in urging you to take a leadership role in resisting the introduction of the so-called "direct access" model. Any legislation and change on such a vital matter should not be introduced until there has been proper and adequate consultation with those most affected.

Established in Canada in 1875, B'nai Brith is Canadian Jewry's oldest and only independent community service organization. The League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada is considered by many to be Canada's foremost human rights agency, dedicated to combatting antisemitism, racism, bigotry and hate in all its forms. We have enjoyed a long and fruitful association with the Ontario Human Rights Commission over the years, both as a partner and as a consumer.

It is ironic that the proposed changes to "modernize Ontario's human rights system" in order to "better respond to complex human rights issues that have an impact on groups of people as well as individuals":

i) are based on a report that is 15 years old, which therefore does not take into account new constructs necessary to deal with new realities;

ii) do not benefit from recent experiences in another province. The proposed model promotes a direct access system that was almost universally vilified in the 1980s when it was first attempted in British Columbia and has more recently been proven, once again, ineffective, inefficient and costly;

iii) have the potential to deny the very equality and access to justice that they purport to advance, for a large number of vulnerable populations;

iv) propose to "establish" infrastructures that were in place at the Commission 20 years ago (one of which, the creation of a Race Relations Directorate within the Commission, still remains as a legislative requirement in the current Code (s. 28(1)and (2));

v) could well violate past Court and Tribunal orders that led to many of the delay-inducing safeguards and layers of procedural fairness that have been added to the complaints process.

It is also ironic that the proposal to create a process of human rights adjudication that is open, accessible and transparent, was developed virtually 'in camera' through a process whose impetus came primarily from those who appear to stand to benefit financially from its implementation, and without consultation with, or input from, those who stand to lose morally and substantively from its implementation - members of groups protected under the Code, complainants and respondents of the current human rights system, and human rights staff, were excluded.

In 1962, Ontario was the first jurisdiction in Canada to consolidate existing anti-discrimination legislation into a comprehensive Human Rights Code, and created the Commission to enforce it. From the outset, its intent was to create and nurture a social climate wherein the dignity and worth of each individual would be respected. Its founding visionaries recognized that the Commission's extensive public interest mandate would best be served through a conscientious, interdependent and integrated program of compliance and enforcement, public education and community relations, and legislative and policy challenges. Such was its authority and influence that the Government granted the Code primacy over all other provincial legislation.

As the needs of society changed, so too did human rights legislation and the concomitant policies, programmes and systems. Grounds of protection were added, and public education and outreach were enhanced, leading to a tremendous increase in the number of cases coming forward to the Commission. Unfortunately, the requisite financial and human resources to support the resulting increase in demand for services did not keep pace, and a backlog was created. To now propose eviscerating the Commission - whose work formed the template for all subsequent provincial, federal and international human rights commissions - and replace it with a system whose track record elsewhere is less than stellar in the extreme is, we believe, shortsighted and potentially dangerous to the protection of human rights in Ontario.

For the above reasons, we urge you to set aside the proposed legislation and any changes regarding the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Code, and instead institute a full consultation process engaging all relevant stakeholders. There is no question that the Commission's complaints process is in need of review, revision and refinement in order to operate more efficiently and expeditiously. And who better to inform that review than those who require and use the system. To hold hearings on a direct access Bill which many of the most affected advocacy groups and their constituents oppose, would be counterproductive.

It is not our intention in this communication to offer alternative models; we would, however, be most pleased to participate in a consultation to this end. In the interim, we offer the following concerns relating to the announcement, for your consideration:

1. Rather than improving the complaints process, the proposed model would make it more onerous for the consumers by requiring them to conduct their own investigations and gather evidence, within an environment that is already poisoned by the very filing of a complaint. The resulting power imbalance mitigates against justice being done since, as well, respondents may be in a better position to afford legal representation. There is an inherent bias as, unlike the respondent, the complainant would have neither the perceived authority nor experience to access the relevant documents and witness statements (the basis for evidence) necessary to conduct a thorough investigation and effect a fair resolution.

2. If there is an extensive caseload in an agency replete with experienced officers, operating within a system with which the public has had a familiarity for 44 years, one queries the assumption that a new system conducted by 'neophytes' and navigated by members of the general public would not create a backlog. The gatekeeping function would, as a result, not be eliminated; it would, of necessity, have to be re-instated at the Tribunal level - a Tribunal which, we understand, is already burdened with cases. One need only look at the backlog within the civil and criminal court system to appreciate how direct access may play out.

