Public ownership of library books in alternate format, letter to decision makers, April, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear legislators and librarians interested in services to blind Canadians:

Canada currently has two library services for blind people and others with print disabilities. The publicly owned system is called National Network for Equitable Library Service (NNELS). The privately owned system is the old CNIB library, now called Centre for Equitable Library Access (CELA).

Having two library systems is an unreasonable duplication of effort and a tragic waste of resources. The Canadian Federation of the Blind urges governments and libraries to put an end to this nonsense and once and for all make our library service truly public. We believe NNELS is fully capable of managing distribution of books in alternate formats and should become Canada’s resource for libraries as they integrate service to people with print disabilities.

We urge government to cut all funding to CNIB/CELA and fund the public NNELS system instead.

Although the public has already paid to produce digital versions of the material in the CNIB library, we would support a one-time payment to CNIB for the transfer of ownership of that collection to NNELS.

Mary Ellen Gabias, President
Canadian Federation of the Blind


The National Network for Equitable Library Service ( is paid for by several, but not all, provincial libraries. It’s publicly owned, and has developed an infrastructure for delivering books to eligible borrowers through its website and through public libraries.

The Center for Equitable Library Access (CELA) is the CNIB library under a new name. It’s paid for by some, but not all, provincial libraries, and some public libraries in non-participating jurisdictions. It is privately owned and its collection is licensed to libraries that pay for access. Until now, legally blind CNIB clients throughout the country who had become clients before 2011 could use CELA. That may soon change. CNIB/CELA is making it known that access may soon be cut off to blind people in localities that don’t pay CELA’s licensing fees.

The books in the CNIB/CELA collection were paid for with public funds, yet they’re being treated like the private property of CNIB.

The NNELS public library service is completely capable of managing both its collection and the books held by CNIB/CELA. Canadian public policy should focus on making sure that public libraries own the alternate format books in both collections, since the public has already paid to create them.

CNIB should be informed that public money will no longer go to support its private, proprietary, redundant, and more expensive infrastructure now that public libraries have an adequate means of getting books to the people who require them, and doing so more affordably.

In the interest of integration, government should negotiate a one-time payment to CNIB to transfer digital copies of its collection to public ownership through NNELS.

Continuing to pay CNIB for segregated library service is degrading and flies in the face of the new spirit of inclusion of people with disabilities into the mainstream. It also places libraries and governments in danger of repeated moves by CNIB to withhold books from borrowers as has been done in the past and is currently being threatened.

Technology has created the possibility for truly integrated mainstream library service for people with print disabilities. Canada should embrace that possibility. CNIB is familiar and traditional, but it is neither mainstream nor integrated into the public library system. Familiarity and tradition do not make CNIB an appropriate choice for providing library service in the twenty-first century.

Fun Trivia Night Fundraiser on May 5 at Norway House

Have fun May 5 and help the CFB at the same time!

Have fun May 5 and help the CFB at the same time!

The Canadian Federation of the Blind is hosting a fun Trivia evening at Norway House, 1110 Hillside Avenue, on Friday May 5, 2017 from 6:30pm to 9:30pm.

Admission to the event is $25.00 per person, and will be collected at the door. Cheques should be made payable to the Victoria Imperial Lions Club.

Please let us know if you will be participating and the number of people on your team so that tables can be arranged in advance. Call Graeme McCreath at 250-479-2679 or send an email.

Complimentary refreshments will be available for participants as well as pizza at half time to re-energize themselves. Beer, wine, and soft drinks can be purchased throughout the evening.

Enjoy a wonderful evening of team work. Teams of eight people work collectively to win the most points. There will be prizes awarded for first, second and third table placements.

Everyone is welcome!

Sponsored by The Victoria Imperial Lions Club.

Open Letter to the Chairman of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

Dear Mr. Bernd Walter,

Re: The Tribunal’s Misuse of Power

As the Chair of the BC Human Rights Tribunal and one who was directly involved in Case 12930, I am sending this open letter after experiencing your and your staff’s use of power to directly undermine guide dog users’ access rights. The Human Rights Tribunal appears unable or unwilling to act ethically when guide dog owners reach out for protection from prejudice.

