|
PURPOSE
This memo provides Committee and Council with information about City of Ottawa staff’s feedback on the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Integrated Accessibility Regulation. The Province required feedback by March 18, 2011.
|
|
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the Province of Ontario enacted the Accessibility for Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Under the AODA, private, public and non-profit organizations are required to identify, remove and prevent barriers in order to make the Province accessible for all persons with disabilities by 2025. Through the AODA, the Provincial Government has identified five key areas for the development of accessibility standards. These standards are intended to set requirements across all organizations and sectors:
1. Customer service
2. Employment
3. Information and communications
4. Transportation
5. Built environment
The first standard enacted in 2008 was the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service regulation, which had a compliance deadline of January 1, 2010. The City met this compliance obligation, as reported to Council in April 2010 (report # ACS2010-COS-ODP-0005). The City is now maintaining compliance.
In response to concerns raised by provincial stakeholders about the necessity of harmonizing standards, the Province released in October 2010, for public review, the first proposed AODA Integrated Accessibility Standards which will combine the Information and Communication, Employment and Transportation standards into one. At that time the City provided feedback to the Province, which was reported to Council on November 23, 2010 (report # ACS2010-COS-ODP-0013). There is one other remaining Standard concerning the Built Environment that has been submitted to the Minister of Community and Social Services for consideration.
UPDATE
On February 1st 2011, the province released its second and final draft of the AODA Integrated Accessibility Regulation for a 45 day public review. With input from staff across the corporation, the Accessibility Working Group, Senior Management Committee and the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC), the Corporate Accessibility Office prepared a response to the request for public review. The response is provided as an attachment.
The Accessibility Advisory Committee prepared a motion for Council’s consideration following review and discussion about the Integrated Regulation at its meetings of February 16, 2011 and March 16, 2011. The Advisory Committee’s motion recommends that City Council reject the latest draft of the Provincial Accessible Integrated Regulation. The motion has been included in the City of Ottawa’s response, along with staff comments.
Due to the relatively short consultation period, and in order to meet the consultation deadline, staff submitted the draft response to the Province simultaneously with this IPD, which is to be considered draft, pending Committee review on April 5, 2011. The submission ensured that the City’s comments would be reviewed by the Province and considered in the formulation of a final Integrated Accessibility Standard.
City of Ottawa Response to the Proposed Integrated Accessibility Standards
Highlights of the City’s draft response to the proposed Integrated Accessibility Standards include the following:
· The City supports the harmonization of the three accessibility standards (Information and Communications, Employment and Transportation) into one standard given that the consolidation of the policy and the training requirements will avoid duplication of effort and facilitate planning for successful implementation. The City appreciates that the Province has placed its compliance deadlines one year ahead of municipalities; however, one year does not allow enough time to modify communication and policy materials to meet the needs of all municipalities. The City requests a two year period between provincial and municipal compliance deadlines and provincial funding to support the successful implementation of the integrated regulation.
· The development of interpretation guidelines for each standard prior to adoption into regulation would assist in ensuring consistent understanding, interpretation, clarification and application of all standards. This is particularly true with respect to how each standard relates to other standards, existing legislation and diverse operating environments.
· As a federally regulated transportation service, OC Transpo is not bound by the transportation standards outlined in the Integrated Accessibility Standards, but by federal codes of practice on accessibility. However, the City would be required to comply with the resulting amendments to Regulation 629, Vehicles for the Transportation of Physically Disabled Passengers, under the provincial Highway Traffic Act. Regardless, the City is well positioned to comply immediately with the vast majority of the proposed amendments, including those related to the steps, boarding/de-boarding lifts or ramps, and floor surfaces on OC Transpo’s existing bus fleet. For those amendments for which the fleet would not be in compliance, the City would endeavour to reflect the technical standards and requirements of the final regulation in new fleet acquisitions.
The City of Ottawa’s position on this proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation is consistent with the position of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), which has also submitted a collective response on behalf of its membership. The AMO response is attached.
CONCLUSION
Due to the relatively short consultation period, and in order to meet the consultation deadline, staff submitted the above-mentioned response in advance of an information report coming forward to Committee and Council. The City’s response will be reviewed and considered in the formulation of a final Integrated Accessibility Regulation, which the Province intends to bring forward for enactment sometime in 2011.
In 2011, the Accessibility Office will work with the Accessibility Working Group (departmental representatives) to continue preparing the municipality for the remaining AODA standards through the development of an overall City of Ottawa AODA implementation plan.
I trust that this information will be of assistance.