3. Lack of resources required to perform optimal work is an ongoing concern at the Commission. Rather than infusing a new system -- which has proved to be, in other jurisdictions, far more costly than the existing system -- with additional funding, it would be more expedient to perform an administrative audit of the Commission and increase its funding in the appropriate areas to allow it to fulfil its mandate more effectively.

4. In the realm of apprehension of bias, one of the positive aspects of the separation of Commission investigations and the Tribunal process is the autonomy under which both operate. The Tribunal is currently viewed as a distinct 'court of next resort', separate from the Commission process. To now render the Tribunal investigator, judge and jury would cast aspersions on the neutrality and objectivity of the human rights process.

5. The need for legal representation and advice - currently a statutory right - will put an unnecessary, unfair and onerous burden on the majority of complainants, who are already victimized by alleged discrimination, and would potentially have a profoundly negative impact on small businesses. The offer of some form of legal aid in the Attorney General's announcement would benefit only those who fall within a certain income category. We understand, despite this assertion on the part of the Attorney General, that Legal Aid - an already overtaxed system -- is not in a position to adequately fund such a programme, nor are many community legal aid clinics in a position to, or willing to, have carriage of these complaints. We fear that this will create an ethos of 'justice by means test' wherein justice will be beyond reach of the average person, rather than more accessible. Should a party to a complaint choose to proceed unrepresented, one need only look once again to the Court system to appreciate the delays and chaos resulting from unrepresented parties.

6. Given that the financial remedies stemming from individual complaints are not considerable, many lawyers would be unprepared to engage in a lengthy process for small remuneration. This opens the door for exploitive paralegals or others unfamiliar with human rights, acting as agents for complainants, further rendering justice a distant hope. As well, rather than expediting cases at the Tribunal level, it has been suggested that the process would become even more protracted, as respondent lawyers will seek preliminary objections, motions to produce, motions to dismiss, and adjournments to accommodate their schedules. In addition, the power of the Tribunal to award costs against the complainant would have a chilling effect on the filing of meritorious complaints and abort the process of justice. It is worth bearing in mind that 73% of cases at the Commission are settled through a process of publicly funded mediation, investigation or conciliation, without the need to hire and pay for lawyers.

7. The League for Human Rights for some years was involved in the process to secure a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act. One of the key recommendations was the creation of a separate enforcement agency to ensure barrier-free access in all sectors for persons with disabilities. Although the proposed Act was less than hoped for, those engaged in the process agreed to the passing of the Legislation with the proviso, and on the assurance of this Government, that such an agency was not required because the Commission would be sufficiently strong to deal with relevant complaints, policies and programmes. It is unconscionable to now remove this avenue of complaint and redress, and expect persons with disabilities to truly achieve justice.

8. The proposal indicates that the Commission will retain authority to engage in systemic research and investigations. Yet it is primarily its investigating and compliance function, its ability to see each case through to completion, which highlights areas and trends that require systemic measures and policy directions. Otherwise, such efforts will be informed by anecdotal information and hearsay, rather than fact and statistics. In particular, mediation and investigation functions are necessary to fully address racial complaints because of the socio/political/historic factors involved.

9. In the proposed system, the complainant has responsibility for carriage of his/her complaint of discrimination. However, individual complaints result in individual remedies, and impair the potential for human rights advancement. In a direct access model, individual complainants and their lawyers, where present, at the Tribunal, would have no incentive to look beyond individual remedies in favour of public interest. The benefit of the current system, and the prime function of the Code and Commission is to represent the public interest in remediating human rights violations. Its integrated function ensures that cases that proceed through the system are dealt with for wide-ranging policy considerations, legal implications, opportunities for public education, and with an eye to the public interest component, such that both individual and substantive, societal remedies are effected, thus having a stronger potential to prevent and eliminate discrimination on a broader basis. Individual complainants and their lawyers at the Tribunal, in a direct access model, would have no incentive to do so. Philosophically, the proposed model will transform human rights adjudication from a conciliatory, remedial process to an adversarial, punitive one - not one conducive to good will, or to the concept of human dignity, respect and worth.

10. We are concerned about the perceived conflict of interest inherent in having the Commission operate under the aegis of the Ministry of the Attorney General - whose lawyers defend government respondents in human rights cases. More fundamental is the inherent unfairness of requiring complainants to hire their own lawyers, while government respondents will have the benefit of paid career government counsel.

