Federal Election Action Kit – Raise Disability Accessibility Issues in Canada’s 2019 Federal Election! – AODA Alliance


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

Federal Election Action Kit – Raise Disability Accessibility Issues in Canada’s 2019 Federal Election!

September 20, 2019

Introduction

Do you think people with disabilities in Canada should be able to travel on airplanes and on interprovincial buses or trains without being impeded by disability barriers? Do you think they should have equal access to services provided by the Government of Canada? Should they be able to enjoy whatever information CBC posts on its public website? Should they be assured that they can enter their neighbourhood polling station during a federal election, and independently mark their own ballot in private? Should the Federal Government ensure that our public money is never used to create or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities?

Over six million people with disabilities in Canada still face too many accessibility barriers. They should not have to individually fight these barriers, one at a time, through endless federal human rights complaints. They need the Federal Government to ensure that it does all it can to ensure that people with disabilities can live in a Canada that is accessible and barrier-free.

Canada’s next federal election is on October 19, 2015. Canadians have a unique opportunity during this election campaign to speed up progress on the long, challenging road to a barrier-free Canada for more than 6 million Canadians with physical, mental, sensory, communication or other disabilities. The new Accessible Canada Act, enacted this past June, requires Canada to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040. We want each party and each candidate to commit to plans that will ensure we will reach this goal.

Let’s work together to raise important disability accessibility issues during this federal election campaign. Let’s get the strongest election pledges from each party and candidate. This Action Kit tells you how to pitch in and help with this effort between now and October 21. Our blitz is totally non-partisan. We don’t try to elect or defeat any party or candidate. We try to get all parties and candidates to make the strongest election commitments we can get on our issues.

This Action Kit tells you:

* What we are seeking from the federal parties and candidates in this federal election.

* What we’ve heard from the major parties so far.

* What you can do.

Helping our cause takes just a few minutes. This Action Kit draws on the extensive experience of the AODA Alliance  and its predecessor coalition, the ODA Committee, in successfully conducting non-partisan blitzes like this in seven Ontario elections since 1995. All you need to know is in this Action Kit. Be creative. Come up with your own ideas. Share them with us. Contact us at [email protected] or on Twitter @aodaalliance

What We’re Seeking from the Federal Political Parties

We aim to get all the major national parties to commit to strengthen the new Accessible Canada Act and to promptly effectively implement it, so that the many barriers impeding people with disabilities will get torn down, as far as the Federal Government can do this. Back on July 18, 2019, we wrote the leaders of the major federal parties. We asked them to make specific commitments. We are making the responses of the party leaders public on our website at www.aodaalliance.org/canada You can read the AODA Alliance’s July 18, 2019 letter to the major national party leaders by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/

Let’s build on our past successes! In the 2015 federal election campaign, we and others conducted a successful non-partisan blitz to get commitments to pass a new national law that would make Canada become accessible to people with disabilities, in so far as the Federal Government can do this. Working together, we and others in the disability community succeeded in getting three of the four national parties that existed in 2015 to do so. In the 2015 election, the Liberals, NDP and Greens all made the pledge. Only the federal Conservatives did not.

We and others in the disability community continued to work hard over the past four years since the 2015 election to get strong new national accessibility law passed. In June of this year, Parliament unanimously passed Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act.

The Accessible Canada Act is a helpful step forward for people with disabilities in Canada. We got some of the ingredients in the law that we sought. However the Accessible Canada Act falls well short of what people with disabilities need.

It is good that this new law sets the mandatory goal of Canada becoming accessible to people with disabilities by 2040. It gives us and all people with disabilities in Canada added tools we can try to use in an effort to tear down the many barriers that persist across this country. It includes a complaints-based enforcement process, a national body to recommend accessibility standards to be enacted, and reductions in the improper power of the Canadian Transportation Agency to enact regulations that can cut back on the human rights of people with disabilities.

Yet the Accessible Canada Act also suffers from serious deficiencies. For example:

  1. Even though it gives the Federal Government helpful powers to promote accessibility, it largely does not require that these ever be used. For example, it lets the Federal Government create helpful and enforceable national accessibility standards but does not require the Federal Government to ever do so.
  1. It provides for helpful enforcement tools but splinters its enforcement across four federal agencies. That is a real disadvantage for people with disabilities.
  1. It continues to allow federal public money to be wastefully used to create or perpetuate accessibility barriers against people with disabilities.
  1. It unfairly lets the Federal Government grant sweeping exemptions from some of the bill’s requirements to regulated organizations, including the Federal Government itself.
  1. It is very long, excessively complicated and hard to read and navigate.

The AODA Alliance’s July 18, 2019 letter to the federal party leaders asks them for 11 commitments to ensure that Canada becomes accessible to people with disabilities by 2040. We want to know what their plans are to ensure that Canada is accessible by that date.

Where Do the Parties Stand?

As of September 20, 2019, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is the only leader of a major federal party that has answered the AODA Alliance’s July 18, 2019 letter, which asked for election commitments on this issue. The NDP made some of the commitments we sought. To read the NDP’s September 16, 2019 letter to the AODA Alliance, visit https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/what-pledges-will-the-federal-party-leaders-make-in-this-election-to-make-canada-accessible-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-federal-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-is-first-national-leader-to-wr/

We will make public any responses we get from the other party leaders. Check out our website’s Canada page for the latest news, at www.aodaalliance.org/Canada and follow our tweets on Twitter: @aodaalliance

How You Can Help

* Phone, email or visit the candidates’ campaign offices in your riding. Later in this Action Kit we give you ideas of what you might say to them. To help you, we have posted online a list of the names, email addresses and Twitter handles (where we could locate ones) for the candidates for some of the major parties at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/list-of-major-national-party-candidates-and-their-email-and-twitter-addresses-in-the-2019-federal-election/

 

* Go to a local all-candidates’ debate in or near your riding. These are a great place for grassroots democracy. These usually are held at a school, church or other community hall. You can find out when and where an all-candidates’ debate will be held by contacting any local candidate’s campaign office. Ask the candidates a brief, punchy question about the Accessible Canada Act during the debate. Later in this Action Kit, we offer ideas of what you might ask.

* Spread the word about these issues on social media like Twitter and Facebook. These social media platforms give you great ways to reach candidates, voters and news organizations during election campaigns. Later in this Kit, we give you sample tweets you might wish to use on Twitter and/or Facebook.

Tweet candidates in your riding or elsewhere to ask where they stand on the need to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act and to ensure its swift, strong implementation and enforcement. Just include their Twitter name in the tweet.

In fact, you can quickly help our social media blitz, without having to yourself compose your own tweets to the candidates. We and others are daily tweeting about this issue on Twitter. Just follow @aodaalliance on Twitter or search for the hashtag #AccessibleCanada and you will see all our tweets. It would help us so much if you would set aside a few minutes each day to just retweet our tweets to the candidates. Every re-tweet helps.

* On a smart phone or digital camera, take photos or videos of any accessibility barriers you find at candidates’ offices, campaign events, all-candidates debates, and other election events. Share those photos on social media like Facebook and Twitter. Use the hashtag #AccessibleCanada

* Use a smart phone to make video or audio recordings of candidates when they answer questions about the Accessible Canada Act, at all-candidates forums or other campaign events. Post these videos for free on YouTube. Then you can share the YouTube link to your video via social media like Facebook, and Twitter. This lets you become your own citizen journalist. Your online video may be the only record of a candidate’s giving commitments at one of these events on the Accessible Canada Act.

* Talk to your friends, family, and colleagues about these accessibility issues. Tell them what the parties have said about this issue. Urge them to consider this issue when deciding on their vote.

* Call your local radio or TV station, and your local newspaper. Tell them about disability accessibility barriers that impede you or others you know, especially in areas like air and train travel, banking, cable or telephone services, Canada Post, or when dealing with the federal government. Urge the media to cover this election issue.

* Call in to radio or TV call-in shows. Write letters to the editor. If you are especially eager, write a guest column and urge your local newspaper to print it. Cut and paste as much as you want from this Action Kit and from our website. We are delighted when others make use of our resources.

* If you are connected with a community organization, such as one that deals with disability or other social justice issues, get that organization to circulate this Action Kit and post it or link to it on their website and Facebook page.

What You Might Say to Candidates, Media Reporters and Voters

 

It is best if you say it in your own words, not ours. However, if you don’t have time to re-phrase our suggestions, just use them as is!

Give examples of barriers that we need the Accessible Canada Act to fix, such as accessibility problems you or others have faced at airports, or when taking flights within Canada or on flights that start or end in Canada; when trying to use services of the Government of Canada; with Canada Post services; using banks in Canada, or when trying to vote in a Canadian election.

Explain why you or others should not have to fight these accessibility barriers one at a time, by launching a human rights complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or by suing in court under the Charter of Rights. Accessibility is good for all Canadians. We all are bound to get a disability as we age. These barriers hurt our economy, are bad for business, and create a preventable burden on the public purse.

Be brief – candidates and news reporters are extremely busy during election campaigns. Be personal. People remember personal stories more than statistics.

Tips for Phoning or Visiting a Candidate’s Campaign Office:

Usually, a receptionist or volunteer at a candidate’s campaign office will take your call. The candidate is likely out knocking on doors to meet voters. Here is what you might say when someone answers your call or meet you at their campaign office. Try to get the receptionist or volunteer on our side, by getting them interested in the Accessible Canada Act. We have found that often, campaign staff and volunteers have their own personal experience with disability accessibility barriers.

ME:  Hello, my name is [insert name] and I’m a voter and constituent of [insert riding]. I’d like to speak with the candidate to introduce myself. Would he/she be available?

 

RECEPTIONIST: No, he/she is out at the moment. Can I take a message?

ME: Yes, please. My name is [insert name], and I’m a person with a disability/family member or friend of someone with a disability. Parliament passed a law last spring called the Accessible Canada Act. It says that Canada must become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040. I want to know what your party will do to achieve this if you are elected.

Note: It is helpful to try to convince a campaign staff member or volunteer about the importance of this issue. If they get really motivated about this issue, they can call their party’s campaign headquarters and help turn up the heat on this issue.

What You Might Say When Talking to a Candidate Wherever You Meet Them

 

ME: My name is [insert name] and I am a voter in [insert riding]. I’m also a person with a disability/family member or friend of someone with a disability. [Describe your connection to disability.]

Last June, Parliament passed the Accessible Canada Act. It requires Canada to become accessible to over 6 million people with disabilities in Canada by 2040. I want to know what you and your party will do to make sure this happens, if you are elected.

Canadians with disabilities continue to face barriers in areas that the federal government can address, like air travel, federal government services, banking, Canada Post, phone and cable companies, and other telecommunications. Everyone either has a disability now or will get one as they age. So this issue affects all voters.

Tips for Emailing a Candidate:

Email is a quick and easy way to get your message to candidates. However, candidates often have staff or volunteers monitor email accounts for them. If you want to be sure you’re reaching the candidate him/herself, it is best to email them, and then phone their campaign office to follow up on the email.

Sample email:

Dear [insert name],

As a person with a disability/family member or friend of someone with a disability, I would like to know where you stand on an important issue in this federal election.

[Feel free to insert a paragraph about your personal connection to disability.]

Today there are more than 6 million Canadians with disabilities, and this number is expected to grow even larger in the future. These people continue to face unnecessary barriers in areas of federal authority such as federal government services, air travel, cable TV and phone services, Canada Post, banking, and telecommunications. These barriers mean that people with disabilities in Canada can’t fully participate in all aspects of life.

Last June, Parliament unanimously passed the Accessible Canada Act. It requires Canada to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040. I want to know what your party’s plan is to ensure that we achieve this goal. What will your party do on this issue, if you are elected? I also want to know if you, as a Member of Parliament, will personally advocate to make sure this new law is effectively implemented and enforced. I would appreciate it if you would tell others in your party that this issue is important to your constituents.

If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me or to email the AODA Alliance at [email protected].

Yours sincerely,

Tips for Attending a Local All-Candidates’ Debate

Some all-candidates debates let you ask a question from the floor. Others require you to write it out while there, and submit it so that the debate moderator can read it aloud. Either way, you should write it out in advance if you can. Make it short and punchy. If the event’s format presents accessibility challenges, let the organizers know. You may even wish to highlight the challenges as part of your question.

ME: My name is [insert name], and I live in this riding. More than 6 million Canadians have disabilities. They face unfair accessibility barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction like federal government services, Canada Post, air travel, banking, phone and cable TV companies, and telecommunications.

Here is my question for all the candidates:

Last June, Parliament unanimously passed the Accessible Canada Act. It requires Canada to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040. I want to know what your party’s plan is to ensure that we achieve this. What will your party do on this issue, if you are elected.

 

Tweets You Might Wish to Send on Twitter or Facebook

As mentioned earlier, you can find all the email addresses and Twitter handles for federal candidates that we could track down on our website at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/list-of-major-national-party-candidates-and-their-email-and-twitter-addresses-in-the-2019-federal-election/

At the start of your tweet, insert the Twitter handle (i.e. Twitter name) for a candidate and then cut and paste in any of these tweets. These all fit within the Twitter maximum of 280 characters, with a bit of space leftover.

Parliament unanimously passed #AccessibleCanada Act. It requires Canada to become #accessible to people with disabilities by 2040. What is your party’s plan to ensure we reach that goal? https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #AODA #accessibility #accessibility #canpoli

@aodaalliance wrote party leaders for election pledges to ensure #AccessibleCanada Act is swiftly & effectively implemented & enforced. Will you help get your leader to pledge? Read our letter https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #AODA #accessibility #CRPD #canpoli

Parliament unanimously passed the #AccessibleCanada Act this year to make Canada #accessible by 2040. Do you pledge to support its full, strong and prompt implementation & enforcement? https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #AODA #accessibility #CRPD #canpoli

Do you agree that the Federal Government should never let public money be used to create or perpetuate #accessibility barriers against over 6 million people with disabilities in Canada? Please pledge! https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #AccessibleCanada #CRPD #CanPoli

Do you agree and commit that enforceable federal #accessibility regulations should &will be enacted within 4 years in the areas that the new #AccessibleCanada Act is mandated to regulate? Please pledge! https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #CRPD #CanPoli

Do you agree and commit that nothing should and will be done under the #AccessibleCanada Act that reduces the rights of people with disabilities in Canada? Please pledge https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #accessibility #CRPD #CanPoli

Do you agree that the Federal Government should ensure that no federal laws create or permit #accessibility barriers against people with disabilities? https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #AccessibleCanada #CRPD #CanPoli

Do you agree that the Federal Government should ensure that voters with disabilities face no #accessibility barriers to voting independently and in private & verifying that their ballot was marked as they wish? https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #AccessibleCanada

Do you agree that the Federal Government should not be able to exempt itself from any of its obligations under the new #AccessibleCanada Act? https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #accessibility #CRPD #CanPoli

Do you commit to only attend all-candidates debates during this election campaign if they are held in a place that has #accessibility for voters with disabilities? https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-writes-federal-party-leaders-seeking-election-commitments-on-advancing-the-cause-of-accessibility-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-in-canada/ #AccessibleCanada #CRPD #Canpoli



Source link

What Pledges Will the Federal Party Leaders Make in This Election to Make Canada Accessible for Over 6 Million People with Disabilities? Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh Is First National Leader to Write the AODA Alliance to Pledge to Strengthen the Accessible Canada Act


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

What Pledges Will the Federal Party Leaders Make in This Election to Make Canada Accessible for Over 6 Million People with Disabilities? Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh Is First National Leader to Write the AODA Alliance to Pledge to Strengthen the Accessible Canada Act

September 19, 2019 Toronto: In the federal election, the NDP is the first federal party to write the AODA Alliance to commit to strengthen the recently-enacted Accessible Canada Act (ACA), and to ensure that public money is never used to create barriers against over six million people with disabilities. In its July 18, 2019 letter to the major party leaders, the non-partisan AODA Alliance requested 11 specific commitments to strengthen the ACA and to ensure its swift and effective implementation and enforcement. (Summary of 11 requests set out below). On September 16, 2019, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh became the first, and to date, the only federal leader to answer this request. In the NDP’s letter, set out below, Mr. Singh makes several of the commitments the AODA Alliance sought.

“We’ve gotten commitments from NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, so now we aim to get the other federal party leaders to meet or beat those commitments,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “We and other disability advocates together got the Accessible Canada Act introduced into Parliament, and then got it strengthened somewhat over the past year before it was passed in June. It has helpful ingredients, but is too weak. We are seeking commitments to ensure that this law gets strengthened, and that it is swiftly and effectively implemented and enforced.”

In Parliament, the Liberals have made promising statements about what the new law would achieve for people with disabilities. Commitments are now sought to turn those statements into assured action.

Even though Parliament unanimously passed the ACA, the federal parties were substantially divided on whether it went far enough to meet the needs of people with disabilities. The Tories, NDP and Greens argued in Parliament for the bill to be made stronger, speaking on behalf of diverse voices from the disability community. Last year, the Liberals voted down most of the proposed opposition amendments that were advanced on behalf of people with disabilities.

Last spring, the Senate called for new measures to ensure that public money is never used to create new barriers against people with disabilities. The ACA does not ensure this.

Among the disability organizations that are raising disability issues in this election, the AODA Alliance is spearheading a blitz to help the grassroots press these issues on the hustings, in social media and at all-candidates’ debates. The AODA Alliance is tweeting candidates across Canada to solicit their commitments and will make public any commitments that the other party leaders make. Follow @aodaalliance. As a non-partisan effort, the AODA Alliance does not support or oppose any party or candidate.

The AODA Alliance is also calling on the Federal Government and Elections Canada to ensure for the first time that millions of voters with disabilities can vote in this election without fearing that they may encounter accessibility barriers in the voting process.

Contact: David Lepofsky, [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

For background on the AODA Alliance ‘s participation in the grassroots non-partisan campaign since 2015 for the Accessible Canada Act, visit www.aodaalliance.org/canada

September 16, 2019 Letter to the AODA Alliance from NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh

From: Jagmeet Singh <[email protected]>
Date: September 16, 2019 at 10:54:40 AM EDT
To:[email protected]” <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Seeking All Parties’ election commitments on accessibility for people with disabilities

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your questionnaire.

Please find the NDP’s response attached.

All the best,

NDP Team

Attachment: NDP Response:  Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

  1. Will you enact or amend legislation to require the Federal Government, the CTA

and the CRTC to enact regulations to set accessibility standards in all the areas that

the ACA covers within four years? If not, will you commit that those regulations

will be enacted under the ACA within four years?

We can do much more to make Canada an inclusive and barrier-free place. As a start, New Democrats will uphold the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and strengthen the Accessibility Act to cover all federal agencies equally with the power to make accessibility standards in a timely manner.

The NDP made multiple attempts to include implementation of timelines. During Committee meetings of Persons Living with Disabilities, the Government was presented with overwhelming unanimity on the part of the leading experts and stakeholder groups in the country as to which parts of the bill needed amending. The amendments proposed by us aligned with the leading experts’ proposals. The Government brought no one forward to rebut this testimony. They listened but rejected almost all of the amendments brought forward by the opposition parties. A New Democrat government will work hard to enact regulations to set accessibility standards in a timely fashion.

  1. Will your party commit to ensure that the ACA is effectively enforced?

 

Yes, it’s critical to ensure that the ACA is effectively enforced. Once again, the NDP made multiple attempts to ensure the ACA is effectively enforced. During Committee, the Government was presented with overwhelming unanimity on the part of the leading experts and stakeholder groups in the country as to which parts of the bill needed amending. The amendments proposed by us were taken from their proposals. The Government brought no one forward to rebut

this testimony. They listened but rejected almost all of the amendments brought forward by the opposition parties.

  1. Will your party ensure by legislation, and if not, then by public policy, that no one will use public money distributed by the Government of Canada in a manner that creates or perpetuates barriers, including e.g., payments by the Government of Canada to any person or entity to purchase or rent any goods, services or facilities, or to contribute to the construction, expansion or renovation of any infrastructure or other capital project, or to provide a business development loan or grant to any person or entity?

The Liberal government missed a sizable opportunity in C-81. Federal money should never used by any recipient to create or perpetuate disability barriers. We proposed such an amendment during committee hearing.

Our ultimate goal is to help foster a society in which all of our citizens are able to participate fully and equally. We believe that this cannot happen

until all of our institutions are open and completely accessible to everyone. The NDP would require that federal public money would never be used to create or perpetuate disability barriers, including federal money received for procurement; infrastructure; transfer payments; research grants; business development loans or grants, or for any other kind of payment, including purpose under a contract.

  1. Will your party amend the ACA to provide that if a provision of the ACA or of a regulation enacted under it conflicts with a provision of any other Act or regulation, the provision that provides the highest level of accessibility shall prevail, and that nothing in the ACA or in any regulations enacted under it or in any actions taken under it shall reduce any rights which people with disabilities otherwise enjoy under law?

Yes, if a provision of the Act or of a regulation enacted under it conflicts with a provision of any

other Act or regulation, the provision that provides the highest level of accessibility for persons  with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, employment, accommodation,  buildings, structures or premises shall prevail.

  1. Will your party repeal the offending portion of section 172(3) of the ACA that

reads “but if it does so, it may only require the taking of appropriate corrective

measures.”” And replace them with words such as: “and grant a remedy in

accordance with subsection 2.”?

 

We will review section 172(3) of the ACA a take the appropriate corrective measures to make

sure airlines and railways pay monetary compensation in situations where they should have to

pay up.

  1. Will your party assign all responsibility for the ACA’s enforcement to the Accessibility Commissioner and all responsibility for enacting regulations under the ACA to the Federal Cabinet? If not, then at a minimum, would your party require by legislation or policy that the CRTC, CTA and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board must, within six months, establish  policies, practices and procedures for expeditiously receiving, investigating,  considering and deciding upon complaints under this Act which are the same as or

as reasonably close as possible to, those set out for the Accessibility  Commissioner?

Yes. The Liberal government`s Bill C-81 wrongly gave several public agencies or officials far too much sweeping power to grant partial or blanket exemptions

to specific organizations from important parts of this bill. C-81 separated enforcement and implementation in a confusing way over four different public agencies. Rather it should be providing people with disabilities with what they need: the single service location or, one-stop shop..

We will assign all responsibility for the ACA’s enforcement to the Accessibility Commissioner and all responsibility for enacting regulations under the

ACA to the Federal Cabinet.

  1. Will your Party review all federal laws to identify any which require or permit any barriers against people with disabilities, and will your party amend Section 2 of the ACA (definition of “barrier”) to add the words “a law”, so that it will read:

“barrier means anything — including anything physical, architectural,

technological or attitudinal, anything that is based on information or

communications or anything that is the result of a law, a policy or a

practice — that hinders the full and equal participation in society of

persons with an impairment, including a physical, mental,

intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory

impairment or a functional limitation.”

The NDP has long been committed to the rights of persons with disabilities. It has been our longstanding position that all of government—every budget,

every policy and regulation—should be viewed through a disability lens. The NDP has supported the establishment of a Canadians with Disabilities Act for many years.

  1. Will your party pass legislation or regulations and adopt policies needed to ensure that federal elections become barrier-free for voters and candidates with disabilities.

New Democrats have always fought to remove the barriers keeping persons with disabilities from living with dignity and independence, because when barriers are removed all Canadians are empowered to participate fully in society and we all benefit.

We brought forward amendments to C-81 that require the Accessibility Commissioner to appoint, within 12 months of the bill being enacted, an independent person (with no current or prior involvement in administering elections) to conduct an Independent Review of disability barriers in the election process, with a requirement to consult the public, including persons with disabilities, and to report within 12 months to the Federal Government. Their report should immediately be made public. Additionally, we would require the Federal Government to designate a minister with responsibility to bring forward a bill to reform elections legislation within 12 months of the completion of that Independent Review.

  1. Will your Party eliminate or reduce the power to exempt organizations from some of the requirements that the ACA imposes? Such as eliminating the power to exempt the Government of Canada, or a federal department or agency? If not, will your party commit not to grant any exemptions from the ACA?

 

Nine years ago, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities (CRPD). Though the Liberal government has tabled a new Accessibility Act, its’ exemptions mean C-81 falls short of meeting Canada’s goal of creating an inclusive and barrier-free country. An NDP government will reduce the power to exempt organizations from some of the requirements that the ACA imposes.

 

  1. Will your party develop and implement a plan to ensure that all federally-operated courts (e.g. the Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Courts), and federally operated regulatory tribunals (like the CRTC and CTA) become accessible.

The amendment we brought forward during the C-81 proceedings would have required the

Minister of Justice, on behalf of the Federal Government, to develop and implement a multi-

year plan to ensure that all federally controlled courts (e.g. the Supreme Court of Canada and

Federal Courts) as well as federally-created administrative tribunals become fully accessible to

court participants with disabilities, by the bill’s accessibility deadline. This should adopt and

build upon the work of the Ontario Courts Accessibility Committee, which oversees efforts on

accessibility for provincially-regulated courts in Ontario.

  1. Would your party pass the amendments to the ACA which the opposition proposed in the fall of 2018 in the House of Commons, which the Government had defeated, and which would strengthen the ACA?

 

Absolutely! The Liberals hailed this bill as a historical piece of legislation. But without substantial amendments, it is yet another in a long line of

Liberal half-measures. New Democrats are committed to ensuring that C-81 actually lives up to Liberal Party rhetoric.

Summary of the Election Pledges that the AODA Alliance Sought In Its July 18, 2019 Letter to the Federal Party Leaders

The specific pledges we seek include:

  1. Enforceable accessibility standard regulations should be enacted within four years.
  1. The ACA should be effectively enforced.
  1. Federal public money should never be used to create or perpetuate barriers.
  1. The ACA should never reduce the rights of people with disabilities.
  1. Section 172(3) of the ACA should be amended to remove its unfair and discriminatory ban on the Canadian Transportation Agency ever awarding monetary compensation to passengers with disabilities who are the victims of an undue barrier in federally-regulated transportation (like air travel), where a CTA regulation wrongly set the accessibility requirements too low.
  2. The ACA’s implementation and enforcement should be consolidated in One federal agency, not splintered among several of them.
  1. No federal laws should ever create or permit disability barriers.
  1. Federal elections should be made accessible to voters with disabilities.
  1. Power to exempt organizations from some ACA requirements should be eliminated or reduced.
  1. Federally-controlled courts and tribunals should be made disability-accessible.
  1. Proposed Opposition amendments to the ACA that were defeated in the House of Commons in 2018 and that would strengthen the ACA should be passed.



Source link

Send Us Your Feedback on Our Draft Framework for what the Promised K-12 Education Accessibility Standard Should Include – AODA Alliance


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

Send Us Your Feedback on Our Draft Framework for what the Promised K-12 Education Accessibility Standard Should Include

September 18, 2019

          SUMMARY

Today, the AODA Alliance is making public a draft Framework for what the promised Education Accessibility Standard should include for students in schools between kindergarten and Grade 12. We set it out below and invite your feedback. Let us know what you think we should do to improve this Framework before we finalize it and submit it to the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. Please email us your feedback by October 2, 2019 by replying to this email, or by addressing an email to [email protected]

After months and months of our advocacy, we are delighted and relieved that the Ford Government has finally let the three AODA Standards Development Committees go back to work, which had remained frozen since the June 2018 Ontario election,. Those are the Standards Development Committees working in the areas of K-12 education, post-secondary education, and health care. The K-12 Standards Development Committee held its first resuming meeting by a telephone conference call on September 10, 2019. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky  is a member of that committee. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee did so on September 12, 2019.

We are preparing this Framework to help the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee go about its work developing recommendations for the Ford Government of what to include in the promised Education Accessibility Standard. Once we get your feedback, we will finalize this Framework, make it public and submit it to the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

Time-permitting, we also hope to prepare a Framework to submit to the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee, to supplement this one. If you have ideas of what we should include, beyond the parts of this Framework that are relevant at the post-secondary phase of education, please send us your ideas.

This draft framework is the result of lots of feedback that we have gathered over the past several years, as we campaigned to get commitments to create an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. It substantially builds and expands on the Discussion Paper on this topic that we made public almost three years ago, on November 21, 2016. We thank all those who have given us feedback in the past and who will do so now.

It is because we have gotten so much helpful feedback that this 27 page draft Framework is so detailed and thorough.

We understand that it can take some time to read through and think about all the detailed information in this draft Framework. For those who have the time to do so, we really appreciate your doing so. For those who don’t have the time, you can just look over this list of headings in the Framework:

Introduction — What is This Proposed Framework?

  1. What Should the Long-term Objectives of the Education Accessibility Standard Be?
  2. A Vision of An Accessible Education system
  3. General provisions that the Education Accessibility Standard Should Include
  4. The Right of Parents, Guardians and Students with Disabilities to Know about Disability-Related Programs, Services, and Supports, and How to Access Them
  5. Ensuring that Parents, Guardians and Students Have a Fair and Effective Process for Raising Concerns about a school board’s Accommodation of the Education Needs of Students with Disabilities.
  6. Expedited the Early Identification and Assessment of Students with Disabilities’ Needs
  7. Ensuring a Fully Accessible Built Environment at Schools
  8. Ensuring Digital Accessibility at School
  9. Ensuring Universal Design in Learning Is Used in All Teaching Activities, Both Online and in Classroom Learning
  10. Ensuring Sufficient Training and Expertise for Education Professionals Who Support Students with Disabilities
  11. Removing Attitudinal Barriers against Students with Disabilities
  12. Ensuring Accessibility of Instructional Materials that Students with Disabilities Use
  13. Ensuring Accessibility of Gym, Playground and Like Equipment and Activities
  14. Ensuring Student Testing/Assessment is Free of Disability Barriers
  15. Ensuring Students with Disabilities Have the Technology and Other Supports They Need at School
  16. Removing Barriers to Participation in Experiential Learning
  17. Ensuring French Immersion and Other Specialized Programs Are Barrier-Free for Students with Disabilities
  18. Substantially Reducing the Shuffling of Students with Special Education Needs From School to School over Their school Years
  19. Transportation for Students with Disabilities
  20. Protecting Students with Disabilities from Being Unfairly Denied the Right to Attend School for All or Part of the School Day

As we make this draft Framework public, we are sadly reminded that 231 days have now passed since the Ford Government received the final report of the Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement which was conducted by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Ford Government has still not released a comprehensive plan to implement its recommendations, nor has it publicly promised to ever do so. Over 2 million Ontarians with disabilities suffer the ongoing consequences of that foot-dragging. New disability barriers continue to be created, while old barriers too often remain in place.

          MORE DETAILS

 Proposed Framework for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard

Prepared by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Note: This is only a draft. It is still a work in progress. Feedback on it is welcomed. Send feedback to [email protected]

Introduction — What is This Proposed Framework?

In Ontario, over a third of a million students with disabilities face too many barriers at all levels of Ontario’s education system. For years, the AODA Alliance led a campaign to get the Ontario Government to agree to create an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Two committees have been appointed by the Ontario Government to make recommendations on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include: The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee is responsible for making recommendations on what that accessibility standard should include to address barriers in Ontario’s publicly-funded schools from Kindergarten to Grade 12. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee was appointed to make recommendations for what that accessibility standard should include to address barriers in Ontario’s post-secondary education institutions, e.g. colleges and universities.

Under the AODA, an accessibility standard is supposed to spell out the barriers that are to be removed or prevented, what must be done to remove or prevent them, and the time lines required for this action.

In this Framework, the AODA Alliance outlines the key ingredients and aims for the promised Education Accessibility Standard. Where we state that “A school board should…” or similar wording, we mean by this that the Education Accessibility Standard should include a provision that requires the school board to take the step that we describe.

We hope this will assist the two Standards Development Committees. It predominantly focuses on the K-12 context, but its contents are readily transferrable to the post-secondary education context.

1.     What Should the Long-term Objectives of the Education Accessibility Standard Be?

The purpose of the Education Accessibility Standard should be to ensure that Ontario’s education system becomes fully accessible to all students with disabilities by 2025, the AODA’s deadline, by requiring the removal and prevention of accessibility barriers that impede students with disabilities. It should aim to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in, fully benefit from and be fully included in Ontario’s education system on a footing of equality, in the least restrictive environment consistent with a student’s and their parents’ wishes. It should provide a prompt, accessible, fair, effective and user-friendly process to learn about and seek individual placements, programs, services, supports and accommodations tailored to the individual needs of each student with disabilities. It should aim to eliminate the need for students with disabilities and their families to have to fight against education accessibility barriers, one at a time, and the need for educational organizations to have to re-invent the accessibility wheel one school board, college, university or educational program at a time.

2. A Vision of An Accessible Education system

The Education Accessibility Standard should begin by setting out a vision of what an accessible education system should include. An accessible education system at the K-12 level should include the following:

#2.1 It would be designed and operated from top to bottom for all of its students, including students with all kinds of disabilities, as protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code and/or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would not in any way restrict its programs, services, supports or accommodations only to those students whose disability falls within the outdated and narrow definition of “exceptionality” in Ontario’s Education Act and regulations. The education system would no longer be designed and operated from the starting point of aiming to serve the fictional “average” student. It would not treat or label students with disabilities as “exceptions” or “exceptional”. It would not call their needs “special.” Their services, supports and needs would not be conflated with the services and needs of gifted students who have no disability.

#2.2 The built environment in the education system, such as schools themselves, their yards, playgrounds etc., and the equipment on those premises (such as gym and playground equipment) would all be fully accessible to people with disabilities, and would be designed based on the principle of universal design.

#2.3 Courses taught to students, including the curriculum and lesson plans, as well as informal learning activities, would fully incorporate principles of Universal Design in Learning (UDL), so that they are inclusive for students with disabilities.

#2.4 Instructional materials used in Ontario’s education system would be available in formats that are fully accessible to students with disabilities who need to use them, and would be available when needed.

#2.5 All digital technology used in Ontario’s education system, such as hardware, software and online learning, used in class or from home, would be fully accessible and fully embody the principle of universal design. Education staff working with students with disabilities would be properly trained to use the accessibility features of that hardware, software and online learning technology, and to effectively assist students with disabilities to use them.

#2.6 Inclusion and Universal Design in Learning would extend beyond formal classroom learning to other activities connected with education, such as the playground at recess, social and recreational activities, field trips, extra-curricular activities, and experiential learning opportunities.

#2.7 Students with disabilities would have prompt access to the adaptive technology and specialized supports they need for their education and needed training on how to use it. Students with disabilities would be able to bring to school and take home the accessibility technology and supports from which they benefit. For example, they would have the right to bring a qualified service animal to school with them.

#2.8 Teachers and other direct educational staff, would be fully trained to serve all students, and not just students who have no disabilities. They would be fully trained in such things as Universal Design in Learning. “Special education” teachers should not serve as a silo for those who will teach students with disabilities.

#2.9 Students with disabilities would have timely access to up-to-date adaptive technology and to effective training on how to use it, to enable them to best take part in and benefit from education programming.

#2.10 Options for placement and programming at school would be sufficiently diverse and flexible to accommodate a wide spectrum of learning needs and styles, rather than tending to be one-size-fits-all.

#2.11 Tests and other forms of evaluation in school education would be designed based on principles of universal design and Universal Design in Learning, so that they will be barrier-free for students with disabilities.

#2.12 Classroom teachers and other front-line teaching staff would be provided sufficient staff support, and, where needed, additional specialized training, to enable them to effectively serve students with disabilities in their classes.

#2.13 Students with disabilities would be assured the opportunity to receive an equal education in the least restrictive environment, consistent with the student’s/parents’ wishes.

