In this Close Election, Will Erin O’Toole Stand By the Tories’ 2018 Pledge in the House of Commons to Strengthen the Accessible Canada Act?


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE
NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 8, 2021 Toronto: Will Erin O’Toole’s Tories keep their three-year-old pledge to six million people with disabilities in Canada to strengthen the 2018 Accessible Canada Act? Voters with disabilities await an answer from all the federal parties except the NDP on whether they would strengthen that legislation, enacted to make Canada accessible to people with disabilities by 2040.

When Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act, was before Parliament in 2018, the NDP and Conservatives proposed lists of much-needed amendments to strengthen it, at the request of disability advocates including the non-partisan AODA Alliance. The governing Liberals used their majority in the House to defeat most if not all of those amendments.

During those debates, the Conservatives, including Erin O’Toole himself, argued that Bill C-81 was too weak, and commended disability advocates’ criticisms of that bill, including those from the AODA Alliance. (See quotations below) Tory MP John Barlow resolutely pledged during Third Reading debates on November 22, 2018 that if the Tories form the next Government, they will strengthen it. Among the key excerpts, set out below, Tory MP John Barlow said this:

Therefore, my promise to those Canadians in the disabilities community across the country is that when a Conservative government comes into power, we will do everything we can to address the shortcomings of Bill C-81. I know how much work they have put into this proposed legislation. I know how much time and effort they put in working with us on the committee. I know what their vision was for Bill C-81. Unfortunately, this falls short. We will not make that same mistake in 2019.

With this election looming, On August 3, 2021, the non-partisan AODA Alliance wrote all party leaders, seeking 12 commitments on accessibility for people with disabilities, including the passage of those defeated amendments. On September 4, 2021, the NDP wrote the AODA Alliance, promising to pass all their amendments to the Accessible Canada Act, proposed in 2018. None of the other party leaders have responded so far.

“In such an extremely close election, all party leaders have even more reason to promise to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act and to speed up its sluggish implementation,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance, a grassroots disability accessibility advocacy coalition. “It was great that in 2018 the Tories including Erin O’Toole pressed to get the Federal Government to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act. We’re eager for Mr. O’Toole to now reaffirm the solemn pledge his party made three years ago to strengthen this legislation if the Tories are elected.”

The non-partisan AODA Alliance does not support or oppose any party. It is campaigning to get all the federal parties to make strong commitments on disability accessibility. So far, the federal Liberals, Conservatives, Green Party, and Bloc Quebecois have not made any of the 12 disability accessibility pledges that the AODA Alliance requested of them in its August 3, 2021 letter.

Contact: David Lepofsky, [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance For background, check out:
The AODA Alliance’s August 3, 2021 letter to all federal party leaders. The New Democratic Party’s September 4, 2021 letter to the AODA Alliance.
The AODA Alliance’s August 24, 2021 news release slamming the Federal Government’s grant of up to 7.5 million dollars for the Rick Hansen Foundation’s problem-ridden private accessibility certification and training program.
The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page, setting out its efforts since 2015 to secure the enactment and effective implementation of the Accessible Canada Act.

Excerpts from Parliamentary Debates on Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act

Second Reading Debates in the House of Commons on September 24, 2018

Originally posted at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/read-what-was-said-during-the-second-day-of-second-reading-debates-in-the-house-of-commons-on-bill-c-81-the-proposed-accessible-canada-act-september-24-2018/

Hon. Erin O’Toole (Durham, CPC):

Madam Speaker, the member from the NDP mentioned David Lepofsky. He has been a leading advocate for a barrier-free Canada and is probably one of the best examples of thoughtful advocacy I have seen in my time in public life. I recall him teaching, in my bar admission course in Ontario, through the Law Society of Upper Canada, issues related to people facing disabilities. I want to thank Mr. Lepofsky. He is also quite tenacious on social media in making sure that these issues are not forgotten.

The member highlighted a number of the areas where this falls short. All parties, I think, want to see fewer barriers, more engagement and more opportunities for people. The fact is, and this is what Mr. Lepofsky’s group has also highlighted, the government provides the ability for itself to set standards or regulations but sets no timeline for the government to lead by example with respect to future plans for its infrastructure in future federal jurisdiction areas, such as ports, airports and these sorts of things. Is that lack of a timeline and a commitment to federal leadership something the member feels is a bit of a shortcoming in Bill C-81?

Third Reading Debates in the House of Commons on November 22, 2018

Posted at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/transcript-of-the-2nd-and-final-day-of-third-reading-debates-on-bill-c-81-the-proposed-accessible-canada-act-in-the-house-of-commons-on-november-22-2018/

Erin O’Toole Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the comments from the Liberal parliamentary secretary suggesting my colleague and friend is misleading people. I spoke to my friend just yesterday about the conversation I had last week with David Lepofsky, probably the most prominent Canadian in terms of disability advocacy. He has the Order of Ontario and Order of Canada, as a constitutional lawyer and disability advocate.

What my friend is saying to the House today is exactly what is being said by people like David Lepofsky. One of the things I heard from him was the fact that there is no end date for accessibility within Bill C-81, no timeline. Ontario has set a 20-year goal of making sure accessibility is paramount. The other thing I heard from him was that there is no clear commitment in Bill C-81 to ensure no infrastructure dollars would go to new projects unless accessibility is at the centre of the project. There are no timelines and no teeth.

The Liberal member is suggesting that my friend is misleading Canadians. This is what disability advocates are asking for. Will my friend comment on the fact that we have an opportunity with Bill C-81 to get it right, if only the Liberals will listen?

Alex Nuttall BarrieSpringwaterOro-Medonte, ON

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commit to the member that we will get it right, right after the next election. This will be among the first things we ensure we put right, because it is concerning the most vulnerable Canadians. It is interesting the member brought up Mr. Lepofsky, because he said the following:

…the bill that is now before you is very strong on good intentions but very weak on implementation and enforcement…When you come to vote on amendments before this committee and when you go back to your caucuses to decide what position you’re going to take, we urge you not simply to think of the immediate political expediency of today; we do urge you to think about the imminent election a year from now and the needs of the minority of everyone, for whom no party or politician can go soft.

Those are the words of Mr. Lepofsky. It is unfortunate that the Liberal Party did not listen to them.

John Barlow Foothills, AB

We mentioned David Lepofsky today who is with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. I really want to put in his comment here today. He said:

The bill that is now before you is very strong on good intentions but very weak on implementation and enforcement…When you come to vote on amendments before this committee and when you go back to your caucuses to decide what position you’re going to take, we urge you not simply to think of the immediate political expediency of today; we do urge you to think about the imminent election a year from now and the needs of the minority of everyone, for whom no party or politician can go soft.