The Tribunal’s retreat from its duty to address systemic discrimination has permitted anyone to act illegally, putting blind customers at the service provider’s mercy. You have deviated from the official main purpose of the Tribunal, sending a huge red flag to the disabled. “Balancing rights” is an oxymoron, as a right is paramount and not a ratio to be calibrated. There is no evidence that guide dogs cause problems in public places or conveyances. Many unproven barriers have been used to permit discrimination and this is unscrupulous and fraudulent.

The BC Guide Animal Act and the updated Guide Dog and Service Dog Act were introduced to protect access rights of blind guide dog users and included specific clauses stating that the blind person was to be treated as if the guide dog was not present and that no one shall interfere with this legislation. The law clarifies pure entitlement being a protected right and as guide dog users we have been seeking equal access, not the BCHRT’s incorrect interpretation of accommodation which permits discrimination. The inability of the Tribunal to interpret the true meaning of “accommodation” where guide dogs are involved is unprofessional and wanton prejudice.

Guide dogs for blind people have been part of mankind’s cultural fabric for thousands of years, illustrated through excavated frescoes near Pompeii. It is incumbent upon Human Rights Tribunals and Courts to protect this established right.

If an employee is unable to fulfil their responsibilities, the duty to accommodate falls solely to their employer, not the blind customer. Under the taxi licensing Act clear rules state that drivers must respond to all flagged or hailed calls without exception. The Passenger Transportation Act states: 12.1 (1) In this section, “taxi driver” means the driver of a passenger directed vehicle that is operated under a licence that expressly authorizes the driver to convey passengers who hail or flag the passenger directed vehicle from the street, or who cause the passenger directed vehicle to be hailed or flagged from the street.

This licence requirement applies to all customers and does not allow the taxi companies to selectively exclude visible minorities.

The prejudice emanating from the BCHRT is enabling unjustified access barriers across the country to continually confront guide dog users. This practice completely conflicts with the Tribunal’s five stated purposes of the human rights code.

When I was out with friends in July 2014 and one of them called a taxi on his phone, we were all refused the ride because of my guide dog. Victoria Taxi freely disclosed that they had an unbelievable 14 other cabs out of their fleet of 43 on the road who were on file to not take “animals” and extended this to include guide dogs. Despite this obvious and serious illegal policy, the Tribunal chose to permit discrimination.

To fulfil its mandate, the Tribunal’s professional representatives ought to have found these taxi policies outrageous. Initially I was reluctant to proceed with a claim because, like many others, the victim bears the burden of proof. But when I decided to pursue justifiable redress, the Tribunal’s punitive and subsequent betrayal indicated how blind citizens with their guide dogs are perceived.

Throughout the protracted procedure, the BC Human Rights staff, including yourself, repeatedly spoke to me as if the discrimination was my fault, not the driver’s. The discrimination I suffered and my documented proof of disability both met your stringent rules to establish prima facie. However, that is when your stringent rules were abandoned. Having made the decision to take my case to a public hearing rather than mediate, as the Chairman of the Tribunal, you inexplicably got directly involved in my case. You appeared more concerned with finding a way to dismiss my case than with justice and the law. During the telephone conference prior to the hearing with the two parties involved to try and engage Mr. Convy, the Victoria Taxi manager, you spoke as if you were his legal adviser, when you kept pushing him to procure a lawyer and also granted him a further two week extension. This despite already having several other extensions, so he could try and come up with more documentation, as you specifically told him “at present it was not good enough and you must try and come up with something better.” The respondent failed to do so, but unbelievably, completely opposite to your judgment, Ms. Jacqueline Beltgens, your chosen Tribunal Member who presided over my public hearing, gave unfounded credibility to what you had deemed “not good enough.” When you scolded both parties for not mediating, I did explain that your practice of pressuring victims to accept mediation is quite disingenuous, particularly with repeated infractions, as it serves only to “manage discrimination”, and exonerate the perpetrators rather than foster prevention. Furthermore, concealing mediation cases from the public eye is another example of how the Tribunal guards its questionable conduct. Under the BCHR code, once discrimination is proven, as in my case, the burden of proof passes to the respondent, Victoria Taxi. Shockingly, manager of Victoria Taxi even admitted that five of their taxi cab owners simply deny service to anyone with an animal including guide dogs for no reason what so ever. Even hired taxi drivers operating these five cabs were not permitted to serve blind persons accompanied by a guide dog. Mr. Bruce MacGregor, the driver who refused us, could well have been the driver of one of those five taxis.