#2.14 Students with disabilities would encounter a welcoming environment at school and in class to facilitate their full participation, and a welcoming environment in which they can seek and receive accommodations for their disabilities. Students without disabilities, teaching staff and other school staff, as well as other parents in the school context, will be welcoming and inclusive towards students with disabilities. To achieve this, among other things, all students will receive positive curriculum content on the importance of inclusion and accessibility for students with disabilities. Bullying, teasing, stereotyping, patronization and the soft bigotry of low expectations will be absent from the school environment.

#2.15 Admission criteria, admission tests or other admission screening to get into any specialized education programming would be barrier-free for students with disabilities.

#2.16 Students with disabilities and their parents/guardians would have prompt, effective and easy access to user-friendly information in multiple languages on the educational options, programs, services, supports and accommodations available for their disability, and on the process for seeking these. Students with disabilities and their parents would be given a timely opportunity to observe options for placement, programming and other educational services and supports, when considering which would be most suitable for that student.

#2.17 Students with disabilities and their families would be kept regularly posted on the effectiveness of the placement, program, services, supports and accommodations that the student is to receive.

#2.18 The process for deciding on the placement, programming, services, supports and accommodations for students with disabilities would be fair, open and transparent in which the student and their family can fully participate. For example, before an Individual Education Plan (IEP) is written, the student and parents/guardians would be able and invited to take part in an Individual Education Plan meeting with school officials, at which the Individual Education Plan can be jointly written. At each stage of the process, the student and parents will be given clear user-friendly “rights advice” on how the process works, and on their rights in the process.

#2.19 Once a student has an established Individual Education Plan at one school, that plan would be portable, and would carry forward should that student move to another school at the same or a different school board.

#2.20 A decision about a student’s placement would not be made until assessments and decisions are reached about the needs and most appropriate program, services, supports and accommodations for that student with disabilities.

#2.21 Where a student with disabilities or their family believe that the school is not effectively meeting the student’s disability-related needs, (e.g. by not including a desired item in the Individual Education Plan), or if the student or family believe that the school is not providing an educational program, service, support or accommodation to which it had agreed, the student and parents would have access to a prompt, fair, open and arms-length review process, including an offer of a voluntary Alternative Resolution Process if needed, conducted by someone who was not involved in the original decision or activity, and who does not oversee the work of those involved in the student’s direct education.

#2.22 The qualifications and required training for specialized support educators (such as teachers of the visually impaired) would be modernized and upgraded where needed to ensure that they are qualified to meet the specialized needs of their students and the other teachers whom they support.

#2.23 There would be no bureaucratic, procedural or policy barriers that would impede the effective accommodation of individual students with disabilities at all levels of Ontario’s education system.

#2.24 Students with disabilities would have a right to attend school for the entire school day, and to not be excluded from school for all or part of a school day directly or indirectly because of their disability. Schools would not systemically or disproportionately exclude students with disabilities from school for either all or part of the school day e.g. because a special needs assistant is away from school.

#2.25 Major new Government strategies in Ontario’s education system would be proactively designed from the start to fully include the needs of students with disabilities. For example, if the Ontario Government were to announce a new math strategy for Ontario’s schools, it would, among other things, include an effective strategy to address disability barriers that students with disabilities face in math education.

#2.26 Those responsible at the provincial and local school board levels for leading, overseeing and operating Ontario’s education system would have strong and specific requirements to address disability accessibility and inclusion in their mandates, and would be accountable for their work in that connection. This will not be relegated to special education bureaucratic silos.

#2.27 The education system would provide disability-related funding to a school board based on the actual number of students with disabilities at that board, and not on a formula that merely tries to estimate how many should be at that school board.

3. General provisions that the Education Accessibility Standard Should Include

#3.1 This proposed accessibility standard should cover and apply to all education programs and opportunities for students at any school board that receives public funding in Ontario.

#3.2 Where this accessibility standard refers to “students with disabilities “, this should include any student who has any kind of physical, mental, sensory, learning, intellectual, mental health, communication, neurological or other kind of disability within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act . It should not be limited to the much more restricted definition of an “exceptional pupil” or a student with an “exceptionality” in the Education Act and regulations and policy related to them, or who is therefore treated under Ontario’s Education Act, regulations, or policy as a student with special education needs.

#3.3 Each school board should be required to establish a permanent committee of its trustees to be called the “Accessibility Committee.”, and other members should include the school board’s chair or vice chair. The chair and vice chair of the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee should sit as ex officio members of this committee, whether or not they are trustees of the school board. The school board’s Accessibility Committee should have responsibility for overseeing the school board’s compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and with the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in so far as they guarantee the right of students with disabilities to fully participate in and fully benefit from the education programs and opportunities that the school board provides.

#3.4 Each school board should be required to establish or designate the position of Chief Accessibility/Inclusion Officer, reporting to the Director of Education, with a mandate and responsibility to ensure proper leadership on the school board’s accessibility and inclusion obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, including the requirements of this accessibility standard. This responsibility may be assigned to an existing senior management official.

#3.5 Beyond the specific measures to remove and prevent barriers set out in this accessibility standard and in other accessibility standards enacted under the AODA, each school board should be required to systematically review its educational programming, services, facilities and equipment to identify recurring accessibility barriers within that school board that can impede the effective participation and inclusion of students with disabilities. A comprehensive plan for removing and preventing these accessibility barriers should be developed, implemented and made public with clear time lines, clear assignment of responsibilities for action, monitoring for progress, and reporting to the school board’s trustees , the school board’s accessibility committee, and to the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee. This plan should aim at all accessibility barriers that can impede students with disabilities from full inclusion in the education programs and activities at that school board, whether or not they are specifically identified in the Education Accessibility Standard or in any other specific accessibility standards enacted under the AODA.

#3.6 Each school board should be required to develop, implement and monitor a comprehensive new Inclusion Strategy for students with disabilities, whether or not their disability is identified as an “exceptionality” under Ontario’s special education laws. Under this strategy, where a school board proposes to refuse to provide a student with a disability in a regular class setting with needed accommodations, supports or services, over the objections of the student or of their family, on the grounds that the school board believes that it cannot serve that student in a regular classroom setting, the principal should be required to give written notice of this to the family, with reasons, and to tell the family that it has the right to promptly receive the principal’s reasons in writing. But this should not be reason to stop or withdraw services or support until a meeting has been held to discuss progress of have a review meeting of some kind.

#3.7 Each school board should have an explicit duty to create a welcoming environment for students with disabilities and their families to seek accommodations for their disabilities.

4. The Right of Parents, Guardians and Students with Disabilities to Know about Disability-Related Programs, Services, and Supports, and How to Access Them

Barrier: Parents too often find it difficult to get easily accessed information from their school board and the Ontario Government on education options available for students with disabilities and how to access them.

#4.1 Each school board should provide parents of students with disabilities with timely and effective information on the available services, programs and supports for students with disabilities (whether or not they are classified as students with special education needs under the Education Act and regulations). Each school board should ensure that parents, guardians, and where practicable, students are informed, as early as possible, in a readily-accessible and understandable way, about such important information as:

  1. What “special education” is and who is entitled to receive it.
  2. That the school board has a duty to ensure that a student with a disability has the right to full participation in and full inclusion in all the school board’s education programming, and to be accommodated in connection with those programs under the Ontario Human Rights Code and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whether or not the student is classified as a student with special education needs under Ontario’s Education Act and regulations.
  3. The menu of options, placements, programs, services, supports and accommodations available at the school board for students with disabilities, whether or not they are classified as students with special education needs under the Education Act and regulations.
  4. What persons and what office to approach at the school board to get this information, to request placements, programs, supports, services or accommodations for students with disabilities, whether or not they are classified as students with special education needs, or to raise concerns about whether the school board is effectively meeting the student’s education needs.
  5. The processes and procedures at the school board for a parent, guardian or student to request or change placements, programs, services, supports or accommodations for students with disabilities, whether or not they are classified as students with special education needs. This includes formal legislated processes like the Identification and Placement Review Committee (IPRC) and the development and implementation of the students Individual Education Plan (IEP). It also includes other informal processes like requests for programs, services, supports and accommodations in the classroom that are not covered in an IPRC or IEP.

#4.2 Without restricting the important information that must be made readily available, each school board should ensure, among other things, that:

  1. Parents and guardians of students with disabilities can easily find out and, where necessary, visit different placement, program, service and support options for a student with a disability, whether or not they are classified as a student with special education needs, before the parent, guardian or, where practicable, the student must take a position on what placement, program or services should be provided to that student.
  2. Parents and guardians of students with disabilities, and, where practicable, students with disabilities themselves, should be given clear, understandable explanations of their rights in the school system, including but not limited to the special education process. For example, when a school board presents parents or guardians with a proposed IEP, the school board should explain to them that they need not agree to and sign the proposed IEP, that the school board is open to consider the family’s suggestions for changes to the proposed IEP, and the avenues by which parents or guardians can seek to get the school board to make changes to the proposed IEP.

#4.3 Each school board should develop, implement and make public a plan to substantially improve its provision of the important information, described above, to all parents and guardians of that school board’s students, and to all students where practicable, and especially to parents and guardians of students with disabilities:

  1. This plan’s objective should be to ensure that all parents, guardians and where practicable, students, get the information they need to ensure that students of all abilities can fully participate in and benefit from the educational opportunities available at the school board.
  2. A school board should not simply leave it to each principal or teacher to make sure that this important information is effectively provided. Each school board should instead have an effective system in place to ensure that this information actually reaches all parents and guardians, and where applicable, students.
  3. Each school board should ensure that all of this important information is fully and readily accessible in a prompt and timely way to all parents, guardians and students, in accessible formats and in jargon-free plain language, in a diverse range of languages. It should be easy to find this information. Among other things, this information should be posted on the school board’s website, in a prominent place that is easy to find, with a link on the school board’s home page. A school board should not simply rely on its website to share this information since this will not serve those families that do not have internet access.
  4. Among other things, each school board should send home an information package to all families at the start of each school year, and not merely to families of those students who are already being identified or served as having special education needs or disabilities. This package should include, among other things, a Question and Answer format to help families see how this information could relate to the student in their family.
  5. Each school board should also create a user-friendly package of information to be provided to families who first approach a school board about the possibility of enrolling a child at that school board, e.g. when they register for kindergarten. This should help enable a family to know whether they should be trying to access disability-related services and supports.
  6. Each school board should periodically host events at local schools to help families learn how to navigate disability-related school board processes like the Individual Education Plan and the Identification and Placement Review Committee processes. Where possible these should be streamed online and archived as a resource for families to watch online.

5. Ensuring that Parents, Guardians and Students Have a Fair and Effective Process for Raising Concerns about a School Board’s Accommodation of the Education Needs of Students with Disabilities

Barrier: Lack of sufficient, easily-accessed and fair processes at each school board to enable students with disabilities and families to have effective input into the placement and accommodation of the student, and for raising disability-related concerns.

The procedures in place under the Education Act and regulations for identifying and accommodating the needs of students with disabilities are out-of-date, and insufficient to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are effectively met.

#5.1 Each school board should establish and maintain an effective process for parents and guardians of students with disabilities to effectively take part in the development and implementation of a student’s plans for meeting and accommodating their disability-related needs, including (but not limited to) their Individual Education Plan (IEP).

#5.2 As part of this process, parents and guardians of students with disabilities , and where practicable, the student, should be invited to take part in a joint school team student accommodation/IEP development meeting, where accommodation plans will be made and where the IEP will be written. The school board should bring to the table all key professionals who can contribute to this. The family should be invited to bring to the table any supports and professionals that can assist the family. Parents should have the right to bring with them anyone who can assist them in advocating for their child. Parents/families should be given a wide range of options for participating e.g. in person or by phone. They should be told in advance who will attend from the school board. Any proposal for accommodations including a draft IEP should include a summary of key points to assist families in understanding them.

#5.3 If a school board refuses to provide an accommodation, service, or support for a child’s disability that a parent, guardian, or where appropriate, the student requests, or if the school board fails to provide an accommodation or support that it has agreed to provide, the school board should, on request, promptly provide written reasons for that refusal, and let the family and student know that they can request written reasons.

#5.4 If parents and guardians of students with disabilities, and where practicable, the student, disagree with any aspect of the proposed accommodations including (but not limited to) the proposed IEP, or if the student or their family believe that the school board has not provided an accommodation or support that the school board has agreed to provide, the school board should make available a respectful, non-adversarial internal review process for hearing and deciding on the family’s concerns. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standard should set out the specifics of this review process. This school board review process should include the following:

  1. It should be very prompt. Arrangements for a student’s accommodations, including An IEP, should be finalized as quickly as possible, so that the students’ learning needs are promptly met.
  2. No proposed accommodations should be withheld from a student pending a review. The family should not feel pressured not to seek this review, lest the child be placed in a position of educational disadvantage during the review process. In other words, a family should not fear that if they launch a review, the student will suffer because the school board will not provide an accommodation or service the school board has offered, while the review is pending.
  3. The review process should be fair. The school board should let the family know all of its issues or concerns with a family’s proposal regarding the student’s accommodations, including the contents of the IEP. The family should be given a fair chance to express its concerns and recommendations regarding the student’s accommodations’, including IEP.
  4. The review should be by a person or persons who are independent and impartial. They should have expertise in education of students with disabilities. They should not have taken part in any of the earlier discussions or decisions at that school board regarding the accommodations or IEP for that child.
  5. At the review, every effort should be made to mediate and resolve any disagreements between the family and the school board. If the matter cannot be resolved by agreement, there should be an option for the school board to appoint a person or persons who are outside the school board to consider the review, along prompt time lines.
  6. At the review, written reasons should be given for the decision, and especially if any of the family’s requests or concerns are not accepted.
  7. If, after receiving the review’s decision and reasons, the family wishes to present any new information, it should be able to ask for the review to be reconsidered. This should be along short time lines.
  8. After the review is decided, if the family is not satisfied, it should be able to bring its concerns regarding the proposed accommodations including any IEP to a designated senior official at the school board with authority to approve the requested accommodations, for a further review.

#5.5 Where a student with a disability is being accommodated in a school in a school board covered by this accessibility standard, and the student transfers to another school in that school board or in another school board, that student should have a right to have the same accommodations put in in place in the new school or school board. If the school board of the school to which the student transfers proposes to reduce those accommodations or supports, they should be maintained until and unless, through the procedures set out in this accessibility standard, the school board has justified a reduction of those accommodations.

6. Expedited the Early Identification and Assessment of Students with Disabilities’ Needs

Barrier: Students with disabilities can face delays and bureaucratic impediments to early and timely professional assessment, where needed, of their disability-related needs.

#6.1 The Education Accessibility Standard should require measures to tear down administrative, bureaucratic and other barriers to reduce delays for getting psychological and other educational assessments for the identification of disability related learning needs.

7. Ensuring a Fully Accessible Built Environment at Schools

Barrier: Too often, the built environment where education programming is offered have physical barriers that partially or totally impede some students with disabilities from being able to enter or independently move around.

The Ontario Building Code and existing accessibility standards do not set out modern, sufficient accessibility requirements for the built environment in Ontario. Moreover, the Ontario Building Code is largely if not entirely designed to address the needs of adults, not children. The Ontario Government has no accessibility standard for the built environment in schools, whether old or new schools. The Ontario Government has not agreed to develop a Built Environment Accessibility Standard or to substantially strengthen the accessibility provisions in the Ontario Building Code.

As such, it is left to each school board to come up with its own designs to address, accessibility in the built environment in schools. This is highly inefficient and wasteful. It allows public money to be used to create new barriers against people with disabilities.

#7.1 The K-12 Education Accessibility Standard should set out specific requirements for accessibility in the built environment in schools and other locations where education programs are to be offered. This should meet the accessibility requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights. It should meet the needs of all disabilities, and not only those of people with mobility disabilities. This should include:

  1. Specific requirements to be included in a new school to be built.
  2. Requirements to be included in a renovation of or addition to an existing school, and
  3. Retrofit requirements for an existing school that is not slated for a major renovation or addition.

#7.2 Each school board should develop a plan for ensuring that the built environment of its schools and other educational facilities becomes fully accessible to people with disabilities as soon as reasonably possible, and in any event, no later than 2025. As part of this:

  1. As a first step, each school board should develop a plan for making as many of its schools disability-accessible within its current financial context. Accessibility does not only include the needs of people with mobility disabilities. It includes the needs of people with all disabilities, for example people with vision and/or hearing loss, autism, or mental health disabilities.
  2. Each school board should identify which of its existing schools can be more easily made accessible, and which schools would require substantially more extensive action to be made physically accessible. An interim plan should be developed to show what progress towards full physical accessibility can be made by first addressing schools that would require less money to be made physically accessible, taking into account the need to also consider geographic equity of access across the school board.

#7.3 When a school board seeks to retain or hire design professionals, such as architects, , interior designers or landscape architects, for the design of a new school or a existing school’s retrofit or renovation, or for any other school board construction project, the school board should include in any Request for Proposal (RFP) a mandatory requirement that the design professional must have sufficient demonstrated expertise in accessibility design, and not simply compliance with the Ontario Building Code or the AODA. This includes the accessibility needs of people with all kinds of disabilities, and not just those with mobility impairments. It includes the accessibility needs of students and not just adults. A qualified accessibility consultant should be retained to advise on the project from the outset, with their advice being transmitted directly to the school board and not only the design professionals.

#7.4 A committee of the school board’s trustees and the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee should be required to review design decisions on new construction or renovations to ensure that accessibility of the built environment is effectively addressed.

#7.5 Where possible, a school board should not renovate an existing school that lacks disability accessibility, unless the school board has a plan to also make that school accessible. For example, a school board should not spend public money to renovate the second storey of a school which lacks accessibility to the second storey, if the school board does not have a plan to make that second storey disability-accessible. Health and safety concerns should be the only reason for any exception to this.

#7.6 When a school board decides which schools to close due to reduced enrollment, a priority should be placed on keeping open schools with more physical accessibility, while a priority should be given to closing schools that are the most lacking in accessibility, or for which retrofitting is the most costly.

#7.7 Each school board should only hold off-site educational events at venues whose built environment is accessible.

8. Ensuring Digital Accessibility at School

Barrier: School boards using classroom technology, such as hardware, software, online learning systems and other and websites that lack digital accessibility; school board policies that can be obstacles to using adaptive technology designed for people with disabilities; Insufficient staff training and familiarity with the use of accessibility features of mainstream technology, and with disability-specific adaptive technology.

#8.1 Each school board should ensure that:

  1. Educational equipment and technology, including hardware, software, and tablet/mobile apps deployed in educational settings should be designed based on universal design principles, to ensure that students with disabilities can use them.
  2. A school board’s Learning Management Systems (LMS) should be accessible to staff and students with disabilities, including those who use adaptive technology. They should have all accessibility features turned on and available to ensure that information posted through them will be accessible to students with disabilities, including those using adaptive technology such as screen readers or voice recognition tools. Each school board should ensure that no teacher is able to turn off any feature of the LMS that is accessible in favour of one that is not.
  3. Each school board’s websites and intranet content, including internet content available to students for learning purposes, including all online learning programs, should be fully accessible, with all new information posted on them to be fully accessible.
  4. Electronic documents created at the school board for use in education programming and activities should be created in accessible formats unless there is a compelling and unavoidable reason requiring otherwise. PDF format should be avoided. If a PDF document is created, an alternate version of the content should be provided and posted in an accessible Microsoft Word or HTML format.
  5. Software used to produce a school board’s documents such as report cards, Individual Education Plans, or other key documents should be designed to ensure that they produce these documents in accessible formats.
  6. Textbooks and learning software should only be procured which include full information technology accessibility. Any textbook used in any learning environment must be accessible to teachers and students with disabilities at the time of procurement. PDF should not be used unless an accessible alternative format such as MS Word is also available. For example, if a textbook is available in EPUB format, the textbooks must meet the international standard for that file format. For EPUB it is the W3C Digital Publishing Guidelines currently under review. If a textbook is available in print, the publisher should be required to provide the digital version of the textbook in an accessible format at the same time the print version is delivered to the school/Board.

#8.2 Each school board should establish, implement, publicize and enforce information technology procurement accessibility requirements, to ensure that no technology is purchased unless it ensures full digital accessibility. Digital and information technology accessibility should be included in all Requests for Proposal (RFP) or other tenders for sale of products and services to a school board.

9. Ensuring Universal Design in Learning Is Used in All Teaching Activities, Both Online and in Classroom Learning

Barrier: Too often, the curriculum used in Ontario schools was not designed based on accessibility and universal design in learning.

#9.1 The Education Accessibility Standard should require that the Ministry of Education and each school board, when setting requirements for or designing school curriculum, shall ensure that it incorporates universal design in learning to make it accessible to students with disabilities.

Barrier: Too often, teachers and other school staff who work with students are not sufficiently trained on how to teach all students, including students with disabilities.

The solution requires both reforms to the required training of future new teachers while they are in teachers’ college, and measures to expand the training of those who are already graduates of teachers’ college and who are working as teachers. This also applies to other school staff with teaching-related roles, such as principals and education assistants.

#9.2 The Ontario Government should require that to be qualified to teach or serve as a principal in an Ontario-funded school, a teacher or principal must have specified training in the education of students with disabilities. Any teacher’s college or like program that receives any provincial funding should require, as part of its degree programming, specified course contents on the education of students with disabilities for all teachers, and not only for special education teachers. Time lines for implementing this should be specified for the transition to this new approach. Each school board should be required to train school board staff, including teachers and other staff who work with students, on ensuring digital/information technology accessibility in the classroom, on the use of access technology (where needed) and on steps how to create accessible documents and web content.

#9.3 Each school board should ensure that all teachers and teaching staff understand, and effectively and consistently use, principles of Universal Design in Learning (UDL), and differentiated instruction, when preparing and implementing lesson plans and other educational programming. For example:

  1. This plan’s objective should be to ensure that all parents, guardians and where practicable, students, get the information they need to ensure that students of all abilities can fully participate in and benefit from the educational opportunities available at the school board.
  2. Each school board should develop, implement and monitor a comprehensive plan to train its teachers, other teaching staff, teaching coaches and principals on using UDL and differentiated instruction principles when preparing lesson plans and teaching. The Ontario Government should be required to provide a model program for this training which each school board can use.
  3. Each school board should include knowledge of UDL and differentiated instruction principles as an important criterion when recruiting or promoting teachers, other teaching staff and principals.
  4. Each school board should ensure that teachers are provided with appropriate resources and support to successfully implement the UDL training. Each school board should monitor how effectively UDL and differentiated instruction are incorporated into lesson plans and other teaching activities on the front lines.
  5. Each school board should review any curriculum, text books and other instructional materials and learning resources used in its schools to ensure that they incorporate principles of UDL.
  6. Each school board should create and implement a plan to ensure that teachers in the areas of science, technology, engineer and math (STEM) have resources and expertise to ensure the accessibility of STEM courses and learning resources.
  7. Each school board should provide teaching coaches with expertise in UDL to support teachers and other teaching staff.
  8. Similarly specialized training should be included for those who teach sex education to ensure that it includes disability-related sex education.

10. Ensuring Sufficient Training and Expertise for Education Professionals Who Support Students with Disabilities

Barrier: Lack of sufficient training requirements for some education professionals who specialize in supporting the education needs of students with disabilities.

Ontario does not now ensure that any professional who is employed to support the education of students with disabilities will have sufficient qualifications to do so. For example, Ontario’s leading organization of parents of children with vision loss has pointed out that the requirements to qualify to serve as a “teacher of the visually impaired” (TVI) in Ontario are substantially inadequate, and are much lower than in some other places in Canada and elsewhere. A teacher employed to teach braille to a blind child need have no prior hands-on experience ever training a blind child to read braille, and need not ever have observed another TVI teaching braille to a blind child.

#10.1 The Education Accessibility Standard should require sufficient training for professionals who support the education of students with disabilities.

11. Removing Attitudinal Barriers against Students with Disabilities

Barrier: Stereotypes and other attitudes among some teachers, principals, other school staff, other students and some families that do not recognize the right and benefits of students with disabilities to get a full and equal education.

#11.1 To eliminate attitudinal barriers among students, school board employees and some families of students, each school board should:

  1. Develop and implement a multi-year program/curriculum for teaching students, school board staff and families of school board students, about inclusion and full participation of students with disabilities, tailored to age levels. Because online courses are inadequate for this, where possible, this should include hearing from, meeting and interacting with people with disabilities e.g. at assemblies and/or via guest presentations.
  2. Post in all schools and send information to all families of the school board’s students, on the school board’s commitment to inclusion of students with disabilities, and the benefits this brings to all students.
  3. Provide specific training to all school board staff that deal with parents or students, on the importance of inclusion.
  4. Implement Human Resources Policies and Practices to Expand School Board Staff Knowledge and Skills Regarding Inclusion

#11.2 Each school board should develop and implement human resources policies targeted at full accessibility and inclusion, such as:

  1. Making knowledge and experience on implementing inclusion an important hiring and promotions criterion especially for principals, vice-principals and teaching staff.
  2. Emphasizing accessibility and inclusion knowledge and performance in any performance management and performance reviews.

12. Ensuring Accessibility of Instructional Materials that Students with Disabilities Use

Barrier: Instructional materials, such as textbooks and other such teaching resources that are not provided in an accessible format for students with disabilities.

Section 15 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, enacted in June 2011, and in force for school boards since 2013 or 2015 (depending on their size) requires education organizations to provide instructional materials on request in an accessible format, and to make this part of their procurement of such resources. However, this has not been sufficient to effectively ensure that students with disabilities face no barriers in this context. Therefore, stronger measures are needed.

#12.1 To ensure that instructional materials used are fully accessible on a timely basis to students with disabilities such as vision loss and those with learning disabilities that affect reading, each school board should:

  1. Survey students with disabilities who need accessible instructional materials, and their teachers and families, to get their front-line experiences on whether they get timely access to accessible instructional materials, and to get specifics on where this has been most lacking.
  2. Establish a dedicated resource within the school board, or shared among school boards, to convert instructional materials to an accessible format, where needed, on a timely basis, either alone or in combination with other school boards.
  3. Review its procurement practices to ensure that any new instructional material that is acquired is fully accessible or conversion-ready, and monitor to ensure that this is always done in practice. A condition of procurement should be a requirement that the supplier or vender must remediate any inaccessible materials at its own expense.

#12.2 The Education Accessibility Standard should require the Ministry of Education to implement, monitor and publicly report on province-wide strategies to ensure the procurement of and use of accessible instructional materials across school boards.

13. Ensuring Accessibility of Gym, Playground and Like Equipment and Activities

Barrier: Schools or school boards that have gym, playground or other equipment that is not designed based on principles of universal design, and that some students with disabilities therefore cannot use, as well as gym, sports and other activities in which students with disabilities can fully participate.

Section 80.18 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, as amended in 2012, require accessibility features to be considered when new outdoor play spaces are being established or existing ones are redeveloped. However, those provisions do not set the spectrum of detailed requirements that should be included. They do not require any action if an existing play space is not being redeveloped. They ultimately, leave it to each school board or each school to re-invent the accessibility wheel each time they build or redevelop an outdoor play space. They do not require anything of indoor play spaces or gyms.

#13.1 To ensure that gym equipment, playground equipment and other like equipment and facilities are accessible for students with disabilities, the Education Accessibility Standard should set out specific technical accessibility requirements for new or existing outdoor or indoor play spaces, gym and other like equipment, drawing on accessibility standards and best practices in other jurisdictions, so that each school board does not have to re-invent the accessibility wheel.

#13.2 Each school board should:

  1. a) Take an inventory of the accessibility of its existing indoor and outdoor play spaces and gym and playground equipment.
  2. b) Adopt a plan to remediate the accessibility of new gym or playground equipment, in consultation with the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and Accessibility Committee, and widely with families of students with disabilities.

Barrier: Gym and other physical activity programming at schools may not be designed or operated in a way that allows students with disabilities to fully participate.

#13.3 Each school board should be required to ensure that its gym and other physical activity teachers and coaches have training and access to support information on how to include students with disabilities in these programs.

#13.4 The Ministry of Education should be required to make available to school boards resources and training material on effectively including students with disabilities in gym and other physical activity programming.

14. Ensuring Student Testing/Assessment is Free of Disability Barriers

Barrier: Tests or other performance assessments of students that are not designed in a way that ensures that students with disabilities are fairly and accurately assessed.

Throughout the education system, students take tests and other assessments of their academic performance, whether in specific courses or system-wide standardized tests. There have been no mandatory provincial requirements of which we are aware to ensure that the ways students’ performance is tested or assessed are barrier-free for students with disabilities, and to provide a fair and accurate assessment of their performance.

#14.1 The Education Accessibility Standard should   set requirements for proper approaches to ensuring tests provide a fair, accurate and barrier-free assessment of students with disabilities, and on when and how to provide an alternative evaluation method.

#14.2 To ensure that a school board fairly and accurately assesses the performance of students with disabilities, each school board should:

  1. Have a policy that commits to ensure that testing and other assessments of students’ performance and learning are designed to be barrier-free for students with disabilities.
  2. Give its teachers and principals training resources on how to ensure a test is a fair, accurate and barrier-free assessment for students with disabilities in their class, and where needed, how to provide an alternative evaluation method.
  3. Monitor implementation of these guidelines.

15. Ensuring Students with Disabilities Have the Technology and Other Supports They Need at School

Barrier: Policy and bureaucratic impediments to students with disabilities being able to get the adaptive technology and supports they need for school.

There are inconsistent practices around Ontario for acquiring needed adaptive technology and the training required to be able to effectively use that equipment. There are also inconsistent practices on whether a student can take such equipment home for use there, or can bring their own adaptive equipment from home for use at school. TDSB does not at all support students with vision loss using Apple products such as the iPhone or iPad, which come with leading accessibility features.

#15.1 The Education Accessibility Standard should require that procedural, bureaucratic and other such barriers to the acquisition, training and use of needed adaptive equipment and technology at school should be eliminated. It should require the establishment of a prompt, standardized provincial system for the procurement and deployment of accessible technology that ensures access to the most appropriate technology that is available on the market.

Barrier: Some school boards or schools do not let students with disabilities bring a sufficiently trained service animal to school as an accommodation to their disability, either because the school board or school does not allow for this, or lacks a proper policy to allow for this.

Some students on the autism spectrum and their families in Ontario have reported having difficulties at some school boards with being allowed to bring a service animal to school, and have even had to take action before the Human Rights Tribunal against a school board. Others have been able to succeed without barriers in bringing their service animal to school.

#15.2 The Education Accessibility Standard should provide that each school board should ensure that students with disabilities are able to bring a sufficiently trained service animal to school as a disability accommodation. Each school board should respect the student’s rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

#15.3 The Education Accessibility Standard should set specific requirements for school board practices in relation to a student bringing a service animal to school. The recent Ministry of Education policy directive to school boards on this topic did not include the specifics that are needed.

#15.4 The Education Accessibility Standard should ensure that there should be no bureaucratic or policy barriers to students with disabilities bringing a sufficiently trained service animal to school. The fair process procedures described in this Framework should apply to such requests.

#15.5 If the school board does not accept at first the sincerity or legitimacy of the student’s request, or the training of the service animal, the school board should immediately notify the student and their family of any and all concerns. The school board should investigate the request, including the student’s benefits from the service animal outside school and in the home, or any other concerns, as well as the experience of other schools or school boards that have allowed students with disabilities to bring service animals to school, before acting on any potential unwillingness to grant the student’s request. If a school board is not prepared to accept a request to be able to bring a service animal to school at first, the school board should undertake a test period of allowing this practice, unless the school board can demonstrate that to conduct such a test period would cause the school board an undue hardship. A school board should not refuse a request to bring a service animal to school based on no test period and based on speculative assumptions or stereotypes.

#15.6 The question when dealing with such requests should not be whether the student is doing adequately at school without the service animal. The question should be whether the student could do better at reaching their potential at school if assisted by their service animal. Similarly, the question is not whether the service animal will assist the student in accessing the curriculum. Rather the relevant question is whether the service animal could assist the student with any aspect of student life in the school environment, such as social interaction, independence and self-regulation. In its May 2, 2019 letter to Ontario’s Education Minister, the Ontario Human Rights Commission stated: “We believe that limiting disability accommodation to only “learning needs” is not a proper interpretation of the Code.”

#15.7 Each school board should ensure that principals, teachers, school office staff and families of students with disabilities know about this policy and that no attitudinal barriers impede this accommodation.

#15.8 The preference of some other students or staff with no disability not to have a service animal in class is not a justification for refusing to allow this accommodation for a student with a disability. Such concerns of other students, or of staff should be addressed by making arrangements that allow the student with a disability to bring their service animal to school, while situating any objecting student or staff with no disability at an acceptable distance from them. Notwithstanding anything in such school board policies, nothing may restrict a person with vision loss, student, staff, and parent or otherwise, from being a qualified guide dog with whom they have trained to school.

16. Removing Barriers to Participation in Experiential Learning

Barrier: Experiential learning programs that do not ensure that accessible experiential and inclusive experiential learning placements are made available to students with disabilities, and insufficient supports to help organizations, providing experiential learning placements, to facilitate the accommodation of students with disabilities.

#16.1 To ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in a school board’s experiential learning programs, each school board should:

  1. Review its experiential learning programs to identify and remove any accessibility barriers.
  2. Ensure that its partners who accept its students for experiential learning placements are effectively informed of their duty to accommodate the learning needs of students with disabilities.
  3. Create and share supports and advice for placement organizations who need assistance to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in their experiential learning opportunities.
  4. Monitor placement organizations to ensure they have someone in place to ensure that students with disabilities are effectively accommodated, and to ensure that effective accommodation was provided during each placement of a student with a disability who needed accommodation.
  5. Survey students with disabilities and experiential learning placement organizations at the end of any experiential learning placements to see if disability-related needs were effectively accommodated.

#16.2 The Ministry of Education should provide templates for these policies and measures. It should also prepare and make available training videos for organizations offering experiential learning programs to guide them on accommodating students with disabilities.

17. Ensuring French Immersion and Other Specialized Programs Are Barrier-Free for Students with Disabilities

Barrier: A potential combination of different barriers reviewed in this Framework.

#17.1 The Education Accessibility Standard should set a province-wide standard for ensuring that French immersion programs are accessible to and effectively accommodate students with disabilities. These programs should be offered in accessible locations. Their instructional materials should be available in accessible formats. Their admission criteria should be screened for any disability barriers.

#17.2 Each English language school board should develop, implement and monitor a strategy to ensure that French Immersion and other specialized programs are accessible to and barrier-free for students with disabilities, including:

  1. Identifying what percentage of the students in these programs are students with disabilities, to document any under-participation.
  2. Review the admission process for gaining entry to these programs, to identify possible accessibility barriers.
  3. Review the choice of the buildings where these programs are to be delivered to ensure that students with disabilities will be able to physically attend these programs.
  4. Identify what efforts the school board now makes to ensure that students with disabilities are accommodated in these programs, and the extent to which UDL and differentiated instruction principles are used in the teaching in these programs.
  5. Develop an action plan to address any accessibility and inclusion shortfalls.
  6. Actively publicize to students with disabilities and their families about the opportunities to take part in these programs, and the school board’s readiness to ensure that their accommodation needs will be met.
  7. Monitor the effectiveness of efforts to ensure inclusion and accessibility of these programs for students with disabilities, and report publicly on this, including to school board trustees, to the trustees’ accessibility committee and to the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, on an annual basis.

18. Substantially Reducing the Shuffling of Students with Special Education Needs from School to School over Their school Years

Barrier: The situating of programs for students with disabilities can force too many of these students to have to change the school they attend during their years at school much more than do other students, causing disruption and hardships for the students and their families.