Mr. Lepofsky was speaking for Canadians across the country asking us as parliamentarians to not get cold feet. This is an opportunity to make some substantial, historic change for Canadians with disabilities, and we failed.

I have to share a little of the frustration on this, as we will be voting in support of Bill C-81. For those organizations, those stakeholders listening today, the reason we are voting in support of Bill C-81 is certainly not because we agree with it. In fact, I have outlined today in my speech the many reasons why we are not. We heard from the stakeholders time and time again of their disappointment. But their comments were always that, although it fell well short of what they wanted, it was a start, and I will grant them that, it is a start.

I know they were expecting much more from the minister, the Liberal government and from us as members of that committee. Therefore, my promise to those Canadians in the disabilities community across the country is that when a Conservative government comes into power, we will do everything we can to address the shortcomings of Bill C-81. I know how much work they have put into this proposed legislation. I know how much time and effort they put in working with us on the committee. I know what their vision was for Bill C-81. Unfortunately, this falls short. We will not make that same mistake in 2019.




Source link

In this Close Election, Will Erin O’Toole Stand By the Tories’ 2018 Pledge in the House of Commons to Strengthen the Accessible Canada Act?


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

In this Close Election, Will Erin O’Toole Stand By the Tories’ 2018 Pledge in the House of Commons to Strengthen the Accessible Canada Act?

September 8, 2021 Toronto: Will Erin O’Toole’s Tories keep their three-year-old pledge to six million people with disabilities in Canada to strengthen the 2018 Accessible Canada Act? Voters with disabilities await an answer from all the federal parties except the NDP on whether they would strengthen that legislation, enacted to make Canada accessible to people with disabilities by 2040.

When Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act, was before Parliament in 2018, the NDP and Conservatives proposed lists of much-needed amendments to strengthen it, at the request of disability advocates including the non-partisan AODA Alliance. The governing Liberals used their majority in the House to defeat most if not all of those amendments.

During those debates, the Conservatives, including Erin O’Toole himself, argued that Bill C-81 was too weak, and commended disability advocates’ criticisms of that bill, including those from the AODA Alliance. (See quotations below) Tory MP John Barlow resolutely pledged during Third Reading debates on November 22, 2018 that if the Tories form the next Government, they will strengthen it. Among the key excerpts, set out below, Tory MP John Barlow said this:

Therefore, my promise to those Canadians in the disabilities community across the country is that when a Conservative government comes into power, we will do everything we can to address the shortcomings of Bill C-81. I know how much work they have put into this proposed legislation. I know how much time and effort they put in working with us on the committee. I know what their vision was for Bill C-81. Unfortunately, this falls short. We will not make that same mistake in 2019.

With this election looming, On August 3, 2021, the non-partisan AODA Alliance wrote all party leaders, seeking 12 commitments on accessibility for people with disabilities, including the passage of those defeated amendments. On September 4, 2021, the NDP wrote the AODA Alliance, promising to pass all their amendments to the Accessible Canada Act, proposed in 2018. None of the other party leaders have responded so far.

“In such an extremely close election, all party leaders have even more reason to promise to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act and to speed up its sluggish implementation,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance, a grassroots disability accessibility advocacy coalition. “It was great that in 2018 the Tories including Erin O’Toole pressed to get the Federal Government to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act. We’re eager for Mr. O’Toole to now reaffirm the solemn pledge his party made three years ago to strengthen this legislation if the Tories are elected.”

The non-partisan AODA Alliance does not support or oppose any party. It is campaigning to get all the federal parties to make strong commitments on disability accessibility. So far, the federal Liberals, Conservatives, Green Party, and Bloc Quebecois have not made any of the 12 disability accessibility pledges that the AODA Alliance requested of them in its August 3, 2021 letter.

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

For background, check out:

The AODA Alliance’s August 3, 2021 letter to all federal party leaders.

The New Democratic Party’s September 4, 2021 letter to the AODA Alliance.

The AODA Alliance’s August 24, 2021 news release slamming the Federal Government’s grant of up to 7.5 million dollars for the Rick Hansen Foundation’s problem-ridden private accessibility certification and training program.

The AODA Alliance website’s Canada page, setting out its efforts since 2015 to secure the enactment and effective implementation of the Accessible Canada Act.

Excerpts from Parliamentary Debates on Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act

Second Reading Debates in the House of Commons on September 24, 2018

Originally posted at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/read-what-was-said-during-the-second-day-of-second-reading-debates-in-the-house-of-commons-on-bill-c-81-the-proposed-accessible-canada-act-september-24-2018/

Hon. Erin O’Toole (Durham, CPC):

Madam Speaker, the member from the NDP mentioned David Lepofsky. He has been a leading advocate for a barrier-free Canada and is probably one of the best examples of thoughtful advocacy I have seen in my time in public life. I recall him teaching, in my bar admission course in Ontario, through the Law Society of Upper Canada, issues related to people facing disabilities. I want to thank Mr. Lepofsky. He is also quite tenacious on social media in making sure that these issues are not forgotten.

The member highlighted a number of the areas where this falls short. All parties, I think, want to see fewer barriers, more engagement and more opportunities for people. The fact is, and this is what Mr. Lepofsky’s group has also highlighted, the government provides the ability for itself to set standards or regulations but sets no timeline for the government to lead by example with respect to future plans for its infrastructure in future federal jurisdiction areas, such as ports, airports and these sorts of things. Is that lack of a timeline and a commitment to federal leadership something the member feels is a bit of a shortcoming in Bill C-81?

Third Reading Debates in the House of Commons on November 22, 2018

Posted at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/transcript-of-the-2nd-and-final-day-of-third-reading-debates-on-bill-c-81-the-proposed-accessible-canada-act-in-the-house-of-commons-on-november-22-2018/

Erin O’Toole Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the comments from the Liberal parliamentary secretary suggesting my colleague and friend is misleading people. I spoke to my friend just yesterday about the conversation I had last week with David Lepofsky, probably the most prominent Canadian in terms of disability advocacy. He has the Order of Ontario and Order of Canada, as a constitutional lawyer and disability advocate.

What my friend is saying to the House today is exactly what is being said by people like David Lepofsky. One of the things I heard from him was the fact that there is no end date for accessibility within Bill C-81, no timeline. Ontario has set a 20-year goal of making sure accessibility is paramount. The other thing I heard from him was that there is no clear commitment in Bill C-81 to ensure no infrastructure dollars would go to new projects unless accessibility is at the centre of the project. There are no timelines and no teeth.

The Liberal member is suggesting that my friend is misleading Canadians. This is what disability advocates are asking for. Will my friend comment on the fact that we have an opportunity with Bill C-81 to get it right, if only the Liberals will listen?