Steve Kanellakos
Deputy City Manager, City Operations
cc: City Manager
Director, Organizational Development and Performance
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Ottawa Response to the Integrated Regulation
2. Association of Municipalities of Ontario Response to the Integrated Regulation
Attachment 1.
City of Ottawa Response to
Second Proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)
Integrated Accessibility Regulation
The City of Ottawa (the City) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed Integrated Accessibility Standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) and is committed to the principles of full accessibility.
Below is the City’s feedback on the Integrated Accessibility Standards, broken out by general comments and then in reference to specific sections. Please note that this feedback is currently before Ottawa City Council and should be considered draft until approval is received.
Also attached below is a motion submitted by the City’s Accessibility Advisory Committee with regard to the Integrated Accessibility Regulation, submitted as part of the response.
General Comments:
· The City supports the harmonization of the three accessibility standards (Information and Communications, Employment and Transportation) into one standard given that the consolidation of the policy and the training requirements will avoid duplication of effort and facilitate planning for successful implementation. Further harmonization is still required in order to align upcoming Built Environment Standards, Bill 168 obligations and the Ontario Human Rights Code with AODA requirements to avoid duplication of efforts and increased costs.
· Ottawa, like other municipalities, is balancing competing financial pressures. The implementation of provincial standards without corresponding funding presents a significant barrier to our collective success. For instance, the comprehensive training requirements in the new proposed Regulation will require an investment in additional staffing in order to avoid service disruptions during training periods. Over time, increased costs such as these will have a serious impact on municipalities. As such, staff believes that the Province should complete a comprehensive cost analysis of each standard and the proposed Integrated Accessibility Standards in order to properly understand the real costs and benefits to municipalities.
· The City appreciates that the Province has placed its compliance deadlines one year ahead of municipalities; however, one year does not allow enough time to modify communication and policy materials to meet the needs of municipalities. For instance, all policies and practices must be reviewed and approved prior to conducting training. This will require dedicated staffing and resources to ensure this process is completed. The City requests a two year period between provincial and municipal compliance deadlines to support the successful implementation of the integrated regulation.
· In order to ensure successful implementation of the AODA, the City requests that the Province clarify the scope of application and provide clear definitions in the Integrated Accessibility Standard. The development of interpretation guidelines for each standard prior to adoption into regulation would also assist in ensuring consistent understanding, interpretation, clarification and application of all standards.
· With regard to procurement of goods, services and facilities, clear guidelines are required to ensure that expectations are outlined and understood, so that the industry understands the expectations with regard to providing accessible features.
· The City has developed accessibility guidelines for the built environment that are currently being used for assessing facility acquisitions. The City will continue to do so pending new built environment standards set out by the Province. It is City policy to advance barrier-free access to City facilities.
· As a federally regulated transportation service, OC Transpo is not bound by the transportation standards outlined in the Integrated Accessibility Standards, but by federal codes of practice on accessibility. However, the City would be required to comply with the resulting amendments to Regulation 629, Vehicles for the Transportation of Physically Disabled Passengers, under the provincial Highway Traffic Act. Regardless, the City is well positioned to comply with the vast majority of the proposed amendments, including those related to the steps, boarding/de-boarding lifts or ramps, and floor surfaces on OC Transpo’s existing bus fleet. For those amendments for which the fleet would not be in compliance, the City would endeavour to reflect the technical standards and requirements of the final regulation in new fleet acquisitions.
· The City accepts and adopts the position of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on the Integrated Accessibility Regulation.
Section Specific Comments:
General Requirements
Section 3: Establishment of Accessibility Policies. The City does not believe the compliance date of January 2013 is achievable, given the size of the municipality, the range of policies and practices, and governance timelines for approvals. As noted above, the City requests a two year window between provincial and municipal compliance in order for municipalities to have access to guidelines and best practice materials.
Section 4: Accessibility plans. The City supports the new direction to make Municipal
Accessibility Plans multi-year plans. This will assist with planning and budget cycles. It is unclear if the plans will replace or augment existing requirements of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001). Guidelines on the scope for the plans, as well as templates, would be helpful in establishing standardized plans across the province.
Section 5: Procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities. The City requests clarification of applicability and scope of this section. For instance, the term “facilities” typically refers to physical environment, however, it may also include hard and soft parks. Inclusion of “facilities” in this Standard may also create overlap or duplication with the upcoming built environment standard, which would need to be addressed before enactment. Clarification of definition is requested for terms such as “accessibility criteria” or “accessibility features”. The City would need guidelines to ensure successful application of this obligation. There is concern with the scope of this obligation and of the ability of the municipality to comply without guidelines and clarification.