Your presiding member Ms. Beltgens’ decision treated unsubstantiated comments as if it were evidence and accepted discriminatory restricted access rules, contrary to the conditions of the provincial taxi licence. The driver, Bruce MacGregor, never bothered to attend to speak to his alleged allergies.

As a citizen of British Columbia who accepted the Tribunal’s public servants’ stated claim of impartiality, I have particular scorn for Ms. Beltgens’ practice of placing blame on the victim and creating the impression that these access barriers are warranted. Despite no pre-existing documented driver record of allergies to dogs, or even the word “allergy” being officially medically documented anywhere, throughout her official decision Ms. Beltgens wrote as if this were an established fact and I was portrayed as an unreasonable taxi customer. In all of the human rights public hearings that I know of where taxi drivers have tried to claim allergies to guide dogs, including my own, no factual evidence of allergies has emerged.

Furthermore, some Tribunal staff, and in particular Mediator Ms. Cathy McCreary’s practice of reducing these cases to an “inconvenience” is preposterous. Discrimination should never be minimized as an “inconvenience”. To do so is a deliberate form of oppression. The idea that the discriminator justifies his actions dependent on the impact on the victim is absurd. This tribunal practice directly encourages discrimination as it helps to condone bad behaviour rather than condemn it. Section d) of the BCHR code states: to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this code.

For the BCHRT to identify patterns of inequality associated with discrimination, statistics are required. A written response directly from the BCHRT in September 2016, disclosed that the BCHRT does not keep statistics. How therefore, without compiling statistics, is it possible to identify and eliminate any patterns of inequality associated with discrimination?

If the injustice of this ruling is allowed to stand, in the future literally any unsubstantiated denial of service to a blind person accompanied by a guide dog will suffice. It is important that blind people express disgust at this decision as a challenge in the courts. The decision that was handed down in my taxi discrimination case is a travesty that misinterprets the term “accommodation” and does not respect the law, which will result in huge negative consequences for all blind people with guide dogs. An “independent” investigation into the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s conduct in guide dog discrimination cases is necessary to resolve this political prejudice.

Graeme McCreath

Meet Guide Dog Owners in Victoria at BC Ministry of Justice December 3 at 1:30

Please come and meet our guide dog owners and their companions this Thursday, at 1:30 p.m. outside the Ministry of Justice, 1001 Douglas Street, Victoria, British Columbia and learn the news that will change lives.

Canadian Federation of the Blind will demand the end to discrimination spearheaded by those whose responsibility it is to protect the disabled.

“Taxi drivers use phony dog allergy claims to deny service to people who use guide dogs. Unbelievably the BC Human Rights Tribunal has bought into this sham,” said Mary Ellen Gabias, President of Canadian Federation of the Blind.

Evidence shows no driver allergies exist in any of the published British Columbia human rights cases. Blind people and their trusted guides now have no remedy when drivers discriminate against them. The Human Rights Tribunal is ignoring the facts and destroying guide dog owners’ access rights on a taxi driver’s whim.

Blind citizens will challenge this notion and will be making an important announcement on Thursday, December 3, on the International Day for People with Disabilities.

Support Justice for People Who Use Guide Dogs

Without your immediate help, three quarters of a century’s work establishing the access rights of guide dog teams may be casually swept away in British Columbia!

Discrimination by the taxi industry is just fine, no more than a minor inconvenience, according to Jacqueline Beltgens of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

We need your help to raise fifteen thousand dollars to fight for legal redress of a Tribunal decision that gives more credence to hearsay about a taxi driver’s unproven dog allergy than to the rights of a person with a guide dog.

Please go to

to make your cry for justice heard. As you read Graeme McCreath’s story, consider the implications for guide dog teams everywhere.

Graeme McCreath just wanted to go out for a casual evening with a few friends on July 15, 2014. He never intended to walk into a humiliating bureaucratic nightmare.

The story is all too familiar to anybody who cares about guide dogs and human rights. A friend phoned a taxi. When it arrived, the driver, Bruce MacGregor, announced, “I can’t take the dog. I’ll get you another cab.”

The refusal of service was a public humiliation. It was also a direct violation of British Columbia’s Guide Animal Act.

British Columbia has two laws that are supposed to protect people who travel with guide dogs. The Guide Animal Act says: “A person with a disability accompanied by a guide animal has the same rights, privileges and obligations as a person not accompanied by an animal.” The British Columbia Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.