Alex Nuttall Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commit to the member that we will get it right, right after the next election. This will be among the first things we ensure we put right, because it is concerning the most vulnerable Canadians. It is interesting the member brought up Mr. Lepofsky, because he said the following:

…the bill that is now before you is very strong on good intentions but very weak on implementation and enforcement…When you come to vote on amendments before this committee and when you go back to your caucuses to decide what position you’re going to take, we urge you not simply to think of the immediate political expediency of today; we do urge you to think about the imminent election a year from now and the needs of the minority of everyone, for whom no party or politician can go soft.

Those are the words of Mr. Lepofsky. It is unfortunate that the Liberal Party did not listen to them.

John Barlow Foothills, AB

We mentioned David Lepofsky today who is with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. I really want to put in his comment here today. He said:

The bill that is now before you is very strong on good intentions but very weak on implementation and enforcement…When you come to vote on amendments before this committee and when you go back to your caucuses to decide what position you’re going to take, we urge you not simply to think of the immediate political expediency of today; we do urge you to think about the imminent election a year from now and the needs of the minority of everyone, for whom no party or politician can go soft.

Mr. Lepofsky was speaking for Canadians across the country asking us as parliamentarians to not get cold feet. This is an opportunity to make some substantial, historic change for Canadians with disabilities, and we failed.

I have to share a little of the frustration on this, as we will be voting in support of Bill C-81. For those organizations, those stakeholders listening today, the reason we are voting in support of Bill C-81 is certainly not because we agree with it. In fact, I have outlined today in my speech the many reasons why we are not. We heard from the stakeholders time and time again of their disappointment. But their comments were always that, although it fell well short of what they wanted, it was a start, and I will grant them that, it is a start.

I know they were expecting much more from the minister, the Liberal government and from us as members of that committee. Therefore, my promise to those Canadians in the disabilities community across the country is that when a Conservative government comes into power, we will do everything we can to address the shortcomings of Bill C-81. I know how much work they have put into this proposed legislation. I know how much time and effort they put in working with us on the committee. I know what their vision was for Bill C-81. Unfortunately, this falls short. We will not make that same mistake in 2019.



Source link

Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh Is First and Only National Leader to Pledge to Strengthen the Accessible Canada Act. What Will the Other Parties Pledge in This Election to Make Canada Accessible for Over 6 Million People with Disabilities by 2040?


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE
NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 4, 2021 Toronto: In the current federal election, the NDP is the first federal party to write the AODA Alliance to commit to strengthen the 2019 Accessible Canada Act (ACA), and to ensure that public money is never used to create barriers against over six million people with disabilities. The NDP’s September 4, 2021 letter to the AODA Alliance is set out below.

In its August 3, 2021 letter to the party leaders, the non-partisan AODA Alliance requested 12 specific commitments to strengthen the ACA and to ensure its swift and effective implementation and enforcement. (12 requests set out and answered below in Mr. Singh’s letter). The NDP’s letter, set out below, Mr. Singh makes many of the commitments the AODA Alliance sought.

“We’ve now 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 between 2018 and 2019 before it was passed. 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 during debates over that bill in 2018-2019, the Liberals made promising statements about what the new law would achieve for people with disabilities. Commitments are sought in this election to turn those statements into assured action.

In the 2019 federal election, the Liberals promised the timely and ambitious implementation of this legislation. It repeated that pledge in its 2021 platform released days ago. Two years after first making this pledge, the Government has taken some steps, but has been dragging its feet. The federal government has not even hired the national accessibility commissioner or the chief accessibility officer, pivotal to lead the ACA’s implementation.

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. In 2018, the Liberals voted down most of the proposed opposition amendments that were advanced on behalf of people with disabilities.

In 2019, 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 actual and virtual hustings and in social media. 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, and its efforts to get it effectively implemented since then, visit www.aodaalliance.org/canada

Text of the New Democratic Party of Canada’s September 4, 2021 Email to the AODA 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 of the ACA’s enactment? If not, will you commit that those regulations will be enacted under the ACA within four years of the ACA’s enactment?

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 fought repeatedly to include implementation timelines in Bill C-81. During committee study of the bill, the Government there was overwhelming unanimity on the part of the leading experts and stakeholder groups in the country as to how the bill needed to be amended. The NDP listened and introduced amendments based on the feedback of the disability community but nearly all our amendments were defeated by the Liberals. A New Democrat government will work hard to enact regulations to set accessibility standards in a timely fashion.

2. Will your party commit to ensure that the ACA is effectively and vigourously enforced?

Yes, it’s critical to ensure that the ACA is effectively enforced. The NDP fought hard to amend Bill C-81 to ensure that the accessibility standards would be enforced, introducing amendments that were called for by Canadians living with disabilities. Unfortunately, the Liberals defeated nearly all of our amendments. An NDP government will strengthen the ACA to ensure accessibility standards are enforced.

3. Will your party ensure by legislation, and if not, then by strong monitored 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 when they introduced the ACA. Federal money should never used by any recipient to create or perpetuate disability barriers. The NDP fought to include this provision in the bill, putting forward an amendment at committee. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against.

New Democrats want to build 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 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.

4. 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, an NDP government will ensure 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 for persons with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, employment, accommodation, buildings, structures or premises shall prevail.

5. 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 and take the appropriate corrective measures to make sure airlines and railways pay monetary compensation in situations where they should have to pay up.

6. 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 ACA tabled by the Liberal government gave several public agencies and officials far too much sweeping power to grant partial or blanket exemptions to specific organizations from important parts of the Act. The ACA separates enforcement and implementation in a confusing way over four different public agencies. New Democrats believe it should be providing people with disabilities with what they need: a 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.

7. 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 governmentevery budget, every policy and regulationshould be viewed through a disability lens. The NDP has supported the establishment of a Canadians with Disabilities Act for many years.

8. 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 recognize that our public institutions and our public policies are stronger when they are representative and allow for full participation. Within our own party, we have sought to address barriers for candidates with disabilities guided by the advice of our Persons Living With Disabilities Committee, and have established a fund specifically to support candidates living with disabilities.

We have also fought to create change for candidates in all parties, bringing forward amendments to C-81 that would have required 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. An NDP government will make sure that review happens, and bring forth legislation within 12 months of the completion of that review to address the barriers that were identified.

9. 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?

Eleven years ago, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Though the Liberal government has introduced an Accessibility Act, its exemptions mean Canada’s accessibility legislation 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.

10. 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 to participants with hearing disabilities?

Our country cannot be barrier-free if our public institutions are not accessible to all Canadians, including Canadians with hearing disabilities. The NDP brought forward an amendment during hearings on the ACA that 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. An NDP government will implement this requirement and ensure that we remove barriers to justice for Canadians living with disabilities.

11. 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 NDP fought to improve this bill and brought forward numerous amendments that were proposed by stakeholders in the disability community. We do not see this fight as over just because the Liberals have given up; an NDP government will work to fix the ACA, including the many issues that were flagged during hearings on Bill C-81.