#18.1 Each school board should be required to develop and implement a strategy to substantially reduce the shuffling of students with disabilities from one school to another over their school years. For example:

  1. If a student, attending a school other than their home school, for a special education program or class, is prepared to shift to inclusion in a fulltime regular classroom, then consistent with parental agreement, the student should have the option of remaining at the same school as the special education class, and treating it as their home school.
  2. Where possible, the school board should locate in the same school a combination of two special education classes that involve different levels of support. This would enable a student to gradually progress through different levels of special education classes towards a regular class setting in that school, without having to switch schools in order to switch to a different level of special education class. It would also enable a student, where appropriate, to spend part of a school day in one program and another part of the school day in another program, to best meet the student’s needs.
  3. Where feasible, if a student with a disability is required to attend a different school than his or her home school, in order to take part in special education programming, the family should have the option of having that students’ siblings also attend that school, especially where this will help the student with disabilities. Whenever possible, siblings, including those with disabilities, should be able to attend the same school.

19. Transportation for Students with Disabilities

Barrier: Barriers to accessibility of the education programming offered at a student’s local school that necessitates the provision of bus transportation to more distant schools, combined with the failure to ensure that students with disabilities are consistently, reliably and safely bussed to and from school.

The provisions on the provision of bus transportation to students with disabilities in s. 75 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation 2011 (IASR) have not been sufficient to effectively remove transportation barriers facing students with disabilities. Stronger provisions are required. The 2018 recommendations for revisions to the transportation provisions in the IASR do not in any way address this need.

#19.1 The Education Accessibility Standard should provide that where a school board provides bussing or other transportation to students with disabilities in order to enable them to attend school, the school board shall ensure and monitor to ensure that:

  1. The school board has consulted with each family to identify the accessibility and accommodation needs of the student with disabilities in relation to transportation, and the bus company and driver has been properly trained to accommodate that need.
  2. Where the school board or its bussing contractor changes the driver assigned to transport the student, the replacement driver is given the same information and training prior to driving the student, or, in the case of an emergency replacement, as soon as possible.
  3. The school board and, where applicable, any contractor it hires, shall retain records of the training provided, including when it was provided and shall make this information public.
  4. The school board should have a readily available official especially during periods when a student is being transported to receive and address phone calls, emails and text messages from a family about problems regarding the student’s transportation.
  5. The school board should document all complaints reported on transportation services, and the company to which it applies. A summary of these should be provided to all members of the school board including its Special Education Advisory Committee and its Accessibility Committee on a quarterly basis and shall make this public on the school board’s website.
  6. The Education Accessibility Standard should make it clear that the fact that the school board has contracted for a private company to provide the student transportation does not remove or reduce the school board’s duties under this accessibility standard or otherwise under the AODA, the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that the student has been provided with barrier-free participation in in the school board’s educational programs and opportunities.

Barrier: Some school boards do not ensure that pick-up/drop locations for student bussing are accessible for parents with disabilities.

#19.2 The Education Accessibility Standard should require that the school board and, where applicable, a bus company with which it contracts, will ensure that pick-up and drop-off locations for a student’s bussing are accessible when needed to accommodate the parents or guardians of students with disabilities.

20. Protecting Students with Disabilities from Being Unfairly Denied the Right to Attend School for All or Part of the School Day

Barrier: The arbitrary power of school principals to exclude students from school, outside the disciplinary suspension and expulsion power, that disproportionately impacts on students with disabilities.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has identified as a human rights issue the sweeping and arbitrary power of any school principal to exclude a student from school. Section 265(1) (m) of Ontario’s Education Act provides:

“265. (1) It is the duty of a principal of a school, in addition to the principal’s duties as a teacher,…

… (m) subject to an appeal to the board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils; …”

This power can be and is misused, especially to keep some students with disabilities away from school. This is made worse by the power to shorten the length of the school day for students with disabilities. This Framework addresses together the power to exclude a student from school for an entire day and the power to reduce the length of the school day, whether or not they emanate from the same provisions under Ontario’s Education Act.

#20.1 The Education Accessibility Standard should set specific comprehensive, mandatory requirements on when a school board can exercise any power to refuse to admit a student to school for all or part of a school day. It should have no loopholes that would let a principal or teacher exclude a student informally without complying with these requirements.

  1. This should include any time a school board formally or informally asks or directs that a student not attend school, or that the student be removed from school, whether in writing or in a discussion
  2. This should include a school board request or direction that a student only attend school for part of the regular school day.
  3. This does not include a situation where a family requests that a student be absent from school for all or part of a school day, but the school board is willing to let the student attend school.

#20.2 The school board should be required to ensure that a student, excluded from attending school, is provided an equivalent and sufficient educational program. The school board should keep records of and publicly account for its doing so.

#20.3 A refusal to admit should only be imposed when it is demonstrably necessary to protect health and safety of students at school, and only after all relevant accommodations for the student, up to the point of undue hardship have been explored or attempted.

#20.4 A refusal to admit should go no further and last no longer than is necessary. A principal should only resort to a refusal to admit if the principal can demonstrate that the student presents an imminent risk to health or safety which cannot be addressed by lesser measures, such as suspension.

#20.5 If a refusal to admit is to take place, the first resort should be to exclude the student from a specific class, accommodating that student in another class. Only if that can’t be sufficient, should a principal consider excluding the student from that school, accommodating the student at another school. A school board should only refuse to admit a student from any and all schools if it is impossible to accommodate them at any other school at that school board.

#20.6 The Education Accessibility Standard and policy directives from the Ministry of Education should give clear examples of the circumstances when a refusal to admit is permitted, and when it is not permitted.

#20.7 A refusal to admit should not be allowed to last more than five consecutive school days, unless extended by the school board in accordance with this accessibility standard.

#20.8 The burden should be on the school board to justify the refusal to admit. It should not be for the student or the student’s family to justify why the student should be allowed to attend school.

#20.9 When a school board staff decide whether to refuse to admit a student, they should take into account all mitigating considerations that are considered when deciding whether to suspend or expel a student.

#20.10 A school board should not refuse to admit a student with a disability on the ground that school board staff believe they cannot accommodate the student’s needs, e.g. because staff is absent.

#20.11 If, when a refusal to admit is to expire, the school board wants to extend it, the school board must justify it. The student’s family need not prove why the student should be allowed to return to school.

#20.12 An extension of a refusal to admit must first consider excluding the student from a single class, and then the option of excluding the student from that school, and only as a last resort, excluding the student from all schools at that school board.

#20.13 An extension of the refusal to admit should not be permitted if the school board has not put in place an effective alternative option for the student to receive their education while excluded from school.

#20.14 The Education Accessibility Standard should establish a mandatory fair procedure that the school board must follow when refusing to admit a student. These procedures should ensure accountability of the school board and its employees, including:

  1. A student and their families should have all the procedural protections that are required when a school board is going to impose discipline such as a suspension or expulsion.
  2. The prior review and approval of the superintendent should be required, before a refusal to admit is imposed. If it is an emergency, then the superintendent should be required to review and approve this decision as quickly afterwards as possible, or else the refusal to admit should be terminated.
  3. The superintendent should independently assess whether the school board has sufficient grounds to refuse to admit, and has met all the requirements of the school board’s refusal to admit policy (including ensuring alternative education programming is in place for the student).
  1. The principal should be required to immediately notify the student and his or her family in writing of the refusal to admit, the reasons for it, and the duration. That should include outlining steps that the school board has taken or will be taking to expedite a student’s return to school and provide an expected timeline for the completion of these steps.
  2. The principal should immediately tell the student and the student’s family, in clear and plain language, in writing, what a refusal to admit is, its duration, the reasons for it, the steps the school board is taking to expedite the student’s return to school and time lines for those steps, the school board’s process for reviewing that decision, and the family’s right to appeal it (including how to use that right of appeal). This should be provided in a language that the family speaks.
  3. These procedures should again be mandatory any time the school board extends a refusal to admit.
  4. A refusal to admit should not be extended for an accumulated total of more than 15 days (within a surrounding 30 day period) without the independent review and written approval of an executive superintendent of the school board.
  5. No refusal to admit should be extended for an accumulated total of more than 20 days (within a surrounding 45 day period) without the independent review and written approval of the Director of Education.

#20.15 A fair and prompt appeal process should be provided to the parents/guardian and, where appropriate, the student who was refused admission to school, which includes:

  1. The appeal should be to school board officials who had no involvement with the initial decision to refuse to admit or any extensions of it.
  2. The school board should promptly inform the student and the student’s family about how to start an appeal, who decides the appeal, the procedures for the appeal, that the student and family can present reports, support people or experts or any other information they wish, and can have a representative, either a lawyer or other person, to speak for them or assist them with the appeal.
  3. The appeal should include an in-person meeting with the student and family.
  4. The appeal should be heard and decided very promptly along time lines that the Education Accessibility Standard should set.
  5. On the appeal, the school board should have the burden to prove that the refusal to admit was justified, that it went no further and lasted no longer than was necessary, and that proper alternative education programming was provided or offered.
  6. A decision on the appeal should promptly be provided in writing with reasons along time lines that the Education Accessibility Standard should set.

#20.16 The Ministry of Education or the school board should set a unique code for marking attendance for a student who is absent from school for all or part of a day due to a refusal to admit.

#20.17 Each principal should be required to immediately report to their superiors in writing whenever a student is excluded from school, including the student’s name, whether the student has a disability, the reason for the exclusion, the intended duration of the exclusion, and the substitute educational programming that will be provided to the student while excluded from school The school board should centrally collect these reports and should make public quarterly aggregated data (without any names or identifying information) on the number of refusals to admit, reasons for them, percentage that involve any kind of disability, the number of days missed from school, and measures to provide alternative education during refusals to admit.

#20.18 To help ensure that refusals to admit are not used due to a failure to accommodate a

student’s disability up to the point of undue hardship, each school board should create an emergency fund for accelerating education disability accommodations needed to facilitate a student’s remaining at or promptly returning to school, in connection with an actual or contemplated refusal to admit.



Source link

List of Major National Party Candidates and Their Email and Twitter Addresses in the 2019 Federal Election – AODA Alliance


AODA Alliance List of Major National Party Candidates and Their Email and Twitter Addresses in the 2019 Canada Election

 

This information is current as of about September 8, 2019. We have not been able to test and verify each of these email and Twitter addresses. There may be some inaccuracies. We thank our volunteers who assembled this information for us. We regret that we will not have the capacity to update this list as the election campaign continues.

 

We make this information available to assist voters in raising disability issues in this election. The AODA Alliance is non-partisan. We do not support or oppose any party or candidate. We seek to get all parties and candidates to make as strong commitments as possible on disability issues.

 

Candidates for the Liberal Party of Canada

Cloverdale – Langley City

John Aldag

@jwaldag

[email protected]

Mississauga Centre

Omar Alghabra

[email protected]

@OmarAlghabra

Pontiac

William Amos

[email protected]

@WillAAmos

Oakville

Anita Anand

[email protected]

@AnitaOakville

Scarborough – Rouge Park

Gary Anandasangaree

[email protected]

@gary_srp

Madawaska – Restigouche

René Arsenault

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Nepean

Chandra Arya

@ChandraNepean

[email protected]

@ChandraNepean

Thérèse-de Blainville

Ramez Ayoub

[email protected]

@RamezAyoub

Niagara Centre

Vance Badawey

[email protected]

@VBadawey

Port Moody – Coquitlam

[email protected]

@sarabadiei

Yukon

Larry Bagnell

[email protected]

@LarryBagnell

Mississauga – Malton

Navdeep Bains

[email protected]

@NavdeepSBains

Etobicoke Centre

Yvan Baker

[email protected]

@Yvan_Baker

Wellington – Halton Hills

Lesley Barron

[email protected]

@DrLesleyBarron

Sydney – Victoria

Jaime Battiste

No contact email

@youngmedicine33

Burnaby North – Seymour

Terry Beech

[email protected]

@terrybeech

Outremont

Rachel Bendayan

[email protected]

@RachelBendayan

Carolyn Bennett

Toronto – St. Paul’s

Carolyn Bennett

[email protected]

@Carolyn_Bennett

Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Josh Bennett

No contact email

No Twitter account

Compton – Stanstead

Marie-Claude Bibeau

[email protected]

@mclaudebibeau

Ian Bigham

Niagara West

@LiberalBingham

[email protected]

Skeena – Bulkley Valley

Dave Birdi

[email protected]

No email account

St. Catharines

Chris Bittle

[email protected]

@Chris_Bittle

Scarborough Southwest

Bill Blair

[email protected]

@BillBlair

Kings – Hants

Kody Blois

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Timmins – James Bay

Michelle Boileau

[email protected]

@MicheBoileau

Edmonton Centre

Randy Boissonnault

[email protected]

@R_Boissonnault

Hastings – Lennox and Addington

Mike Bossio

[email protected]

@MikeBossio

Joliette

Michel Bourgeois

[email protected]

@MBourgeoisPLC

Hamilton East – Stoney Creek

Bob Bratina

[email protected]

@BobBratina

Shefford

Pierre Breton

[email protected]

@pierrebretonplc

Lethbridge

Amy Bronson

https://amybronson.com/contact

@AmyBronson

Beauport – Limoilou

Antoine Bujold

[email protected]

@AntoineBujold

Cariboo – Prince George

Tracy Calogheros

[email protected]

@TracyCalogheros

Winnipeg South Centre

Jim Carr

[email protected]

@jimcarr_wpg

Charlottetown

Sean Casey

[email protected]

@SeanCaseyLPC

Waterloo

Bardish Chagger

[email protected]

@BardishKW

Pierre-Boucher – Les Patriotes – Verchères

Simon Chalifoux

[email protected]

@SChalifouxPLC

Saint-Maurice – Champlain

François-Philippe Champagne

[email protected]

@FP_Champagne

Scarborough North

Shaun Chen

[email protected]

@Shaun_Chen

Desnethé – Missinippi – Churchill River

Tammy Cook-Searson

[email protected]

@ChiefTammy

Nanaimo – Ladysmith

Michelle Corfield

[email protected]

@micorfield

Serge Cormier

Acadie – Bathurst

@sergecormierlib

[email protected]

Parry Sound – Muskoka

Trisha Cowie

[email protected]

@trishacowie

Toronto – Danforth

Julie Dabrusin

[email protected]

@juliedabrusin

Oakville North – Burlington

Pam Damoff

[email protected]

@PamDamoff

Fredericton

Matt DeCourcey

[email protected]

@MattDeCourcey

Bruce – Grey – Owen Sound

Michael Den Tandt

[email protected]

@mdentandt

South Okanagan – West Kootenay

Connie Denesiuk

No contact email

@ConnieGDenesiuk

North Okanagan – Shuswap

Cindy Derkaz

[email protected]

@CDerkaz

West Nova

Jason Deveau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Surrey – Newton

Sukh Dhaliwal

[email protected]

@sukhdhaliwal

Dorval – Lachine – Lasalle

Anju Dhillon

[email protected]

@adhillonDLL

Glengarry – Prescott – Russell

Francis Drouin

[email protected]

@Francis_Drouin

Bourassa

Emmanuel Dubourg

[email protected]

@EmmanuelDubourg

Québec

Jean-Yves Duclos

[email protected]

@jyduclos

Winnipeg South

Terry Duguid

[email protected]

@TerryDuguid

Etobicoke North

Kirsty Duncan

[email protected]

@KirstyDuncanMP

Davenport

Julie Dzerowicz

[email protected]

@JulieDzerowicz

Wayne Easter

Malpeque

@WayneEaster

[email protected]

Willowdale

Ali Ehsassi

[email protected]

@AliEhsassi

Laval – Les Îles

Faycal El-Khoury

[email protected]

@F_ElKhoury

Edmonton Manning

Kamal Elkadri

No contact email

No Twitter account

Bay of Quinte

Neil Ellis

[email protected]

@NeilREllis

Beaches – East York

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

[email protected]

@beynate

Charleswood – St. James – Assiniboia – Headingley

Douglas Eyolfson

[email protected]

@DougEyolfson

Salaberry – Suroît

Marc Faubert

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Regina – Lewvan

Winter Fedyk

[email protected]

@winterfedyk

Hull – Aylmer

Greg Fergus

[email protected]

@GregFergus

Halifax

Andy Fillmore

[email protected]

@AndyFillmoreHFX

Miramichi – Grand Lake

Pat Finnigan

[email protected]

@PatFinniganMP

Dartmouth – Cole Harbour

Darren Fisher

[email protected]

@DarrenFisherNS

Dufferin – Caledon

Michele Fisher

[email protected]

@MicheleFisherDC

Mississauga East – Cooksville

Peter Fonseca

[email protected]

@PeterFonsecaMP

Haliburton – Kawartha Lakes – Brock

Judi Forbes

[email protected]

@ForbesHKLB

Ottawa – Vanier

Mona Fortier

[email protected]

@MonaFortier

London North Centre

Peter Fragiskatos

[email protected]

@pfragiskatos

Central Nova

Sean Fraser

[email protected]

@SeanFraserMP

University – Rosedale

Chrystia Freeland

[email protected]

@cafreeland

Vancouver Centre

Hedy Fry

[email protected]

@HedyFry

Kelowna – Lake Country

Stephen Fuhr

[email protected]

@FuhrMP

Rivière-du-Nord

Florence Gagnon

[email protected]

@FlorenceGagnon_

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce – Westmount

Marc Garneau

[email protected]

@MarcGarneau

Kingston and the Islands

Mark Gerretsen

[email protected]

@MarkGerretsen

Thornhill

Gary Gladstone

inf[email protected]

@Vote_Gladstone

Regina – Wascana

Ralph Goodale

[email protected]

@RalphGoodale

Burlington

Karina Gould

[email protected]

@karinagould

Laurentides – Labelle

David Graham

[email protected]

@daviddbgraham

Laurier – Sainte-Marie

Steven Guilbeault

No contact email

@s_guilbeault

Saint-Léonard – Saint-Michel

Hassan Guillet

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Thunder Bay – Superior North

Patty Hajdu

[email protected]

@PattyHadju

Beloeil – Chambly

Marie-Chantal Hamel

[email protected]

@HamelMarieC

Esquimalt – Saanich – Sooke

Jamie Hammond

[email protected]

@JamieHammondESS

Fleetwood – Port Kells

Ken Hardie

[email protected]

@KenHardie

Bellechasse – Les Etchemins – Lévis

Laurence Harvey

[email protected]

@Laurence_Harv

Simcoe North

Gerry Hawes

[email protected]

@hawes_gerry

Saskatoon – University

Susan Hayton

No contact email

No Twitter account

Lac-Saint-Jean

Richard Hébert

[email protected]

@RHebertPLC

Calgary Centre

Kent Hehr

[email protected]

@kenthehr

Rosemont – La Petite-Patrie

Genevieve Hinse

No contact email

@GenevieveHinse

Prince Albert

Estelle Hjertaas

[email protected]

@ehjertaas

South Surrey – White Rock

Gordon Hogg

[email protected]

@GordieHogg

Ajax

Mark Holland

[email protected]

@markhollandlib

Mount Royal

Anthony Housefather

[email protected]

@AHousefather

York South – Weston

Ahmed Hussen

[email protected]

@HonAhmedHussen

Long Range Mountains

Gudie Hutchings

[email protected]

@Gudie

Alfred-Pellan

Angelo Iacono

[email protected]

@AIaconoMP

Langley – Aldergrove

Leon Jensen

No Twitter account

[email protected]

Edmonton West

Kerrie Johnston

[email protected]

@KerrieLJohnston

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Mélanie Joly

[email protected]

@melaniejoly

Labrador

Yvonne Jones

[email protected]

@YvonneJJones

South Shore – St. Margarets

Bernadette Jordan

[email protected]

@BernJordanMP

Richmond Hill

Majid Jowhari

[email protected]

@MajidJowhari

Niagara Falls

Andrea Kaiser

[email protected]ca

@votekaiser

Calgary Rocky Ridge

Todd Kathol

[email protected]

@KatholTodd

Lanark – Frontenac – Kingston

Kayley Kennedy

[email protected]

@kayleykennedyca

Simcoe – Grey

Lorne Kenney

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mississauga – Erin Mills

Iqra Khalid

[email protected]

@iamIqraKhalid

Kamal Khera

Brampton West

@KamalKheraLib

[email protected]

Churchill – Keewatinook Aski

Judy Klassen

[email protected]

@JudyKlassenMLA

Kamloops – Thompson – Cariboo

Terry Lake

[email protected]

@TerryLake16

Saint-Laurent

Emmanuella Lambropoulos

[email protected]

@emlambropoulos

Lasalle–Émard–Verdun

David Lametti

[email protected]

@DavidLametti

Winnipeg North

Kevin Lamoureux

[email protected]

@Kevin_Lamoureux

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Linda Lapointe

[email protected]

@LapointeLinda

Argenteuil–La Petite-Nation

Stephane Lauzon

[email protected]

@stephanelauzon5

Beauséjour

Dominic LeBlanc

[email protected]

@DLeBlancNB

Diane Lebouthillier

Gaspésie – Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine

@DiLebouthillier

[email protected]

Sudbury

Paul Lefebvre

[email protected]

@LefebvrePaul

Montmagny – L’islet – Kamouraska – Rivière-du-Loup

Aladin Legault d’Auteuil

[email protected]

@AladinLegault

Sarnia – Lambton

Carmen Lemieux

[email protected]

@lemieux_carmen

York Centre

Michael Levitt

[email protected]

@LevittMichael

Louis-Hébert

Joël Lightbound

[email protected]

@JoelLightbound

Fundy Royal

Alaina Lockhart

[email protected]

@AlainaLockhart

Saint John – Rothesay

Wayne Long

[email protected]

@WayneLongSJ

Guelph

Lloyd Longfield

[email protected]

@LloydLongfield

Kitchener – Conestoga

Tim Louis

No contact email

@votetimlouis

New Brunswick Southwest

Karen Ludwig

[email protected]

@KarenLudwigMP

Cardigan

Lawrence MacAulay

[email protected]

@L_MacAulay

Gatineau

Steve MacKinnon

[email protected]

@stevenmackinnon

Elmwood – Transcona

Jennifer Malabar

No contact email

No Twitter account

Etobicoke – Lakeshore

James Maloney

[email protected]

@j_maloney

Renfrew – Nipissing – Pembroke

Ruben D Marini

No contact email

No Twitter account

Hochelaga

Soraya Martinez

[email protected]

@SorayaMartinezF

Avignon–La Mitis–Matane–Matapédia

Rémi Massé

[email protected]

@Remi_Masse1

Cambridge

Bryan May

[email protected]

@_BryanMay

Kanata – Carleton

Karen McCrimmon

[email protected]

@karenmccrimmon

Avalon

Ken McDonald

[email protected]

@avalonMPKen

Ottawa South

David McGuinty

[email protected]

@DavidMcGuinty

Scarborough – Guildwood

John McKay

[email protected]

@JohnMcKayLib

Ottawa Centre

Catherine McKenna

[email protected]

@cathmckenna

Coquitlam – Port Coquitlam

Ron McKinnon

[email protected]

@RonMcKinnonLib

Northwest Territories

Michael McLeod

[email protected]

@MMcLeodNWT

Brossard – Saint-Lambert

Alexandra Mendes

[email protected]

@AlexandraBrStL

Eglinton – Lawrence

Marco Mendicino

[email protected]

@marcomendicino

Kildonan – St. Paul

Maryann Mihychuk

[email protected]

@MPMihychuk

Ville-Marie – Le Sud-Ouest – Île-des-Soeurs

Marc Miller

[email protected]

@MarcMillerVM

Perth – Wellington

Pirie Mitchell

[email protected]

@Pirie_Mitchell

Peterborough – Kawartha

Maryam Monsef

[email protected]

@MaryamMonsef

Toronto Centre

Bill Morneau

[email protected]

@Bill_Morneau

Egmont

Robert Morrissey

[email protected]

@MorrisseyEgmont

Saskatoon – Grasswood

Tracy Muggli

[email protected]

@tracymuggli

Central Okanagan – Similkameen – Nicola

Mary Ann Murphy

[email protected]

@Murphy4COSN

Vancouver Quadra

Joyce Murray

[email protected]

@joycemurray

Markham – Thornhill

Mary Ng

[email protected]

@mary_ng

Vancouver Granville

Taleed Noormohamed

[email protected]

@Taleeb

Pickering – Uxbridge

Jennifer O’Connell

[email protected]

@MPJenOConnell

St. John’s South – Mount Pearl

Seamus O’Regan

[email protected]

@SeamusORegan

Don Valley West

Rob Oliphant

[email protected]

@Rob_Oliphant

Edmonton Strathcona

Eleanor Olszewski

[email protected]

@Eleanor4Strath

Chatham-Kent – Leamington

Katie Omstead

[email protected]

@KatieOmstead

Winnipeg Centre

Robert-Falcon Ouellette

[email protected]

@DrRobbieO

Steveston – Richmond East

Joe Peschisolido

[email protected]

@jpeschisolido

Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe

Ginette Petitpas Taylor

[email protected]

@GinettePT

Montarville

Michel Picard

[email protected]

@MPicardLiberal

Rimouski-Neigette – Témiscouata – Les Basques

Chantal Pilon

No contact email

No Twitter account

Nunavut

Megan Pizzo Lyall

No contact email

No Twitter account

La Pointe-de-L’île

Jonathan Plamondon

[email protected]

@Plamondonj

La Prairie

Jean-Claude Poissant

[email protected]

@PLCLaPrairieJCP

Thunder Bay – Rainy River

Marcus Powlowski

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Delta

Carla Qualtrough

[email protected]

@CQualtro

Don Valley East

Yasmin Ratansi

[email protected]

@Yasmin_Ratansi

Geoff Regan

Halifax West

[email protected]

@geoffregan

Trois-Rivières

Valérie Renaud-Martin

No contact email

@ValRenaudMartin

Saint-Jean

Jean Rioux

[email protected]

@jeanriouxplc

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin

Yves Robillard

[email protected]

@YRobillardPLC

Carleton

Chris Rodgers

[email protected]

@VoteChris2019

Honoré-Mercier

Pablo Rodriguez

[email protected]

@pablorodriguez

Bonavista – Burin – Trinity

Churence Rogers

[email protected]

@ChurenceRogers

Longeuil – Charles-Lemoyne

Sherry Romanado

[email protected]

@SherryRomanado

Nipissing – Timiskaming

Anthony Rota

[email protected]

@AnthonyRota

Northumberland – Peterborough South

Kim Rudd

[email protected]

@RuddKim

Pitt Meadows – Maple Ridge

Dan Ruimy

[email protected]

@DanRuimyMP

Brampton North

Ruby Sahota

[email protected]

@MPRubySahota

Kitchener Centre

Raj Saini

[email protected]

@RajSainiMP

Vancouver South

Harjit Sajjan

[email protected]

@HarjitSajjan

Sackville – Preston – Chezzetcook

Darrell Samson

[email protected]

@darrellsamson

Brampton Centre

Ramesh Sangha

rss[email protected]

@sangharamesh

Surrey Centre

Randeep Sarai

[email protected]

@randeepssarai

Manicouagan

Dave Savard

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montcalm

Isabel Sayegh

No contact email

No Twitter account

Lac-Saint-Louis

Francis Scarpaleggia

[email protected]

@ScarpaleggiaLSL

Vaudreuil – Soulanges

Peter Schiefke

[email protected]

@PeterSchiefke

King – Vaughan

Deb Schulte

[email protected]

@_DebSchulte

North Island – Powell River

Peter Schwarzhoff

[email protected]

@PeteSchwarzhoff

Nickel Belt

Marc Serré

[email protected]

@MarcSerreMP

Humber River – Black Creek

Judy Sgro

[email protected]

@JudySgroMP

Châteauguay – Lacolle

Brenda Shanahan

[email protected]

@BShanahanLib

Sault Ste. Marie

Terry Sheehan

[email protected]

@TerrySheehanMP

Brampton South

Sonia Sidhu

[email protected]

@SoniaLiberal

Mission – Matsqui – Fraser Canyon

Jati Sidhu

[email protected]

@MPJatiSidhu

Brampton East

Maninder Sidhu

No contact email

@MSidhuLiberal

Mississauga – Streetsville

Gagan Sikand

[email protected]

@gagansikand

Coast of Bays – Central – Notre Dame

Scott Simms

[email protected]

@Scott_Simms

Edmonton Mill Woods

Amarjeet Sohi

[email protected]

@SohiAmarjeet

Vaughan – Woodbridge

Francesco Sorbara

[email protected]

@fsorbara

Mississauga – Lakeshore

Sven Spengemann

[email protected]

@SvenTrueNorth

Flamborough – Glanbrook

Jennifer Stebbing

[email protected]

@Jen_Stebbing

Calgary Confederation

Jordan Stein

[email protected]

@JordanSteinAB

Kitchener South – Hespeler

Marwan Tabbara

[email protected]

@MarwanTabbaraMP

Vancouver Kingsway

Tamara Taggart

[email protected]

@tamarataggart

Hamilton West – Ancaster – Dundas

Filomena Tassi

[email protected]

@FilomenaTassiMP

Aurora – Oak Ridges – Richmond Hill

Leah Taylor Roy

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Abitibi – Témiscamingue

Claude Thibault

No contact email

No Twitter account

Huron – Bruce

Allan Thompson

[email protected]

@ElectAllanT

Papineau

Justin Trudeau

[email protected]

@JustinTrudeau

Mirabel

Karl Trudel

[email protected]

@karl_trudel

Hamilton Mountain

Bruno Uggenti

[email protected]

@BUggenti

Newmarket – Aurora

Tony van Bynen

Contact form: https://www.vanbynen.ca/contact/

@TonyVanBynen

Milton

Adam van Koeverden

No contact email

@vankayak

Saint Boniface – Saint Vital

Dan Vandal

[email protected]

@stbstvdan

Ottawa West – Nepean

Anita Vandenbeld

[email protected]

@anitavandenbeld

Spadina – Fort York

Adam Vaughan

[email protected]

@TOAdamVaughan

Saint-Hyacinthe – Bagot

René Vincelette

No email contact

@Rene_Vincelette

Parkdale – High Park

Arif Virani

[email protected]

@viraniarif

Portage – Lisgar

Ken Werbiski

No contact email

No Twitter account

Nicholas Whalen

St. John’s East

[email protected]

@NickWhalenMP

North Vancouver

Jonathan Wilkinson

[email protected]

@JonathanWNV

Algoma – Manitoulin – Kapuskasing

Heather Wilson

No contact email

@HWilsonAMK

Saanich – Gulf Islands

Ryan Windsor

[email protected]

@RyanWindsor19

Scarborough – Agincourt

Jean Yip

[email protected]

@JeanYip3

London West

Kate Young

[email protected]

@KateYoungMP

Scarborough Centre

Salma Zahid

[email protected]

@SalmaZahid15

Cumberland – Colchester

Lenore Zann

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada

 

Alberta (34 Seats)

Banff—Airdrie

Blake Richards

[email protected]

@BlakeRichardsMP

Battle River—Crowfoot

Damien C. Kurek

[email protected]

@dckurek

Bow River

Martin Shields

[email protected]

@MartinBowRiver

Calgary Centre

Greg McLean

[email protected]

@GregMcLeanYYC

Calgary Confederation

Len Webber

[email protected]

@Webber4Confed

Calgary Forest Lawn

Candidate not yet announced

Calgary Heritage

Bob Benzen

[email protected]

@BobBenzen

Calgary Midnapore

Stephanie Kusie

[email protected]

@StephanieKusie

Calgary Nose Hill

Michelle Rempel Garner

[email protected]

@MichelleRempel

Calgary Rocky Ridge

Pat Kelly

[email protected]

@PatKelly_MP

Calgary Shepard

Tom Kmiec

[email protected]

@tomkmiec

Calgary Signal Hill

Ron Liepert

[email protected]

@RonLiepert

Calgary Skyview

Jagdeep Sahota

[email protected]

@votesahota

Edmonton Centre

James Cumming

Contact form: https://www.edmontoncentrecpc.ca/contact

@CummingK

Edmonton Griesbach

Kerry Diotte

[email protected]

@KerryDiotte

Edmonton Manning

Ziad Aboultaif

[email protected]

@ziad_aboultaif

Edmonton Mill Woods

Tim Uppal

[email protected]

@TimUppal

Edmonton Riverbend

Matt Jeneroux

[email protected]

@jeneroux

Edmonton Strathcona

Sam Lilly

Contact form: https://www.samlilly.ca/contact

@sam_lilly1

Edmonton West

Kelly McCauley

[email protected]

@KellyMcCauleyMP

Edmonton—Wetaskiwin

Mike Lake

[email protected]

@MikeLakeMP

Foothills

John Barlow

[email protected]

@JohnBarlowMP

Fort McMurray—Cold Lake

David Yurdiga

[email protected]

@DavidYurdiga

Grande Prairie—Mackenzie

Chris Warkentin

[email protected]

@chriswarkentin

Lakeland

Shannon Stubbs

[email protected]

@ShannonStubbsMP

Lethbridge

Rachael Harder

[email protected]

@RachaelHarderMP

Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner

Glen Motz

[email protected]

@GlenMotz

Peace River—Westlock

Arnold Viersen

[email protected]

@ArnoldViersen

Red Deer—Lacombe

Blaine Calkins

[email protected]

@blainecalkinsmp

Red Deer—Mountain View

Earl Dreeshen

[email protected]

@earl_dreeshen

Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Garnett Genuis

[email protected]

@GarnettGenuis

St. Albert—Edmonton

Michael Cooper

[email protected]

@Cooper4SAE

Sturgeon River—Parkland

Dane Lloyd

[email protected]

@DaneLIoyd

Yellowhead

Gerald Soroka

[email protected]

No Twitter account

British Columbia (42 seats)

Abbotsford

Ed Fast

[email protected]

@HonEdFast

Burnaby North—Seymour

Heather Leung

Contact form: https://www.heatherleung.com/contact

@NorthPpc

Burnaby South

Jay Shin

@jayshin2019

[email protected]

Cariboo—Prince George

Todd Doherty

[email protected]

@ToddDohertyMP

Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola

Dan Albas

[email protected]

@DanAlbas

Chilliwack—Hope

Mark Strahl

[email protected]

@markstrahl

Cloverdale—Langley City

Tamara Jansen

[email protected]

@Tamara_retired

Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam

Nicholas Insley

[email protected]

@InsleyNicholas

Courtenay—Alberni

Byron Horner

[email protected]

@Byron4CA

Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Alana DeLong

[email protected]

@alanadelong

Delta

Tanya Corbet

[email protected]

@TanyaCorbet

Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke

Randall Pewarchuk

[email protected]
No Twitter account

Fleetwood—Port Kells

Shinder Purewal

[email protected]

@ShinderPurewal

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo

Cathy McLeod

[email protected]

@Cathy_McLeod

Kelowna—Lake Country

Tracy Gray

[email protected]

@TracyGrayKLC

Kootenay—Columbia

Rob Morrison

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Langley—Aldergrove

Tako van Popta

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon

Brad Vis

[email protected]

@BradleyVis

Nanaimo—Ladysmith

John Hirst

[email protected]

@JohnHirst2019

New Westminster—Burnaby

Megan Veck

[email protected]

@MeganVeck

North Island—Powell River

Shelley Downey

[email protected]

No Twitter account

North Okanagan—Shuswap

Mel Arnold

[email protected]

@MelArnoldMP

North Vancouver

Andrew Saxton

[email protected]

@Andrewesaxton

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge

Marc Dalton

[email protected]

@MarcDalton

Port Moody—Coquitlam

Nicholas Insley

[email protected]

@InsleyNicholas

Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies

Bob Zimmer

[email protected]