Section 6: Self Service Kiosks. The creation of a checklist outlining specific requirements and a clear definition of what is considered a “kiosk” would assist greatly with appropriate implementation (e.g. client needs may differ when using a Service Ontario computerized self service kiosk as compared to a kiosk operated by public health or parking).
Section 7: Training. The City supports the focus of training for staff being limited to areas that are appropriate to their duties, however this will require the creation of a multi-tiered training plan, due to the fact that some groups will not require training on all three standards and that all policies and procedures must be reviewed, and changes approved (if necessary) prior to training. For this reason, compliance timelines for the training need to be extended from the current proposed 2014.
The City also requests further clarification of who is considered “persons who provide service on behalf of an organization” as this statement is vague and has caused concern among provincial stakeholders in the implementation of the Customer Service Regulation.
Information & Communications Standards
Section 9: Definitions and Exceptions. Subsection 9(4) (b) states the information or communications are unconvertible if: “the technology to convert the information or communications is not readily available.” This is fairly open to interpretation; does this mean not readily available to the public or not readily available because the service provider/vendor does not have the technology at the time? This would have implications on implementation and purchasing of technology. The City requests clarification of the intent of this subsection.
Section 12: Accessible Formats and Communication Supports. The City requests that the Province create guidelines for implementing S. 12. In addition, clarification of application for S. 12 is requested in the cases of requests for accessible format for building or land-use plans, maps, and similar visual technical resources, as these requests could be very difficult to accommodate even before issues of cost are considered. The City and other Ontario municipalities are engaged in the “Open Data” movement, and request clarification about expectations to make these datasets accessible, as they may be software-specific.
Section 13: Emergency Procedure, Plans or Public Safety Information. Given the importance of this clause and the uncertainty surrounding when this regulation will be enacted, more time is required to meet this obligation. A January 1, 2012 compliance deadline is too soon to comply with such a significant aspect of the Integrated Standard.
In addition, a clear definition of “Emergency & Public Safety Information” is essential to determine scope of this requirement. For instance, public safety could include public health and public works staff who may be involved and/or distributing information in the event of an emergency.
Section 14: Accessible Websites and Web Content. Clarification of scope and applicability of this section is particularly important to the City, as initiatives that cross provincial jurisdictions, like the City’s long term planning initiative: “Choosing Our Future,” which has other partners who would not be bound by these regulations. Clarification in scope of application of this section is required, especially for municipalities who work in multi-jurisdictional areas or inter-provincially.
Additionally, given the rapid evolution of technology and that the WCAG standards will change over time, staff recommends that the Province develop resources to assist organizations to understand the standard and how it relates to specific formats on an ongoing basis. This would assist in preventing the scenario where municipalities may resort to limiting the information that they post online altogether, rather than risk non-compliance.
Employment Standards
The City’s view is that prior to becoming regulation, there is still a requirement to align all AODA Standards, the Ontario Human Rights Code and other work-related legislation to ensure clarity and consistency across the various related legislative instruments. While the City appreciates the Province’s efforts to clarify some terms in this draft, more needs to be done to ensure clarity of expectations so that the City may implement this standard with integrity.
Section 23: Recruitment, Assessment or Selection Process. Staff is concerned about the use of the term “accommodation” as it is used in the IAR without being clearly defined. In previous drafts of the proposed Employment Standard the term was defined but the definition has been removed in this version of the proposed Integrated Accessibility Standards. The proposed Regulation also uses the term “suitable accommodation” which is different than the language adopted by the Human Rights Code. Staff recommends that a definition be added to mirror the concept of reasonable accommodation, as outlined in the Code, in order to minimize confusion.
Section 28: Documented individual Accommodation plans: In principle, we support the statements made in this section. The City requests that the Province develop guidelines and tools to aide in implementation, in order to ensure standardized implementation across the Province.
Proposed Timelines
The City is pleased that several timelines have been amended to enable municipalities to successfully meet the obligations of the AODA within the remaining 15 year window. However, staff requests a longer timeline for the compliance of accessible policies than the proposed timeline of January 1, 2013, given the size of the municipality, the range of policies and practices, and governance timelines for approvals.
Transportation:
33. to 78 Transportation: As a federally regulated transportation service, OC Transpo is not bound by the transportation standards outlined in the Integrated Accessibility Standards, but by federal codes of practice on accessibility. However, the City would be required to comply with the resulting amendments to Regulation 629, Vehicles for the Transportation of Physically Disabled Passengers, under the provincial Highway Traffic Act. Regardless, the City is well positioned to comply immediately with the vast majority of the proposed amendments, including those related to the steps, boarding/de-boarding lifts or ramps, and floor surfaces on OC Transpo’s existing bus fleet. For those amendments for which the fleet would not be in compliance, the City would endeavour to reflect the technical standards and requirements of the final regulation in new fleet acquisitions.