We support wholeheartedly the strengthening of the Commission's ability and mandate to address systemic issues - proactively and through complaints -- as we do the re-establishment of a race relations entity to not only advise, but to research and address race-based issues in the community. As mentioned at the outset, some 20 years ago the Commission had, in addition to its Compliance, Legal and Public Education Branches, a separate Systemic Investigations Unit, a Unit for the Handicapped and a Race Relations Division - all of which performed ground-breaking work which provided essential jurisprudence, policy and programmes in their respective areas, and which inform much of contemporary human rights at home and abroad. We are pleased that their benefit is once again being recognized, but query their effectiveness if the Commission is divested of the appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

It is perhaps coincidental, and the final irony, that this discussion is taking place on the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, March 21 -- a day which stands as a universal symbol of the need to raise our individual and collective voices to oppose racism and discrimination. It reminds us of the responsibility of all member states to recognize the inherent dignity and equal rights entitlement of ALL members of the human family, and the commitment to universal freedom and justice. We in Canada, and in Ontario, are fortunate, indeed. We live in a democracy where injustice and discrimination are condemned by political philosophy, and punishable by law. And therein lies the irony - because we believe that what is being proposed by this current reform, is neither fair nor respectful of Ontario's pluralism and diversity.

This government promised during its 2003 election campaign that it would strengthen the human rights system in this province, not dismantle the Commission. We look to you to honour this commitment. This issue provides a golden opportunity for Ontario to once again stand in the forefront of progressive, dynamic human rights advancement which will nurture its reputation as a province dedicated to the enhancement and equality of all of its citizens. We therefore urge you to give full consideration to the concerns about the proposed model you have already received, and those which you have yet to receive, from individuals and groups who would be most directly affected by the proposed changes. To pass inadequate legislation and create a less than effective process would be an insult to the victims of discrimination in this province, and to those who advocate on their behalf. Please, do not permit a hastily drafted Bill, without the benefit of adequate consultation, to be introduced in the House.

We wish us all productive deliberations, and look forward to celebrating their fruition.

Your truly,

Toni Silberman
Immediate Past Chair
League for Human Rights - Ontario Region

c.c. Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario via facsimile (416) 326-4016
Honourable Sandra Pupatello, Minister Responsible for the AODA via facsimile (416) 325-1498
Honourable Dwight Duncan, House Leader via facsimile (416) 325-7755
Ms. Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission via fax(416)314-7752
John Tory, Leader of the Official Opposition via facsimile (416) 325-0491
Howard Hampton, Leader of the New Democratic Party via facsimile (416) 325-8222

By Fax and Email

March 15, 2006

The Honourable Michael Bryant
Attorney General
Ministry of the Attorney General
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, ON M5G 2K1

Dear Attorney General:

Re: Reform of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Tribunal

We are writing to you about the Government's proposal for reform of Ontario's human rights system. ARCH Disability Law Centre looks forward to changes to the human rights process that will effectively address the problems that persons with disabilities frequently experience with the current system.

It is clear from the wide response to your announcement of intended reform that there is great public interest in this initiative and also that there are many different viewpoints that need to be canvassed. In light of this response, ARCH concurs with the view of several disability organizations that the Government should consult broadly with the public about its reform initiative before tabling its proposed legislation.

We therefore request that a fully accessible consultation be undertaken, with sufficient time to ensure that all accommodation requirements are met so that people with disabilities can participate fully in this discussion. This consultation should be province-wide, with special efforts made to reach persons living in rural as well as urban communities.

We also recommend that the consultation make a significant effort to reach many people who ordinarily do not participate in public debates. There are segments of the community who currently have virtually no access to human rights enforcement, and who have not participated at all in this debate, even though reform could have a positive impact on their situation. For example, there are individuals who are institutionalized or incarcerated who currently are unaware of the human rights that they have, how to go about enforcing them, or what protections are available should they do so. Other highly marginalized people also need to be brought into the discussion.

Finally, we recommend that this consultation be based on a detailed option document setting out various potential structural changes. The various options should be clearly set out so that these complex issues are understood by those without in-depth experience of the human rights system. This would give the public the opportunity to comment upon the different models of a comprehensive framework from a more informed position.

Yours truly,

Lana Frado
Chair

Phyllis Gordon,
Executive Director

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Sandra Pupatello, Ministry of Community & Social Services
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission
John Tory, Leader of the Opposition
Howard Hampton, Leader of the NDP

August 25, 2005

The Honourable Michael Bryant
Attorney General
Ministry of the Attorney General
720 Bay Street, 11th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2K1

Dear Minister Bryant:

Re: Reform of the Human Rights Process in Ontario

As you are aware, ARCH is the disability law specialty clinic funded by Legal Aid Ontario. As such, we have a great deal of experience with the human rights regime in Ontario, having represented clients at all levels, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the courts. Most recently we participated at the invitation of your staff in the Human Rights Listening Sessions held this past spring.