@bobzimmermp

Richmond Centre

Alice Wong

[email protected]

@AliceWongCanada

Saanich—Gulf Islands

David Busch

[email protected]

@DavidBusch2019

Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Claire Rattée

[email protected]

@ClaireRattee

South Okanagan—West Kootenay

Helena Konanz

[email protected]

@HelenaKonanz

South Surrey—White Rock

Kerry-Lynne Findlay

[email protected]

@KerryLynneFindl

Steveston—Richmond East

Kenny Chiu

[email protected]

@RmdKenny

Surrey Centre

Tina Bains

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Surrey—Newton

Harpreet Singh

[email protected]

@harpreetcpc

Vancouver Centre

David Cavey

[email protected]

@DavidCavey

Vancouver East

Candidate not yet announced

 

Vancouver Granville

Zach Segal

[email protected]

@vancouver_segal

Vancouver Kingsway

Helen Quan

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/vancouver-kingsway/

No Twitter account

Vancouver Quadra

Kathleen Dixon

Contact form: https://www.vqca.ca/contact

No Twitter account

Vancouver South

Wai Young

[email protected]

@WaiYoung

Victoria

Richard Caron

Contact form: https://www.conservativevictoria.ca/contact

@RichardCaronCPC

West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country

Gabrielle M. Loren

Contact form: https://www.votegabrielleloren.ca/contact

@GabrielleMLoren

Manitoba (14 seats)

Brandon—Souris

Robert Kitchen

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley

Marty Morantz

[email protected]

@marty_morantz

Churchill—Keewatinook Aski

Cyara Bird

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/churchill-keewatinook-aski/

@CyaraBird

Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa

Daniel Mazier

[email protected]

@MBDan7

Elmwood—Transcona

Lawrence Toet

[email protected]

@lawrencetoet

Kildonan—St. Paul

Raquel Dancho

[email protected]

@RaquelDancho

Portage—Lisgar

Candice Bergen

[email protected]

@CandiceBergenMP

Provencher

Ted Falk

[email protected]

@MPTedFalk

Saint Boniface—Saint Vital

Réjeanne Caron

[email protected]

@rejeanne2019

Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman

James Bezan

[email protected]

@jamesbezan

Winnipeg Centre

Ryan Dyck

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/winnipeg-centre/

@WpgCentreCPC

Winnipeg North

Cameron Ogilive

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Winnipeg South

Melanie Maher

[email protected]

@melanielmaher

Winnipeg South Centre

Joyce Bateman

[email protected]

@JoyceBatemanCPC

New Brunswick (10 seats)

Acadie—Bathurst

Martine Savoie

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/acadie-bathurst/

No Twitter account

Beauséjour

Candidate not yet announced

Fredericton

Andrea Johnson

[email protected]

@andreajohnsonNB

Fundy Royal

Rob Moore

[email protected]

@RobMoore_CPC

Madawaska—Restigouche

Nelson Fox

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Miramichi—Grand Lake

Peggy McLean

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe

Sylvie Godin-Charest

[email protected]

@sgc555

New Brunswick Southwest

John Williamson

[email protected]

@JohnW_NB

Saint John—Rothesay

Rodney Weston

[email protected]

@rodneywestonsj

Tobique—Mactaquac

Richard Bragdon

[email protected]

@RichardBragdon

Newfoundland and Labrador (7 seats)

Avalon

Matthew Chapman

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/avalon/

No Twitter account

Bonavista—Burin—Trinity

Mike Windsor

Contact Form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/bonavista-burin-trinity/

No Twitter account

Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame

Alex Bracci

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Labrador

Larry Flemming

[email protected]

@Larry4Labrador

Long Range Mountains

Candidate not yet announced

St. John’s East

Joedy Wall

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/st-johns-east/

@wall_joedy

St. John’s South—Mount Pearl

Terry Martin

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/st-johns-south-mount-pearl/

@terrycmartin

Northwest Territories (1 seat)

Northwest Territories

Yanik D’Aigle

Contact form: https://www.ntconservatives.ca/contact

@yanikdaigle

Nova Scotia (11 seats)

Cape Breton—Canso

Alfie MacLeod

No contact email

No Twitter account

Central Nova

Roger MacKay

No contact email

@RogerMacKayCPC

Cumberland—Colchester

Scott Armstrong

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Dartmouth—Cole Harbour

Jason Cole

[email protected]

@JasonColeCPC

Halifax

Bruce Holland

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Halifax West

Fred Shuman

[email protected]

@ForShuman

Kings—Hants

Martha MacQuarrie

[email protected]

@Martha4KH

Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook

Kevin Copley

[email protected]

@SPCconservative

South Shore—St. Margarets

Rick Perkins

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Sydney—Victoria

Eddie Orrell

[email protected]

@sydneyvicTORYa

West Nova

Chris d’Entremont

[email protected]

@ChrisMLA

Nunavut (1 seat)

Nunavut

Leona Aglukkaq

[email protected]

@leonaaglukkaq

Prince Edward Island (4 seats)

Cardigan

Wayne Phelan

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Charlottetown

Robert Campbell

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Egmont

Logan McLellan

[email protected]

@loganmp2019

Malpeque

Stephen Stewart

[email protected]

@StephenMalpeque

Yukon (1 seat)

Yukon

Jonas Smith

[email protected]

@jonasjsmith

Saskatchewan (14 seats)

Battlefords—Lloydminster

Rosemarie Falk

[email protected]

@rosemarie_falk

Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

Kelly Block

[email protected]

@KellyBlockmp

Cypress Hills—Grasslands

Jeremy Patzer

@jp4cp

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River

Gary Vidal

[email protected]

@GaryAVidal

Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan

Tom Lukiwski

[email protected]

@TomLukiwski

Prince Albert

Randy Hoback

[email protected]

@MPRandyHoback

Regina—Lewvan

Warren Steinley

[email protected]

@WSteinley_SP

Regina—Qu’Appelle

Andrew Scheer

[email protected]

@AndrewScheer

Regina—Wascana

Micheal Kram

[email protected]

@MichaelKramSK

Saskatoon—Grasswood

Kevin Waugh

[email protected]

@KevinWaugh_CPC

Saskatoon—University

Corey Tochor

[email protected]

@ctochor

Saskatoon West

Brad Redekopp

Contact form: https://www.saskatoonwestconservative.com/contact

@BradRedekopp

Souris—Moose Mountain

Robert Kitchen

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Yorkton—Melville

Cathay Wagantall

[email protected]

@cathayw

Ontario (121 seats)

Ajax

Tom Dingwall

[email protected]

@TomDingwallAjax

Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing

Dave Williamson

Contact form: https://www.amkconservative.com/contact
No Twitter account

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill

Leona Alleslev

[email protected]

@LeonaAlleslev

Barrie—Innisfil

John Brassard

[email protected]

@JohnBrassardCPC

Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte

Doug Shipley

Contact form: https://www.dougshipley.ca/contact

@DougShipleyBSOM

Bay of Quinte

Tim Durkin

[email protected]

@QuinteDurkin

Beaches—East York

Nadirah Nazeer

[email protected]

@NadirahNazeer

Brampton Centre

Pawanjit Gosal

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/brampton-centre/

No Twitter account

Brampton East

Ramona Singh

[email protected]

@RamonaToday

Brampton North

Arpan Khanna

[email protected]

@ArpanKhanna

Brampton South

Ramandeep Brar

[email protected]

@electbrar

Brampton West

Murarilal Thapliyal

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/brampton-west/

@thapliyalbw

Brantford—Brant

Phil McColeman

[email protected]

@Phil4Brant

Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Alex Ruff

[email protected]

@AlexRuff17

Burlington

Jane Michael

[email protected]

@JaneMichael1

Cambridge

Sunny Attwal

[email protected]

@SunnyCBridge

Carleton

Pierre Poilievre

Contact form: https://pierremp.ca/contact/

@PierrePoilievre

Chatham-Kent—Leamington

David Epp

[email protected]

@DaveEppCKL

Davenport

Sanjay Bhatia

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Don Valley East

Michael Ma

[email protected]

@MichaelMaCPC

Don Valley North

Sarah Fischer

[email protected]

@SarahFischerDVN

Don Valley West

Yvonne Robertson

[email protected]

@YRobertsonCa

Dufferin—Caledon

Kyle Seeback

[email protected]

@KyleSeeback

Durham

Erin O’Toole

[email protected]

@ErinOTooleMP

Eglinton—Lawrence

Chani Aryeh

[email protected]

@chaniaryehbain

Elgin—Middlesex—London

Karen Vecchio

[email protected]

@karen_vecchio

Essex

Chris Lewis

[email protected]

@ChrisLewisEssex

Etobicoke Centre

Ted Opitz

[email protected]

@TedOpitz

Etobicoke—Lakeshore

Barry O’Brien

[email protected]

@VoteBarry4EL

Etobicoke North

Sarabjit Kaur

[email protected]

@electsarabjitk

Flamborough—Glanbrook

David Sweet

[email protected]

@DavidSweetMP

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell

Pierre Lemieux

[email protected]

@CPCLemieux

Guelph

Ashish Sachan

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Haldimand—Norfolk

Diane Finley

[email protected]

@dianefinleymp

Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock

Jamie Schmale

[email protected]

@Jamie_Schmale

Hamilton Centre

Monica Ciriello

[email protected]

@CirielloMonica

Hamilton East—Stoney Creek

Nikki Kaur

Contact form: https://www.votenikki.ca/contact

No Twitter account

Hamilton Mountain

Peter Dyakowski

[email protected]

@PeterDyakowski

Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Bert Laranjo

Contact form: https://www.votebertlaranjo.ca/contact

@BertLaranjo

Hastings—Lennox and Addington

Derek Sloan

[email protected]

@DerekSloanCPC

Humber River—Black Creek

Iftikhar Choudry

[email protected]

@iachoudry

Huron—Bruce

Ben Lobb

[email protected]

@BenLobbMP

Kanata—Carleton

Justina McCaffrey

[email protected]

@justinabridal

Kenora

Eric Melillo

[email protected]

@Eric_Melillo

King—Vaughan

Anna Roberts

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/king-vaughan/

@VoteRoberts_CPC

Kingston and the Islands

Ruslan Yakoviychuk

[email protected]

@RYakoviychuk

Kitchener Centre

Stephen Woodworth

Contact form: https://www.kitchenercentrecpc.ca/contact/

@Woodworth1CPC

Kitchener—Conestoga

Harold Albrecht

[email protected]

@Albrecht4KitCon

Kitchener South—Hespeler

Alan Keeso

[email protected]

@AlanKeeso

Lambton—Kent—Middlesex

Lianne Rood

[email protected]

@Lianne_Rood

Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston

Scott Reid

[email protected]

@ScottReidCPC

Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Michael Barrett

[email protected]

@MikeBarrettON

London—Fanshawe

Michael van Holst

[email protected]

@mikevanholst

London North Centre

Sarah Bokhari

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/london-north-centre/

No Twitter account

London West

Liz Snelgrove

[email protected]

@LizSnelgroveCPC

Markham—Stouffville

Theodore Antony

[email protected]

@theodore_antony

Markham—Thornhill

Alex Yuan

[email protected]

@AlexyuanCPC

Markham—Unionville

Bob Saroya

[email protected]

@BobSaroya

Milton

Lisa Raitt

[email protected]

@lraitt

Mississauga Centre

Milad Mikael

Contact form: https://www.miladmikael.com/contact

No Twitter account

Mississauga East—Cooksville

Wladyslaw Lizon

[email protected]

@wladyslawlizon

Mississauga—Erin Mills

Hani Tawfilis

[email protected]

@VoteTawfilis

Mississauga—Lakeshore

Stella Ambler

[email protected]

@StellaAmbler

Mississauga—Malton

Tom Varughese

[email protected]

@TomVarughese4

Mississauga—Streetsville

Ghada Melek

[email protected]

@ghada_melek

Nepean

Brian St. Louis

[email protected]

@BrianForNepean

Newmarket—Aurora

Lois Brown

[email protected]

@LoisBrownCanada

Niagara Centre

April Jeffs

Contact form: https://apriljeffs.com/

@April_Jeffs

Niagara Falls

Tony Baldinelli

[email protected]

@NiagaraTonyfor

Niagara West

Dean Allison

[email protected]

@DeanAllisonMP

Nickel Belt

Aino Laamanen

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/nickel-belt/

No Twitter account

Nipissing—Timiskaming

Jordy Carr

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Northumberland—Peterborough South

Philip Lawrence

[email protected]

@PLawrence2019

Oakville

Terence Young

[email protected]

@Young4Oakville

Oakville North—Burlington

Sean Weir

[email protected]

@SeanWeirONB

Orléans

David Bertschi

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/orleans/

@David_Bertschi

Oshawa

Colin Carrie

[email protected]

@ColinCarrieCPC

Ottawa Centre

Carol Clemenhagen

[email protected]

@ottawaccarol

Ottawa South

Eli Tannis

[email protected]

@eli_tannis

Ottawa—Vanier

Joel Bernard

Contact form: https://www.ottawavanierconservatives.ca/contact

@VoteJoelCPC

Ottawa West—Nepean

Abdul Abdi

[email protected]

@AbdulAbdi6

Oxford

Dave Mackenzie

[email protected]

@DaveMacKenzieMP

Parkdale—High Park

Adam Pham

[email protected]

@AdamPhamforMP

Parry Sound—Muskoka

Scott Aitchison

Contact form: https://www.conservativepsm.com/contact

@ScottAAitchison

Perth—Wellington

John Nater

[email protected]

@JohnNaterMP

Peterborough—Kawartha

Michael Skinner

[email protected]

@mikeskinnerptbo

Pickering—Uxbridge

Cyma Musarat

Contact form: https://www.cymamusarat.ca/contact

@cmusarat

Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke

Cheryl Gallant

[email protected]

@cherylgallant

Richmond Hill

Costas Menegakis

[email protected]

@CostasMenegakis

St. Catharines

Krystina Waler

Contact form: https://www.stcatharinescpc.ca/contact

@KrystinaWaler

Sarnia—Lambton

Marilyn Gladu

[email protected]

@MPMarilynGladu

Sault Ste. Marie

Sonny Spina

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/sault-ste-marie/

@SonnySpina

Scarborough—Agincourt

Sean Hu

[email protected]

@SeanHuCPC

Scarborough Centre

Irshad Chaudhry

[email protected]

@Irshad_C18

Scarborough—Guildwood

Quintus Thuraisingham

[email protected]

@Qthu123

Scarborough North

David Kong

[email protected]

@votedavidkong

Scarborough—Rouge Park

Bobby Singh

[email protected]

[email protected]

Scarborough Southwest

Kimberly Fawcett

Contact form: https://www.votekimberly.com/contact

@KimberlyFawcett

Simcoe—Grey

Terry Dowdall

[email protected]

@TerryDowdallcpc

Simcoe North

Bruce Stanton

[email protected]

@bruce_stanton

Spadina—Fort York

Frank Fang

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry

Eric Duncan

[email protected]

@EricDuncanSDSG

Sudbury

Pierre St-Amant

No contact email

No Twitter account

Thornhill

Peter Kent

[email protected]

@KentThornhillMP

Thunder Bay—Rainy River

Linda Rydholm

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/thunder-bay-rainy-river/

No Twitter account

Thunder Bay—Superior North

Frank Pullia

[email protected]

@frank_pullia

Timmins—James Bay

Kraymr Grenke

[email protected]

@Kraymr

Toronto Centre

Ryan Lester

[email protected]

@RyanLesterTO

Toronto—Danforth

Zia Choudhary

[email protected]

@votezia2019

Toronto—St. Paul’s

Jae Truesdell

[email protected]

No Twitter account

University—Rosedale

Helen-Claire Tingling

[email protected]

@HCTingling

Vaughan—Woodbridge

Teresa Kruze

[email protected]

@TeresaKruze

Waterloo

Jerry Zhang

[email protected]

@jerryzwaterloo

Wellington—Halton Hills

Michael Chong

[email protected]

@MichaelChongMP

Whitby

Todd McCarthy

[email protected]

@ToddMcCarthyCPC

Willowdale

Daniel Lee

[email protected]

@DanielLeeCPC

Windsor—Tecumseh

Leo Demarce

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Windsor West

Henry Lau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

York Centre

Rachel Willson

[email protected]

@rachelbwillson

York—Simcoe

Scot Davidson

[email protected]

@ScotDavidsonMP

York South—Weston

Jasveen Rattan

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/york-south-weston/

@jasveenrattan

Quebec (78 seats)

Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou

Martin Ferron

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Abitibi—Témiscamingue

Mario Provencher

[email protected]

@MarioProvenche1

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Kathy Laframboise

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Alfred-Pellan

Angelo Esposito

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation

Marie Louis-Seize

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia

Candidate not yet announced

Beauce

Richard Lehoux

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix

Sylvie Boucher

[email protected]

@SBoucherMP

Beauport—Limoilou

Alupa Clarke

[email protected]

@Alupa_Clarke

Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel

Pierre-André Émond

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis

Steven Blaney

[email protected]

@HonStevenBlaney

Beloeil—Chambly

Candidate not yet announced

Berthier—Maskinongé

Josée Bélanger

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Bourassa

Catherine Lefebvre

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Brome—Missisquoi

Bruno Côté

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Brossard—Saint-Lambert

Glenn Hoa

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles

Pierre Paul-Hus

[email protected]

@PierrePaulHus

Châteauguay—Lacolle

Hugues Laplante

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord

Richard Martel

[email protected]

@richardmartelpc

Compton—Stanstead

Jessy McNeil

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Celine Laquerre

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Drummond

Jessica Ebacher

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine

Jean-Pierre Pigeon

[email protected]

@JPierrePigeon

Gatineau

Sylvie Goneau

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/gatineau/

No Twitter account

Hochelaga

Christine Marcoux

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/hochelaga/

@HochelagaC

Honoré-Mercier

Guy Croteau

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/honore-mercier/

No Twitter account

Hull—Aylmer

Mike Duggan

[email protected]

@MikeDugganPCC

Joliette

Jean-Martin Masse

No contact email

No Twitter account

Jonquière

Philippe Gagnon

[email protected]

No Twitter account

La Pointe-de-l’Île

Robert Coutu

[email protected]

@RobertJrCoutu

La Prairie

Isabelle Lapointe

[email protected]

@ilapointePCC

Lac-Saint-Jean

Jocelyn Fradette

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Lac-Saint-Louis

Ann Francis

[email protected]

No Twitter account

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun

Claudio Rocchi

[email protected]

@ClaudioRocchi1

Laurentides—Labelle

Serge Grégoire

[email protected]

@SergeGregoire

Laurier—Sainte-Marie

Lise des Greniers

No contact email

No Twitter account

Laval—Les Îles

Tom Pentefountas

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Lévis—Lotbinière

Jacques Gourde

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne

Stéphane Robichaud

[email protected]

@StefrobiCAQ

Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

Patrick Clune

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/longueuil-saint-hubert/

No Twitter account

Louis-Hébert

Marie-Josée Guérette

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/louis-hebert/

No Twitter account

Louis-Saint-Laurent

Gérard Deltell

[email protected]

@gerarddeltell

Manicouagan

François Corriveau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin

Sonia Baudelot

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/marc-aurele-fortin/

@BaudelotSonia

Mégantic—L’Érable

Luc Berthold

[email protected]

@LucBerthold

Mirabel

François Desrochers

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montarville

Julie Sauvageau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montcalm

Gisèle Desroches

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup

Bernard Généreux

[email protected]

@GenereuxBernard

Mount Royal

David Tordjman

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount

Neil Drabkin

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/notre-dame-de-grace-westmount/

@CPCNDGWest

Outremont

Jasmine Louras

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/outremont/

@JasmineLouras

Papineau

Sophie Veilleux

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/papineau/

@VeilleuxSophie

Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères

Mathieu Daviault

[email protected]

@DaviaultMathieu

Pierrefonds—Dollard

Mariam Ishak

Contact form: https://mariamishak.com/en/mariam-ishak-conservative-party-of-canada-candidate/#contact

@MariamIshakCPC

Pontiac

Dave Blackburn

[email protected]

@Blackburn2019

Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier

Joël Godin

[email protected]

@Pjcjoelgodin

Québec

Bianca Boutin

[email protected]

@BiancaBoutin

Repentigny

Pierre Branchaud

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/repentigny/

No Twitter Account

Richmond—Arthabaska

Alain Rayes

[email protected]

@AlainRayes

Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques

Candidate not yet announced

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Maikel Mikhael

[email protected]

No Twitter Account

Rivière-du-Nord

Candidate not yet announced

Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie

Johanna Sarfati

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/rosemont-la-petite-patrie/

No Twitter Account

Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot

Bernard Barré

[email protected]

No Twitter Account

Saint-Jean

Martin Thibert

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/saint-jean/

No Twitter Account

Saint-Laurent

Richard Serour

[email protected]

@SerourRichard

Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel

Ilario Maiolo

[email protected]

@IlarioMaioloPCC

Saint-Maurice—Champlain

Bruno-Pier Courchesne

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Salaberry—Suroît

Cynthia Larivière

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Shefford

Nathalie Clermont

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Sherbrooke

Dany Sévigny

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/sherbrooke/

No Twitter account

Terrebonne

Annie Trudel

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Thérèse-De Blainville

Marie Claude Fournier

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Trois-Rivières

Yves Lévesque

[email protected]

@Yveslevesque_tr

Vaudreuil—Soulanges

Karen Cox

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/vaudreuil-soulanges/

No Twitter account

Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Sœurs

Michael Forian

[email protected]

@ForianVM

Vimy

Rima El-Helou

Contact form: https://www.conservative.ca/eda/vimy/

No Twitter account

Candidates for the New Democratic Party of Canada

 

Thunder Bay-Superior North

Anna Betty Achneepineskum

No contact email

@DGCAnnaBetty

Oakville

Jerome Adamo

[email protected]

@JEROME4Oakville

Niagara Centre

Malcolm Allen

No contact email

@NDPMalcolmAllen

Timmins–James Bay

Charlie Angus

[email protected]

@CharlieAngusNDP

Churchill—Keewatinook—Aski

Niki Ashton

[email protected]

@nikiashton

Trois-Rivières

Robert Aubin

[email protected]

@RobertAubinNPD

Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Taylor Bachrach

[email protected]

@taylorbachrach

Niagara Falls

Brian Barker

[email protected]

@BBarker77

North Vancouver

Justine Bell

[email protected]

@justinegbell

Bay of Quinte

Stephanie Bell

No contact email

@Bell4Council

Saskatoon West

Sheri Benson

[email protected]

@sherirbenson

Elmwood—Transcona

Daniel Blaikie

[email protected]

@Daniel_Blaikie

North Island—Powell River

Rachel Blaney

[email protected]

@RABlaney

Rosemont—La-Petite-Patrie

Alexandre Boulerice

[email protected]

@alexboulerice

Berthier—Maskinongé

Ruth Ellen Brosseau

[email protected]

@RE_Brosseau

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill

Aaron Brown

No contact email

No Twitter account

Waterloo

Lori Campbell

[email protected]

@campbelllor

South Okanagan—West Kootenay

Richard Cannings

[email protected]

@CanningsNDP

Davenport

Andrew Cash

No contact email

@AndrewCash

Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Bob Chamberlin

[email protected]

@ChiefBobbyc

Oxford

Matthew Chambers

No contact email

@MatthewNewDem

Toronto Centre

Brian Chang

[email protected]

@bfchangTO

Mississauga–Malton

ikki Clarke

[email protected]

@NikkiClarkeNDP

Kanata–Carleton

Melissa Coenraad

[email protected]

@MelissaCoenraad

Victoria

Laurel Collins

[email protected]

@Laurel_BC

Vancouver Kingsway

Don Davies

[email protected]

@DonDavies

Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock

Barbara Doyle

[email protected]

@DoyleHKLB

Beloeil–Chambly

Matthew Dubé

[email protected]

@MattDube

Burlington

Lenaee Dupuis

Email not available

Twitter not available

Sherbrooke

Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[email protected]

@PLDusseault

Hamilton Mountain

Scott Duvall

[email protected]

@sduvall07

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Zahia El Masri

No contact email

@MasriZahia

Etobicoke North

Naiima Farah

No contact email

@Naiima_Farah

Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke

Randall Garrison

[email protected]

@r_garrison

Ottawa South

Morgan Gay

Contact form: https://www.morgangay.ca/contact

@Morgan_Gay

Winnipeg Centre

Candidate Leah Gazan

Contact form: https://www.leahgazan.ca/contact

@LeahGazan

Pontiac

Denise Giroux

Contact form: https://www.ndppontiacnpd.ca/nous-joindre-contact-us

No Twitter account

Salaberry-Suroît

Joan Gottman

No contact email

No Twitter account

Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam

Christina Gower

No contact email

No Twitter account

Hamilton Centre

Matthew Green

No contact email

@MatthewGreenNDP

Cambridge

Scott Hamilton

[email protected]

@HamiltonCbridge

Vancouver Granville

Yvonne Hanson

No contact email

@YVR_Hanson

Windsor-Tecumseh

Cheryl Hardcastle

[email protected]

@CHardcastleNDP

St. John’s East

Jack Harris

[email protected]

@JackHarrisNDP

South Shore—St. Margaret’s

Jessika Hepburn

[email protected]

@ohmyhandmade

Carleton

Kevin Hua

No contact email

@HuaForCarleton

Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing

Carol Hughes

[email protected]

@CarolHughesMP

Beaches–East York

Mae J. Nam

[email protected]

@MaeJNam

Guelph

Aisha Jahangir

[email protected]

@JahangirAisha

Barrie—Springwater—Oro—Medonte

Dan Janssen

[email protected]

@IAMDanJ

Brome—Missisquoi

Sylvie Jetté

No contact email

No Twitter account

York Centre

Andrea Vasquez Jimenez

No contact email

@AndreaVasquezJ

Courtenay-Alberni

Gord Johns

[email protected]

@GordJohns

New Westminster—Burnaby

Peter Julian

[email protected]

@MPJulian

Brampton West

Navjit Kaur

No contact email

@Navjitkaurndp

Brampton South

Mandeep Kaur

https://mandeepkaur.ndp.ca/

No contact email

@mandeepndp

Newmarket—Aurora

Yvonne Kelly

No contact email

@YvonneKellyCRF

Vancouver Quadra

Leigh Kenny

No contact email

No Twitter account

Sarnia—Lambton

Adam Kilner

No contact email

No Twitter account

Kildonan—St. Paul

Evan Krosney

No contact email

@EvanKrosney

Kelowna–Lake Country

Justin Kulik

[email protected]

@JustinKulik

Vancouver East

Jenny Kwan

[email protected]

@JennyKwanBC

Toronto—Danforth

Min Sook Lee

[email protected]

@minsooklee

Yukon

Justin Lemphers

[email protected]

@YukonNDP

London West

Shawna Lewkowitz

No contact email

@ShawnaLewk

Haldimand—Norfolk

Jordan Louis

[email protected]

@jordanlouis

Central Nova

Betsy MacDonald

No contact email

No Twitter account Twitter not available

Vaudreuil—Soulanges

Amanda MacDonald

No contact email

No Twitter account

Don Valley West

Laurel MacDowell

No contact email

No Twitter account

Ottawa West—Nepean

Angella MacEwen

Contact form: https://www.ownndp.ca/wp/contact/

@AMacEwen

Cowichan-Malahat-Langford

Alistair MacGregor

[email protected]

@AMacGregor4CML

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell

Konstantine Malakos

[email protected]

@kmalakos

Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Yousaf Malik

No contact email

No Twitter account

Winnipeg North

Kyle Mason

[email protected]

@kyle_j_mason

Windsor West

Brian Masse

[email protected]

@BrianMasseMP

London—Fanshawe

Lindsay Mathyssen

No contact email

@LMathys

Sault Ste. Marie

Sara McCleary

No contact email

@saramccleary

York—Simcoe

Jessa McLean

No contact email

@JessaMcLeanNDP

Ottawa—Vanier

Stéphanie Mercier

No contact email

No Twitter account

Hamilton East Stoney Creek

Nick Milanovic

[email protected]

@nickemilanovic

Kitchener Centre

Andrew Moraga

[email protected]

@andrew_moraga

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo

Gina Myhill-Jones

No contact email

No Twitter account

Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

Pierre Nantel

[email protected]

@pierrenantel

Eglinton—Lawrence

Alexandra Nash

No contact email

@_AlexNash

Dartmouth–Cole Harbour

Emma Norton

No contact email

@dilemmmanorton

Fleetwood—Port Kells

Annie Ohana

Contact form: https://www.annieohana.com/contact

@ohana_annie

Nickel Belt

Stef Paquette

No contact email

@StefPaquette

Central Okanagan–Similkameen–Nicola

Joan Phillip

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Shefford

Raymonde Plamondon

No contact email

No Twitter account

London North Centre

Dirka Prout

No contact email

@DirkaProut

Essex

Tracey Ramsey

[email protected]

@traceyram

Burnaby North-Seymour

Svend Robinson

[email protected]

@Svend4MP

Hochelaga

Catheryn Roy-Goyette

[email protected]

@roy_goyette

North Okanagan-Shuswap

Harwinder Sandhu

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot

Brigitte Sansoucy

[email protected]

@bsansoucynpd

Surrey Centre

Sarjit Saran

[email protected]

@SaranSarjit

Halifax

Christine Saulnier

[email protected]

@cmysaul

Abbotsford

Madeleine Sauvé

[email protected]

@MadeleineSauve

Brantford—Brant

Sabrina Sawyer

No contact email

No Twitter account

Kings—Hants

Stephen Schneider

Contact form: https://stephenschneider.ca/contact-information/

@NdpStephen

Peterborough-Kawartha

Candace Shaw

[email protected]

@CSHawPKNDP

Brampton East

Saranjit Singh

[email protected]

@SaranjitSingh_

Burnaby South

Jagmeet Singh

[email protected]

@theJagmeetSingh

Saanich–Gulf Islands

Sabina Singh

[email protected]

@Sabina4SGI

Surrey-Newton

Harjit Singh Gill

No contact email

No Twitter account

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley

Ken St.George

[email protected]

No contact email

No Twitter account

Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Chris Stephen

[email protected]

@NDPChrisBGOS

Kootenay—Columbia

Wayne Stetski

[email protected]

@WayneStetski

Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel

Nicolas Tabah

No contact email

@NicolasTabah

Ottawa Centre

Emilie Taman

No contact email

@EmilieTaman

Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Michelle Taylor

No contact email

@M_TaylorNDP

Parkdale—High Park

Paul Taylor

[email protected]

@PaulTaylorNDP

York South—Weston

Yafet Tewelde

[email protected]

@YafetYSW

Don Valley East

Nicholas Thompson

No contact email

No Twitter account

Jonquière

Karine Trudel

[email protected]

@trudel_karine

St. Catharines

Dennis Van Meer

No contact email

@scfndp

Langley–Aldergrove

Stacey Wakelin

No contact email

@staceywakelin

Kingston and the Islands

Barrington Walker

[email protected]

@WalkerNDP

Durham

Sarah Whalen-Wright

No contact email

@Swhalen87

Orléans

Jacqueline Wiens

No contact email

@JacquiWiensNDP

Thunder Bay—Rainy River

Yuk-Sem Won

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Spadina—Fort York

Diana Yoon

[email protected]

@DianaDYoon

Parry Sound—Muskoka

Tom Young

No contact email

No Twitter account

Port Moody–Coquitlam

Bonita Zarrillo

No contact email

@BonitaZarrillo

Rimouski-Neigette–Témiscouata–Les Basques

Guy Caron

[email protected]

@GuyCaronNPD

Drummond

François Choquette

[email protected]

@F_Choquette

Laurier–Sainte-Marie

Nimâ Machouf

[email protected]

@nimamachoufnpd

Candidates for the Green Party of Canada

Kootenay – Columbia

Abra Brynne

No contact email

No Twitter account

Saint-Léonard – Saint-Michel

Alessandra Szilagyi

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Abitibi – Témiscamingue

Aline Bégin

No contact email

@alinebegin

Scarborough Southwest

Amanda Cain

No contact email

@AskAmandaCain

Don Valley West

Amanda Kistindey

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Burnaby North – Seymour

Amita Kuttner

No contact email

@AmitaKuttner

Bellechasse – Les Etchemins – Lévis

André Voyer

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Winnipeg Centre

Andrea Shalay

No contact email

No Twitter account

Ottawa – Centre

Angela Keller-Herzog

[email protected]

@akellerherzog

Malpeque

Anna Keenan

[email protected]

@annackeenan

Toronto Centre

Annamie Paul

[email protected]

@AnnamiePaul

Sackville – Preston – Chezzetcook

Anthony Edmonds

No contact email

@ALEdmonds

Lambton – Kent – Middlesex

Anthony Li

[email protected]

@anthonytonyli

Chilliwack – Hope

Arthur Green

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Banff – Airdrie

Austin Mullins

[email protected]

@ausjermullins

Marc –Aurele – Fortin

Bao Tran Le

No contact email

No Twitter account

La Prairie

Barbara Joannette

No contact email

No Twitter account

Central Nova

Barry Randle

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saint-Boniface – Saint-Vital

Ben Linnick

No contact email

@bennydelnorte

Portage – Lisgar

Beverly Eert

[email protected]

@PL_GreenParty

South Surrey – White Rock

Beverly (Pixie) Hobby

No contact email

No Twitter account

Brantford – Brant

Bob Jonkman

[email protected]

@BobJonkmanGPC

Barrie – Innisfil

Bonnie North

[email protected]

@BonnieNorthGP

Burnaby South

Brennan Wauters

[email protected]

@brennanwauters

Vancouver East

Bridget Burns

[email protected]

@votebridgetb

Kigns – Hants

Brogan Anderson

[email protected]

@anderson4greens

Haldimand – Norfolk

Brooke Martin

No contact email

@Brookemartin_13

Coast of Bays – Central – Notre Dame

Byron White

No contact email

No Twitter account

Vaudreuil – Soulanges

Cameron Stiff

[email protected]

@CamStiff_Vert

Kingston and the Islands

Candice Christmas

[email protected]

No Twitter account

London North Centre

Carol Dyck

[email protected]

@CarolDyckGPC

Longueuil – Saint-Hubert

Casandra Poitras

No contact email

No Twitter account

Sturgeon River – Parkland

Cass Romyn

[email protected]

@ED75Green

Calgary Rocky Ridge

Catriona Wright

[email protected]

@CatsWright1

Etobicoke – Lakeshore

Chris Caldwell

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mississauga – Streetsville

Chris Hill

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Toronto – Danforth

Chris Tolley

[email protected]

@christolley

Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe

Claire Kelly

[email protected]

@clairekellyCAN

Pontiac

Claude Bertrand

[email protected]

@BertrandGreen

Mount Royal

Clement Badra

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Perth – Wellington

Collan Simmons

[email protected]

@Csimmons21

Red Deer – Mountain View

Conner Borle

[email protected]

@BorleGpc

Delta

Craig DeCraene

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mississauga – Lakeshore

Cynthia Trentelman

No contact email

@CCTrentelman

Regina – Qu’Appelle

Dale Dewar

[email protected]

@daledewar

Beauport – Limoilou

Dalila Elhak

No Twitter account

[email protected]@greenparty.ca

Don Valley East

Dan Turcotte

[email protected]

@Dan4Greens

West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country

Dana Taylor

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Don Valley North

Daniel Giavedoni

No contact email

No Twitter account

Outremont

Daniel Green

[email protected]

@DanielGreen_PVC

Bruce – Grey – Owen Sound

Danielle Valiquette

[email protected]

@DaniValiquette

Bay of Qunite

Danny Celovsky

[email protected]

