ODA Comment: Part VI

Ontarians with Disabilities Act Public Comment

Ontarians with Disabilities Act Public Comment
ODA Comment: Part II
ODA Comment: Part III
ODA Comment: Part IV
ODA Comment: Part V
ODA Comment: Part VI

As one Ontarian with a disability, my aim is perhaps a little different from most politicians’ constituents. I want to pay as much tax as possible. I want to pay lots and lots of tax. Just take the going tax rate off the top of the big fat salary I want to see beside my name in a Sunshine List somewhere. I don’t even think about the tax rate because to a person with a disability, it is all too easy to imagine the alternative to paying lots of tax is to pay little or no tax because you can’t get a good salary—or any job at all. It is fine to revolutionize the educational system with ASL in the classroom or integration of children who prefer mainstream education, but it is not enough. Without a broad and mandatory program similar to the ADA, we essentially dump graduates onto the employment market to compete against cheaper labour who request no accommodations. Because their education and/or training might keep them off public assistance, we pay no more attention to them, but the lost taxes are as regrettable as the lost human potential.

In summary, a mandatory ODA will provide several things that a voluntary ODA simply will not:

	attract essential service providers such as sign language interpreters and real-time reporters to settle in our market to enable companies, institutions, utilities, etc. to provide the access.
	convince potential job candidates that their request for disability access is no more "trouble" than the firm is already obligated to provide, so their application stands a fair chance of consideration. Reduce the aggravation the firm feels when confronted with a candidate with a disability, about being forced to spend more money than their competitor.
	increase the likelihood that public places, both publicly and privately owned, will already be safe to occupy, and accessible for independent access and egress as well as productive occupancy of the space. Reduce the amount of explaining and advocacy required of each individual person with a disability each time he or she patronizes a business or consumes a public service.
	provide access to all individuals regardless of whether they have the time, energy, confidence, and sophistication to mount a human rights claim against a big institution or corporation, and provide that access before it is too late.

My request to address the public consultation panel was declined, causing me to wonder what is the use of my Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship. I wonder why paternalistic, patronizing "service" agency monopolies are invited to speak for us instead of distinguished members of the community. Testimony from "service" agencies must be viewed as self-serving, since their own ends are furthered by the assertion that the solution to the problem is merely more money to support their activities. In reality, many of their services would not be needed if the mainstream of Ontario business, government, health, education, and transportation were accessible—and accountable for access. As many disabled people can attest, service agencies spend as much time counselling people with disabilities how to have ‘reasonable’ and ‘realistic’ expectations. Too often, all we expect is access. "It’s an unkind world," they say, "and you have to learn how to get along". They counsel us that you catch more flies with honey. Frankly, life is too short to hunt flies.

Last modified 28 July 2002