12. Will your party commit to ensure that the National Building Code meets the accessibility requirements in the Charter of Rights, the Canada Human Rights Act and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Will your party commit that any efforts to harmonize federal and provincial building codes will never reduce or dilute accessibility protections for people with disabilities?

Yes, an NDP government will apply a disability lens to all government legislation, regulations, codes, and procedures to ensure that we are removing barriers to full inclusion and respecting the rights of Canadians living with disabilities. Where there are gaps or shortcomings in existing policies, we will work with the disability community to fix the legislation or policies, including with the National Building Code. We will apply this same lens to any conversations with the provinces and territories about harmonization of laws and regulations.




Source link

Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh Is First and Only National Leader to Pledge to Strengthen the Accessible Canada Act. What Will the Other Parties Pledge in This Election to Make Canada Accessible for Over 6 Million People with Disabilities by 2040? – AODA Alliance


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 4, 2021 Toronto: In the current federal election, the NDP is the first federal party to write the AODA Alliance to commit to strengthen the 2019 Accessible Canada Act (ACA), and to ensure that public money is never used to create barriers against over six million people with disabilities. The NDP’s September 4, 2021 letter to the AODA Alliance is set out below.

In its August 3, 2021 letter to the party leaders, the non-partisan AODA Alliance requested 12 specific commitments to strengthen the ACA and to ensure its swift and effective implementation and enforcement. (12 requests set out and answered below in Mr. Singh’s letter). The NDP’s letter, set out below, Mr. Singh makes many of the commitments the AODA Alliance sought.

“We’ve now 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 between 2018 and 2019 before it was passed. 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 during debates over that bill in 2018-2019, the Liberals made promising statements about what the new law would achieve for people with disabilities. Commitments are sought in this election to turn those statements into assured action.

In the 2019 federal election, the Liberals promised the timely and ambitious implementation of this legislation. It repeated that pledge in its 2021 platform released days ago. Two years after first making this pledge, the Government has taken some steps, but has been dragging its feet. The federal government has not even hired the national accessibility commissioner or the chief accessibility officer, pivotal to lead the ACA’s implementation.

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. In 2018, the Liberals voted down most of the proposed opposition amendments that were advanced on behalf of people with disabilities.

In 2019, 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 actual and virtual hustings and in social media. 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, and its efforts to get it effectively implemented since then, visit www.aodaalliance.org/canada

Text of the New Democratic Party of Canada’s September 4, 2021 Email to the AODA 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 of the ACA’s enactment? If not, will you commit that those regulations will be enacted under the ACA within four years of the ACA’s enactment?

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 fought repeatedly to include implementation timelines in Bill C-81. During committee study of the bill, the Government there was overwhelming unanimity on the part of the leading experts and stakeholder groups in the country as to how the bill needed to be amended. The NDP listened and introduced amendments based on the feedback of the disability community but nearly all our amendments were defeated by the Liberals. 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 and vigourously enforced?

 

Yes, it’s critical to ensure that the ACA is effectively enforced. The NDP fought hard to amend Bill C-81 to ensure that the accessibility standards would be enforced, introducing amendments that were called for by Canadians living with disabilities. Unfortunately, the Liberals defeated nearly all of our amendments. An NDP government will strengthen the ACA to ensure accessibility standards are enforced.

  1. Will your party ensure by legislation, and if not, then by strong monitored 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 when they introduced the ACA. Federal money should never used by any recipient to create or perpetuate disability barriers. The NDP fought to include this provision in the bill, putting forward an amendment at committee. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against.

New Democrats want to build 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 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, an NDP government will ensure 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 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 and 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 ACA tabled by the Liberal government gave several public agencies and officials far too much sweeping power to grant partial or blanket exemptions to specific organizations from important parts of the Act. The ACA separates enforcement and implementation in a confusing way over four different public agencies. New Democrats believe it should be providing people with disabilities with what they need: a 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 recognize that our public institutions and our public policies are stronger when they are representative and allow for full participation. Within our own party, we have sought to address barriers for candidates with disabilities guided by the advice of our Persons Living With Disabilities Committee, and have established a fund specifically to support candidates living with disabilities.

We have also fought to create change for candidates in all parties, bringing forward amendments to C-81 that would have required 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. An NDP government will make sure that review happens, and bring forth legislation within 12 months of the completion of that review to address the barriers that were identified.

  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?

Eleven years ago, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Though the Liberal government has introduced an Accessibility Act, its exemptions mean Canada’s accessibility legislation 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 to participants with hearing disabilities?

Our country cannot be barrier-free if our public institutions are not accessible to all Canadians, including Canadians with hearing disabilities. The NDP brought forward an amendment during hearings on the ACA that 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. An NDP government will implement this requirement and ensure that we remove barriers to justice for Canadians living with disabilities.

  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 NDP fought to improve this bill and brought forward numerous amendments that were proposed by stakeholders in the disability community. We do not see this fight as over just because the Liberals have given up; an NDP government will work to fix the ACA, including the many issues that were flagged during hearings on Bill C-81.

  1. Will your party commit to ensure that the National Building Code meets the accessibility requirements in the Charter of Rights, the Canada Human Rights Act and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Will your party commit that any efforts to harmonize federal and provincial building codes will never reduce or dilute accessibility protections for people with disabilities?

Yes, an NDP government will apply a disability lens to all government legislation, regulations, codes, and procedures to ensure that we are removing barriers to full inclusion and respecting the rights of Canadians living with disabilities. Where there are gaps or shortcomings in existing policies, we will work with the disability community to fix the legislation or policies, including with the National Building Code. We will apply this same lens to any conversations with the provinces and territories about harmonization of laws and regulations.

 



Source link

With a Federal Election Looming, Two Captioned Videos Explain Why Canada Needs a Strong Accessible Canada Act and Why the One that Passed in 2019 Needs to Be Strengthened


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities
Web: https://www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

July 28, 2021

It sure looks, sounds, tastes and smells like there is a federal election in the air. That means it is time for disability advocates to gear up to ask the federal parties for election commitments on accessibility for over six million people with disabilities in Canada!

To get ready, we would welcome your feedback. What should we be asking for regarding the implementation of the Accessible Canada Act. It was passed over two years ago. Yet the Federal Government has still not hired the national Accessibility Commissioner or the Chief Accessibility Officer to lead its implementation. No accessibility standards have yet been enacted to require specific action to remove and prevent disability barriers.

To learn more about this subject, we today unveil for you two captioned videos. Together, they bring you up to speed.