@CelovskyDanny

Charlottetown

Darcie Lanthier

[email protected]

@DarcieLanthier

Hamilton Mountain

Dave Urquhart

[email protected]

@DaveUrquhartGP

Esquimalt – Saanich – Sooke

David Merner

[email protected]

@DavidMerner

Ottawa West – Nepean

David Stibbe

[email protected]

@davidstibbe

David Turcotte

Bécancour – Nicolet – Saurel

No contact email

No Twitter account

Kitchener South – Hespeler

David Weber

[email protected]

@davidwebergreen

Spadina – Fort York

Dean Maher

No contact email

@VoteDeanMaher

Gaspésie – Les Iles-de-la-Madeline

Dennis Drainville

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Red Deer – Lacombe

Desmond Bull

No contact email

No Twitter account

Milton

Elanor Hayward

[email protected]

@eleanorhayward4

Haliburton – Kawartha Lakes – Brock

Elizabeth Fraser

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saanich – Gulf Islands

Elizabeth May

[email protected]

@ElizabethMay

Markham – Unionville

Elvin Kao

[email protected]

@ElvinKao

Berthier – Maskinongé

Éric Laferriere

No contact email

No Twitter account

Simcoe North

Erik Schomann

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Durham

Evan Price

[email protected]

@_evanp

Burlington

Gareth Williams

[email protected]

@WilliamsGarethE

Vancouver Quadra

Geoff Wright

[email protected]

@geoffwright64

North Vancouver

George Orr

[email protected]

@george_orr

Saint-Laurent

Georgia Kokotsis

No contact email

No Twitter account

Parry Sound – Muskoka

Gord Miller

No contact email

@Ecogai

Carleton

Gordon Kubanek

[email protected]

@gordonjkubanek

Edmonton Centre

Grad Murray

No contact email

No Twitter account

Brossard – Saint-Lambert

Greg De Luca

[email protected]

@GregTheGreenMan

Avalon

Greg Malone

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Gatineau

Guy Dostaler

No contact email

No Twitter account

Davenport

Hannah Conover-Arthurs

[email protected]

@ArthursConover

Missisauga Centre

Hugo Reinoso

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Kamloops – Thompson – Cariboo

Iain Currie

[email protected]

@IanCurrie4

Renfrew – Nipissing – Pembroke

Ian Pineau

No contact email

@pineaui

Manicouagan

Jacques Gélineau

No contact email

No Twitter account

Winnipeg – South Centre

James Beddome

[email protected]

@JamesBeddome

Avignon – La Mitis – Matane – Matapédia

James Morrison

No contact email

No Twitter account

Laurier – Sainte-Marie

Jamil Azzaoui

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saskatoon – University

Jan Norris

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Flamborough – Glanbrook

Janet Errygers

@JanetGPO

[email protected]

Provencher

Janine Gibson

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Cumberland – Colchester

Jason Blanch

[email protected]

@JasonBlanch

Rosemont – La Petitie-Patrie

Jean Désy

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Compton – Stanstead

Jean Rousseau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montraville

Jean-Charles Pelland

No contact email

No Twitter account

Nepean

Jean-Luc Cooke

[email protected]

@VoteJeanLuc

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Jean-Michel Lavarenne

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Northumberland – Peterborough South

Jeff Wheeldon

[email protected]

@Jeff_Wheeldon

LaSalle – Émard – Verdun

Jency Mercier

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Fredericton

Jenica Atwin

[email protected]

@JenicaAtwin

Kanata – Carleton

Jennifer Purdy

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Vancouver Centre

Jesse Brown

[email protected]

@votejesse2019

Scarborough – Rouge Park

Jessica Hamilton

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Halifax

Jo-Ann Roberts

[email protected]

@JoAnnRobertsHFX

Riviere-du-Nord

Joey Leckman

[email protected]

@JoeyLeckman

Mission – Matsqui – Fraser Canyon

John Kidder

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Beauce

Josiane Fortin

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Oshawa

Jovannah Ramsden

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Papineau

Juan Vazquez

[email protected]

@Chitacosmico7

Vancouver South

Judith Zaichkowsky

[email protected]

@Zaichkow

West Nova

Judy N Green

[email protected]

@RAWnGreen

Langley – Aldergrove

Kaija Farstad

[email protected]

@KaijaF

Dauphin – Swan River – Neepawa

Katherine Storey

[email protected]

@KateStorey_

Shefford

Katherine Turgeon

No contact email

No Twitter account

Bonavista – Burin – Trinity

Kelsey Reichel

No contact email

@kelsreichel

Charleswood – St. James – Assiniboia – Headingley

Kevin Nichols

[email protected]

@KevinNichols11

Waterloo

Kirsten Wright

[email protected]

@kirstenllwright

Beauséjour

Laura Reinsborough

[email protected]

@lauraatthereins

Vancouver Kingsway

Lawrence Taylor

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Ottawa South

Les Schram

[email protected]reenparty.ca

@Les4OS

Dartmouth – Cole Harbour

Lil MacPherson

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Oxford

Lisa Birtch-Carriere

[email protected]

@lisac_gpc

Leeds – Greenville – Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Lorraine Rekmans

[email protected]

@Goddessonloose

Vancouver Granville

Louise Boutin

No contact email

No Twitter account

Lévis – Lotbiniere

Luc Saint-Hilaire

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Long Range Mountains

Lucas Knill

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Cowichan – Malahat – Langford

Lydia Hwitsum

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Chicoutimi – Le Fjord

Lynda Youde

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Louis-Hébert

Macarena Diab

@macarenadiab

[email protected]

Cariboo – Prince George

Mackenzie Kerr

[email protected]

No Twitter account

North Okanagan – Shuswap

Marc Reinarz

[email protected]

No Titter account

Trois-Rivieres

Marie Duplessis

[email protected]

No Twitter account

North Island – Powell River

Mark de Bruijn

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Chatham-Kent – Leamington

Mark Vercouteren

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Barrie – Springwater – Oro-Medonte

Marty Lancaster

[email protected]

@gp_marty

Sherbrooke

Mathieu Morin

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Algoma – Manitoulin – Kapuskasing

Max Chapman

[email protected]

@MaxChapmanAMK

Niagara Centre

Michael Tomaino

[email protected]

@MichaelPTomaino

Cambridge

Michele Braniff

[email protected]

@MicheleBraniff

Orléans

Michelle Petersen

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Kitchener Centre

Mike Morrice

[email protected]

@morricemike

Humber River – Black Creek

Mike Schmitz

No contact email

No Twitter account

Oakville North – Burlington

Mithu Valika

[email protected]

@MithuValika

Regina – Lewvan

Naomi Hunter

[email protected]

@GpcHunter

Calgary Confederation

Natalie Odd

[email protected]

@natalieodd

Huron – Bruce

Nicholas Wendler

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Nanaimo – Ladysmith

Paul Manly

[email protected]

@paulmanly

Hamilton East – Stoney Creek

Peter Ormond

[email protected]

@Peter_Ormond

Sarnia – Lambton

Peter Smith

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Beloeil – Chambly

Pierre Carrier

No contact email

No Twitter account

Victoria

Racelle Kooy

[email protected]

@racellekooy

Stormont – Dundas – South Glengarry

Raheem Arman

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Wellington – Halton Hills

Ralph Martin

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Churchill – Keewatinook Aski

Ralph McLean

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Vaughan – Woodbridge

Raquel Fronte

No contact email

No Twitter account

Dorval – Lachine – LaSalle

Réjean Malette

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mississauga – Erin Mills

Remo Boscarino-Gaetano

[email protected]

@Remo_Bosco

Halifax West

Richard Zurawski

No contact email

No Twitter account

Hochelaga

Robert D. Morais

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Notre-Dame-de-Grace – Westmount

Robert Green

[email protected]

@RobertGreenPVC

Central Okanagan – Similkameen – Nicola

Robert Mellalieu

[email protected]

@RobMellalieu

Tobique – Mactaquac

Rowan Miller

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Charlesbourg – Haute-Saint-Charles

Samuel Moisan-Domm

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Niagara Falls

Sandra O’Connor

[email protected]

@SandraONFGreens

Beaches – East York

Sean Manners

No contact email

No Twitter account

Courtenay – Alberni

Sean Wood

[email protected]

@SeanWood4Greens

Saskatoon West

Shawn Setyo

[email protected]

@ShawnSetyo

Simcoe – Grey

Sherri Jackson

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saint-Maurice – Champlain

Stéphanie Dufresne

[email protected]

@StephanieDufr

Kitchener – Conestoga

Stephanie Goertz

[email protected]

@GoertzSteph

Lanark – Frontenac – Kingston

Stephen Kotze

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Guelph

Steven Dyck

[email protected]

@SteveDyck

New Westminster – Burnaby

Suzanne De Montigny

[email protected]

@sfierymountain

Fleetwood – Port Kells

Tanya Baertl

No contact email

No Twitter account

Edmonton Mill Woods

Tanya Herbert

[email protected]

No Twitter account

South Okanagan – West Kootenay

Tara Howse

[email protected]

@taralynhowse

Niagara West

Terry Teather

[email protected]

@terry_teather

Calgary Centre

Thana Boonlert

[email protected]

@thana4yyc

South Shore – St. Margarets

Thomas Trappenberg

[email protected]

@ttrappenberg

University – Rosedale

Tim Grant

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Fundy Royal

Timothy Thompson

[email protected]

No Twitter account

London – Fanshawe

Tom Cull

[email protected]

@waltercull

Edmonton Riverbend

Valerie Kennedy

[email protected]

@4valeriekennedy

Hamilton West – Ancaster – Dundas

Victoria Galea

[email protected]

@vote_victoria

Newmarket – Aurora

Walter Bauer

[email protected]

@WalterB23697518

Calgary Forest Lawn

William Carnegie

No contact email

@WillCarnegieYYC

Selkirk – Interlake – Eastman

William James

[email protected]

No Twitter account



Source link

Tell the Ford Government if You Support the AODA Alliance’s Brief and Recommendations on the Government’s Proposal to Hold a 5-Year Pilot Project to Allow Electric Scooters in Ontario – and – Lots More Media Coverage of Our Issues Over the Past Two Weeks


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

Tell the Ford Government if You Support the AODA Alliance’s Brief and Recommendations on the Government’s Proposal to Hold a 5-Year Pilot Project to Allow Electric Scooters in Ontario – and – Lots More Media Coverage of Our Issues Over the Past Two Weeks

September 13, 2019

SUMMARY

1. Please Tell the Ford Government If you Support the AODA Alliance’s Brief on the Proposal to Hold a 5-Year Pilot Project Allowing E-scooters in Ontario

Please email the Doug Ford Government as soon as you can to support the AODA Alliance’s September 12, 2019 brief on the Government’s proposal to permit the use of electric scooters on Ontario roads and bike paths for the next 5 years as a pilot project. Even though the Government’s incredibly-rushed 2.5 week public consultation on this proposal ended yesterday, nothing stops you from now writing the Government. Send your email to: [email protected]

It’s best when you use your own words in your email. If you are in a rush, you can simply say:

I support the September 12, 2019 brief to the Ontario Government on its proposal to allow e-scooters in Ontario for a 5-year pilot project.

Feel free to copy us on your email to the Government if you wish. Our email address is [email protected]

You can write the Government as an individual. We are also eager for any community organizations to write the Government to support our brief as an organization.

In summary, the AODA Alliance brief calls for the Government not to allow e-scooters in Ontario. It urges the Government to withdraw its proposal to hold an excessive 5-year pilot that would allow anyone age 16 and up to ride e-scooters on Ontario roads and bike paths, even if they and the e-scooter have no training, are uninsured and have no license.

E-scooters racing at up to 32 KPH will create serious new public safety and disability accessibility problems. Either riding or leaving an e-scooter on a sidewalk should be banned. An e-scooter left on a sidewalk should be immediately forfeited and confiscated.

If, despite this, e-scooters are allowed at all, e-scooter rentals, like those dominating in some US cities, should not be permitted. An e-scooter and its driver should be required to have a license and insurance. Virtually silent e-scooters should be required to audibly beep when in use, to warn pedestrians, including those who are blind, that they are racing towards them.

The AODA Alliance opposes the idea of the Province first permitting e-scooters and then leaving it to municipalities to regulate them. Ontarians with disabilities and others who do not welcome a risk to their safety should not have to fight separate battles, in one city after the next. Each municipality should not be burdened to clean up the mess that the Province is proposing to create.

If, despite these serious concerns, the Government wishes to proceed with a pilot, it should be for 6 months, not 5 years. It should be restricted to a small part of Ontario. The residents of an area selected for such a pilot should have to first consent to the pilot taking place there.

To make it easier for you, below we set out the 16 recommendations in our brief. You can read the entire AODA Alliance September 12, 2019 brief on this topic by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/aoda-alliance-files-a-brief-with-ontarios-doug-ford-government-urging-that-ontario-should-not-allow-e-scooters-should-withdraw-its-proposal-for-a-5-year-e-scooter-pilot-project-or-if-allowed-sh/

We again thank the people who took the time to send us their feedback on our earlier draft of this brief. Their input helped us as we turned that draft into the finished product that we made public yesterday. We are encouraged by the strong support for our concerns that has been voiced.

2. Yet More Great Media Coverage of Our Issues Over the Past Two Weeks

To supplement the recent coverage of the disability concerns regarding the Ford Government’s proposal to allow e-scooters in Ontario for a 5-year pilot that has been reported in the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, City TV news and several CBC radio programs, our accessibility issues have kept getting great media coverage. We set out a sampling below. We also include an item that concerns weak action by the Federal Government on the eve of the current federal election in its early days to implement the brand-new Accessible Canada Act.

  1. The September 9, 2019 Toronto Star included a good editorial that raised a number of concerns that we had earlier raised with the Ford Government’s proposal to allow e-scooters in Ontario. We applaud this editorial, even though the Star did not refer to the specific disability concerns that we had raised and did not mention the AODA Alliance.
  1. The September 10, 2019 Toronto Star included a letter to the editor from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. It pointed out the additional disability concerns with the Ford Government’s e-scooter proposal that the Star’s September 9, 2019 editorial did not mention.
  1. The Toronto Star’s September 10, 2019 edition also included an article on concerns with e-scooters that were raised at a meeting of a Toronto City council Committee. We were not involved in that committee’s meeting. That article reported on Toronto Mayor John Tory’s commendable reluctance to allow e-scooters in Toronto.
  1. On September 11, 2019, CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning program included an interview with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on the e-scooters issue. CBC posted an online news report on that issue, based on that interview. That interview supplements the interviews on the same issue that all seven other CBC local morning programs aired one week earlier, on September 4, 2019, with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.
  1. The September 12, 2019 Toronto Star included another letter to the editor on the e-scooters issue. It voiced strong opposition to allowing e-scooters in Ontario. It did not refer to disability-specific concerns with e-scooters.
  1. The September 9, 2019 edition of the Globe and Mail included an article by the Canadian Press that a number of other media outlets also posted on their websites. It focuses on a number of concerns with new regulations enacted by the Canadian Transportation Agency to address disability accessibility needs in federally-regulated transportation, such as air travel. That article quoted a number of sources from the disability community, including the AODA Alliance. Its quotes of AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky are to some extent inaccurate.

The regulation addressed in this article is the first such regulation enacted in this area since Parliament passed the Accessible Canada Act last June. The problems with that regulation exemplify the serious concerns we raised over the past year at the House of Commons and Senate with the Accessible Canada Act leaving the Canadian Transportation Agency with responsibility for creating regulations in the area of accessible transportation. Regulations seem to cater far more to the resistance of airlines and other federally-regulated transportation providers, and too little to the needs of passengers with disabilities.

3. The Ford Government’s Dithering on the Onley Report Continues

There have been 226 days, or over seven months, since the Ford Government received the final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of Ontario’s accessibility law, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Ford Government has not announced any plan of action to implement the Onley report.

The Onley report showed that Ontario remains full of “soul-crushing” barriers against over 2 million Ontarians with disabilities, and that Ontario Government action to redress these has been inadequate.

          MORE DETAILS

List of the 16 Recommendations in the AODA Alliance’s September 12, 2019 Brief to the Ontario Government Regarding E-scooters

Recommendation #1

There should be no pilot project allowing e-scooters to be driven in public places in Ontario.

Recommendation #2

The Government should withdraw this e-scooter public consultation and go back to the drawing board. If it is not prepared to withdraw this public consultation on e-scooters, the Ontario Government should at least extend the consultation period to October 31, 2019.

Recommendation #3

The rental of e-scooters should be strictly forbidden, even if private ownership of an e-scooter by a user of that e-scooter were to be permitted.

Recommendation #4

There should be a strict ban on leaving an e-scooter in a public sidewalk or like location. If an e-scooter is left in such a place, it should be subject to immediate confiscation and forfeiture, as well as a strict penalty.

Recommendation #5

If e-scooters are to be permitted in Ontario, they should be required to make an ongoing beeping sound when they are powered on, to warn others of their approach.

Recommendation #6

The speed limit for e-scooters should initially be set much lower than 32 KPH, such as 15 or 20 KPH, until a strong showing can be made that a higher speed limit poses no safety threat to the public.

 

Recommendation #7

A person wishing to drive an e-scooter should be required to first take required training on its safe operation and on the rules of the road, and then to obtain a license.

Recommendation #8

Each e-scooter should be required to be licensed and to display a readily-seen license plate number.

Recommendation #9

The owner and driver of an e-scooter should be required to carry sufficient liability insurance for injuries or other damages that the e-scooter causes to others.

Recommendation #10

All e-scooter drivers, regardless of their age, should be required to wear a helmet whenever operating an e-scooter.

Recommendation #11

No e-scooter pilot project should be held in Ontario until the Ontario Government effectively studies the impact on public safety of e-scooters in jurisdictions that have allowed them, and on options for regulatory controls of them, and has made the details of these public. A pilot project should only be held in Ontario if public safety can be fully and effectively protected.

Recommendation #12

If Ontario is to hold an e-scooter pilot project, it should only take place for a period much shorter than five years, e.g. six months, and should only take place in a specific community that has consented to permit that pilot project there.

Recommendation #13

If Ontario is to hold an e-scooter pilot project, the Ontario Government should retain a trusted independent organization with expertise in public safety to study the impact of e-scooters during that pilot project, and to make the full results of that study public.

Recommendation #14

The Government should not treat a ban on riding e-scooters on the sidewalk, while necessary, as a sufficient protection against the threat to public safety that e-scooters present.

Recommendation #15

nothing should be done to reduce or restrict the availability or use of powered mobility devices used by people with disabilities.

Recommendation #16

The Ontario Government should not permit e-scooters and then leave it to each municipality to regulate them or leave it to each municipality to decide if they want to permit e-scooters.

The Toronto Star September 9, 2019

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2019/09/09/ontario-can-do-better-on-electric-scooters.html

Editorial

Let’s do better on e-scooters

Love them or loathe them, there’s no denying that two-wheeled electric scooters are finding their way onto streets, cycle paths and sidewalks all over the world.

So Ontario’s plan to regulate them is welcome, and a pilot project is a good way to find out if its rules work or a different approach is needed.

But there are significant problems with the proposal the Ford government quietly posted online last week.

The first relates to speed. That’s both the 32 km/h allowable speed for e-scooters, which is too fast to be safe for riders or the people around them, and the public consultation period.

Originally, the government thought two days would be sufficient for consultation. After an uproar that was extended until Sept. 12, which is still unnecessarily hasty.

The second concern is over the length of Ontario’s pilot project – an astonishing five years.

That’s longer than the mandate of a provincial government and it’s far too long for an e-scooter trial, especially if problems arise here as they have elsewhere. The results should be reviewed after no more than a year to decide whether it should continue, be changed or be scrapped entirely.

The current proposal would limit scooters to roads, lanes and paths where bicycles are allowed and set a minimum age of 16 to ride one.

If these rules go forward, they’ll throw open the door to rental companies that operate like bike-share programs but with dockless scooters that can be left anywhere. Tourists and locals use an app to find and unlock them.

The government’s summary of its plan breezily states that “e-scooters have been launched in more than 125 cities across the United States.”

They’re in Canadian and European cities, too. But none of that has been without considerable controversy and problems.

Chicago has fined rental companies for failing to live up to the rules it set. Nashville just ended its pilot and banned e-scooters entirely.

People in Los Angeles are vandalizing them in protest. And in Paris, a group of victims of e-scooter accidents are threatening to sue the city and demanding stricter rules to deal with the “chaos and anarchy in the streets.”

Even their credentials as a particularly green form of transport are being challenged. Are they replacing car trips or healthier walking?

While the annoyance of e-scooters cluttering sidewalks and creating tripping hazards or riders breaking laws and behaving badly gets the lion’s share of the negative attention, the people at the greatest risk are users themselves. (Most don’t wear helmets and, like cyclists, they really should.) An American study found an emergency room surge in head injuries, fractures and dislocations related to scooters.

All of this is of particular concern in Toronto, which is already struggling with its Vision Zero plan to make roads safer for everyone. There’s a lot of tension on city streets and the addition of scooter rental companies catering in part to tourists unfamiliar with the city’s traffic rules and its many potholes will only add to that.

The province’s pilot project must give municipalities the flexibility they need to manage the challenges of e-scooters and come up with local solutions.

That’s the only hope of reaping the potential benefits of this new form of shared transportation.

Around the world e-scooters have grown faster than the rules to regulate them, much like ride-hailing and home-sharing services. So, yes, let’s get ahead of it for once.

But let’s not pretend we’re starting from scratch. Ontario needs to design a pilot project that learns from mistakes elsewhere rather than simply repeating them.

The Toronto Star September 10, 2019

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2019/09/10/ontarians-with-disabilities-on-losing-end-of-e-scooter-pilot.html

Letters to the Editor

Ontarians with disabilities on losing end of e-scooter pilot

Let’s do better on e-scooters, Editorial, Sept. 9

It’s great that your editorial demands the Ford government be more cautious before exposing Ontarians to the dangers that electric scooters pose if allowed.

But you missed key problems.

The Star said “The people at the greatest risk are users themselves.” In fact, Ontarians with disabilities are among those at greatest risk. Rental e-scooters, routinely left on sidewalks in other cities where allowed, are a serious tripping hazard for blind people like me. They are a new accessibility barrier for people using wheelchairs or walkers. Silent e-scooters are also a danger to us blind people when we cross streets.

The Disabilities Act requires the government to lead Ontario to become barrier-free for Ontarians with disabilities by 2025. The Ford government is way behind on this. E-scooters would create new disability barriers.

Those injured by e-scooters aren’t just the users, but innocent pedestrians. Premier Doug Ford promised to end hallway medicine. The hours of waiting to see a doctor in emergency rooms will only get longer as they are cluttered up with e-scooters’ victims, drivers and pedestrians.

If Ontario is to pilot e-scooters, it should have safeguards like your editorial mentioned. We must go further. Ontario shouldn’t run any pilot until and

unless e-scooters’ safety risks are eliminated.

Banning e-scooters from being driven on sidewalks won’t protect us. Such a ban, while needed, is extremely difficult to enforce.

Don’t burden municipalities with cleaning up this mess. Strict provincial rules must ensure our safety.

David Lepofsky, chair, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, Toronto

The Toronto Star September 10, 2019

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/09/09/toronto-committee-wants-e-scooters-barred-from-sidewalks.html

City wants e-scooters off sidewalks

Bird CEO argues temporary ban will make launch impossible

Francine Kopun

The Toronto Star Sept. 10, 2019

Barring e-scooters from city sidewalks, recommended by a city committee on Monday, would make it impossible to introduce the concept to Toronto, according to the CEO of Bird Canada, an e-scooter company hoping to launch here in the spring of 2020.

“If you can’t park them on the sidewalk and you can’t park them on the street, I guess we’re parking them in the air?” Stewart Lyons said.

“I don’t know where we’re parking them. They can’t fly.”

Lyons was speaking after the city’s infrastructure and environment committee passed a motion that would temporarily prevent e-scooters from occupying sidewalks – at least until city staff can come up with a better plan, expected later this year.

Lyons said being able to park e-scooters on some sidewalks is a key part of the e-scooter program.

He said it would be hard to create enough demand if the scooters can’t be made available to customers right where they live and work, arguing that docking stations, such as those used by the current Bike Share Toronto program, wouldn’t be accessible enough.

Currently, users in cities where shared e-scooter programs are in place can locate scooters near them using an app.

Mayor John Tory said he supports the motion, saying it’s meant to preserve the status quo, so Toronto doesn’t have an uncontrolled and undisciplined entry of e-scooters into the market.

Tory said he is concerned about the safety of scooter use and clutter they may create, adding Toronto has many narrow sidewalks and the city must be careful with regulations controlling their use.

The mayor said he has seen scooters littering sidewalks in Austin, Texas, and has asked mayors from other cities about their experiences with the dockless devices.

“They described it all the way from successful to others who would describe it … as a gong show,” Tory said. “We don’t want any gong shows in Toronto, we don’t want people to have their safety imperiled on sidewalks or elsewhere and we don’t want the city to become cluttered.”

Tory said he personally doesn’t think e-scooters should be allowed to be driven on sidewalks, or left helter-skelter there, but he’ll wait to see what city staff propose.

The fact that e-scooters from companies such as Bird and rival firm Lime have no docking stations has led to problems in some cities, with scooters being littered across sidewalks, thrown into bushes and even into bodies of water.

Lyons said that was a problem in the early days of the program, but it’s mostly been resolved. He said the scooters were being left around because the company was hiring workers on contract who were ditching them instead of relocating them in order to save time.

These days, the company uses a more secure method to collect, charge and redistribute the scooters. The program is active in Edmonton and Calgary and is set to launch in Montreal in a couple of weeks, Lyons said.

“The good thing about Canada starting a little bit later is we have now the lessons learned and now we want to be better …. operators,” Lyons said.

The province intends to release regulations soon concerning the use of e-scooters on roads. But it’s up to the city to police sidewalks.

Committee member Mike Layton (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) said the ban on sidewalk use by e-scooters, if council adopts it, would be temporary, until city staff can come up with a more detailed plan.

He said the committee is already thinking of ways to refine it, but they wanted to get out in front of the issue quickly.

“We wanted to make sure that the city’s regulatory regime is out front before one of these companies tried to come into a municipality and impose a system,” said Layton, who supports the idea of docking stations for e-scooters.

The province is looking at a five-year pilot program that would allow e-scooters to be operated in the same places bicycles can operate. It’s looking for feedback by Sept. 12 on the proposal.

The proposed rules would set a minimum age for drivers at 16 and a maximum speed of 32 km/h.

E-scooters, which have been adopted in numerous cities in North America and Europe, are being pitched as a solution to gridlock in big cities and an environmentally friendly mode of transportation, but have proven controversial.

Nashville banned them entirely after a pilot project. In Los Angeles, people are vandalizing them in protest.

The problem is they clutter sidewalks when not in use, presenting obstacles for pedestrians, people pushing strollers and anyone with a visual or mobility impairment.

One U.S. study traced a surge in head injuries, fractures and dislocations treated in emergency rooms to scooter use. And researchers at North Carolina State University found that scooter travel produces more greenhouse gas emissions per kilometre than travelling by foot, bicycle or public transit.

Bird Canada is offering free trials of its scooters in the Distillery District until Sunday.

It expects to charges $1.15 to unlock its scooters and 35 cents a minute to ride them when it introduces the service next spring.

“Hopefully some cooler heads prevail between now and council,” Lyons said.

CBC Radio Ottawa September 11, 2019

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/e-scooters-disabilities-ontario-feedback-pilot-project-1.5278879

Ottawa

Scrap Ontario e-scooter pilot, disability advocate urges

Province seeking feedback ahead of proposed 5-year pilot project

The Ontario government is considering a five-year pilot project that would allow e-scooters on the province’s roads, but disability advocates have major concerns with the plan. (Mike

A group that advocates for the rights of disabled Ontarians is urging the province to hit the brakes on a proposed five-year e-scooter pilot project before it begins.

The province has been seeking public feedback on their plan to allow electric scooters on the same roads where bicycles can operate, save for provincial highways.

  • Ontario plans to launch 5-year pilot project that allows e-scooters on roads
  • Why an image problem is slowing e-scooter rollout in Canada

Under the proposed pilot, drivers would have to be at least 16 years old and could not have passengers. The e-scooters could not exceed a maximum operating speed of 32 km/h.

Even with those limitations, allowing e-scooters on the roads will make it harder for people with disabilities to get around, and could lead to more injuries, said David Lepofsky, the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

“We’ve got lots of proof that these pose a lot of problems,” Lepofsky told CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning. “We don’t need to experiment on Ontarians.”

‘An instant barrier’

Many e-scooter rental services around the world allow users to sign out the devices using an app and then — once they’re done with them — simply leave them behind on a sidewalk or other public space.

While Lepofsky’s group has asked the Ontario government to kill its pilot project entirely, it has also come up with 12 draft recommendations should the experiment ultimately go ahead.

They include cutting the maximum speed limit by as much as half, requiring drivers to be licensed and levying strict penalties if the scooters are dumped on sidewalks — though Lepofsky admits that last recommendation could be hard to enforce.

Something can be barrelling at me at 32 kilometres an hour … and I can’t know they’re coming.

“You’re walking down the street, you’re blind, and all of the sudden there’s an instant barrier, a tripping hazard in your path,” said Lepofsky, who’s been blind most of his life.

“Five minutes later it could be gone … how do you prove your case? We don’t have police on every corner just waiting to enforce [that restriction].”

Then, there’s the fact the scooters are largely silent: Lepofsky also wants the e-scooters, if they’re allowed, to emit beeping noises that warn others of their approach.

“Something can be barrelling at me at 32 km/h, ridden at me by an unlicensed and uninsured driver,” Lepofsky said. “And I can’t know they’re coming.”

David Lepofsky, a law professor and chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, says the province should rethink its plans for a five-year e-scooter pilot project. (Tina Mackenzie/CBC)

Safety ‘key consideration’

Lepofsky also questioned the need for a five-year study that would be rolled out from one end of Ontario to the other.

“If you want to see if it’s safe on our roads, you do it for a much [narrower] piece of territory, not the entire province of Ontario, and for a much shorter period — six months or something like that is what we’d propose,” he said.

San Francisco-based Lime has already been lobbying Ottawa city councillors, claiming its dockless e-scooters would be an ideal fit with the city’s stated transportation goals.

The company recently wrapped up a trial rollout at the University of Waterloo, with competitor Bird Canada slated to launch a similar project this month in Toronto’s Distillery District.

  • E-scooter pilot project to launch in Toronto, but major hurdles remain
  • Lime e-scooter pilot project to end in Waterloo

Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation declined an interview with CBC News, but said in a statement that all feedback heard during the consultation process “will be taken into consideration before any final decisions on the pilot take place.”

“Ensuring that new vehicle types can integrate safely with pedestrians and other vehicles is a key consideration before any new vehicle type will be allowed on-road,” the statement said.

The public consultation period wraps up Sept. 12.

With files from The Canadian Press and CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning

The Toronto Star September 12, 2019

Letters to the editor

E-scooters have no place in current infrastructure

City wants e-scooters off sidewalks, Sept. 10

Toronto is in the throes of a traffic crisis. Deaths and injuries are occurring daily.

To this we plan to add e-scooters, which can travel at 32 kph, into the already-congested bike lanes, to be ultimately discarded on our sidewalks?

Surely wisdom dictates that adding another form of transportation into this chaos is not a move to be contemplated until our city figures out a way to make commuters safe within our present infrastructure. E-scooters? Eek!

Judith Butler, Toronto

The Globe and Mail September 9, 2019

Originally posted at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-advocates-say-new-canadian-air-travel-rules-present-greater-barriers/

Report on Business

Advocates of accessible air travel say new rules raise barriers to mobility

By CHRISTOPHER REYNOLDS

THE CANADIAN PRESS

MONTREAL – Tracy Odell recalls with a mix of pride and pain the sunny spring day two years ago that her daughter got married in California.

Pride in the milestone. Pain at having to miss it.

Airlines, she said, effectively failed to accommodate her disability, a problem that thousands of Canadians continue to face despite new rules designed in theory to open the skies to disabled travellers.

As seating space shrank and cargo doors were often too small for customized wheelchairs, Ms.Odell cut back on the flights she once took routinely for her work with a non-profit.

“My wheelchair is part of me,” said Ms. Odell, 61, who was born with spinal muscular atrophy, a genetic condition that gradually prevents forming and keeping the muscles needed to walk, balance, eat and even breathe. “I’m helpless without it.”

“It’s like if someone says, ‘I’m sorry, you can travel but we have to unscrew your legs,’ ” said Ms.Odell, who last took an airplane in 2009.

Her $18,000 mobility device is not allowed in the aircraft cabin, nor can it fit through some cargo doors without being tipped on its side, risking damage. As a result, her husband opted to stay by her side and miss their daughter’s San Jose wedding, too.

Ms. Odell, president of Citizens with Disabilities Ontario, is one of a number of advocates who say new rules ostensibly designed to make air travel more accessible fail to go far enough – and, in some cases, mark a step backward.

“It’s called second-class citizenry. I’ve felt it all my life,” said Marcia Yale, a lifelong advocate for blind Canadians.

The regulations, rolled out in June under a revised Canada Transportation Act – with most slated to take effect in June, 2020 – do little to improve spotty airport service or accommodate attendants and service dogs on international flights, she said.

“These are going backwards,” Ms. Yale said, citing carriers’ legal duty to accommodate. “We wanted pro-active regulations that were going to raise the bar. And in some ways, they’ve lowered it.”

The new rules require travellers to notify airlines anywhere from 48 to 96 hours in advance to receive certain accommodations, such as being guided through security or receiving help transferring from a wheelchair to a smaller, cabin-compatible mobility device. There are currently no rules requiring notification that can jeopardize last-minute travel for work or emergencies.

Many passenger planes’ cargo doors are about 79 centimetres in height – a little more than 2 1/2 – slightly smaller than a typical power wheelchair for youth, said Terry Green, chairman of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities’ transportation committee.

“These aircraft are totally restricting adults who use large mobility devices from travelling,” he said, saying many wheelchairs cannot fit into cargo at all.

The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) says it will be “monitoring … very closely” a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration study on wheelchair anchor systems, with an eye to allowing passengers to remain seated in the cabin in their mobility devices. A report is expected in the next three years.

David Lepofsky, an adjunct law professor at the University of Toronto, is reminded of the challenges facing disabled passengers by the case of a couple abandoned in their wheelchairs for 12 hours after being dropped at a service counter in the Vancouver airport en route to Edmonton from their home in Nepal earlier this year.

He can relate.

“There are times it takes me longer to get out of the airport than it took to fly here,” said Prof. Lepofsky, who is blind and travels frequently for lectures.

Prof. Lepofsky says he’ll often ask a passerby to guide him to the gate rather than go through the stop-and-go relay he’s experienced with airport and airline agents.

The Canadian Transportation Agency’s stated goals, variously defined as “equal access” and “more accessible” service, conflict with each other, leaving levels of accommodation unclear, Prof. Lepofsky said.

The rules require an airport to provide a disabled passenger with curb-to-gate assistance, except “if the transportation provider is providing that service.”

“It’s good that they spell out what has to be provided; it’s bad that there are so many escape clauses,” Prof. Lepofsky said.

He added that the confusion may be more tolerable if airports were required to install way-finding beacons – which connect with an app on a user’s smartphone via Bluetooth to offer verbal directions (Toronto’s Pearson airport recently added the devices) – or kiosks with audio output, an omission he deemed “inexcusable.”

The new rules come alongside a passenger bill of rights that beefs up compensation for travellers subjected to delayed flights and damaged luggage.