Section 79: Duties of Municipalities, Taxicabs. Subsection 2 dictates placement of registration and identification information on the rear bumper of the taxicab. Currently in Ottawa, the registration number appears on the rear plate and the rooftop sign of the taxi. Several years ago, the City determined that it was more appropriate to also have the plate number in large letters beside every passenger door, making it far more noticeable than having the number on the bumper. Staff believes that this policy exceeds the desired provincial standards, and recommends this subsection be changed to allow for multiple placement locations of registration information.
Conclusion
The City is well positioned with respect to the implementation of the Integrated Accessibility Standards, however several concerns have been raised across the corporation and across other municipalities about the need for clarification of scope and applicability of several sections, and about the timelines of implementation. Clarification and implementation time is essential to our collective success. In addition, staff strongly encourages the Province to consider funding for municipal implementation of these standards. The City looks forward to having the Province provide leadership, resources and tools to assist with implementation.
Input from City of Ottawa Accessibility Advisory Committee and City Staff Comment
The City of Ottawa’s Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) approved the following motion for Ottawa City Council’s consideration following review and discussion of the Integrated Accessibility Regulation at its meeting of February 16, 2011. The motion was then amended with additional comments at the AAC meeting on March 16, 2011. The motion and staff comments are attached.
The Accessibility Advisory Committee Motion:
WHEREAS, the Province of Ontario, has issued an Ontario Regulation made under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 - Integrated Accessibility Standards; and
WHEREAS, per Section 39 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Government is seeking public review and comment on the proposed Integrated Accessibility Standards (IAR) from February 1, 2011 to March 18, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ottawa Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) has reviewed the above mentioned regulation and is very concerned that it inadequately represents the needs and concerns of citizens with disabilities;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the AAC recommends that the Finance and Economic Development Committee recommends to Council that the IAR be rejected and that Council sends a strong message before March 18, 2011 to the Ontario Provincial Government reflecting the AAC's concern that the IAR has failed in being of substantial benefit to the citizens of Ottawa and is flawed in too many areas, for example:
a) A careful analysis of the proposed IAR shows that several mandated requirements are undefined and therefore would be unenforceable - eg. What is an "Accessibility Plan"? How can it be measured for compliance?;
b) Timelines for compliance are written without regard for the beneficiaries for whom the Act was created - the Ontarian with a disability. Many sections of the IAR substantiate how the public or private organization's concerns have paramount importance. (e.g. According to Section 12 Accessible Formats and Communication Supports, a small organization, such as a restaurant, would have until January 1, 2017 to supply a menu in Braille);
c) Some of the Sections are carefully designed and worded so that the status quo can be preserved. (e.g. Section 8 exempting small organizations from filing accessibility reports), Section 40 allowing for vehicles purchased up to July 1st of this year, which have a lifecycle of 20-25 years in some cases, to have exemption from being accessible, and Section 78, where municipalities must discuss the need for taxis but nowhere does it state that municipalities must ensure the provision of on-demand accessible taxis and how many.
d) The missing information in this IAR makes it impossible to define the benefits to people with disabilities. How far along will Ontario be in its transition to being an accessible and inclusive place to live, work, and visit?
e) Without the Built Environment Regulation, as promised by the Government, many of the Sections of the IAR are meaningless to people with mobility disabilities.
f) Other reports such as the report by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance be considered.
The Ottawa AAC appreciates and would like to thank the City governance in its efforts to date on its work on implementing the Customer Service Standards and the many improvements it has made to try to implement and follow the new AODA Standards. We are all very concerned about the delays of the standards creation process and implementation of these standards, both for the City of Ottawa ability to implement and the Province’s ability to properly define and direct the implementation process. We are all aware as well of the City of Ottawa’s concern of cost and timelines associated with implementation of the integrated standards as being the greatest barrier to implementation. To date there have been extensive reports associated to this process, Financial, The Charles Beer report and the AODA Alliance input to these Standards. The fact as well that the Standards process is working in partnership with the following groups (see below) and the implementation process is evolving many of the concerns expressed by the City about implementation may not be a concern as new material to aid implementation is developed.