The first video, ” What should Canada’s promised national accessibility legislation include?” tells you why Canada needs a strong national accessibility law. It is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzUKVs28T8U

The second video, called “2018-2019 Campaign to get Canada’s parliament to Pass a Strong Accessible Canada Act,” gives you the history of the trip that the Accessible Canada Act took through Canada’s House of Commons, Senate, and back to the House of Commons again, in 2018-2019. That video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMdC0wi5FlM
Together these videos show that the Accessible Canada Act is helpful, but too weak. We and many others were especially worried because it commendably gave the Federal Government new powers, without imposing needed time lines on the Government to ensure that the law is implemented in a timely and effective way. By splintering its implementation and enforcement across three federal agencies, it made the law unnecessarily complicated and hard to navigate. Events since then have proven us correct.

In the October 2019 federal election, the governing Liberal party made election commitments on its implementation. It pledged to use a disability lens for all Government decisions. It also committed:

” We are fully committed to the timely and ambitious implementation of the Accessible Canada Act so that it can fully benefit all Canadians.”

Have they kept their word? What promises should we ask all the major parties to make? The Accessible Canada Act requires Canada to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2040, at least within federal jurisdiction. In the two years since the Accessible Canada Act was passed, has Canada made two years’ worth of progress towards that goal? Are we on schedule?

Send us your feedback. Write us at [email protected]

For even more background on the AODA Alliance’s efforts regarding the Accessible Canada Act, visit the AODA Alliance website’s Canada page.




Source link

Disability Rights Advocate Launches Court Application Against the Ford Government for Violating the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE
NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 7, 2021 Toronto: Today, blind lawyer, law professor and volunteer disability rights advocate David Lepofsky filed a court application against the Ford Government in the Ontario Divisional Court for violating a mandatory provision in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). He asks the Court to order Ontarios Minister for Seniors and Accessibility to immediately post on line and otherwise make public the initial recommendations for measures needed to tear down barriers in Ontario’s education system plaguing students with disabilities and in Ontarios health care system, impeding patients with disabilities, that the Minister received from three advisory committees appointed under the AODA. Text of the notice of application and Lepofskys supporting affidavit are set out below.

The AODA requires the Ontario Government to lead Ontario to become accessible to over 2.6 million people with disabilities by 2025. It must enact and effectively enforcing a series of regulations, called accessibility standards, that spell out what organizations must do to become accessible to people with disabilities, and by when. The Government must appoint a series of committees, called Standards Development Committees, to advise on what those regulations should include.

According to section 10 of the AODA, when an advisory Standards Development Committee submits initial or draft recommendations to the Minister, the Minister is required to make those recommendations public upon receiving them, e.g. by posting them on the Governments website. Yet the ford Government sat on three sets of such initial or draft recommendations for months. The Health Care Standards Development Committee submitted its initial recommendations to the Ford Government by the end of December 2020. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee submitted its initial recommendations to the Government on March 12, 2021. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee submitted its initial recommendations to the Government around the same time.

Just as this application was being served on the Government, the Government belatedly announced that it made public the initial recommendations of the Health Care Standards Development Committee. Lepofsky does not claim that this was triggered by the court application. However, the Government has still not made public the other two Standards Development Committees recommendations. Therefore this court application remains important and urgent.

The Ford Governments inexcusable contravention of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act hurts people with disabilities, by delaying overdue progress on accessibility. It is leadership by a poor example, from a Government that pledged to lead on this issue by a good example, said Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan AODA Alliance which campaigns for accessibility for people with any kind of disability. The fact that for over five months in the middle of a pandemic, the Government sat on important recommendations on how to tear down disability barriers in Ontarios health care system impeding patients with disabilities is especially hurtful.

Lepofsky will argue that schools, colleges,, universities and health care providers deserved and were entitled to see all these initial recommendations immediately, so that they can try to put them into action where possible long before the Government enacts new regulations in this area.

People with disabilities should not have to resort to going to court to get the Ford Government to obey the law, said Lepofsky. Fortunately, Im blessed to have excellent pro bono representation by Martha McCarthy of McCarthy Hansen & Company LLP, and I have my own legal training, but no one should have to go through this.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, [email protected] Twitter: @davidlepofsky and @aodaalliance More background at www.aodaalliance.org

Text of the May 7, 2021 Notice of Application

APPLICATION
1. The applicant makes application for:
a. Judicial review of the respondents failure to act in accordance with s. 10(1) of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (the AODA), more specifically:
i. The respondents failure to make available the initial or draft recommendations of the Health Care Standards Development Committee for public viewing on a government website or through such other means as the Minister considers advisable;
ii. The respondents failure to make available the initial or draft recommendations of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee for public viewing on a government website or through such other means as the Minister considers advisable; and,
iii. The respondents failure to make available the initial or draft recommendations of the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee for public viewing on a government website or through such other means as the Minister considers advisable.
b. An order for mandamus, directing the respondent to make the documents listed in paragraph 1. a., above, immediately available to the public by posting them on a government website and by such other means the Minister considers advisable;
c. If necessary, leave for this application to be heard urgently pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act and Part I of the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Hearings; d. The applicants costs in this proceeding on a full indemnity basis; and,
e. Such further and other relief as counsel may request and as to this court seems just. 2. The grounds for the application are:
a. In or about 2017, the Government of Ontario appointed the Health Care Standards Development Committee to prepare recommendations on what should be included in a Health Care Accessibility Standard to be enacted under the AODA. A Health Care Accessibility Standard would outline disability barriers that should be removed and prevented in Ontarios health care system that impede people with disabilities.
b. In or about 2018, the Government of Ontario appointed the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee to prepare recommendations on what should be included in a Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. A Kindergarten to Grade 12 Accessibility Standard could require the removal and prevention of disability barriers in Ontario schools that impede students with disabilities.
c. In or about 2018, the Government of Ontario appointed the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee to prepare recommendations on what should be included in a Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. A Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard could require the removal and prevention of disability barriers in post-secondary educational organizations such as colleges and universities in Ontario that impede students with disabilities.
d. In or about December 2020, the Health Care Standards Development Committee delivered its initial or draft recommendations to the respondent, pursuant to s. 9 of the AODA.
e. In or about March 2021, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee delivered its initial or draft recommendations to the respondent, pursuant to s. 9 of the AODA.
f. In March 2021, the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee delivered its initial or draft recommendations to the respondent, pursuant to s. 9 of the AODA.
g. Pursuant to s. 10 of the AODA, the respondent has a mandatory duty to post those initial or draft recommendations upon receiving them. Section 10(1) of the AODA provides:
10. (1) Upon receiving a proposed accessibility standard from a standards development committee under subsection 9 (5) or clause 9 (9) (c), the Minister shall make it available to the public by posting it on a government internet site and by such other means as the Minister considers advisable.
h. The respondent has not posted any of the initial or draft recommendations from any of the Committees on the Government of Ontario website or otherwise made them public.
i. The respondents failure to fulfil his mandatory statutory duty post those initial or draft recommendations of the Committees on the internet and otherwise make them public is contrary to and flies in the face of the spirit and purpose of the AODA, which is to make Ontario accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. This failure delays Ontario from reaching the goal of becoming accessible to people with disabilities in the important contexts of health care and education fields in which a lack of accessibility has dire consequences.
j. The AODA aims to effectively implement the right to equality in areas like health care and education for people with disabilities that is guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
k. The applicant has a strong public interest in this applications issues, both as a blind person and having acted as a volunteer disability accessibility community organizer and advocate for decades. The applicant led the volunteer campaign from 1994 to 2005 to get the AODA enacted. The applicant is currently the chair of the AODA Alliance, a non-partisan coalition that leads the campaign to get the AODA implemented in a meaningful and timely manner.
l. The Government of Ontario appointed the applicant as a member of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, on which he has served since the Committee was established.
m. The applicant is a member and past chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board, established under O. Reg. 464/97.