Consumer- rights advocates have said the regulations grant airlines loopholes to avoid payment, while Canadian carriers have launched a legal challenge to quash provisions they argue breach international standards.

Meanwhile, the new accessibility regulations require free travel for an attendant or guide dog in an adjacent seat only on domestic flights, with taxes and fees still applicable. A second phase of the regulatory process, now under way, will consider extending the one-person-one-fare requirement to international flights, according to the CTA.



Source link

AODA Alliance Files A Brief With Ontario’s Doug Ford Government, Urging that Ontario Should Not Allow E-scooters, Should Withdraw Its Proposal for a 5-Year E-scooter Pilot Project, Or, If Allowed, Should Ban E-scooter Rentals and Require E-scooters and Their Drivers to Be Licensed and Insured


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AODA Alliance Files A Brief With Ontario’s Doug Ford Government, Urging that Ontario Should Not Allow E-scooters, Should Withdraw Its Proposal for a 5-Year E-scooter Pilot Project, Or, If Allowed, Should Ban E-scooter Rentals and Require E-scooters and Their Drivers to Be Licensed and Insured

September 12, 2019 Toronto: Disability advocates are calling on the Ontario Government to show leadership in protecting the public from personal injuries, and protecting people with disabilities from having new barriers to accessibility created. In a detailed brief (set out below) that was just filed with the Ontario Government under Premier Doug Ford, the AODA Alliance calls for the Government not to allow e-scooters in Ontario, and to withdraw its proposal to hold an excessive 5-year pilot that would allow anyone age 16 and up to ride e-scooters on Ontario roads and bike paths, even if they and the e-scooter are uninsured and have no license. This brief aims to crystalize the most comprehensive case against e-scooters from the disability perspective.

“E-scooters racing at up to 32 KPH will create serious new public safety and disability accessibility problems,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan AODA Alliance which spearheads advocacy for accessibility for over 2 million Ontarians with disabilities. “Riding or leaving an e-scooter on a sidewalk should be banned. An e-scooter left on a sidewalk should be immediately forfeited and confiscated. If e-scooters are allowed at all, e-scooter rentals, like those dominating in some US cities, should not be permitted. An e-scooter and its driver should be required to have a license and insurance. Virtually silent e-scooters should be required to audibly beep when in use, to warn pedestrians, including those who are blind, that they are racing towards them.”

The AODA Alliance opposes the idea of permitting e-scooters and then leaving it to municipalities to regulate them. Ontarians with disabilities and others who don’t welcome a risk to their safety should not have to fight separate battles, in one city after the next. Each municipality should not be burdened to clean up the mess that the Province is proposing to create.

Since the AODA Alliance brought this issue to public and media attention two weeks ago, the issue whether to allow e-scooters to expand into Ontario has garnered extensive public attention and media coverage. This has included both local and national coverage, as well as an editorial in the September 9, 2019 Toronto Star. Ontarians need to decide whether they want to repeat the risks to public safety and disability accessibility that have plagued other jurisdictions, or whether Ontario wants to be the master of its own destiny in this regard.

Contact: David Lepofsky, [email protected]

Twitter: @aodaalliance

AODA Alliance Brief to the Ontario Government on Its Proposal to Hold a Five-Year Pilot Project Allowing Electric Scooters in Ontario

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

September 11, 2019

Via Email: [email protected]

To: Ministry of Transportation

Road Safety Policy Office

Safety Policy and Education Branch

87 Sir William Hearst Avenue

Building “A”, Room 212

Toronto, Ontario

M3M 0B4

Re: Proposal 19-MTO026

Introduction

The AODA Alliance submits this brief to the Ontario Government as part of the Government’s short public consultation on its proposal to hold a five-year pilot project to allow electric scooters (e-scooters) in Ontario. E-scooters are electric motor vehicles which can travel as fast as 32 kilometers per hour or faster. Under the Government’s proposal e-scooters would be allowed to zip at up to 32 kilometers per hour, anywhere a bicycle is allowed, such as our congested roads and bike paths. The Government is not proposing to require the e-scooter owner or driver or vehicle itself to carry insurance, or to have a license. We include as Appendix 1 a list of the recommendations we make throughout this brief. Appendix 2 to this brief is the Government’s original August 28, 2019 online posting that describes its proposed pilot project. Appendix 3 sets out a New York Times article on e-scooters.

In summary, the AODA Alliance strongly opposes the proposed pilot project. This pilot project raises serious safety concerns for the entire public. Ontarians with disabilities are especially vulnerable to this safety risk. Experience in other jurisdictions where e-scooters have been allowed clearly shows that they present serious public safety and disability accessibility problems. Ontario does not need a pilot project to prove this, at the cost of inflicting injuries or even death upon some Ontarians.

The Ford Government repeatedly emphasized that it is focusing on what matters most to Ontarians. Protecting public safety matters most for Ontarians.

E-scooters are unnecessary and should not be permitted in Ontario at all. E-scooters are motor vehicles, pure and simple. At a bare minimum, if they are to be permitted at all despite the serious concerns spelled out in this brief, e-scooters, like other motor vehicles, should have to be licensed. Their drivers should also have to be licensed, only after they have completed needed and specific training. Both the driver and the motor vehicle should have to carry sufficient insurance.

Their other risks should be subject to strict safety regulations. They should be required to emit a beep to enable people with vision loss to know they are coming. Rental of e-scooters should be forbidden. Riding or parking an e-scooter on a sidewalk should be banned, with strong penalties and immediate confiscation of the e-scooter. Regulation of e-scooters might later be reduced only if shown to be justified, and that doing so won’t compromise on public safety and disability accessibility.

The Ontario Government’s proposal to hold a five-year pilot with e-scooters is based on a troubling Government compromise on protecting public safety. If, despite these concerns, Ontario were nevertheless to hold a pilot project with e-scooters, it should be far shorter than five years. It should be restricted to a narrow area, not the entire province, and only with the consent of the community where the pilot is to occur. Very strict regulation of e-scooters should be in place. It is wrong to experiment on people who don’t consent to being in the experiment, especially where their safety is thereby put at risk.

Just because parts of the US and some other jurisdictions have allowed e-scooters does not mean that they are inevitable in Ontario. Ontario can and should control its own destiny. Ontario should not repeat the serious mistakes that other jurisdictions have made. We should not unleash a new problem on Ontarians and then have to figure out how to undo the damage done. Other places have found this is hard to effectively do, when it comes to e-scooters.

Who Are We?

The AODA Alliance has extensive experience with the barriers facing Ontarians with disabilities. Founded in 2005, we are a voluntary, non-partisan, unincorporated grassroots coalition of individuals and community organizations. Our mission is:

“To contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities, by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.”

To learn about us, visit: https://www.aodaalliance.org.

Our coalition is the successor to the non-partisan grassroots Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee advocated for more than ten years, from 1994 to 2005, for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation. Our coalition builds on the ODA Committee’s work. We draw our membership from the ODA Committee’s broad, grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit: http://www.odacommittee.net.

We have been widely recognized by the Ontario Government, by all political parties in the Ontario Legislature, within the disability community and by the media, as a key voice leading the non-partisan campaign for accessibility in Ontario. In every provincial election since 2005, any party that has made election commitments on accessibility has done so in letters to the AODA Alliance. Our efforts and expertise on accessibility for people with disabilities have been recognized in speeches on the floor of the Ontario Legislature, and beyond. Our website and Twitter feed are widely consulted as helpful sources of information on accessibility efforts in Ontario and elsewhere. We have achieved this as an unfunded community coalition.

Beyond our work at the provincial level in Ontario, over the past four years, the AODA Alliance has been active, advocating for strong and effective national accessibility legislation for Canada. Our efforts influenced the development of the Accessible Canada Act. We have been formally and informally consulted by the Federal Government and some federal opposition parties on this issue.

The AODA Alliance has spoken to or been consulted by disability organizations, individuals, and governments from various parts of Canada on disability accessibility issues. For example, we have been consulted by the Government of Manitoba and by Barrier-Free Manitoba (a leading grassroots accessibility advocacy coalition in Manitoba) in the design and implementation of the Accessibility for Manitobans Act 2013. We twice made deputations to a Committee of the Manitoba Legislature on the design of that legislation. We have been consulted by the BC Government on whether to create a BC Disabilities Act, and by Barrier-Free BC in its grassroots advocacy for that desired legislation.

We have also been consulted outside Canada on this topic, most particularly, in Israel and New Zealand. In addition, in June 2016, we presented on this topic at the UN annual international conference of state parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The AODA Alliance played a central role in bringing to the public’s attention its serious concerns about e-scooters over the past two weeks. We have secured extensive media coverage on this issue, including coverage in print, on TV, on the radio, and in social media. This topic has even secured coverage in the CBC’s national radio news. Moreover, a strong Toronto Star editorial on September 9, 2019 echoed some of our major concerns, though it neither referred to the AODA Alliance nor to disability barriers threatened by e-scooters.

The AODA Alliance posted a draft of this brief online and via social media on September 6, 2019 and solicited feedback on it. We have done our best to incorporate that feedback in this finalized brief. We thank all those who sent us their feedback. The overwhelming thrust of that feedback was supportive of our concerns.

The Ontario Government Has an Important Duty to Prevent the Creation of New Disability Barriers

This brief shows that the Government’s proposal to allow e-scooters in Ontario threatens to create new accessibility barriers against Ontarians with disabilities. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Ontario Government has a duty to prevent the creation of new accessibility barriers against Ontarians with disabilities. For example, the AODA requires the Ontario Government to lead Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025.

As the final report of the most recent Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation, prepared by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley revealed, Ontario is well behind schedule for reaching that goal. The Onley report found that Ontario remains a province full of “soul-crushing barriers”. Barriers in the built environment remain a serious example of this. The creation of any new barriers in the built environment would only make this worse.

The AODA Alliance elsewhere documented that the new Ontario Government has done a poor job of implementing the AODA. For the Government to now take new action, such as this proposed e-scooter pilot project, that would create more disability accessibility barriers, is an especially serious concern.

No Government Should Ever Compromise on Public Safety

We are deeply concerned that the Ontario Government’s proposal of a five-year pilot project with e-scooters in Ontario was arrived at without proper concern for or protection of public safety. As addressed later in this brief, e-scooters are known to present a danger to public safety.

According to a troubling CityTV report, the Doug Ford Government admitted it had compromised between protecting public safety on the one hand, and advancing business opportunities and consumer choice on the other, when it designed its controversial proposal to permit electric scooters in Ontario for a 5-year pilot. The August 30, 2019 City TV television news story that aired in Toronto in the evening news revealed this troubling new information, and included a comment by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on it:

“We reached out to the Ministry of Transportation, who told City News in a statement: the proposed pilot project is another example of how the province is helping businesses expand and give consumers more choice. When asked why the project is set to last a long five years, it said: ‘This proposed time line creates a compromise between road safety and access for businesses and consumers. If approved, the five year pilot will take a measured approach that will promote road safety, foster business innovation and open the Ontario market to this new and growing sector.’”

But Lepofsky fears the Government is prioritizing business over safety.

(Quotation from David Lepofsky in the news story) “the Government’s obligation is to protect public safety, not to decide, well, we’ll do some compromise between making sure people don’t get hurt and making sure other people can make some more money.”

We therefore call on the Ford Government to put the brakes on this proposal and to ensure that there is no risk to public safety, before even contemplating any pilot project with e-scooters. The Government must never compromise on the safety of the public, such as vulnerable people with disabilities, especially when it does so in the interests of some businesses wishing to expand into Ontario. Public Safety must always come first. Its protection should be unremitting and uncompromising.

Now that it has been revealed that the Government’s ill-conceived pilot project was based on an unacceptable compromise on public safety, the proposed pilot project should be withdrawn. The Government should go back to the drawing board.

E-Scooters Have Been Proven to Present a Safety Threat Both to Innocent Pedestrians and to the E-Scooter Driver Themselves

Our review of media articles and other sources posted on the internet quickly revealed that e-scooters are well-known to and well-documented to have posed a danger of personal injury, and in some cases, even of death. Injuries have been sustained by innocent pedestrians and by the e-scooter drivers themselves.

The AODA Alliance was able to quickly locate this information from a web search. As such, the Ontario Government, engaging in due diligence, should have been able to do the same.

The following is a very brief review of some of what we found, prepared in a hurry due to the Government’s very short public consultation deadline on this issue. We point especially to the article on e-scooters in the September 4, 2019 edition of the New York Times, set out in full as appendix 3 to this brief.

The Washington Post reported on January 11, 2019 that a 75-year-old man in San Diego tripped over an e-scooter. He was taken to hospital, “where X-rays revealed his knee was shattered in four places”. The article quotes Wally Ghurabi, medical director of the Nethercutt Emergency Center at the UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica. Ghurabi said, “I’ve seen pedestrians injured by scooters with broken hips, multiple bone fractures, broken ribs and joint injuries and soft tissue injuries like lacerations and deep abrasions.” The article also reports incidents involving pedestrians in Dallas, where a 32-year-old man was “left with scrapes on his knee and face, as well as a deep gash above his right eye that required seven stitches”, and Cincinnati, where a 44-year-old woman incurred approximately $1000 in medical expenses after being “throw[n]…to the ground” — both following collisions with e-scooters.

Euronews reported on June 18, 2019, that Paris intended to implement speed limits and parking restrictions for e-scooters following its “first death on an electric scooter”. The French transport minister also announced a nationwide ban on e-scooters on sidewalks, effective September. A week prior to the announcements, a 25-year-old man riding an e-scooter had died after being hit by a truck. The report details other incidents, involving both riders and bystanders. In Sweden, “a 27-year-old man died in a crash while riding one of the electric vehicles in May”. In Barcelona, “a 92-year-old woman died in August 2018 after she was run over by an e-scooter — making it the first case of a pedestrian being killed by the electric vehicle”.

On July 26, 2019, CBC News reported that since e-scooters became available in Calgary, “Calgary emergency rooms have seen 60 patients with e-scooter-related injuries”. The report added that “[a]bout a third of them were fractures and roughly 10 per cent were injuries to the face and head”. These figures have triggered a study by the University of Calgary.

The Copenhagen Post reported on August 5, 2019, that a Capital Region release had identified “100 ‘scooter-related injuries’ this year” in Copenhagen. “Among those injured were several pedestrians, although it sounds like most of them tripped over discarded scooters. Only one ended up in hospital after being hit by one.”

The Guardian reported on August 11, 2019, that Paris had experienced its third e-scooter-related death in four months: “A 30-year-old man has been killed after being hit by a motorbike while riding his e-scooter on a French motorway.” The report went on to state that “[t]he scooter rider was not wearing a helmet and was reportedly travelling in the fast lane when the motorbike hit him from behind”, despite the fact that “[u]sing scooters on motorways is banned in France”. Moreover, “The day before the accident, a 27-year-old woman suffered serious head injuries after falling from an e-scooter she was using in a cycle lane in Lyon. A few days earlier a 41-year-old man had been seriously injured after falling from his e-scooter in Lille.” Finally, the report provided details on another, earlier e-scooter-related death in France: “An 81-year-old man died after he was reportedly knocked over by an e-scooter in Levallois-Perret, a Parisian suburb, in April.”

CityNews reported on August 13, 2019, as part of a short survey of European regulations, that “German police say seven people have been seriously injured and 27 suffered minor injuries in scooter accidents since mid-June, saying most were due to riders behaving carelessly.”

An article entitled “Sharing the sidewalk: A case of E-scooter related pedestrian injury” published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine in June 2019 cites multiple studies corroborating the occurrence of pedestrian injuries: one from Israel found that, while pedestrians were 8.4% of the patients admitted for e-bike- and e-scooter-related injuries, they “were more severely injured; compared to electric scooter riders and electric bike riders, pedestrians have higher rates of head, face, and neck injuries; traumatic brain injuries; and hospital stays lasting more than a week”.

A pilot project with something like e-scooters should only be done if it has a sensible and needed stated purpose, and if it is safe. Given these known public safety problems, there is no need to do a pilot to discover whether e-scooters pose a public safety hazard. Moreover, it is wrong to experiment on human beings without their consent, to find out how much something is a threat to their lives or safety.

Our hospital emergency rooms are already over-burdened. The current Ontario Government promised to end “hallway medicine.” Yet if e-scooters are permitted in public places like roads or bike paths, their workloads will increase. The long waiting periods that patients must now endure at Ontario hospital emergency rooms will only get worse.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #1

There should be no pilot project allowing e-scooters to be driven in public places in Ontario.

Extend the Current Public Consultation

If, despite the foregoing concerns, the Ontario Government plans to continue with the current e-scooter public consultation, it should significantly lengthen it. On Wednesday, August 28, 2019, just two days before the Labour Day long weekend, the Doug Ford Government quietly posted online, for a meager 48-hour public consultation, its proposal to allow e-scooters in Ontario for five years, for a trial period. Thankfully we were alerted to this by an AODA Alliance supporter, who was concerned about the safety risk that e-scooters posed for Ontarians with disabilities.

On August 29, 2019, the AODA Alliance quickly swung into action on this helpful tip. So did others, including Balance for Blind Adults and the CNIB. The media showed interest quite quickly. Indeed, the media coverage of our concerns with e-scooters has continued to this day, and has included national radio coverage on CBC.

Within hours, the Ford Government gave some ground, though not all the ground we had requested. Late on Thursday, August 29, 2019, the Government announced that it was extending its consultation on this issue to September 12, 2019.

For the Government to announce a public consultation on the eve of a long weekend is a well-known strategy for rushing forward with a decision to implement something new, without truly consulting the public, while wishing to appear that it has genuinely consulted the public. It is a fair inference to draw that the Government has been and continues to be actively lobbied by companies that rent e-scooters in the U.S. or elsewhere, in order to get the Government to permit them in Ontario. As noted later in this brief, the proposal of an excessively long five -year pilot project suggests an intent to get e-scooters deeply embedded in Ontario, and to make it harder to get them removed or effectively controlled.

It is essential for this consultation process to immediately and substantially slow down. If the Government is not prepared to withdraw its current consultation and go back to the drawing board, with a stronger commitment to protecting public safety, it should at least substantially lengthen the current public consultation period beyond September 12, 2019 For our part, we need more time to try to document the efforts that have been taken elsewhere to reduce or stop the use of e-scooters. Time has not allowed us to cover that here. That is a topic which a Government, engaging in proper due diligence to protect public safety, should have done, and made public, before venturing forward with a public consultation on a possible pilot project with e-scooters.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #2

The Government should withdraw this e-scooter public consultation and go back to the drawing board. If it is not prepared to withdraw this public consultation on e-scooters, the Ontario Government should at least extend the consultation period to October 31, 2019.

Do Not Allow Rental of E-Scooters

It appears that at least in some if not most of the other jurisdictions where e-scooters have been allowed, a very common way that they are used is by companies renting them to the public, rather than by individuals buying them. Of course, the option to buy them was presumably available in those jurisdictions as well. It is reasonable to conclude that the lobbying of the Ford Government that has led to the current proposal for a five-year e-scooter pilot program comes from those big companies known in other jurisdictions to provide e-scooter rentals. See further the September 4, 2019 New York Times article set out in Appendix 3, at the end of this brief, and the September 10, 2019 article in the Toronto Star, quoted later in this brief.

By this rental model, a member of the public gets an app on their phone to sign up for these rentals. E-scooters are left around the city, tagged with a GPS chip. The individual uses the app to find the nearest e-scooter that is available. They pick it up and ride away. They presumably do not go to a store, or deal with anyone directly and in person from the rental company, when they are renting an e-scooter at roadside. When they are finished with the e-scooter, they leave it on a sidewalk, wherever they wish, and walk away. That e-scooter then sits there until another person, using the app, decides to take it away and ride it, leaving it somewhere else, once they are done.

The rental model for e-scooters presents several serious problems. It should be strictly forbidden.

First and foremost, having users randomly leave an e-scooter on a sidewalk or other like public place when they are finished with it creates significant and unpredictable new barriers against people with disabilities. these barriers can instantly pop up anywhere, unannounced, and then vanish before the police could get to the scene.

For people who are blind, deafblind or have low vision, they are a serious and unexpected tripping hazard. There is no way to plan a walking route to avoid them. They should not have to face the prospect of e-scooters potentially lying in their path at any time. we have received feedback about concerns with this from people with vision loss elsewhere where e-scooter rentals have been allowed.

As well, leaving an e-scooter randomly on sidewalks presents a serious new accessibility barrier for people who use a wheelchair, walker or other mobility device. For them, an e-scooter can prevent them from being able to continue along an otherwise-accessible sidewalk. They can turn an accessible route of travel into an inaccessible one. Here again, these are entirely unpredictable, since these barriers can pop up in an instant. For people with disabilities using a mobility device, the option of going up on the grass or down onto the road in the path of car traffic, to get around an e-scooter that was abandoned on the sidewalk, may not be accessible, feasible or safe. This is especially so for people with temporary or permanent balance issues.

The sidewalks or other public spaces should not be made available to the private companies who rent e-scooters as free parking spaces, fully subsidized by the taxpayer. Taxpayers paid for the construction and maintenance of sidewalks as a safe place to walk.

It is clear that the desire to have e-scooters left strewn on Ontario sidewalks is central to the desire of at least some businesses who want to offer e-scooters for rental in this province. According to a September 10, 2019 Toronto Star article, the CEO of Bird Canada, one of the private companies that is pressing to rent e-scooters in Ontario conceded that it is central to their business that e-scooters be left on Ontario sidewalks between trips with them. The article included:

“Barring e-scooters from city sidewalks, recommended by a city committee on Monday, would make it impossible to introduce the concept to Toronto, according to the CEO of Bird Canada, an e-scooter company hoping to launch here in the spring of 2020.

“If you can’t park them on the sidewalk and you can’t park them on the street, I guess we’re parking them in the air?” Stewart Lyons said.

“I don’t know where we’re parking them. They can’t fly.”

Lyons was speaking after the city’s infrastructure and environment committee passed a motion that would temporarily prevent e-scooters from occupying sidewalks – at least until city staff can come up with a better plan, expected later this year.

Lyons said being able to park e-scooters on some sidewalks is a key part of the e-scooter program.

He said it would be hard to create enough demand if the scooters can’t be made available to customers right where they live and work, arguing that docking stations, such as those used by the current Bike Share Toronto program, wouldn’t be accessible enough.

Currently, users in cities where shared e-scooter programs are in place can locate scooters near them using an app.”

It would not be good enough for the Government to try to regulate where the scooters are left, e.g. by enacting regulations that e-scooters may not be left to block the sidewalk. This would be very hard to enforce, since police are not on the scene wherever these e-scooters would be left. Our police and courts are already overburdened and do not need e-scooter enforcement to be added to their important workloads. There needs to be a strict ban in place precluding e-scooters ever being left in the sidewalk, given the experiences of which we have learned in other jurisdictions. An e-scooter left on the sidewalk should be simply treated as abandoned and forfeited.

Beyond the foregoing concerns, the rental model presents other safety risks. Under that model, a person could go into a bar, drink to excess, walk outside, look on their smart phone’s e-scooter app, and quickly find a nearby e-scooter to ride. That would expose the public to added risks. As it is, drunk driving is a troubling problem in our society that leads to deaths and serious injuries. Our Government should not expose the public to any more such risks.

Were an intoxicated person to walk into a car rental office and try to rent a car, they would have to deal with a human being, who no doubt would refuse to hand over the car keys. In the case of renting e-scooters via an app, there is no comparable control at the source, such as a salesperson, to refuse to hand over the keys.

It would be unthinkable for a car rental company to simply leave rental cars parked near a bar, with the keys in the car, so that anyone could instantly rent the car and drive it away just by clicking on a smart phone app. The danger to public safety would be obvious and intolerable. The same should go for e-scooters.

It is no answer to say that drunk driving is already illegal. We already know that that drinking and driving laws are too often disobeyed. Innocent people pay the price with permanent injuries or their lives. The Government should not make e-scooters available, increasing that risk.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #3

The rental of e-scooters should be strictly forbidden, even if private ownership of an e-scooter by a user of that e-scooter were to be permitted.

Recommendation #4

There should be a strict ban on leaving an e-scooter in a public sidewalk or like location. If an e-scooter is left in such a place, it should be subject to immediate confiscation and forfeiture, as well as a strict penalty.

Require Beeping Sound from E-Scooters When Powered On

E-scooters are very quiet, if not silent, when being operated. It presents a significant safety risk for a virtually silent e-scooter to be hurtling towards a blind person at 32 kph. This is so whether the e-scooter is being driven on a road, or on a sidewalk) (where they are supposedly not to be permitted). They pose a similar risk to a sighted pedestrian who can hear, but who is not looking in the direction from which the e-scooter is coming. It must be remembered that not every road has a sidewalk.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #5

If e-scooters are to be permitted in Ontario, they should be required to make an ongoing beeping sound when they are powered on, to warn others of their approach.

Reduce the Maximum E-scooter Speed Well Below 32 KPH

The faster an e-scooter goes, the less time its driver or a pedestrian has to avoid a collision. Moreover, the fast the e-scooter goes, the greater the potential harm caused by a collision.

There is no magic reason why an e-scooter should be allowed to travel at 32 KPH, just because e-bikes are allowed to go at that speed.

The Ontario Government should study the options for speed limits from other jurisdictions to determine the safest maximum speed, before embarking on any pilot project. A considerably slower speed limit should be set. It can always be raised later, if that is justified.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #6

The speed limit for e-scooters should initially be set much lower than 32 KPH, such as 15 or 20 KPH, until a strong showing can be made that a higher speed limit poses no safety threat to the public.

Require That an E-scooter Driver Have a License and Proper Training

Because an e-scooter is a motor vehicle which can cause significant personal injuries to innocent pedestrians, a person should be required to get a license before they can drive an e-scooter. To qualify to get a license, a person should have to take appropriate training and show sufficient proficiency, including sufficient knowledge about the rules of the road and the threat to personal injuries that an e-scooter can cause.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #7

A person wishing to drive an e-scooter should be required to first take required training on its safe operation and on the rules of the road, and then to obtain a license.

E-Scooters Should Be Licensed and Display a License Plate Number

It is important for each e-scooter to be licensed, and to display a license plate number, as is required for cars and motorcycles. This will make it far, far easier to enforce the law in case a person, driving an e-scooter, collides with a pedestrian, and then flees the scene. Without such a license requirement, it may well be impossible for an injured pedestrian to effectively identify the e-scooter that hit them, and thereby, to trace the driver in question.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #8

Each e-scooter should be required to be licensed and to display a readily-seen license plate number.

The E-scooter’s Owner and Driver Should Be Required to Carry Valid Insurance

It is widely recognized that motor vehicles pose a risk to personal injury of other motorists and pedestrians. As a result, both the owner and driver of a motor vehicle are required to carry liability insurance. It is an offence to fail to carry proper insurance.

The same should be so for the owner and driver of an e-scooter. It is important for both to be insured, as is the case for other motor vehicles such as cars and trucks, so an injured victim can recover compensation from either or both, if injured.

This is especially important where, as here, it is known that e-scooters pose a real risk of personal injury. The victims of such injuries, and the taxpayers who pay for our health system, should not be left holding the bag when it comes to the consequences of the use of e-scooters.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #9

The owner and driver of an e-scooter should be required to carry sufficient liability insurance for injuries or other damages that the e-scooter causes to others.

Helmets Should Be Required for All E-Scooter Drivers, No Matter What Their Age Is

The use of an e-scooter can result in injuries to the driver, and not just to innocent pedestrians. This obviously can include head injuries.

A helmet is an important safety measure to at least try to reduce some of the harmful impacts on the driver of a fall from the e-scooter. Yet the Ford Government is only proposing during its pilot project to require an e-scooter driver to wear a helmet if they are between the ages of 16 and 18.

Yet people 18 or older are equally exposed to the risk of head injuries. This creates an undue risk of increased injuries to drivers. That is bad for the drivers themselves and for their families. It also creates an unnecessary and unfair burden for the taxpayer, who will have to cover the health and other social safety net costs of those injuries to the e-scooter drivers.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #10

All e-scooter drivers, regardless of their age, should be required to wear a helmet whenever operating an e-scooter.

If There Is to Be a Pilot Period with E-scooters, It Should Be Much Shorter Than Five Years and For A Smaller Part of Ontario

The Ford Government is proposing an e-scooter pilot project for the entirety of Ontario, to last fully five years. There is serious reason to doubt whether the Government means this as a pilot project. It appears far more likely that the Government means for this to be a way to embed e-scooters as a done deal, a permanent fixture in Ontario. After five years, the Government and the e-scooter rental companies that are lobbying to get them into Ontario may well be hoping that it will be much harder to reduce or eliminate them, if they are already entrenched around Ontario. This is a real problem facing those jurisdictions that have already allowed e-scooters to proliferate, and that now have serious concerns about their impact.

There is no reason for a pilot project to last for a long five years. A much shorter period is warranted, in order to assess their impact. This is so especially since there are other jurisdictions which have already in effect served as a pilot project for Ontario. They have allowed e-scooters, with all the accompanying problems. As noted earlier, Ontario should study their impact in those other jurisdictions first, rather than exposing Ontarians to the risk of personal injury. Only if that study reveals that e-scooters can be safely introduced in Ontario should a pilot project be even considered for Ontario.

If, despite our documented serious concerns about e-scooters, a pilot project is to take place in Ontario, it should be conducted for a far shorter period, such as six months. A proper assessment of their impact should be assigned to an arms-length organization with expertise in public safety.

There is no reason why a pilot project should take place across the entirety of Ontario. Instead, a specific region or community should be selected. That community should first be given the right to consent or reject the proposal on behalf of its citizens.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #11

No e-scooter pilot project should be held in Ontario until the Ontario Government effectively studies the impact on public safety of e-scooters in jurisdictions that have allowed them, and on options for regulatory controls of them, and has made the details of these public. A pilot project should only be held in Ontario if public safety can be fully and effectively protected.

Recommendation #12

If Ontario is to hold an e-scooter pilot project, it should only take place for a period much shorter than five years, e.g. six months, and should only take place in a specific community that has consented to permit that pilot project there.

Recommendation #13

If Ontario is to hold an e-scooter pilot project, the Ontario Government should retain a trusted independent organization with expertise in public safety to study the impact of e-scooters during that pilot project, and to make the full results of that study public.

A Ban on Riding E-scooters on Sidewalks Is Insufficient to Address Public Safety Concerns

To address the safety and accessibility concerns in this brief, it would be insufficient to simply ban the riding of e-scooters on sidewalks. Such a ban is of course needed, but would be insufficient to solve problems caused by e-scooters. e-scooters present safety issues on public roads, not just on sidewalks. Moreover, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to effectively police a ban on e-scooters on sidewalks. Even though bicycles are not supposed to be ridden on public sidewalks, pedestrians know that a good number of cyclists nevertheless ride their bikes on sidewalks from time to time, without much fear of law enforcement.

Especially if an e-scooter is not licensed and does not bear a plainly visible license plate number, it would too often be hard if not impossible for an injured pedestrian to report to police on someone who unlawfully rode an e-scooter on the sidewalk. It will be hard if not impossible to reliably identify the offender in a way that will stand up in court. Eyewitness identification evidence is notoriously hard to present in court.

Blind people, or people with low vision or who are deafblind can face the risk of injuries without any practical way to identify the e-scooter driver who hit them, or who left their e-scooter on the sidewalk.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #14

The Government should not treat a ban on riding e-scooters on the sidewalk, while necessary, as a sufficient protection against the threat to public safety that e-scooters present.

There Should Be No Comparable Restrictions on Powered Scooters Used as a Mobility Aid for People with Disabilities

We emphasize that in raising these concerns with e-scooters, nothing should be done to restrict the current availability and use of powered scooters as a mobility aid for people with various disabilities. These are not in the same class of vehicle as e-scooters, addressed in this brief. They do not present the concerns raised in this brief. As we understand it, they do not travel at the kinds of speeds that an e-scooter can travel. They are an essential form of adaptive technology for people with disabilities.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #15

nothing should be done to reduce or restrict the availability or use of powered mobility devices used by people with disabilities.

Don’t Allow E-scooters and Then Leave It to Municipalities To Fix the Problems this Presents

An option the Ontario Government might be considering is to allow the use of e-scooters, either by owning or renting them, and then leaving it to each municipal government to regulate them, or to decide if they will be permitted in that municipality. This is no solution, for the following reasons.

First, as documented in this brief, the public safety and accessibility problems with e-scooters are already known. They would recur across Ontario. They do not vary from municipality to municipality.

Second, people with disabilities should not have to shoulder the burden of having to campaign, in each municipality across Ontario, to prevent the creation of these new accessibility barriers and safety threats. No doubt the e-scooter rental companies would prefer e-scooters to be permitted across Ontario, but would, as a second choice, welcome the chance to target municipalities and lobby them to permit them on very liberal terms.

Third, our municipalities and municipal taxpayers have more than enough on their plates to deal with now. They don’t need the Ontario Government to create a new problem for them, and then leave them with the burden to cope with the consequences and clean up the consequent mess.

We therefore recommend that:

Recommendation #16

The Ontario Government should not permit e-scooters and then leave it to each municipality to regulate them or leave it to each municipality to decide if they want to permit e-scooters.

There Are Important Differences Between E-bikes and E-scooters

It would be wrong for the Government to proceed on the basis that it should allow e-scooters by virtue of the fact that it already allows e-bikes, for several reasons. First, if, as we have shown, e-scooters present a safety risk, that safety risk neither magically vanishes nor in any way reduces just because Ontario now allows e-bikes.

Second, there are some important differences between the two. A person cannot ride an e-bike unless they already know how to ride a bike. In contrast, a person with no prior experience can, in some other jurisdictions, pay a rental fee, hop on an e-scooter, and immediately start racing in public at 32 KPH. As well, we are not aware of any companies that rent e-bikes on the terms used elsewhere for e-scooters, where they are regularly left as barriers in the middle of sidewalks.

Because this e-scooter consultation has been so rushed, we have not had a sufficient opportunity to explore the full ramifications of e-bikes beyond this. This is yet another reason why this hasty public consultation should be withdrawn or lengthened.

We also emphasize that there are key differences between an e-scooter and a non-motorized bicycle. While some can ride a bike quite fast, a novice cannot simply hop on a bike and race at 32 KPH. Moreover, a regular bike is not a motor vehicle. An e-scooter is a motor vehicle.

Appendix 1 List of Recommendations in This Brief

Recommendation #1

There should be no pilot project allowing e-scooters to be driven in public places in Ontario.

Recommendation #2

The Government should withdraw this e-scooter public consultation and go back to the drawing board. If it is not prepared to withdraw this public consultation on e-scooters, the Ontario Government should at least extend the consultation period to October 31, 2019.

Recommendation #3

The rental of e-scooters should be strictly forbidden, even if private ownership of an e-scooter by a user of that e-scooter were to be permitted.

Recommendation #4

There should be a strict ban on leaving an e-scooter in a public sidewalk or like location. If an e-scooter is left in such a place, it should be subject to immediate confiscation and forfeiture, as well as a strict penalty.

Recommendation #5

If e-scooters are to be permitted in Ontario, they should be required to make an ongoing beeping sound when they are powered on, to warn others of their approach.

Recommendation #6

The speed limit for e-scooters should initially be set much lower than 32 KPH, such as 15 or 20 KPH, until a strong showing can be made that a higher speed limit poses no safety threat to the public.

Recommendation #7

A person wishing to drive an e-scooter should be required to first take required training on its safe operation and on the rules of the road, and then to obtain a license.

Recommendation #8

Each e-scooter should be required to be licensed and to display a readily-seen license plate number.