ARCH also plans to participate in the upcoming review of Ontario's human rights system, sponsored by the Commission. ARCH congratulates the Commission's efforts and looks forward to the publication of the results of the review in the fall of 2005. ARCH is also pleased that your office has committed to develop a blueprint for human rights reform in Ontario by the winter of 2005. ARCH regards these efforts as an exciting opportunity to develop a more principled and comprehensive approach to human rights protection for persons with disabilities.

ARCH lawyers participate in the Association of Human Rights Lawyers of Ontario, the organization that has taken the lead with respect to the urgent need of reform of the human rights process in Ontario. We support the principles for reform set out in that group's July 2005 document entitled Reform of the Human Rights Process in Ontario.

In addition, it is our view that whatever form a new human rights process may take, specific attention must be paid to the requirements of persons with disabilities. For some time persons with disabilities have been the largest single complainant group at the Commission and we expect this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. It is essential that any new legislative scheme be fully accessible and address barrier removal that they face from the outset. We look forward to your leadership on this issue so that the current process, attitudinal and physical barriers not be repeated in the reformed human rights process. ARCH would be pleased to discuss this issue further at the appropriate time.

We also wish to add at this time that any reform must address legal representation resources. It cannot be assumed that legal clinics will readily be able to replace the many tasks that the Commission has been performing to date. Moreover, many complainants who do not meet legal aid eligibility guidelines will also need legal support, which they will be unable to afford. It is essential that significant and sufficient resources be allocated to the legal support of complainants, including at the intake and mediation stages. One option is to assign the representation of complainants who so elect to the Commission.

This would be feasible with the removal of the Commission's gatekeeper role, as conflicts will no longer be in issue. As well, actively representing individuals would inform Commission decisions regarding which systemic cases to pursue in the public interest.

We look forward to discussing these issues with you or your staff in the coming months and to comment upon any proposed legislative changes that your government will introduce.

Yours truly,

Phyllis Gordon Executive Director

cc: The Honourable Sandra Pupatello
Minister of Community and Social Services
Minister Responsible for Women's Issues
Minister Responsible for Ontarians with Disabilities
Hepburn Block, 6th Floor
80 Grosvenor Street
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1E9

ONTARIO GOVERNMENT'S NEWEST NEWS RELEASE

News Release
Communiqué
Ontario Logo

Ministry of the Attorney General
Ministère du Procureur général

For Immediate Release
March 21, 2006

MCGUINTY GOVERNMENT UPHOLDS THE IDEALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL DAY TO ELIMINATE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Strengthening Ontario's Human Rights System Would Improve Access To Justice For Those Facing Intolerance

TORONTO - The McGuinty government is reconfirming its commitment to strengthen and improve Ontario's human rights system, Attorney General Michael Bryant announced today while marking the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

"Racism, whether in individual behaviour, or as systemic or institutional discrimination, is a violation of human rights and dignity," said Bryant. "It is up to each of us to fight racism, to stand up, speak out and state loud and clear that racial discrimination and intolerance is unacceptable to us in any form, at any time. Our province will be stronger for our actions."

On February 20, 2006, Bryant announced his intention to introduce legislation later this spring that would, if passed, modernize Ontario's human rights system.

Under the proposed new model, the Ontario Human Rights Commission would focus on advancing human rights and preventing discrimination through proactive measures, such as public education, research and monitoring to address systemic discrimination. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, meanwhile, would provide a modern, streamlined, and efficient way of resolving disputes by allowing individuals or groups to file claims directly with the tribunal.

"The changes I have proposed will provide more support to claimants and respondents, and these changes will in turn provide more access to the tribunal for more people," said Bryant.

The government would also establish an anti-racism secretariat within the commission that would provide recommendations and advice to the chief commissioner about research and policy to fight racism.

"This province led the way in supporting human rights back in 1962 when Ontario enacted the first human rights code in Canada," said Bryant. "We are continuing to lead the way by strengthening our human rights system and improving access to justice for those who face discrimination."

March 21 marks the anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa in 1960, when 69 peaceful, anti-apartheid demonstrators were killed. In 1966, the United Nations declared the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to commemorate this tragedy and in memory of all those who have died around the world fighting against racial intolerance and discrimination.

- 30 -

Contacts:
Brendan Crawley
Communications Branch
(416) 326-2210

Disponible en français