The law seemed extremely clear. Graeme McCreath sought justice from the Human Rights Tribunal. After a year of filings and discussions, the matter finally went to hearing on July 14, 2015. Graeme McCreath, Bruce MacGregor, and Sean Convy, the manager of Victoria Taxi, had nearly a year, more than ample opportunity to produce evidence. The only documentation the taxi company produced was a vaguely worded slip from a walk-in clinic that didn’t mention allergies and an internally produced document noting that MacGregor had been given an “exception.” Both were dated months after the 2014 incident.

Graeme McCreath and three witnesses to the event testified at the hearing. Bruce MacGregor didn’t even bother to attend. Sean Convy, the manager of Victoria Taxi, represented his company, since the human rights complaint named Victoria Taxi because the company’s policies allow MacGregor and other drivers to refuse service.

The facts are undisputed. Graeme McCreath is blind and was accompanied by his certified guide dog. Bruce MacGregor gave no reason for refusing to transport Graeme when the event occurred, but Sean Convy later claimed that MacGregor has both a dog phobia and a dog allergy. Since MacGregor wasn’t there, he never verified Convy’s claim.

This is how the tribunal described Graeme McCreath’s assertion that he had suffered discrimination.

“[28] Mr. McCreath has established a prima facie case of discrimination. He has a physical disability, he suffered an adverse impact when he was denied a ride by the Taxi Driver, and he was denied the ride because he was accompanied by his guide dog.“

Yet the tribunal dismissed Graeme McCreath’s case!

The tribunal ruled that denial of service by one driver was a minor inconvenience since another cab arrived within a few minutes. One wonders how the tribunal would have responded to Rosa Parks. After all, it is also only slightly more inconvenient to walk a few extra steps to the back of the bus.

Since MacGregor didn’t bother even to appear at the hearing, he never had to explain his actions or answer a single question about his reason for refusing to transport Graeme McCreath. Nevertheless, the tribunal ruled that MacGregor had a “disability” that entitled him to an “accommodation” from the company. Beltgens referred repeatedly to MacGregor’s “disability” as an allergy based on hearsay testimony from Sean Convy. Without documentation, Beltgens voided MacGregor’s responsibility to obey the law. No proof was required; a claim with no substantiation of the severity of the alleged allergy was enough.

We’ve all met people who say they have a “vision impairment” when what they mean is that they wear reading glasses. Their “impairment” exists, but it doesn’t constitute a disability as the term is generally understood. Anyone who wants to establish blindness medically must be seen by an ophthalmologist, a physician with the highest available credential for treating eye conditions. The tests are exacting; all available corrective measures must be undertaken before certification of blindness can be made.

The word “allergy” also has variable definitions, ranging from mild sniffles to anaphylactic shock. Clearly anaphylactic shock is disabling. Sneezes are not. Yet the tribunal did not require that MacGregor’s claim of a disabling allergy be documented by a physician specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic conditions. She specifically and categorically ruled out any finding that anyone claiming an allergy exemption from transporting guide dogs should undergo treatment, calling the suggestion “untenable.”

Ms. Beltgens writes: “The Tribunal has determined that an allergic reaction to animals can constitute a physical disability under the Code.” She behaves as if it not only can, but that merely asserting the presence of an allergy is sufficient to claim disability status, even though the presence and severity of the allergy is unproven.

Graeme McCreath’s case uncovered disturbing evidence of systemic discriminatory practices on the part of Victoria Taxi. Beltgens writes: “He (Mr. Convy, the manager of Victoria Taxi)says that, in addition to taxi drivers, the owners of a particular taxi are also entitled to place an exception to having animals in a car. He says that five of the owners of taxi cabs have also placed exceptions on their cars preventing the transport of animals.” Refusing to take pet dogs is an owner’s right. However, the tribunal never raised any issue concerning the legality of applying a “no animals” policy to guide dogs, even though failing to make that distinction is a clearly discriminatory practice.

Unless we challenge this decision, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has written a manual on how to discriminate and get away with it! You drive a taxi and don’t want to vacuum dog hair? No problem. Just file an exemption so that no dogs can ride in your cab. If you want to be really sure that you can get away with denying service, go to a walk in clinic and ask the doctor on duty to give you a note that says you have “medical reasons” for not transporting dogs.

With only a little creativity, Ms. Beltgens reasoning can easily be extended to include restaurants or other businesses: “I can’t serve you because I’m allergic. It’s only slightly inconvenient to go next door.”