Recommendation #9

The owner and driver of an e-scooter should be required to carry sufficient liability insurance for injuries or other damages that the e-scooter causes to others.

Recommendation #10

All e-scooter drivers, regardless of their age, should be required to wear a helmet whenever operating an e-scooter.

Recommendation #11

No e-scooter pilot project should be held in Ontario until the Ontario Government effectively studies the impact on public safety of e-scooters in jurisdictions that have allowed them, and on options for regulatory controls of them, and has made the details of these public. A pilot project should only be held in Ontario if public safety can be fully and effectively protected.

Recommendation #12

If Ontario is to hold an e-scooter pilot project, it should only take place for a period much shorter than five years, e.g. six months, and should only take place in a specific community that has consented to permit that pilot project there.

Recommendation #13

If Ontario is to hold an e-scooter pilot project, the Ontario Government should retain a trusted independent organization with expertise in public safety to study the impact of e-scooters during that pilot project, and to make the full results of that study public.

Recommendation #14

The Government should not treat a ban on riding e-scooters on the sidewalk, while necessary, as a sufficient protection against the threat to public safety that e-scooters present.

Recommendation #15

nothing should be done to reduce or restrict the availability or use of powered mobility devices used by people with disabilities.

Recommendation #16

The Ontario Government should not permit e-scooters and then leave it to each municipality to regulate them or leave it to each municipality to decide if they want to permit e-scooters.

Appendix 2 The Ford Government’s 48-Hour Pre-Labour Day Public Consultation on Allowing Electric Scooters in Ontario

Originally posted at https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=30207&language=en

Kick Style Electric Scooter (E-Scooter)

 

Background:

 

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is strongly committed to promoting the highest standards of safety for all Ontarians who travel on our roads, including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, and will continue working with all our partners on measures that enhance this objective. Trends and technology are evolving, with new forms of vehicles such as e-scooters entering the market.

MTO is interested in new and environmentally-friendly vehicles, however it is important that new vehicles are constructed with appropriate safety features to allow safe integration with all other road users.

MTO is considering the following proposal and invites you to submit your comments for consideration.

E-Scooters

 

E-scooters have been launched in more than 125 cities across the United States. They represent a new way for residents to get around their communities, are seen as providing first and last mile connections to transit, and represent an opportunity to reduce traffic congestion.

E-scooters are currently not permitted to operate on roads in Ontario as they do not meet any federal or provincial safety standards for on-road use. These devices may only be operated where Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act (HTA) does not apply such as private property.

The ministry is interested in exploring the feasibility of these vehicles safely integrating with other road users while promoting road safety and fostering business innovation in the province.

 

MTO is soliciting public comment on potentially permitting the use of e-scooters on roads in Ontario as part of a pilot project. This will allow the ministry to ensure e-scooters can be safely integrated with other road users before a final, permanent, regulatory decision is made.

 

 

 

Proposed E-Scooter Pilot Framework:

 

Pilot Duration:

The length of the pilot will be for a prescribed period of 5 years, to ensure sufficient time to effectively monitor and evaluate the pilot results.

 

Operator/Rider/Vehicle Requirements Include:

 

  • Can operate on-road similar to where bicycles can operate; prohibited on controlled access highways
  • Minimum operating age 16
  • Bicycle helmet required for those under 18 years old
  • No passengers allowed
  • Maximum operating speed 32 km/h
  • No pedals or seat allowed
  • Must have 2 wheels and brakes
  • Maximum wheel diameter 17 inches
  • Must have horn or bell
  • Must have front and back light
  • Maximum weight 45kg and Maximum power output 500W

Data Collection:

 

  • Municipalities to remit data to the province, as requested

 

Appendix 3 The New York Times September 4, 2019

Originally posted at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/san-diego-electric-scooters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Welcome to San Diego. Don’t Mind the Scooters.

A year ago, electric rental scooters were hailed as the next big thing in transportation. But their troubles in San Diego show how the services have now hit growing pains.

Companies distribute scooters around cities, often on sidewalks. In the area around Mission Beach, one of San Diego’s main beaches, 70 scooters lined a single side of one block in July. By

Erin Griffith

Sept. 4, 2019

SAN DIEGO — The first thing you notice in San Diego’s historic Gaslamp Quarter is not the brick sidewalks, the rows of bars and the roving gaggles of bachelorette parties and conferencegoers, or even the actual gas lamps.

It’s the electric rental scooters. Hundreds are scattered around the sidewalks, clustered in newly painted corrals on the street and piled up in the gutters. In early July, one corner alone had 37. In the area around Mission Beach, one of the city’s main beaches, a single side of one block had 70. Most sat unused.

Since scooter rental companies like Bird, Lime, Razor, Lyft and Uber-owned Jump moved into San Diego last year, inflating the city’s scooter population to as many as 40,000 by some estimates, the vehicles have led to injuries, deaths, lawsuits and vandals. Regulators and local activists have pushed back against them. One company has even started collecting the vehicles to help keep the sidewalks clear.

“My constituents hate them pretty universally,” said Barbara Bry, a San Diego City Council member. She called for a moratorium on the scooters when they arrived, saying they clogged sidewalks and were a danger to pedestrians.

San Diego’s struggle to contain the havoc provides a glimpse of how reality has set in for scooter companies like Bird and Lime. Last year, the services were hailed as the next big thing in personal transportation. Investors poured money into the firms, valuing Bird at $2.3 billion and Lime at $2.4 billion and prompting an array of followers.

At the end of a rental period, a rider leaves the scooter for the next customer to retrieve. CreditTara Pixley for The New York Times

The scooter companies distribute their electric vehicles around cities and universities — often on sidewalks — and rent them by the minute via apps. At the end of a rental period, a rider leaves the scooter for the next customer to retrieve. Scooter speeds vary by company, model and city, as do helmet laws, although helmets generally are not required.

But now, skepticism about scooter services is rising. Some cities, including San Francisco, Paris, Atlanta and Portland, Ore., have imposed stricter regulations on scooter speed limits, parking or nighttime riding. Columbia, S.C., has temporarily banned them. New York recently passed legislation that would allow scooters to operate in some parts of New York City, but not in Manhattan.

Safety has become a big issue. A three-month study published in May from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Public Health and Transportation Departments of Austin, Tex., found that for every 100,000 scooter rides, 20 people were injured. Nearly half of the injuries were to the head; 15 percent of those showed evidence of traumatic brain injury.

Bird, Lime and Skip are trying to secure new funding, according to three people familiar with the talks, who declined to be identified because the discussions were not finished. In May, Lime replaced its chief executive; several other top executives also left. And in July, Bird’s chief executive called a report about the company’s losses “fake.”

Scooters are “a fun and convenient mode of transportation that really does put people at risk and introduces significant spatial challenges to the civic commons,” said Adie Tomer, a metropolitan policy fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Those tensions are not going anywhere anytime soon.”

Bird declined to comment.

Many scooter companies miscalculated how long the scooters would last — often not long enough for rental fees to cover their costs — and are struggling with profitability, acknowledged Sanjay Dastoor, Skip’s chief executive. His company has designed a way to produce more durable scooters that can be repaired more easily and last long enough to turn a profit, he said, allowing it to “run a safe fleet that we are proud of.”

Lindsey Haswell, Lime’s head of communications, said new industries often faced regulatory challenges, “but our investors are willing to take the long view.” She added that the issues in San Diego did not reflect the global scooter market. Lime has provided more than three million trips in San Diego, she said, and has “as many supporters as we have detractors” there.

Hans Tung, an investor at GGV, which has backed Lime, said he was encouraged by the company’s progress and was confident it would make its scooters safe and profitable. “I don’t see how that couldn’t be achieved,” he said.

Bird and Lime deployed their scooters in San Diego in February 2018, followed by other companies. The start-ups pitched themselves as environmentally friendly, a message that jibed with San Diego’s goal to reduce greenhouse emissions.

San Diego initially took a hands-off approach. The scooters became popular, with an average of 30,000 riders per day, according to city officials.

“Millennials and post-millennials want to live in a thriving, bustling city that has dynamic choices for mobility,” said Erik Caldwell, San Diego’s deputy head of operations for smart and sustainable communities.

But as more scooters flooded San Diego last summer, local business owners and residents began objecting. Alex Stennet, a bouncer at Coyote Ugly Saloon in the Gaslamp District, said people tripped over the vehicles and threw them around. He said he had witnessed at least 20 scooter accidents in front of Coyote Ugly.

ScootScoop has deals with 250 local businesses to remove scooters; it has towed more than 12,500. CreditTara Pixley for The New York Times

Dan Borelli, who owns a bike rental shop called Boardwalk Electric Rides in Pacific Beach, said the scooters frequently blocked the entrance to his store. In July 2018, he teamed up with John Heinkel, owner of a local towing company, to haul away scooters that they deemed to be parked on private property. They charge Bird, Lime and others a retrieval fee of $50 per scooter, plus $2 for each day of storage.

Their company, ScootScoop, has essentially turned them into scooter bounty hunters. They said they have struck deals with 250 local businesses and hotels and have towed more than 12,500 scooters. Some scooter companies have paid to get them back, they said.

In March, Lime and Bird sued Mr. Borelli and Mr. Heinkel for the scooter removals. ScootScoop countersued Bird and Lime last week.

Other cities have called ScootScoop for advice, Mr. Borelli said. Mr. Heinkel said the scooter companies underestimated them. “They assumed we were two hillbillies in a pickup truck, as opposed to business owners,” he said.

Lime’s Ms. Haswell said Mr. Borelli and Mr. Heinkel “are opportunistic businessmen who troll the streets stealing scooters, with no respect for the law, trying to make a profit at San Diego’s expense.”

Late last year, the scooters turned from annoyances into hazards. In December, a man in Chula Vista, a San Diego suburb, died after he was hit by a car while riding a Bird scooter, according to the Chula Vista Police Department. A tourist died a few months later after crashing his rental scooter into a tree. Another visitor died of “blunt force torso trauma” after his scooter collided with another, the San Diego Police Department said.

The department said it counted 15 “serious injury collisions” involving scooters in the first half of this year. Last month, three separate scooter-related skull fractures happened in one week.

On one day in July, there were 150 available Bird scooters within a two-block radius in Mission Beach.CreditTara Pixley for The New York Times

Scooter parking corrals were introduced in July as part of San Diego’s new rules. CreditTara Pixley for The New York Times

As the injuries piled up, Safe Walkways, an activist group, amassed hundreds of members in a Facebook group to oppose the scooters and file complaints to government agencies. In April, around 50 protesters gathered on Mission Beach’s boardwalk with signs bearing messages like “Safety Not Scooters” and “BoardWALK.”

Lawsuits have also piled up. Clients of Matthew Souther, an attorney at Neil Dymott, filed a potential class action suit in March that accused Bird, Lime and the City of San Diego of not complying with disability rights laws to keep sidewalks clear. He said he was working on a dozen other injury lawsuits against scooter companies.

San Diego has started cracking down on the scooters. In July, the city enacted rules restricting where they could be parked and driven and issued permits for 20,000 scooters, across all companies, to operate. In three days that month, authorities impounded 2,500 scooters that violated parking rules. San Diego later sent notices of violations to Bird, Lyft, Lime and Skip.

Last month, San Diego told Lime that it planned to revoke its permit to operate in the city because of the violations, pending a hearing.

Christina Chadwick, a spokeswoman for San Diego’s mayor, Kevin Faulconer, said the scooter operators had been warned that the city would aggressively monitor them.

To deal with critics and improve safety and costs, the scooter companies have upgraded their fleets with sturdier scooters. Bird has said its Bird Zero model, which makes up a majority of its fleet, lasts an average of 10 months, compared with three months for past models. Skip recently announced a scooter with modular parts, which makes repairs easier.

And after a year recalling scooters with cracked baseboards and batteries that caught fire, Lime has introduced new vehicles with bigger wheels and baseboards, as well as interchangeable batteries and parts.

Ms. Haswell said Lime was eager to show the progress it had made. “We admit that we haven’t always gotten it right in San Diego,” she said.

Erin Griffith reports on technology start-ups and venture capital from the San Francisco bureau. Before joining The Times she was a senior writer at WIRED and Fortune. @eringriffith

A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 4, 2019, Section B, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: San Diego’s Scooter Tryout Gets Off to a Bumpy Start. Order Reprints

 



Source link

The Ford Government Issues a Very Weak Policy Directive to Ontario School Boards on Addressing Requests by a Student with a Disability to Bring Their Service Animal to School – There Is No Assurance It Will Make It Easier for Students with Disabilities to Bring a Service Animal to an Ontario School


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

The Ford Government Issues a Very Weak Policy Directive to Ontario School Boards on Addressing Requests by a Student with a Disability to Bring Their Service Animal to School – There Is No Assurance It Will Make It Easier for Students with Disabilities to Bring a Service Animal to an Ontario School

September 10, 2019

          SUMMARY

On September 9, 2019, the Ford Government issued a palpably weak policy direction to Ontario school boards on how to handle requests by students with disabilities to permit them to bring a service animal to school. It is good that this policy direction requires every Ontario school board to develop a policy for dealing with such requests. However, it falls far short of what students with disabilities and their families need. It does not require those school board policies to be good. It does not ensure that students with disabilities will be more readily able to bring a service animal to school than has been the case in the past, even though the Tories talked about making that easier, during the 2018 Ontario election campaign.

The Ford Government’s new policy direction to school boards, set out below, reads as if the school boards themselves wrote it, in order to require little of them, while appearing to show provincial leadership. The provincial policy wastefully requires each of over 70 school boards to reinvent the wheel. It burdens students with disabilities and their families with having to once again lobby every one of those school boards. Doug Ford’s policy directive provides no assurance of consistency across the province.

There are several deficiencies with the new provincial policy directive. For example:

* The provincial policy directive ultimately leaves it to over 70 school boards to invent their own rules on when they will permit a student with a disability to bring a service animal to school. In that regard, it largely sets no provincial standards at all. Each school is to decide each case, on a case-by-case basis. That really says nothing new.

* While the new provincial policy directive  refers in brief and summary terms to the duty to accommodate students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, Doug Ford’s policy new directive ultimately leaves it to school boards to decide when it is “appropriate” to allow a student to bring a service animal to school. The Ontario Human Rights Code does not, however, make the test a sweeping open-ended and unpredictable one of “appropriateness”.

* The provincial policy erroneously does not direct school boards that they should allow for trial periods with a service animal before refusing this accommodation outright for a student.

* The provincial policy directive erroneously focuses on requiring or considering documentation from “medical professionals.” Of course, it should be open to a student with a disability or their family to bring forward medical documentation if they wish. However, doctors likely have no expertise in this area. People with disabilities have for years battled against the undue medicalization of their disability accessibility and accommodation needs.

Two years ago, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario rendered a seriously flawed decision in this area. The Waterloo Catholic District School Board had wrongly refused to let a student with autism bring his autism service dog to school. The family took the case to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Shockingly, the family lost the case.

In a detailed article to be published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky shows that the human rights ruling is riddled with errors. Doug Ford’s new provincial policy directive does not address and solve those problems. That article can be downloaded by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/how-ontarios-human-rights-tribunal-went-off-the-rails-in-an-important-disability-accessibility-case-read-the-new-article-by-aoda-alliance-chair-david-lepofsky-on-the-tribunals-ruling-against-an/

Here, the Ford Government had a great opportunity to do much better that it has done. For years, Ontario has had a patchwork of different practices from school board to school board. Some allow service animals. Some do not. Some have no policy. The Ford Government could and should have surveyed the policies of those Ontario school boards that allow service animals, and drawn on the best of them to create a strong, inclusive provincial policy for all school boards to follow, that would be more favourable to meeting the needs of students with disabilities . Instead, the Ford Government dropped the ball and did a tremendous disservice to students with disabilities.

Perhaps the most stunning illustration of the deficiency in this new provincial policy is that under it, the family that fought the Waterloo Catholic District School Board a few years ago in that human rights case could well have ended up with the same refusal from that school board, had this provincial policy been in place at that time. It is a matter of public record that the mother of the student in that case, Ms. Amy Fee, has since won a seat in the Ontario Legislature, as a Conservative MPP. The Ford Government should have been prepared to do better for her and for the other families in her situation.

The Ford Government should quickly issue a supplemental policy to strengthen its weak September 9, 2019 provincial directive to school boards. It will also now be up to the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee to try to set strong provincial accessibility standards in this area. The Ford Government had frozen its work for over one year. It is having its first preliminary conference call this afternoon to initiate the resumption of its work.

MORE DETAILS

New Ford Government Policy Direction to Ontario School Boards on Allowing Students with Disabilities to Bring A Service Animal to School in Ontario

Originally posted at: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/ppm163.pdf

Policy/Program Memorandum No. 163

Date of Issue: September 9, 2019

Effective: Subject: Until revoked or modified

Application: School Board Policies on Service Animals

Directors of Education

Supervisory Officers and Secretary-Treasurers of School Authorities Executive Director, Provincial and Demonstration Schools

Principals of Elementary Schools

Principals of Secondary Schools

Purpose

All school boards[1] in Ontario are required to develop, implement, and maintain a policy on student use of service animals in schools.[2] The purpose of this memorandum is to provide direction to school boards on the development and implementation of their policy. The ministry’s expectations regarding the components of a board’s policy are identified in this memorandum as well as the implementation and reporting requirements.

School boards are expected to:

  • allow a student to be accompanied by a service animal in school when doing so would be an appropriate accommodation to support the student’s learning needs and would meet the school board’s duty to accommodate students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code;
  • make determinations on whether to approve requests for a service animal on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual needs of each student;
  • put in place consistent and transparent processes that allow for meaningful consideration of requests for service animals to accompany students in school.

This memorandum applies to all publicly funded elementary and secondary schools, including extended-day programs operated by school boards. However, this memorandum does not apply to licensed child-care providers, including those operating on the premises of publicly funded schools.

Context

 

The Ministry of Education is committed to supporting school boards in providing appropriate accommodations to all students with demonstrable learning needs, including special education programs and services in Ontario’s schools.

The term “service animal” refers to any animal that provides support to a person with a disability. Traditionally, service animals have been dogs, and dogs remain the most common species of service animal; however, other species may also provide services to individuals with disabilities. The types of functions performed by service animals are diverse, and may or may not include sensory, medical, therapeutic, and emotional support services.

In Ontario, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (the “AODA”) sets out a framework related to the use of service animals by individuals with a disability. The Blind Persons’ Rights Act sets out a framework specifically for the use of guide dogs for individuals who are blind.

People with disabilities who use service animals to assist them with disability-related needs are protected under the ground of “disability” in the Ontario Human Rights Code. Under the Human Rights Code, school boards have a duty to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship. The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities (2018) states that: “Depending on a student’s individual needs and the nature of the education service being provided, accommodations may include . . . modifying ‘no pets’ policies to allow guide dogs and other service animals.”[3]

Nothing in this memorandum detracts from other legal obligations of school boards under applicable law, including the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Definition of “Service Animal”

 

In the context of this memorandum, “service animal” means an animal that provides support relating to a student’s disability to assist that student in meaningfully accessing education. Due consideration should be given to any documentation on how the service animal assists with the student’s learning needs, and disability-related needs (e.g., documentation from the student’s medical professionals).

School boards must make a determination, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether a service animal may accompany a student taking into account all the circumstances, including the needs of the student and the school community and a school board’s obligation to provide meaningful access to education.

School boards may also consider including service animals in training in their service animal policies.

Components of School Board Policies on Service Animals

When developing their policy on student use of service animals, school boards must respect their obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the AODA, the Blind Persons’ Rights Act, and collective agreements as well as other applicable laws and government policies. When developing their policies on student use of service animals, school boards are encouraged to consult with local partners, as appropriate.

Each school board policy on student use of service animals must contain, at a minimum, the following components:

Communication Plan. The school board policy should say how the school board will inform the school community about the process by which parents[4] can apply to have their child’s service animal in the school. It should also say how it will inform the school community of the presence of any service animals at the school.

Process. The school board policy should lay out how requests for students to be accompanied by service animals in schools can be made and the steps in the school board decision-making process. School board processes must be timely, equitable, and readily available, and decisions must be based on a student’s individual strengths and needs.

Policies should include the following:

  • a clearly articulated process for a parent to follow when making a request for a student to be accompanied by a service animal in school, including:
    • a primary point of contact;
    • supporting materials for initiating requests(e.g., templates);
  • information around the process through which a determination is made about whether or not a service animal is an appropriate accommodation. This could include:
    • a meeting or meetings for all appropriate parties(e.g., parents, school staff) to discuss the request for a service animal;
    • a list of documentation that a parent must provide;
    • a list identifying who must be consulted in making the determination;
  • information about the factors the board will consider when making a case-by-case determination, including:
    • any documentation on how the service animal supports the student’s learning needs and/or disability-related needs, including documentation from the student’s medical professionals;
    • the disability-related needs and learning needs of the student;
    • other accommodations available;
    • the rights of other students and the needs of the school community;
    • any training or certification of the service animal;
    • any special considerations that may arise if the animal is a species other than a dog;
  • consideration of privacy rights of the student seeking to bring a service animal to school;
  • information about how the school board will document its decision regarding a request. For example, if a school board approves a request, that information could be recorded in the student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP), if one exists;
  • if the school board approves a request for a service animal: a process for developing a plan that addresses:
    • the ongoing documentation required for the animal(e.g., annual vaccination records);
    • the type of support the service animal will provide to the student;
    • who will be the handler of the service animal while at the school;
    • a plan for how the care of the animal will be provided(including supporting the safety and biological needs of the animal);
    • how the animal will be readily identifiable;
    • transportation of the animal to and from school;
    • time line for implementation;
  • if the school board approves a request for a service animal: strategies for sharing information with members of the broader school community who may be impacted by the decision (e.g., other students, parents, educators, school staff, volunteers, Special Education Advisory Committees) and organizations that use the school facilities (e.g., licensed child-care providers operating in schools of the board), while identifying how the student’s privacy will be considered;
  • if the school board denies a request for a service animal: a statement that the school board will provide a written response to the family that made the request in a timely manner.

Health, Safety, and Other Concerns. The school board policy should include a protocol for the board to hear and address concerns from other students and staff who may come in contact with a service animal, and from parents of other students, including health and safety concerns such as allergies and fear or anxiety associated with the animal. Wherever possible, school boards should take steps to minimize conflict through cooperative problem-solving, and/or other supports which may include training for staff and students.

Roles and Responsibilities. The school board policy should clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of students, parents, and school staff regarding service animals at school, taking into account local circumstances.

Training. The school board policy should consider strategies for providing training related to service animals, as appropriate, for school staff who have direct contact with service animals in schools.

Review of School Board Service Animal Policies and Data Collection. The school board policy should be reviewed by the board on a regular basis.

School boards are expected to develop a process for data collection and to collect data regularly, including, but not limited to:

  • total number of requests for students to be accompanied by service animals;
  • whether requests are for elementary or secondary school students;
  • the number of requests approved and denied;
  • if denied, the rationale for the decision, including a description of other supports and/or services provided to the student to support their access to education;
  • species of service animals requested and approved;
  • types of needs being supported (e.g., medical, physical, emotional).

School boards should use this data to inform their cyclical policy reviews.

Implementation

School boards must implement and make publicly available on their websites their newly developed or updated policies and procedures on student use of service animals by January 1, 2020.

School Board Reporting

School boards are required to report to the Ministry of Education, upon request, regarding their activities to achieve the expectations outlined in this memorandum. This could include specific

data collected.

[1] In this memorandum, school board(s) and board(s) refer to district school boards and school authorities. This memorandum also applies to Provincial and Demonstration Schools.

[2] 2. This policy is established under the authority of paragraph 29.5 of subsection 8(1) of the Education Act and school boards are required to develop their policies on service animals in schools in accordance with this policy.

[3] Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities (Ontario: Ontario Human Rights

Commission, 2018), pp. 59–60.

[4] 4. In this memorandum, parent(s) refers to parent(s) and guardian(s).



Source link

Quickly Send Us Feedback On Our Draft Brief to the Ontario Government’s Rushed Public Consultation on Its Proposal to Hold a Five-Year Pilot Project to Allow Electric Scooters in Ontario


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

Quickly Send Us Feedback On Our Draft Brief to the Ontario Government’s Rushed Public Consultation on Its Proposal to Hold a Five-Year Pilot Project to Allow Electric Scooters in Ontario

September 6, 2019

          SUMMARY

We welcome your feedback by Tuesday, September 10, 2019, on our draft brief to the Ford Government’s rushed public consultation on its proposal to allow electric scooters (e-scooters) in Ontario for a five year pilot project. Our draft brief is set out below. Feedback to us can be sent to [email protected] or on Twitter @aodaalliance

We regret giving you so little time to send us feedback. the Government gave us no choice, since its consultation was just announced last week, and ends on September 12, 2019. We had to battle to get the consultation extended from 48 hours to 2.5 weeks!

We will do our best to address your feedback as we finalize this draft. Please remember that this draft was prepared in a great hurry. Thanks to all who have sent us your feedback on the e-scooter issue, and to the wonderful Osgoode Hall Law School who volunteered to help with our work on this brief.

We have continued to secure good media coverage for the e-scooter issue from the disability perspective. As previously reported to you, we got this issue covered by the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, City TV News, among several other media outlets.

Since then, there has been more coverage. On September 4, 2019, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was interviewed on the e-scooter issue on CBC morning radio programs in Toronto, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, and Kitchener-Waterloo, as well as on Ontario Morning, the program that covers other parts of Ontario. He also pre-recorded an interview for the London CBC morning program. It was supposed to run on September 5, 2019. Capping this off, a clip from one of those interviews was included in an item on the problems with e-scooters that ran on CBC Radio’s national news program The World at 6 that ran at dinnertime on September 5, 2019. All that coverage took place in one week!

There have now been 219 days since the Ford Government received the final report of the Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation prepared by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. Doug Ford’s Government has still not announced a plan to implement the Onley report. Instead, it has proposed this troubling e-scooter pilot project which threatens to create even more new accessibility barriers against Ontarians with disabilities.

          MORE DETAILS

Draft AODA Alliance Brief to the Ontario Government on Its Proposal to Hold a Five-Year Pilot Project Allowing Electric Scooters in Ontario

September 6, 2019

Note: This is only a draft and has not yet been submitted to the Ontario Government. Feedback on this draft is welcomed before Tuesday, September 10, 2019. We apologize for this rushed period. The Ontario Government has set an extremely short deadline for submitting input on its proposal. We are rushing to meet that deadline. Send us feedback at: [email protected] or on Twitter @aodaalliance

Introduction

The AODA Alliance submits this brief to the Ontario Government as part of the Government’s short public consultation on its proposal to hold a five-year pilot project to allow electric scooters (e-scooters) in Ontario. E-scooters are electric motor vehicles which can travel as fast as 32 kilometers per hour or faster. Under the Government’s proposal e-scooters would be allowed to zip at up to 32 kilometers per hour, anywhere a bicycle is allowed. The Government is not proposing to require the e-scooter owner or driver or vehicle itself to carry insurance, or to have a license. We include as Appendix 1 to this brief the Government’s original August 28, 2019 online posting that describes its proposed pilot project.

In summary, the AODA Alliance strongly opposes the proposed pilot project. This pilot project raises serious safety concerns for the entire public. Ontarians with disabilities are especially vulnerable to this safety risk. Experience in other jurisdictions where e-scooters have been allowed shows that they present serious public safety and disability accessibility problems.

the Ford Government repeatedly emphasized that it is focusing on what matters most to Ontarians. We emphasize that protecting public safety matters most for Ontarians.

E-scooters are motor vehicles, pure and simple. At a bare minimum, if they are to be permitted at all, e-scooters, like other motor vehicles, should have to be licensed. Their drivers should also have to be licensed, only after they have completed needed and specific training. Both the driver and the motor vehicle should have to carry sufficient insurance.

Their other risks should be subject to strict safety regulations. They should be required to emit a beep to enable people with vision loss to know they are coming. Rental of e-scooters should be forbidden. Regulation of e-scooters can later be reduced if shown to be justified, and that doing so won’t compromise on public safety and disability accessibility.

If, despite these concerns, Ontario were to hold a pilot project with e-scooters, it should be far shorter than five years. It should be restricted to a narrow area, not the entire province, and only with the consent of the community where the pilot is to occur. Very strict regulation of e-scooters should be in place.

Just because parts of the US and some other jurisdictions have allowed e-scooters does not mean that they are inevitable in Ontario. Ontario should not repeat the serious mistakes that other jurisdictions have made.

The Ontario Government Has an Important Duty to Prevent the Creation of New Disability Barriers

This brief will show that the Government’s proposal to allow e-scooters in Ontario threatens to create new accessibility barriers against Ontarians with disabilities. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Ontario Government has a duty to prevent the creation of new accessibility barriers against Ontarians with disabilities. For example, the AODA requires the Ontario Government to lead Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025.

As the final report of the most recent Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation, prepared by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley revealed, Ontario is well behind schedule for reaching that goal. The Onley report found that Ontario remains a province full of “soul-crushing barriers”. Barriers in the built environment remain a serious example of this. The creation of any new barriers in the built environment would only make this worse.

The AODA Alliance elsewhere documented that the new Ontario Government has done a poor job of implementing the AODA. For the Government to take new action that would create more disability accessibility barriers, such as by allowing e-scooters, is an especially serious concern.

No Government Should Ever Compromise on Public Safety

We are deeply concerned that the Ontario Government’s proposal of a five-year pilot project with e-scooters in Ontario was arrived at without proper concern for or protection of public safety. As addressed later in this brief, e-scooters are known to present a danger to public safety.

According to a troubling CityTV report, the Doug Ford Government admitted it had compromised between protecting public safety on the one hand, and advancing business opportunities and consumer choice on the other, when it designed its controversial proposal to permit electric scooters in Ontario for a 5-year pilot. The August 30, 2019 City TV television news story that aired in Toronto in the evening news revealed this troubling new information, and included a comment by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on it:

“We reached out to the Ministry of Transportation, who told City News in a statement: the proposed pilot project is another example of how the province is helping businesses expand and give consumers more choice. When asked why the project is set to last a long five years, it said: ‘This proposed time line creates a compromise between road safety and access for businesses and consumers. If approved, the five year pilot will take a measured approach that will promote road safety, foster business innovation and open the Ontario market to this new and growing sector.’”

But Lepofsky fears the Government is prioritizing business over safety.

(Quotation from David Lepofsky in the news story) “the Government’s obligation is to protect public safety, not to decide, well, we’ll do some compromise between making sure people don’t get hurt and making sure other people can make some more money.”

We again call on the Ford Government to put the brakes on this proposal and to ensure that there is no risk to public safety, before even contemplating any pilot project with electric scooters. The Government must never compromise on the safety of the public, such as vulnerable people with disabilities, especially when it does so in the interests of some businesses wishing to expand into Ontario. Public Safety must always come first, and its protection should be unremitting and uncompromising.

Now that it has been revealed that the Government’s ill-conceived pilot project was based on an unacceptable compromise on public safety, the proposed pilot project should be withdrawn. The Government should go back to the drawing board.

E-Scooters Have Been Proven to Present a Safety Threat Both to Innocent Pedestrians and to the E-Scooter Driver Themselves

Our review of media articles and other sources posted on the internet quickly revealed that e-scooters are well-known to and well-documented to have posed a danger of personal injury, and in some cases, even of death. Injuries have been sustained by innocent pedestrians and by the e-scooter drivers themselves.

The AODA Alliance was able to quickly locate this information from a web search. As such, the Ontario Government, engaging in due diligence, should have been able to do the same.

The following is a very brief review of some of what we found, prepared in a hurry due to the Government’s very short public consultation deadline on this issue. We point especially to the article on e-scooters in the September 4, 2019 edition of the New York Times, set out in full as an appendix 2 to this brief.

Euronews reported on June 18, 2019, that Paris intended to implement speed limits and parking restrictions for e-scooters following its “first death on an electric scooter”. The French transport minister also announced a nationwide ban on e-scooters on sidewalks, effective September. A week prior to the announcements, a 25-year-old man riding an e-scooter had died after being hit by a truck. The report details other incidents, involving both riders and bystanders. In Sweden, “a 27-year-old man died in a crash while riding one of the electric vehicles in May”. In Barcelona, “a 92-year-old woman died in August 2018 after she was run over by an e-scooter — making it the first case of a pedestrian being killed by the electric vehicle”.

On July 26, 2019, CBC News reported that since e-scooters became available in Calgary, “Calgary emergency rooms have seen 60 patients with e-scooter-related injuries”. The report added that “[a]bout a third of them were fractures and roughly 10 per cent were injuries to the face and head”. These figures have triggered a study by the University of Calgary.

The Copenhagen Post reported on August 5, 2019, that a Capital Region release had identified “100 ‘scooter-related injuries’ this year” in Copenhagen. “Among those injured were several pedestrians, although it sounds like most of them tripped over discarded scooters. Only one ended up in hospital after being hit by one.”

The Guardian reported on August 11, 2019, that Paris had experienced its third e-scooter-related death in four months: “A 30-year-old man has been killed after being hit by a motorbike while riding his e-scooter on a French motorway.” The report went on to state that “[t]he scooter rider was not wearing a helmet and was reportedly travelling in the fast lane when the motorbike hit him from behind”, despite the fact that “[u]sing scooters on motorways is banned in France”. Moreover, “The day before the accident, a 27-year-old woman suffered serious head injuries after falling from an e-scooter she was using in a cycle lane in Lyon. A few days earlier a 41-year-old man had been seriously injured after falling from his e-scooter in Lille.” Finally, the report provided details on another, earlier e-scooter-related death in France: “An 81-year-old man died after he was reportedly knocked over by an e-scooter in Levallois-Perret, a Parisian suburb, in April.”

CityNews reported on August 13, 2019, as part of a short survey of European regulations, that “German police say seven people have been seriously injured and 27 suffered minor injuries in scooter accidents since mid-June, saying most were due to riders behaving carelessly.”

Extend the Current Public Consultation

If, despite the foregoing concerns, the Ontario Government plans to continue with the current e-scooter public consultation, it should significantly lengthen it. On Wednesday, August 28, 2019, just two days before the Labour Day long weekend, the Doug Ford Government quietly posted online, for a meager 48-hour public consultation, its proposal to allow e-scooters in Ontario for five years, for a trial period. Thankfully we were alerted to this by an AODA Alliance supporter, who was concerned about the safety risk that e-scooters posed for Ontarians with disabilities.

On August 29, 2019, the AODA Alliance quickly swung into action on this helpful tip. So did others, including Balance for Blind Adults and the CNIB. The media showed interest quite quickly.

Within hours, the Ford Government gave some ground, though not all the ground we had requested. Late on Thursday, August 29, 2019, the Government announced that it was extending its consultation on this issue to September 12, 2019.

For the Government to announce a public consultation on the eve of a long weekend is a well-known strategy for rushing forward with a decision to implement something new, without truly consulting the public, while wishing to appear that it has genuinely consulted the public. It is a fair inference to draw that the Government has been lobbied by companies that rent e-scooters in the U.S. or elsewhere, in order to get the Government to permit them in Ontario. As noted later in this brief, the proposal of an excessively long five -year pilot project suggests an intent to get e-scooters deeply embedded in Ontario, and to make it harder to get them removed or effectively controlled.

It is essential for this consultation process to immediately slow down. If the Government is not prepared to withdraw its current consultation and go back to the drawing board, with a stronger commitment to protecting public safety, it should at least substantially lengthen the current public consultation period beyond September 12, 2019

Recommendation #1

If it is not prepared to withdraw its current public consultation on e-scooters, the Ontario Government should at least extend the consultation period to October 31, 2019.

