Ontarians with Disabilities Act Public Comment

Avoidance of discomfort and awkwardness is an important benefit of ODA. The Act would specify what businesses need to do and its existence would encourage the establishment of the "aftermarket" of providers and consultants to help them accommodate. The people in the companies could just impersonally comply with the statute and never need to deal with feeling they were somehow insulting me by pointing my ‘defect’ out to me.

I am sure there are many Ontario employers who would sincerely like to improve their employment equity. They cite their commitment in newspaper ads. "Unfortunately," they complain, "qualified disabled people don’t apply." The reason, I submit, is that disabled people have confronted insincere promises of equity so many times that they automatically disbelieve them. They shy away from asking for accommodations because they expect this will exclude them. Unlike someone using a wheelchair, I cannot choose whether to keep my disability secret until I arrive for an interview. From the moment I write a letter, it is obvious when I give my telephone contact information. You cannot simply call me; you must use a TTY or the Bell Relay Service ("the what?!?"). You can even e-mail or fax me, but no matter how reachable I try to be, it always gets back to "the what?!?"—the problem of reaching a person on the phone who doesn’t hear. The Bell Relay Service has existed for ten years but most hearing people have never used it. Other than those with deaf family and friends, most who have used it would probably be happy never to have to use it again. It’s The Other: different and strange and effortful. Because you know automatically that I am deaf, and I know that you know, I assume you will respond in the stereotypical way, to exclude me, as others often have. If I have a choice, perhaps I will just decide not to submit to the humiliation, and pass over your ad. The more qualified I am, the more choice I have. And you’ll have one fewer qualified applicant with a disability.

With an effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act, there would be no doubt in my mind that you would know what to do, and would provide it, because there is no option. You won’t see interpreting costs as a competitive disadvantage to hiring me because you know your competitors are also accommodating deaf people. The only way I don’t end up looking like a more expensive employee to hire is if employers have to invest in accommodations anyway. If you already have made your company or institution accessible, I won’t feel I am burdening you to do me ‘favours’. I will feel confident in my chances and I may apply for your job. If there is any voluntariness at all, I will not trust that you will be one of the sincere volunteers.

This is the situation we have with a voluntary system. There is no shortage of knowledge about how to provide access. The ADA is well known in many sectors, particularly those that cater to US tourists or markets for goods. Various community service agencies have existed for decades as resources to initiate the mainstream to the arcane requirements of people with disabilities. The Human Rights Code and various employment equity initiatives have persuaded companies to adopt this facade of equity and perhaps even convince themselves it is more than a facade. But situations like I have described are the norm. They are unusual mainly for the amount of access I have had. For every barrier I have faced, others with disabilities have faced more.