We do not want to deny the legitimate claims of taxi drivers and other workers who genuinely suffer with disabling allergies. They should be accommodated by their employers. We know what genuine disability means and we’re passionate about protecting all people with disabilities. That is why we are passionate about not wanting disability to be trivialized by those who frivolously and fraudulently seek to claim disability protection.

We urge you to go to

and contribute what you can. Graeme McCreath was victimized twice – once when he was refused service and again, in an even more profound manner, when a tribunal set up to protect his rights actively engaged in denying them. If people who care about guide dogs and human rights don’t stand together, British Columbia may lead the way in erosion of our rights. If we stand alone here, we may fall separately all across North America.


Mary Ellen Gabias, President

Canadian Federation of the Blind

P.S. We realize this story seems nearly impossible. Human Rights tribunals were set up specifically to put an end to unfair treatment on the basis of characteristics like disability. With that mandate, how could a tribunal rule the way this tribunal ruled? If you doubt this decision was based on hearsay and that the facts were massaged to permit a preordained conclusion in favour of the business interests of Victoria Taxi, we invite you to read Ms. Beltgens ruling, with all its tortured reasoning, on the BC Human Rights Tribunal web site.

Blind denied access

(A letter to The Vancouver Sun by Doris Belusic,)

Re: Taxis can snub service animals, Oct. 20

Jacqueline Beltgens of B.C. Human Rights Tribunal says Graeme McCreath was only “inconvenienced,” when a Victoria Taxi driver denied him service and called a second cab to pick him up. Was Rosa Parks only “inconvenienced” by being shunted to the back of the bus, even though it would arrive at her destination the same time as the front? McCreath was discriminated against, plain and simple.

At the hearing McCreath supplied proof of certification of his guide dog and of his blindness. In contrast, the taxi company lacked any specific dog allergy proof, even stating that some drivers just don’t want to take dogs. Yet the tribunal found the taxi driver’s evidence sufficient to dismiss McCreath’s case. Beltgens defied reason and endorsed discriminatory practices of Victoria Taxi, setting blind people’s equal access rights back decades. Beltgens and the Human Rights Tribunal didn’t “get” what discrimination is.

Blind taxi user was doubly victimized

(A letter to the editor of The Victoria Times Colonist by Frederick Driver.)

Re: “Tribunal dismisses blind man’s complaint against taxi,” Oct. 27. B.C. Human Rights Tribunal member Jacqueline Beltgens has erred in ruling against guide-dog user Graeme McCreath. McCreath was not seeking a special “accommodation,” but rather the protection of his lawful rights.

The Guide Animal Act clearly states that “a person with a disability accompanied by a guide animal may, in the same manner as a person not accompanied by an animal, enter and use an accommodation, conveyance, eating place, lodging place or any other place to which the public is invited or has access so long as the guide animal is prevented from occupying a seat… and held by a leash or harness … A person must not interfere with the exercise of [this] right.”

It is the taxi driver who is seeking a special accommodation, not the guide-dog user. If such an accommodation is warranted, it is up to the taxi company to do the accommodating – not McCreath.

It is outrageous that the company thinks denying McCreath his access rights under the law is an acceptable way to accommodate its employee. It must find another way – one that does not break the law. (Perhaps the installation of a Plexiglas barrier between front and back, which would also be beneficial for drivers’ security and ventilation. Perhaps a desk job.) McCreath’s rights are crystal clear and have been violated. He has now been doubly victimized, once by Victoria Taxi, and once by the Human Rights Tribunal.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal Trashes Guide Animal Act After a Taxi Driver Refused a Blind Man with His Guide Dog

“On 15th October, 2015, MS Jacqueline Beltgens, a BC Human Rights Tribunal Member, set blind people’s access rights back 40 years,” says Oriano Belusic, First Vice President of the Canadian Federation of the Blind.

Although conceding Mr. McCreath was clearly a victim of discrimination under section 8 of the human rights code, MS Beltgens found, despite a lack of evidence, that Victoria Taxi’s policy of permitting drivers to deny access was not a violation of the human rights code. Beltgens accepted hearsay comments from the Victoria Taxi manager and dismissed the case.

Beltgens also ruled that, because a taxi arrived quickly to replace the one that refused McCreath service, discrimination should be rebranded as just an “inconvenience.”