3. The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the application: a. The Affidavit of the Applicant, David Lepofsky; and,
b. Such further and other material as counsel may request and this Honourable Court will permit.

Text of the May 7, 2021 Affidavit of David Lepofsky

I, David Lepofsky, CM, O. Ont., LLB (Osgoode Hall), LLM (Harvard University), LLD (Hon. Queens University, University of Western Ontario, Law Society of Ontario), of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, AFFIRM:
1. I am the Chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance (the AODA Alliance) and am blind. As such, I have knowledge of the matters to herein deposed.
2. I affirm this affidavit in support of my application for judicial review, in which I am seeking mandamus directing the Minister of Seniors and Accessibility to fulfil his statutory duties under s. 10(1) the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and for no other or improper purpose. The AODA Alliance
3. The AODA Alliance is an unincorporated, volunteer-run, non-partisan community coalition of individuals and organizations.
4. The AODA Alliance was established in the fall of 2005, shortly after the Ontario legislature enacted the AODA. Its mission is to contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free society for all persons with disabilities, by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the AODA. Its activities are documented in detail on its website at http://www.aodaalliance.org.
5. The AODA Alliance is the successor to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee (the ODA Committee). From 1994 to mid-2005, the ODA Committee led a non-partisan province-wide campaign, advocating for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation in Ontario, culminating in the enactment of the AODA in 2005.
6. The AODA Alliance builds on the ODA Committees work, and draws its membership from the ODA Committee’s broad grassroots base. The work of the ODA Committee from 1994 up to the time when it finished its work in mid-2005 is documented in detail at: http://www.odacommittee.net.
7. The AODA Alliance has received broad recognition as a credible non-partisan voice on disability accessibility issues. For example:
a. The Government of Ontario and members of the provincial legislature have repeatedly and publicly recognized and commended the efforts of the AODA Alliance, and before it, the ODA Committee, for its volunteer advocacy on the cause of accessibility for people with disabilities.
b. In every provincial election starting in 1995, at least two of the major Ontario political parties have made election commitments concerning accessibility for people with disabilities. In every case where such commitments were made, they were set out in letters from the party leader to the ODA Committee up to 2005, and after that, to the AODA Alliance. For example, Premier Dalton McGuinty made his 2011 election promises on disability accessibility in his August 19, 2011 letter to me, as chair of the AODA Alliance. In the 2014 election, Premier Kathleen Wynne made her partys disability accessibility election pledges in her May 14, 2014 letter to me, as chair of the AODA Alliance. In the 2018 election, Doug Ford made his partys commitments on disability accessibility in his May 15, 2018 letter to me as chair of the AODA Alliance. All these letters are posted on one or other of the websites referred to above.
c. Our input on accessibility issues has been provided to community groups and government officials in several Canadian provinces, by the Government of Canada, and in other countries, such as Israel and New Zealand. My Involvement with the AODA Alliance
8. I am intimately familiar with the work of the AODA Alliance, and of its predecessor, the ODA Committee because:
a. I served as Co-Chair, and later as Chair, of the ODA Committee from early 1995 up to its dissolution in August 2005.
b. I was present during the establishment of the AODA Alliance and was a driving force behind its establishment as the successor to the ODA Committee. Its initial Chair was Catherine Dunphy Tardik. I initially took no leadership role with the AODA Alliance although I remained available to assist as requested.
c. In early 2006, the AODA Alliance appointed me as its Human Rights Reform Representative. I served as lead spokesperson for the AODA Alliance during controversial public and legislative debates over Bill 107, a reform to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Over that period, I worked very closely with the AODA Alliance Chair.
d. In February 2009, I became the Chair of the AODA Alliance, a position I have held to the present time.
9. My extensive work for the AODA Alliance and the ODA Committee is documented on the two websites identified above. All my work for these coalitions has been conducted as a volunteer. I have never been an employee of the AODA Alliance or the ODA Committee and have never received any salary from either organization.
10. Over more than two decades, I have had very extensive dealings with the Government of Ontario at all levels, both in my capacity with the AODA Alliance, and prior to that, as co-chair and then chair of the ODA Committee. In these capacities, I have met with Ontario Premiers, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Secretaries of Cabinet, Assistant Deputy Ministers, and a myriad of other public officials in the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Public Service. I have similarly had extensive dealings with opposition parties and their staffs throughout my time doing volunteer work in this area.
11. I have received several awards for my volunteer activities on disability accessibility issues, including my volunteer work for the ODA Committee and later for the AODA Alliance. Among these, I was invested as a member of the Order of Canada in 1995, as a member of the Order of Ontario in 2008 and in the Terry Fox Hall of Fame in 2003. I have received honorary doctorates from Queens University, the University of Western Ontario, and the Law Society of Ontario arising from this activity.
The Non-Partisan Campaign to get the Government of Ontario to Enact a Health Care Accessibility Standard and an Education Accessibility Standard
12. The AODA requires Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. Under the AODA, an Ontario cabinet minister is to be designated to be responsible to lead the Acts implementation and enforcement.
13. Since June 2018, that designated lead Minister has been the respondent, Ontarios Minister for Seniors and Accessibility, the Hon. Raymond Cho (the Minister).
14. Among other things, the Minister is responsible for leading the development, enactment, and enforcement of AODA accessibility standards, in accordance with the powers, duties, and procedures set out in the AODA.