We feel that with greater usage of the combined knowledge and expertise of the AAC membership and that more partnerships are required to ensure that timelines can be met as set out in the Proposed Integrated Standard. The City of Ottawa’s governance is very fortunate, having many members who are members in leadership positions of the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) past and present. We would advise the Government of Ontario and the AMO to work in greater partnership to help implement the Integrated Standards for all of the Municipalities of Ontario. We feel that the City of Ottawa can be instrumental in helping to improve and create templates and other resources that can be cost effective and help all other municipalities across Ontario implement and define these new standards by the required timelines required.
Initiatives and Partnerships currently creating resources to help the implementation of the New Proposed Regulation.
EnAbling Change Partnerships:
Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes is developing online resources to support Francophone women's shelters to comply with the customer service standard.
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre is developing a pilot information technology infrastructure to support e-learning that is tailored to learners of all abilities.
Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario is developing resources to help make municipal elections accessible for people with disabilities.
Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario is developing training and resources that will help people produce accessible information.
Canadian Franchise Association is developing webinars and templates of policies and procedures to help franchisors and franchisees meet the requirements in the customer service standard.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto is developing an accessible, bilingual, on-line training course to meet the training requirements of the customer service standard.
Council of Ontario Universities is developing an online toolkit and online forum to strengthen accessibility in Ontario universities.
Global Alliance on Accessible Technologies and Environments is conducting workshops and producing resources to help small businesses provide accessible information and communications.
Hamilton Training Advisory Board is developing and piloting an outreach strategy targeting small businesses to promote compliance with the customer service standard and supporting the engagement of other boards to implement the outreach strategy across Ontario.
Human Resources Professionals Association is developing a bilingual, best practice e-learning system explaining the AODA and the customer service standard, with checklists, worksheets and project plans to facilitate compliance and reporting.
Inclusive Design Research Institute, OCAD University is creating easy to understand accessible “how to” guidelines for the production of digital office documents in common formats.
Le Phénix is developing and disseminating compliance assistance information, tools and workshops on the customer service standard to French-speaking organizations.
March of Dimes Canada is developing a guide to help shelters assist people with disabilities during an emergency.
MaRS is developing and disseminating information, articles, and a video for early stage entrepreneurs on compliance with the customer service standard.
National Quality Institute is developing downloadable, step-by-step, fill-in-the-blank templates to help businesses implement the customer service standard, a certification and award program for early adopters, and a web-based repository of links, tools, training and best practices.
Ontario Chamber of Commerce is working with chambers of commerce across Ontario to help businesses comply with the customer service standard.
Ontario Library Association is producing training videos about providing accessible customer service for people with disabilities.
Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association is developing a sector-specific workbooks, training videos and a webinar on compliance with the customer service standard.
Ontario Nonprofit Network @ Centre for Social Innovation is developing information and delivering regional forums to the non-profit sector on compliance with the customer service standard.
Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association is developing resources, conducting presentations, and developing an online repository of information and resources for hospitality and tourism operators.
Springtide Resources is developing training that will help women’s shelters, and sexual assault and rape crisis centres meet the requirements of the customer service standard.
Tourism Industry Association of Ontario is developing workshops and a micro site and conducting presentations to promote compliance with the customer service standard to the tourism and hospitality sector.
Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres is customizing accessibility resources for the Aboriginal community and developing training materials to support compliance with the customer service standard.
Volunteer Toronto is developing training tools and an information portal for voluntary sector organizations to become compliant with the customer service standard.
Note: In 2011/12, the program will fund projects that incorporate secondary partners to lead and coordinate cross-sector education and awareness initiatives.
City Staff comment on the AAC motion:
The mandate of the Accessibility Advisory Committee is defined by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act; briefly it is to advise Council and staff to ensure that persons with disabilities have the same level of access to municipal services and programs as do those without disabilities.
As part of the role, the committee has submitted a motion that staff have included in our response to the province.
As reflected in the City’s response to the IAR, the City supports the development of provincial accessibility legislation.
The City supports the Advisory Committee’s recommendation for clearer definitions of accessibility in the provincial legislation, and this is reflected in the staff response.
The Advisory Committee’s motion addresses a number of components which are outside of the role of the municipality. However, the City is addressing the components of the motion which are within its purview. For example, the City has an annual Municipal Accessibility Plan that is reported to Council. Staff is developing an implementation plan to outline how the City intends to ensure compliance with the AODA, and will be reporting on progress annually. In anticipation of the built environment regulation, the City is reviewing its current built environment guidelines to ensure they continue to be based on best practices, and that its facilities are accessible to Ottawa residents and visitors.
The City anticipates that the Province will take the AAC’s concerns regarding the IAR into consideration as part of the City’s response.