Do Not Allow Rental of E-Scooters

It appears that at least in some if not most of the other jurisdictions where e-scooters have been allowed, a very common way that they are used is by companies renting them to the public, rather than by individuals buying them. Of course, the option to buy them was presumably available in those jurisdictions as well. It is reasonable to suppose that the lobbying of the Ford Government that has led to the current proposal for a five-year e-scooter pilot program comes from those big companies known in other jurisdictions to provide e-scooter rentals. See further the September 4, 2019 New York Times article set out in Appendix 2, at the end of this brief.

By this rental model, a member of the public gets an app on their phone to sign up for these rentals. E-scooters are left around the city, tagged with a GPS chip. The individual uses the app to find the nearest e-scooter that is available. They pick it up and ride away. They presumably do not go to a store, or deal with anyone directly and in person from the rental company. When they are finished with the e-scooter, they leave it on a sidewalk, wherever they wish, and walk away. That e-scooter then sits there until another person, using the app, decides to take it away and ride it, leaving it somewhere else, once they are done.

The rental model for e-scooters presents several serious problems. It should be forbidden.

First and foremost, having users randomly leave an e-scooter on a sidewalk or other like public place when they are finished with it creates significant and unpredictable new barriers against people with disabilities. these barriers can instantly pop up anywhere, unannounced.

For people who are blind, deafblind or have low vision, they are a serious and unexpected tripping hazard. They should not have to face the prospect of e-scooters potentially lying in their path at any time. we have received feedback about concerns with this from people with vision loss elsewhere where this has been allowed.

As well, leaving an e-scooter randomly on sidewalks presents a serious new barrier for people who use a wheelchair, walker or other mobility device. For them, an e-scooter can prevent them from being able to continue along an otherwise-accessible sidewalk. The option of going up on the grass or down onto the road in the path of car traffic may not be accessible, feasible or safe. This is especially so for people with temporary or permanent balance issues.

The sidewalks or other public spaces should not be made available to the private companies who rent e-scooters as free parking spaces, fully subsidized by the taxpayer. It would not be good enough for the Government to try to regulate where the scooters are left, e.g. by setting regulations that they not block the sidewalk. This would be very hard to enforce, since police are not on the scene wherever these e-scooters would be left. To the contrary, there needs to be a strict ban in place precluding them ever being left in the sidewalk, given the experiences of which we have learned in other jurisdictions.

Beyond the foregoing concerns, the rental model presents other safety risks. Under that model, a person could go into a bar, drink to excess, walk outside, look on their smart phone’s e-scooter app, and quickly find a nearby e-scooter to ride. That would expose the public to added risks. As it is, drunk driving is a troubling problem in our society that leads to deaths and serious injuries. Our Government should not expose the public to any more such risks.

Were an intoxicated person to walk into a car rental office and try to rent a car, they would have to deal with a human being, who no doubt would refuse to hand over the car keys. In the case of renting e-scooters via an app, there is no comparable control at the source, such as a sales person, to prevent this.

It is no answer to say that drunk driving is already illegal. We already know that that law is too often disobeyed, with innocent people paying the price with permanent injuries or their lives. The Government should not make e-scooters available, increasing that risk.

Recommendation #2

The rental of e-scooters should be strictly forbidden, even if private ownership of an e-scooter by a user of that e-scooter were to be permitted.

Recommendation #3

There should be a strict ban on leaving an e-scooter in a public sidewalk or like location. If an e-scooter is left in such a place, it should be subject to immediate confiscation as well as a strict penalty.

Require Beeping Sound from E-Scooters When Powered On

E-scooters are very quiet, if not silent, when being operated. It presents a significant safety risk for a virtually silent e-scooter to be hurtling towards a blind person at 32 kph. This is so whether the e-scooter is being driven on a road, or on a sidewalk) (where they are supposedly not to be permitted). They pose a similar risk to a sighted pedestrian who can hear, but who is not looking in the direction from which the e-scooter is coming.

Recommendation #4

If e-scooters are to be permitted in Ontario, they should be required to make an ongoing beeping sound when they are powered on, to warn others of their approach.

Reduce the Maximum Speed Well Below 32 KPH

The faster an e-scooter goes, the less time its driver or a pedestrian has to avoid a collision. Moreover, the fast the e-scooter goes, the greater the potential harm caused by a collision.

There is no magic reason why an e-scooter should be allowed to travel at 32 KPH, just because e-bikes are allowed to go at that speed.

The Ontario Government should study the options for speed limits from other jurisdictions to determine the safest maximum speed, before embarking on any pilot project. A considerably slower speed limit should be set. It can always be raised later, if that is justified.

Recommendation #5

The speed limit for e-scooters should initially be set much lower than 32 KPH, such as 15 or 20 KPH, until a strong showing can be made that a higher speed limit poses no safety threat to the public.

Require That an E-scooter Driver Have a License and Proper Training

Because an e-scooter is a motor vehicle which can cause significant personal injuries to innocent pedestrians, a person should be required to get a license before they can drive an e-scooter. To qualify to get a license, a person should have to take appropriate training and show sufficient proficiency, including sufficient knowledge about the rules of the road and the threat to personal injuries that an e-scooter can cause.

Recommendation #6

A person wishing to drive an e-scooter should be required to first take required training on its safe operation and on the rules of the road, and then to obtain a license.

E-Scooters Should Be Licensed and Display a License Plate Number

It is important for each e-scooter to be licensed, and to display a license plate number, as is required for cars and motorcycles. This will make it far, far easier to enforce the law in case a person, driving an e-scooter, collides with a pedestrian, and then flees the scene. Without such a license requirement, it may well be impossible for an injured pedestrian to effectively identify the e-scooter that hit them, and thereby, to trace the driver in question.

Recommendation #7

Each e-scooter should be required to be licensed and to display a readily-seen license plate number.

The E-scooter’s Owner and Driver Should Be Required to Carry Valid Insurance

It is widely recognized that motor vehicles pose a risk to personal injury of other motorists and pedestrians. As a result, both the owner and driver of a motor vehicle are required to carry liability insurance. It is an offence to fail to carry proper insurance.

The same should be so for the owner and driver of an e-scooter. It is important for both to be insured, as is the case for other motor vehicles such as cars and trucks, so an injured victim can recover compensation from either or both, if injured.

This is especially important where, as here, it is known that e-scooters can pose a real risk of personal injury. The victims of such injuries, and the taxpayers who pay for our health system, should not be left holding the bag when it comes to the consequences of the use of e-scooters.

Recommendation #8

The owner and driver of an e-scooter should be required to carry sufficient liability insurance for injuries or other damages that the e-scooter causes to others.

Helmets Should Be Required for All E-Scooter Drivers, No Matter What Their Age Is

The use of an e-scooter can result in injuries to the driver, and not just to innocent pedestrians. This obviously can include head injuries.

A helmet is an important safety measure to at least try to reduce some of the harmful impacts on the driver of a fall from the e-scooter. Yet the Ford Government is only proposing during its pilot project to require an e-scooter driver to wear a helmet if they are between the ages of 16 and 18.

Yet people older than 18 are equally exposed to the risk of head injuries. This creates an undue risk of increased injuries to drivers. That is bad for the drivers themselves and their families. It also creates an unnecessary and unfair burden for the taxpayer, who will have to cover the health and other social safety net costs of those injuries to the e-scooter drivers.

Recommendation #9

All e-scooter drivers, regardless of their age, should be required to wear a helmet whenever operating an e-scooter.

If There Is to Be a Pilot Period with E-scooters, It Should Be Much Shorter Than Five Years and For A Smaller Part of Ontario

The Ford Government is proposing an e-scooter pilot project for the entirety of Ontario, to last fully five years. There is serious reason to doubt whether the Government means this as a pilot project. It appears far more likely that the Government means for this to be a way to embed e-scooters as a done deal, a permanent fixture in Ontario. After five years, the Government may well be hoping that it will be much harder to reduce or eliminate them, if already entrenched around Ontario. We anticipate that this is a real problem facing those jurisdictions that have already allowed e-scooters to proliferate, and that now have serious concerns about their impact.

There is no reason for a pilot project to last for a long five years. A much shorter period is warranted, in order to assess their impact. This is so especially since there are other jurisdictions which have already in effect served as a pilot project for Ontario. They have allowed e-scooters, with all the accompanying problems. As noted earlier, Ontario should study their impact in those other jurisdictions first, rather than exposing Ontarians to the risk of personal injury. Only if that study reveals that e-scooters can be safely introduced in Ontario should a pilot project be conducted in Ontario.

If a pilot project is to take place in Ontario, it should be conducted for a far shorter period, such as six months. A proper assessment of their impact should be assigned to an arms-length organization with expertise in public safety.

There is no reason why a pilot project should take place across the entirety of Ontario. Instead, a specific region or community should be selected. That community should first be given the right to consent or reject the proposal on behalf of its citizens.

Recommendation #10

No e-scooter pilot project should be held in Ontario until the Ontario Government effectively studies the impact on public safety of e-scooters in jurisdictions that have allowed them, and on options for regulatory controls of them, and has made the details of these public. A pilot project should only be held in Ontario if public safety can be fully and effectively protected.

Recommendation #11

If Ontario is to hold an e-scooter pilot project, it should only take place for a period much shorter than five years, e.g. six months, and should only take place in a specific community that has consented to permit that pilot project there.

Recommendation #12

If Ontario is to hold an e-scooter pilot project, the Ontario Government should retain a trusted independent organization with expertise in public safety to study the impact of e-scooters during that pilot project, and to make the full results of that study public.

A Ban on Riding E-scooters on Sidewalks Is Insufficient to Address Public Safety Concerns

To address the safety and accessibility concerns in this brief, it would be insufficient to simply ban the riding of e-scooters on sidewalks. e-scooters present safety issues on public roads, not just on sidewalks. Moreover, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to effectively police a ban on e-scooters on sidewalks. Even though bicycles are not supposed to be ridden on public sidewalks, pedestrians know that a good number of cyclists nevertheless ride their bikes on sidewalks from time to time, without much fear of law enforcement.

Moreover, especially if an e-scooter is not licensed and does not bear a plainly visible license plate number, it would too often be hard if not impossible for an injured pedestrian to report to police on someone who unlawfully rode an e-scooter on the sidewalk. It will be hard if not impossible to reliably identify the offender in a way that will stand up in court. Eyewitness identification evidence is notoriously hard to present in court.

Recommendation #13

The Government should not treat a ban on riding e-scooters on the sidewalk as a sufficient protection against the threat to public safety that e-scooters present.

There Should Be No Comparable Restrictions on Powered Scooters Used as a Mobility Aid for People with Disabilities

We emphasize that in raising these concerns with e-scooters, nothing should be done to restrict the current availability and use of powered scooters as a mobility aid for people with various disabilities. These are not in the same class of vehicle as e-scooters, addressed in this brief. They do not present the concerns raised in this brief. As we understand it, they do not travel at the kinds of speeds that an e-scooter can travel. They are an essential form of adaptive technology for people with disabilities.

Recommendation #14

nothing should be done to reduce the availability or use of powered mobility devices used by people with disabilities.

There Are Important Differences Between E-bikes and E-scooters

It would be wrong for the Government to proceed on the basis that it should allow e-scooters since it allows e-bikes, for several reasons. First, if, as we have shown, e-scooters present a safety risk, that safety risk neither magically vanishes nor in any way reduces just because Ontario now allows e-bikes.

Second, there are some important differences between the two. A person cannot ride an e-bike unless they already know how to ride a bike. In contrast, a person with no prior experience can, in some other jurisdictions, pay a rental fee, hop on an e-scooter, and immediately start racing in public at 32 KPH. As well, we are not aware of any companies that rent e-bikes on the terms used elsewhere for e-scooters, where they are regularly left as barriers in the middle of sidewalks.

Because this e-scooter consultation has been so rushed, we have not had a sufficient opportunity to explore the full ramifications of e-bikes beyond this. This is yet another reason why this hasty public consultation should be withdrawn or lengthened.

We also emphasize that there are key differences between an e-scooter and a non-motorized bicycle. While some can ride a bike quite fast, a novice cannot simply hop on a bike and race at 32 KPH. Moreover, a regular bike is not a motor vehicle. An e-scooter is a motor vehicle.

Appendix 1 The Ford Government’s 48-Hour Pre-Labour Day Public Consultation on Allowing Electric Scooters in Ontario

Originally posted at https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=30207&language=en

Kick Style Electric Scooter (E-Scooter)

 

Background:

 

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is strongly committed to promoting the highest standards of safety for all Ontarians who travel on our roads, including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, and will continue working with all our partners on measures that enhance this objective. Trends and technology are evolving, with new forms of vehicles such as e-scooters entering the market.

MTO is interested in new and environmentally-friendly vehicles, however it is important that new vehicles are constructed with appropriate safety features to allow safe integration with all other road users.

MTO is considering the following proposal and invites you to submit your comments for consideration.

E-Scooters

 

E-scooters have been launched in more than 125 cities across the United States. They represent a new way for residents to get around their communities, are seen as providing first and last mile connections to transit, and represent an opportunity to reduce traffic congestion.

E-scooters are currently not permitted to operate on roads in Ontario as they do not meet any federal or provincial safety standards for on-road use. These devices may only be operated where Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act (HTA) does not apply such as private property.

The ministry is interested in exploring the feasibility of these vehicles safely integrating with other road users while promoting road safety and fostering business innovation in the province.

 

MTO is soliciting public comment on potentially permitting the use of e-scooters on roads in Ontario as part of a pilot project. This will allow the ministry to ensure e-scooters can be safely integrated with other road users before a final, permanent, regulatory decision is made.

 

 

 

Proposed E-Scooter Pilot Framework:

 

Pilot Duration:

The length of the pilot will be for a prescribed period of 5 years, to ensure sufficient time to effectively monitor and evaluate the pilot results.

 

Operator/Rider/Vehicle Requirements Include:

 

  • Can operate on-road similar to where bicycles can operate; prohibited on controlled access highways
  • Minimum operating age 16
  • Bicycle helmet required for those under 18 years old
  • No passengers allowed
  • Maximum operating speed 32 km/h
  • No pedals or seat allowed
  • Must have 2 wheels and brakes
  • Maximum wheel diameter 17 inches
  • Must have horn or bell
  • Must have front and back light
  • Maximum weight 45kg and Maximum power output 500W

Data Collection:

 

  • Municipalities to remit data to the province, as requested

 

Appendix 2 The New York Times September 4, 2019

Originally posted at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/san-diego-electric-scooters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Welcome to San Diego. Don’t Mind the Scooters.

A year ago, electric rental scooters were hailed as the next big thing in transportation. But their troubles in San Diego show how the services have now hit growing pains.

Companies distribute scooters around cities, often on sidewalks. In the area around Mission Beach, one of San Diego’s main beaches, 70 scooters lined a single side of one block in July. By

Erin Griffith

Sept. 4, 2019

SAN DIEGO — The first thing you notice in San Diego’s historic Gaslamp Quarter is not the brick sidewalks, the rows of bars and the roving gaggles of bachelorette parties and conferencegoers, or even the actual gas lamps.

It’s the electric rental scooters. Hundreds are scattered around the sidewalks, clustered in newly painted corrals on the street and piled up in the gutters. In early July, one corner alone had 37. In the area around Mission Beach, one of the city’s main beaches, a single side of one block had 70. Most sat unused.

Since scooter rental companies like Bird, Lime, Razor, Lyft and Uber-owned Jump moved into San Diego last year, inflating the city’s scooter population to as many as 40,000 by some estimates, the vehicles have led to injuries, deaths, lawsuits and vandals. Regulators and local activists have pushed back against them. One company has even started collecting the vehicles to help keep the sidewalks clear.

“My constituents hate them pretty universally,” said Barbara Bry, a San Diego City Council member. She called for a moratorium on the scooters when they arrived, saying they clogged sidewalks and were a danger to pedestrians.

San Diego’s struggle to contain the havoc provides a glimpse of how reality has set in for scooter companies like Bird and Lime. Last year, the services were hailed as the next big thing in personal transportation. Investors poured money into the firms, valuing Bird at $2.3 billion and Lime at $2.4 billion and prompting an array of followers.

At the end of a rental period, a rider leaves the scooter for the next customer to retrieve. CreditTara Pixley for The New York Times

The scooter companies distribute their electric vehicles around cities and universities — often on sidewalks — and rent them by the minute via apps. At the end of a rental period, a rider leaves the scooter for the next customer to retrieve. Scooter speeds vary by company, model and city, as do helmet laws, although helmets generally are not required.

But now, skepticism about scooter services is rising. Some cities, including San Francisco, Paris, Atlanta and Portland, Ore., have imposed stricter regulations on scooter speed limits, parking or nighttime riding. Columbia, S.C., has temporarily banned them. New York recently passed legislation that would allow scooters to operate in some parts of New York City, but not in Manhattan.

Safety has become a big issue. A three-month study published in May from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Public Health and Transportation Departments of Austin, Tex., found that for every 100,000 scooter rides, 20 people were injured. Nearly half of the injuries were to the head; 15 percent of those showed evidence of traumatic brain injury.

Bird, Lime and Skip are trying to secure new funding, according to three people familiar with the talks, who declined to be identified because the discussions were not finished. In May, Lime replaced its chief executive; several other top executives also left. And in July, Bird’s chief executive called a report about the company’s losses “fake.”

Scooters are “a fun and convenient mode of transportation that really does put people at risk and introduces significant spatial challenges to the civic commons,” said Adie Tomer, a metropolitan policy fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Those tensions are not going anywhere anytime soon.”

Bird declined to comment.

Many scooter companies miscalculated how long the scooters would last — often not long enough for rental fees to cover their costs — and are struggling with profitability, acknowledged Sanjay Dastoor, Skip’s chief executive. His company has designed a way to produce more durable scooters that can be repaired more easily and last long enough to turn a profit, he said, allowing it to “run a safe fleet that we are proud of.”

Lindsey Haswell, Lime’s head of communications, said new industries often faced regulatory challenges, “but our investors are willing to take the long view.” She added that the issues in San Diego did not reflect the global scooter market. Lime has provided more than three million trips in San Diego, she said, and has “as many supporters as we have detractors” there.

Hans Tung, an investor at GGV, which has backed Lime, said he was encouraged by the company’s progress and was confident it would make its scooters safe and profitable. “I don’t see how that couldn’t be achieved,” he said.

Bird and Lime deployed their scooters in San Diego in February 2018, followed by other companies. The start-ups pitched themselves as environmentally friendly, a message that jibed with San Diego’s goal to reduce greenhouse emissions.

San Diego initially took a hands-off approach. The scooters became popular, with an average of 30,000 riders per day, according to city officials.

“Millennials and post-millennials want to live in a thriving, bustling city that has dynamic choices for mobility,” said Erik Caldwell, San Diego’s deputy head of operations for smart and sustainable communities.

But as more scooters flooded San Diego last summer, local business owners and residents began objecting. Alex Stennet, a bouncer at Coyote Ugly Saloon in the Gaslamp District, said people tripped over the vehicles and threw them around. He said he had witnessed at least 20 scooter accidents in front of Coyote Ugly.

ScootScoop has deals with 250 local businesses to remove scooters; it has towed more than 12,500. CreditTara Pixley for The New York Times

Dan Borelli, who owns a bike rental shop called Boardwalk Electric Rides in Pacific Beach, said the scooters frequently blocked the entrance to his store. In July 2018, he teamed up with John Heinkel, owner of a local towing company, to haul away scooters that they deemed to be parked on private property. They charge Bird, Lime and others a retrieval fee of $50 per scooter, plus $2 for each day of storage.

Their company, ScootScoop, has essentially turned them into scooter bounty hunters. They said they have struck deals with 250 local businesses and hotels and have towed more than 12,500 scooters. Some scooter companies have paid to get them back, they said.

In March, Lime and Bird sued Mr. Borelli and Mr. Heinkel for the scooter removals. ScootScoop countersued Bird and Lime last week.

Other cities have called ScootScoop for advice, Mr. Borelli said. Mr. Heinkel said the scooter companies underestimated them. “They assumed we were two hillbillies in a pickup truck, as opposed to business owners,” he said.

Lime’s Ms. Haswell said Mr. Borelli and Mr. Heinkel “are opportunistic businessmen who troll the streets stealing scooters, with no respect for the law, trying to make a profit at San Diego’s expense.”

Late last year, the scooters turned from annoyances into hazards. In December, a man in Chula Vista, a San Diego suburb, died after he was hit by a car while riding a Bird scooter, according to the Chula Vista Police Department. A tourist died a few months later after crashing his rental scooter into a tree. Another visitor died of “blunt force torso trauma” after his scooter collided with another, the San Diego Police Department said.

The department said it counted 15 “serious injury collisions” involving scooters in the first half of this year. Last month, three separate scooter-related skull fractures happened in one week.

On one day in July, there were 150 available Bird scooters within a two-block radius in Mission Beach.CreditTara Pixley for The New York Times

Scooter parking corrals were introduced in July as part of San Diego’s new rules.CreditTara Pixley for The New York Times

As the injuries piled up, Safe Walkways, an activist group, amassed hundreds of members in a Facebook group to oppose the scooters and file complaints to government agencies. In April, around 50 protesters gathered on Mission Beach’s boardwalk with signs bearing messages like “Safety Not Scooters” and “BoardWALK.”

Lawsuits have also piled up. Clients of Matthew Souther, an attorney at Neil Dymott, filed a potential class action suit in March that accused Bird, Lime and the City of San Diego of not complying with disability rights laws to keep sidewalks clear. He said he was working on a dozen other injury lawsuits against scooter companies.

San Diego has started cracking down on the scooters. In July, the city enacted rules restricting where they could be parked and driven and issued permits for 20,000 scooters, across all companies, to operate. In three days that month, authorities impounded 2,500 scooters that violated parking rules. San Diego later sent notices of violations to Bird, Lyft, Lime and Skip.

Last month, San Diego told Lime that it planned to revoke its permit to operate in the city because of the violations, pending a hearing.

Christina Chadwick, a spokeswoman for San Diego’s mayor, Kevin Faulconer, said the scooter operators had been warned that the city would aggressively monitor them.

To deal with critics and improve safety and costs, the scooter companies have upgraded their fleets with sturdier scooters. Bird has said its Bird Zero model, which makes up a majority of its fleet, lasts an average of 10 months, compared with three months for past models. Skip recently announced a scooter with modular parts, which makes repairs easier.

And after a year recalling scooters with cracked baseboards and batteries that caught fire, Lime has introduced new vehicles with bigger wheels and baseboards, as well as interchangeable batteries and parts.

Ms. Haswell said Lime was eager to show the progress it had made. “We admit that we haven’t always gotten it right in San Diego,” she said.

Erin Griffith reports on technology start-ups and venture capital from the San Francisco bureau. Before joining The Times she was a senior writer at WIRED and Fortune. @eringriffith

A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 4, 2019, Section B, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: San Diego’s Scooter Tryout Gets Off to a Bumpy Start.

 



Source link

The Ford Government Admits It Planned a “Compromise of Road Safety” and the Opportunity for Businesses to Expand When It designed Its Controversial Proposed 5-Year Pilot to Allow Motorized Electric Scooters on Ontario Roads, According to a Media Report – Yet The Government Should Never Compromise On Public Safety


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

The Ford Government Admits It Planned a “Compromise of Road Safety” and the Opportunity for Businesses to Expand When It designed Its Controversial Proposed 5-Year Pilot to Allow Motorized Electric Scooters on Ontario Roads, According to a Media Report – Yet The Government Should Never Compromise On Public Safety

September 3, 2019

          SUMMARY

According to a troubling CityTV report, the Doug Ford Government admitted it had compromised between protecting public safety on the one hand, and advancing business opportunities and consumer choice on the other, when it designed its controversial proposal to permit electric scooters in Ontario for a 5-year pilot. The Ford Government tried to hold a meager 2-day public consultation on this proposal last week, on the eve of the Labour Day weekend when it is well-known that many are away on holidays. After the AODA Alliance and others in the disability community publicly objected and the media took interest in the story, the Ford Government backed down, and extended this consultation by a short two additional weeks.

The August 30, 2019 City TV television news story that aired in Toronto in the evening news revealed this troubling new information, and included a comment by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on it:

“We reached out to the Ministry of Transportation, who told City News in a statement: the proposed pilot project is another example of how the province is helping businesses expand and give consumers more choice. When asked why the project is set to last a long five years, it said: ‘This proposed time line creates a compromise between road safety and access for businesses and consumers. If approved, the five year pilot will take a measured approach that will promote road safety, foster business innovation and open the Ontario market to this new and growing sector.’”

But Lepofsky fears the Government is prioritizing business over safety.

(Quotation from David Lepofsky in the news story) “the Government’s obligation is to protect public safety, not to decide, well, we’ll do some compromise between making sure people don’t get hurt and making sure other people can make some more money.”

We add the following to that news report’s disturbing revelation:

“We’ve called on the Ford Government to put the brakes on this proposal and to ensure that there is no risk to public safety, before even contemplating any pilot project with electric scooters,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “The Government must never compromise on the safety of the public, such as vulnerable people with disabilities, especially when it does so in the interests of some businesses wishing to expand into Ontario. Public Safety must always come first, and its protection should be unremitting and uncompromising.”

Now that it has been revealed that the Government’s ill-conceived pilot project was based on an unacceptable compromise on public safety, the proposed pilot project should be withdrawn. The Government should go right back to the drawing board.

This pilot project raises safety concerns for the entire public, but Ontarians with disabilities are especially vulnerable to this safety risk. E-scooters are motor vehicles, pure and simple. At a bare minimum, e-scooters, like other motor vehicles, should have to be licensed. Their drivers should also have to be licensed, only after they have completed needed and specific training. Both the driver and the motor vehicle should have to carry sufficient insurance. Their other risks should be subject to strict safety regulations.

The Government’s proposal to allow e-scooters has secured important media coverage. For example, the article by the Canadian Press, set out below, appeared in the August 31, 2019 Toronto Star as well as a number of other publications.

The AODA Alliance is hurrying to prepare a submission to the Ford Government’s rushed public consultation, and is gathering feedback from the disability community. Feedback can be sent to the AODA Alliance by email at [email protected] or tweeted on Twitter to @aodaalliance

The Ford Government’s rush to deal with its proposal to allow e-scooters stands in troubling contrast to its long delay in addressing the serious barriers that over 2 million Ontarians with disabilities still face. There have been 216 days, or over seven months, since the Ford Government received the final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Doug Ford Government has announced no plan of action to implement the Onley report.

The Onley report found that Ontario remains full of “soul-crushing” barriers against Ontarians with disabilities, and that Government action to redress these has been far too inadequate. The AODA Alliance is deeply concerned that the Government’s e-scooter proposal risks creating even more barriers impeding people with disabilities, such as the blight of e-scooters being left to block public sidewalks that has reportedly been a problem in other places where they are permitted. That would present a serious barrier, for example, to blind people and people using wheelchairs on public sidewalks.

The AODA Alliance is spearheading a “Dial Doug” campaign. It is urging members of the public to call or email Premier Doug Ford, and to ask him where is his plan to ensure that Ontario becomes accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. The Ford Government repeatedly says it is focusing on the things that matter the most to Ontarians. We urge the public to call the Premier to remind him that uncompromising protection of public safety matters the most to Ontarians!

Doug Ford’s office number is +1 (416) 325-1941. His email address is [email protected]

Action tips on how to take part in the #DialDoug blitz are available at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/join-in-our-new-dial-doug-campaign-a-grassroots-blitz-unveiled-today-to-get-the-doug-ford-government-to-make-ontario-open-for-over-1-9-million-ontarians-with-disabilities/

          MORE DETAILS

The Toronto Star August 31, 2019

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/08/30/disability-advocates-raise-concerns-over-ontario-plan-to-let-e-scooters-on-roads.html

News

E-scooters concern disability advocates

Experts say trial program poses significant risks and requires more study

Shawn Jeffords The Canadian Press

A proposed five-year pilot program that would see e-scooters allowed onto Ontario’s roads poses significant safety risks that need more in-depth consideration

than the government is allowing, advocates for disabled residents said Friday.

The Ministry of Transportation floated the idea this week of legalizing e-scooters and allowing them to be driven anywhere a bicycle can operate. The two-wheeled

motorized vehicles are currently illegal to operate anywhere other than private property.

The government’s proposal states that the scooters currently fall short of existing federal and safety regulations.

The government initially offered the public 48 hours in which to weigh in on the proposal, but later extended the deadline to Sept. 12. Accessibility advocates

said the extension still doesn’t allow enough time for meaningful feedback on a plan that poses risks to the disabled and non-disabled alike.

“These scooters are motor vehicles driven in a public space by someone who is not licensed, they don’t have a licence plate and are not insured,” said

David Lepofsky, a longtime advocate and chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. “This presents a safety issue for the

entire public.”

The government sets out a series of rules for the proposed pilot but does not provide a potential start date.

Prospective rules for drivers include a minimum age of 16 and a ban on carrying passengers. The e-scooters cannot exceed a maximum operating speed of 32

km/h, the proposal said. They must also have a horn or bell, front and back lights, and cannot weigh more than 45 kilograms.

Lui Greco, a spokesperson for the CNIB Foundation, which advocates for the blind or people living with vision loss, said that organization was relieved

when Mulroney announced the extended consultation period.

The rules spelled out in the government’s proposal don’t take into account the potential for the vehicles to be improperly driven on sidewalks, he said,

calling such misuse inevitable and noting it poses particular risks for the blind.

“If you’re a person with poor or no sight and something comes at you at 32 km/h on the sidewalk, how quickly are you going to be able to react?” he said.

Greco said some North American cities have legalized e-scooter sharing services and urged the province to consult with those municipalities before proceeding

any further.

Figure:

Currently illegal on Ontario streets, the province is considering allowing e-scooters to be driven anywhere a bicycle can operate. ROBYN BECKAFP/GETTY



Source link

Ford Government Quietly Conducts Inexcusably Rushed 2-Day Public Consultation Just Before the Labour Day Long Weekend on a Troubling Proposal to Allow Electric Scooters in Ontario – Because This Risks a Safety Threat for People with Disabilities, the AODA Alliance Calls for This Rushed Consultation To Be Withdrawn, and For Assurances that Our Safety Won’t Ever Be Put At Risk, Even During Any Trial Period


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

Ford Government Quietly Conducts Inexcusably Rushed 2-Day Public Consultation Just Before the Labour Day Long Weekend on a Troubling Proposal to Allow Electric Scooters in Ontario – Because This Risks a Safety Threat for People with Disabilities, the AODA Alliance Calls for This Rushed Consultation To Be Withdrawn, and For Assurances that Our Safety Won’t Ever Be Put At Risk, Even During Any Trial Period

August 29, 2019

          SUMMARY

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019, two days before the Labour Day long weekend, the Doug Ford Government quietly posted online, for a meager 48-hour public consultation, a proposal to allow electric scooters (e-scooters) in Ontario for five years, for a trial period, on the same terms as bicycles are allowed. E-scooters would be allowed to zip at up to 32 kilometers per hour. Below we set out the Government’s description of what the Government proposes.

Allowing e-scooters in Ontario risks exposing a real safety threat to the public, including to people with disabilities. For example, if allowed on sidewalks (as allowed in some other jurisdictions) or bike lanes, zipping along far faster than pedestrians, or if allowed on the roads without the safeguards applied to cars and trucks, pedestrians, including those with disabilities are exposed to serious injuries. This is even more risky if a person is allowed to drive an e-scooter in public, without requiring a driver’s license and the associated oversight and training.

“It is inexcusable that the Doug Ford Government quietly sprung this on the public on the eve of the Labour Day weekend, when many are away on holiday, and only allowed for 48 hours for the public to give input,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the grassroots non-partisan AODA Alliance that spearheads the campaign for accessibility for over 2 million Ontarians with disabilities. “The fact that the Ford Government did not even alert us to this consultation, which we only learned about via the grapevine, suggests that Doug Ford may not have even considered the impact of this proposal on people with disabilities.”

The AODA Alliance is calling on the Ford Government to immediately withdraw its 48 hour consultation, and to go back to the drawing board. It should first thoroughly study and make public the impact of e-scooters on public safety, including on people with disabilities, before taking any further steps on this issue. It should commit that no action will be taken that could allow e-scooters in Ontario if they pose a risk to public safety, including the safety of people with disabilities. Many more details should be shared with the public before a public consultation begins.

There have now been 211 days, or almost seven months, since the Ford Government received the final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of Ontario’s accessibility law, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Ford Government has still not announced any plan of action to implement the Onley report.

The Onley report found that Ontario remains full of “soul-crushing” barriers against Ontarians with disabilities, and that Ontario Government action to redress these has been far too inadequate. The fact that the Ford Government could come forward with so troubling a consultation on an issue that risks our safety is yet more indication that Ontario desperately needs the Onley report to be effectively implemented.

The AODA Alliance is conducting a “Dial Doug” campaign. It is urging members of the public to call or email Premier Ford, and to ask him where is his plan to ensure that Ontario becomes accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. This e-scooter proposal gives people with disabilities yet another reason to #DialDoug!

Doug Ford’s office number is +1 (416) 325-1941. His email address is [email protected]

Action tips on how to take part in the #DialDoug blitz are available at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/join-in-our-new-dial-doug-campaign-a-grassroots-blitz-unveiled-today-to-get-the-doug-ford-government-to-make-ontario-open-for-over-1-9-million-ontarians-with-disabilities/

          MORE DETAILS

The Ford Government’s 48-Hour Pre-Labour Day Public Consultation on Allowing Electric Scooters in Ontario

Originally posted at https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=30207&language=en

Kick Style Electric Scooter (E-Scooter)

 

 

Background:

 

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is strongly committed to promoting the highest standards of safety for all Ontarians who travel on our roads, including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, and will continue working with all our partners on measures that enhance this objective. Trends and technology are evolving, with new forms of vehicles such as e-scooters entering the market.

MTO is interested in new and environmentally-friendly vehicles, however it is important that new vehicles are constructed with appropriate safety features to allow safe integration with all other road users.

MTO is considering the following proposal and invites you to submit your comments for consideration.

E-Scooters

 

E-scooters have been launched in more than 125 cities across the United States. They represent a new way for residents to get around their communities, are seen as providing first and last mile connections to transit, and represent an opportunity to reduce traffic congestion.

E-scooters are currently not permitted to operate on roads in Ontario as they do not meet any federal or provincial safety standards for on-road use. These devices may only be operated where Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act (HTA) does not apply such as private property.

The ministry is interested in exploring the feasibility of these vehicles safely integrating with other road users while promoting road safety and fostering business innovation in the province.

 

MTO is soliciting public comment on potentially permitting the use of e-scooters on roads in Ontario as part of a pilot project. This will allow the ministry to ensure e-scooters can be safely integrated with other road users before a final, permanent, regulatory decision is made.

 

 

 

Proposed E-Scooter Pilot Framework:

 

Pilot Duration:

The length of the pilot will be for a prescribed period of 5 years, to ensure sufficient time to effectively monitor and evaluate the pilot results.

 

Operator/Rider/Vehicle Requirements Include:

 

  • Can operate on-road similar to where bicycles can operate; prohibited on controlled access highways
  • Minimum operating age 16
  • Bicycle helmet required for those under 18 years old
  • No passengers allowed
  • Maximum operating speed 32 km/h
  • No pedals or seat allowed
  • Must have 2 wheels and brakes
  • Maximum wheel diameter 17 inches
  • Must have horn or bell
  • Must have front and back light
  • Maximum weight 45kg and Maximum power output 500W

Data Collection:

 

  • Municipalities to remit data to the province, as requested

 

 



Source link