Belusic asks, “was Rosa Parks only inconvenienced?”

The BC Guide Animal Act says that blind people and their guide dogs have a right to unimpeded access – this right is not an accommodation under that law. Beltgens ruled against a blind person with a proven disability in favor of a taxi driver with an unproven disability claim.

Graeme McCreath, the blind man who was refused service in a very public manner on the streets of Victoria on the evening of July 15, 2014, says, “Discrimination is always unjust, humiliating and gets to the soul, but when the BCHRT targets the disadvantaged we truly have a broken system. If the BCHRT cannot provide justice where can blind people turn?”

“An independent review is the only recourse after such a decision, since the tribunal is clearly ruling in a manner that contravenes the principles in the Guide Animal Act and the recently passed Guide and Service Dog Act,” states Belusic

For further information:
Phone: 250-598-7154.

Watch Anne Malone’s Talk at TEDxStJohns: License to Beg

In the past, to be blind was to live in shame; considered a punishment for sins in a past life. The idea that being ‘legally’ blind and it’s middle age origin is almost criminal, and yet, as beggars had to prove their disability to find the favour of charity, we live in a day and age where Anne has to present an ID, from a charity, to prove that she is different. Anne challenges all of our views of legal blindness.

Anne Malone is a writer, speaker, and creator who envisions and advocates freedom from disability for people who are blind.

B.C. Transit Will Trial New Call-Out System on Buses — Helping Riders Locate Streets and Stops

By Doris Belusic

Success is the progressive realization of a worthy goal or ideal.”
~ Earl Nightingale

On Friday, July 17, 2015, Victoria members of the Canadian Federation of the Blind (CFB), a grass-roots advocacy organization of blind people, along with B.C. Transit personnel, rode around town on a bus equipped with the latest GPS Trekker Breeze. It is being trialled by B.C. Transit as an automated annunciation system. It will call out streets travelled, all cross streets and be modified to call out points of interest, such as Craigdarroch Castle or Mayfair and Hillside Malls. In August, B.C. Transit plans to install it on 25 Victoria buses. If the trial period is successful, it will be rolled out onto the rest of Victoria’s fleet in September; then later in B.C.’s smaller communities.

After more than 15 persistent years of advocacy by CFB members, including a recent human rights tribunal, to get an automated annunciation system onto buses, this is a major accomplishment. Blind transit riders, tourists, seniors and others will now be able to know where the bus is along a route and when to exit independently. No more relying on drivers’ memories and missing stops.

B.C. Transit sought bids until May 5 from companies for automated annunciation systems. According to David Guthrie, of B.C. Transit, the bids were either too expensive or not in trial-ready working order. B.C. Transit decided to re-try CFB’s original suggestion of several years ago. They teamed up with Humanware, a Canadian company which makes Trekker Breeze, originally a blindness-specific GPS system. Today, the updated Trekker Breeze is much advanced and there are now 12 tracking satellites, so the system appears to work very well, even between taller buildings. Guthrie says this lower cost, simpler, more informative system is the first of its kind on buses anywhere.

“It could be revolutionary,” says Oriano Belusic, CFB’s first vice president. “This system is B.C. Transit’s answer to provide blind people with necessary information so they can use public transit independently until such time they install the much more complex and costly smart bus AVL technology.”

The Trekker Breeze will be hardwired to the PA system, which includes at least six speakers from front to back inside each bus. Guthrie says the Trekker Breeze will be encased in plastic and will automatically turn on when the bus is started. The driver needs little or no training and only has to adjust volume. Call-outs should easily be able to be heard (they must be heard) over ambient noise of air conditioners and people’s voices.

“There will undoubtedly be wrinkles to iron out,” says Mary Ellen Gabias, CFB president. “One thing is completely clear to everyone: Blind people have a right to information. We are no longer relegated to the fringes of transit planning.”

“Members of the Canadian Federation of the Blind are very pleased that B.C. Transit is taking concrete steps to equip our buses with automated GPS stop annunciation devices,” says Belusic. “Five of us had an opportunity to test drive a demonstration bus that worked very well and with some fine tuning the new system will definitely make public transit more accessible for blind riders and many others.”

CFB will certainly keep a check on progress, but if the system works well in day-to-day general transit use, as it appears it should, CFB would like to commend B.C. Transit for stepping up to the plate and doing the right thing. Soon blind and visually impaired people will also be able to travel with dignity and confidence.