15. From 2003 to 2005, I was extensively involved in the negotiations with the Government of Ontario concerning the development of the provisions of the AODA, in my capacity as Chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee.
16. In my capacity as AODA Alliance Chair, I have been extensively involved for years in grassroots non-partisan disability advocacy to ensure that strong and effective accessibility standards are enacted and enforced under the AODA. This has included an ongoing push since 2009 to remove and prevent the barriers that people with disabilities face in Ontarios education and health care systems.
17. If enacted, the enforceable regulations we seek would respectively be called the Education Accessibility Standard and the Health Care Accessibility Standard. Our efforts to secure the enactment of a strong Education Accessibility Standard are documented at www.aodaalliance.org/education. Our efforts to secure the enactment of a strong Health Care Accessibility Standard are set out at www.aodaalliance.org/healthcare.
18. As a result of our years of advocacy, on February 13, 2015, the Ontario cabinet minister then responsible for the AODA, the Hon. Eric Hoskins, announced that the Government of Ontario would develop and enact a Health Care Accessibility Standard under the AODA. Over one year later, on December 5, 2016, Premier Kathleen Wynne announced during Question Period in the Ontario Legislature that the Government of Ontario would develop an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA.
19. Under the AODA, the first step required for the government to develop an accessibility standard is for the Minister responsible for the AODA to appoint an advisory committee (a Standards Development Committee) to make recommendations on what the specific accessibility standard should include. That Standards Development Committee is required to include representatives from the disability community as well as representatives from the obligated sector, such as health or education.
20. In or about 2017, the government appointed the Health Care Standards Development Committee (or the Health Care Committee) to develop recommendations on what should be included in the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard.
21. In early 2018, the government appointed two Standards Development Committees to make recommendations on what should be included in the promised Education Accessibility Standard.
a. One committee was appointed to deal with barriers impeding students with disabilities from kindergarten to grade twelve. That committee is called the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee (or the K-12 Committee).
b. The other committee was appointed to deal with barriers facing students with disabilities in post-secondary education. It is called the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee (or the Post-Secondary Committee).
22. I was appointed to serve on the K-12 Committee and have spent a great many volunteer hours working on that Committee since it was established. The Standards Development Procedure Established by the AODA
23. Under the AODA, a Standards Development Committee is first required to develop initial or draft recommendations for the government. These initial or draft recommendations on what the accessibility standard in issue should include are to be submitted to the Minister. Under s. 10(1) of the AODA, upon receiving initial or draft recommendations from a Standards Development Committee, the minister is required to make those initial or draft recommendations public for at least 45 days, including posting them on the internet. The public is to be invited to give feedback on those initial or draft recommendations.
24. That public feedback is to then be given to the Standards Development Committee. The public feedback can serve as an important aid for the Standards Development Committee to refine, improve, and finalize the Committees recommendations, drawing on input from people with disabilities, the obligated sector of the economy, and the public. After that public feedback is received, the Standards Development Committee meets to review the feedback and to finalize its recommendations for the government on what the accessibility standard in issue should include.
25. Once finalized, the Standards Development Committee then is required to submit its final recommendations to the Minister. Section 10(1) of the AODA requires the Minister to make those final recommendations public upon receiving them. Thereafter, the government can enact some, all, or none of what the Standards Development Committee recommended.
These Three Standards Development Committees Have Provided their Draft Recommendations to the Government
26. By December 31, 2020, the Health Care Standards Development Committee submitted its initial or draft recommendations to the Minister. Those initial or draft recommendations have not been made public, despite the statutory requirement for the Minister to do so.
27. On or about March 12, 2021, the K-12 Committee submitted its initial or draft recommendations to the Minister. Just like the draft recommendations submitted by the Health Care Standards Development Committee, the K-12 Committees recommendations have still not been released to the public.
28. I understand that the Post-Secondary Committee submitted its initial or draft recommendations to the Minister around the same time as did the K-12 Committee. The Post-Secondary Committees recommendations have also not been released to the public.
29. I asked the Ministry of Senior Accessibility to provide the initial or draft recommendations of the Post-Secondary Committee to me, in my capacity as a member of the K-12 Committee. To date, the Ministry has not provided the Post-Secondary Committees recommendations to me.
30. I requested a copy of the Post-Secondary Committees recommendations because there is an obvious and substantial connection between its work and the work of the K-12 Education Committee. Both committees are making recommendations concerning barriers in education for students with disabilities.
31. As members of the K-12 Committee, we know about some of what the Post-Secondary Committee is recommending, because a joint subcommittee exists with representatives of the two Standards Development Committees to address technical overlap issues. There is thus no reason why we should not now have seen all of what the Post-Secondary Committee has recommended, and vice versa.
32. I have been urging the Government to quickly make public all these Standards Development Committee recommendations, on Twitter and otherwise. On April 29, 2021, I along with the rest of the K-12 Committee received the following email from the Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility: Dear K-12 Standards Development Committee members:

We hope this message finds you doing well.

We would like to provide an update on the progress of the committees initial recommendations report.
As you know, your committee Chair, Lynn Ziraldo, submitted the report and the accompanying report of the Technical Sub-Committee on Transitions to MSAA Minister Raymond Cho on March 12.
We have been busy preparing the reports for online posting, as well as translating them into French and preparing the survey that will accompany the postings. All of this work goes towards ensuring that the reports receive the most comprehensive feedback possible from the public.
As well, we understand the importance of posting this document as soon as possible, so that respondents will have a chance to consider providing input before the end of the school year. As I am sure you understand, our government is facing unprecedented challenges in delivering services to the public, and must prioritize all public-facing initiatives.
We look forward to notifying you when these postings are going to occur and appreciate your patience and understanding as we move closer to the posting date.
As always, you can reach out to the Chair, Lynn Ziraldo or the Ministry anytime with questions.

Thank you.
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Division
Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility
A copy of the email dated April 29, 2021 is attached as Exhibit A.
33. Since receiving this email, the initial or draft recommendations of these three Standards Development Committees have not been publicly posted.
No Justification for Delaying Public Posting of the Initial or Draft Recommendations of the Three Standards Development Committees
34. The Government has not provided a compelling reason why it could not have earlier posted these initial or draft recommendations.
35. The government was throughout well-aware of the work and the progress of each Standards Development Committee. The Ministry had staff organize and take part in committee meetings. Ministry staff had regular communications with each committee Chair and its members.
36. As of the date of this affidavit, the Ministry has had the final text of each set of initial or draft recommendations for ample time over five months in the case of the ones regarding health care, and almost two months in the case of those regarding education. The Ministry knew these were coming, well in advance, and what they would contain.
37. It would take little or no time to make these documents available in an accessible format. That cannot justify this delay.
38. Referring to the April 29, 2021 email quoted above, the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic do not justify this delay. The staff of the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility are not responsible for leading the governments pandemic response.
39. Moreover, that email states that the during the pandemic, the Government must prioritize all public-facing initiatives. From my 33 years working in the Ontario Government before my retirement at the end of 2015, and from my extensive interaction with the Government as a disability rights community organizer and advocate, I understand this to mean that the Government wants to set priorities in the timing of messages it transmits to the public. Yet the Government can and does regularly transmit many different messages to the public at any one time. It can post multiple messages or documents on the internet on the same day. Its preferences or priorities over political messaging are not identified in s. 10 of the AODA with regard to the duty to make public a Standards Development Committees initial or draft recommendations upon the minister receiving them.
Harmful Consequences of the Delay in Making these Initial or Draft Recommendations Public
40. Ontario only has 1,335 days left before January 1, 2025, the date by which the AODA requires Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities. This includes, among other things, a requirement that Ontario’s education system and health care system must have become accessible to people with disabilities by that date.
41. I, and many other people with disabilities, are concerned about the delay that is facing accessibility initiatives in Ontario. Ontarians with disabilities are concerned about the delay that is facing accessibility initiatives in Ontario. According to the Final Report of the Third Independent Review of the AODAs Implementation and Enforcement, by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley, prepared pursuant to s. 41 of the AODA, Ontario was not on schedule for reaching that goal on time, as of that reports date (January 31, 2019). While I have linked to the Final Report, I have not attached it as an exhibit as I am conscious of the need to keep my materials brief.
42. The delay in releasing these initial or draft recommendations hurts students with disabilities and patients with disabilities. Until Ontario enacts and effectively enforces strong and effective accessibility standards in the areas of health care and education, patients with disabilities and students with disabilities respectively will continue to suffer from the many barriers that they must face in Ontario’s health care and education systems.
43. The unfortunate reality is that this is just one of many delays that has already plagued the development of the Health Care Accessibility Standard and Education Accessibility Standard, at the hands of the government.
44. The previous government contributed to delay by taking some two years to just appoint the Health Care Committee. It also took that government over one year to appoint the K-12 Committee and the Post-Secondary Committee. In contrast, it took the government one year to develop the entire AODA and to introduce it into the Legislature for first reading in October 2004.
45. The committees work was paused during the provincial 2018 election. However, upon the current government taking office, it left the committees frozen for months. The AODA Alliance had to campaign to get the government to permit the committees to continue their work. The committees eventually returned to work in the fall of 2019. This delay, at the hands of this government, further unnecessarily delayed the eventual enactment of a Health Care Accessibility Standard and an Education Accessibility Standard.
46. I am particularly concerned about the governments inaction because it delays progress on accessibility in health care and education that could begin immediately. For example, in a speech I gave last month, I encouraged senior officials of Ontarios school boards to immediately study the K-12 recommendations and implement as many of them as possible, once the draft is public. I have been told by some officials at the Toronto District School Board (Canadas largest school board) that they want to see the initial or draft recommendations so that they can start to use the recommendations. The governments inaction is delaying this.
47. Compounding my concern about delays is the impending summer break for school boards. Boards are seldom fully operational during the summer, and further delay risks the boards not providing feedback until the fall.
48. I am also a member and past Chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) of the Toronto District School Board. Ontario regulations require each school board to have a SEAC to give advice on how to meet the needs of students with special education needs. I am eager for our SEAC and for each of the SEACs at every Ontario school board to see the K-12 Committees initial or draft recommendations as soon as possible, so they can recommend actions that their school boards should take now, drawing on the Standards Development Committees thorough and detailed work product.
49. In the same way, it is my aim that the Health Care Standards Development Committee draft recommendations spawn action on disability barriers in Ontario hospitals.
50. I similarly aim for the release of the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committees initial or draft recommendations to lead colleges and universities to act now to tackle the many barriers that students with disabilities face in those institutions. The governments delay in releasing these initial or draft recommendations further delays those much-needed actions.
51. Publicly, the government has claimed to lead by example on accessibility for people with disabilities, and to take an all of government approach to disability accessibility. For example, these commitments were made at a media event staged on February 28, 2020. It is difficult to reconcile the governments promises with its unnecessary and inexplicable delay in the release of these initial or draft recommendations.
52. The irony of the government attempting to explain its delay using the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic should not be lost on anyone. The harm caused to people with disabilities by the governments delay in fulfilling its duty to make public the committees draft recommendations is exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Two key examples come to mind:
a. First, people with disabilities are disproportionately adversely affected by COVID-19, including having higher rates of severe infection and death. For five months of the pandemic, the government has sat on the Health Care Standards Development Committees initial or draft recommendations, that could make health care more accessible to people with disabilities.

b. Second, during the pandemic, students with disabilities have faced even more barriers in Ontario’s education system. I have been involved in advocating against these, on behalf of the AODA Alliance. The government is stalling efforts to help improve the plight of students with disabilities during the pandemic by keeping secret the draft or initial recommendations of the K-12 Committee and Post-Secondary Committee. While the government waits, these students fall further behind their peers.

RG




Source link

Disability Rights Advocate Launches Court Application Against the Ford Government for Violating the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act – AODA Alliance


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Disability Rights Advocate Launches Court Application Against the Ford Government for Violating the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

May 7, 2021 Toronto: Today, blind lawyer, law professor and volunteer disability rights advocate David Lepofsky filed a court application against the Ford Government in the Ontario Divisional Court for violating a mandatory provision in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). He asks the Court to order Ontario’s Minister for Seniors and Accessibility to immediately post on line and otherwise make public the initial recommendations for measures needed to tear down barriers in Ontario’s education system plaguing students with disabilities and in Ontario’s health care system, impeding patients with disabilities, that the Minister received from three advisory committees appointed under the AODA. Text of the notice of application and Lepofsky’s supporting affidavit are set out below.

The AODA requires the Ontario Government to lead Ontario to become accessible to over 2.6 million people with disabilities by 2025. It must enact and effectively enforcing a series of regulations, called accessibility standards, that spell out what organizations must do to become accessible to people with disabilities, and by when. The Government must appoint a series of committees, called Standards Development Committees, to advise on what those regulations should include.

According to section 10 of the AODA, when an advisory Standards Development Committee submits initial or draft recommendations to the Minister, the Minister is required to make those recommendations public upon receiving them, e.g. by posting them on the Government’s website. Yet the ford Government sat on three sets of such initial or draft recommendations for months. The Health Care Standards Development Committee submitted its initial recommendations to the Ford Government by the end of December 2020. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee submitted its initial recommendations to the Government on March 12, 2021. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee submitted its initial recommendations to the Government around the same time.

Just as this application was being served on the Government, the Government belatedly announced that it made public the initial recommendations of the Health Care Standards Development Committee. Lepofsky does not claim that this was triggered by the court application. However, the Government has still not made public the other two Standards Development Committees’ recommendations. Therefore this court application remains important and urgent.

“The Ford Government’s inexcusable contravention of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act hurts people with disabilities, by delaying overdue progress on accessibility. It is leadership by a poor example, from a Government that pledged to lead on this issue by a good example,” said Lepofsky, chair of the non-partisan AODA Alliance which campaigns for accessibility for people with any kind of disability. “The fact that for over five months in the middle of a pandemic, the Government sat on important recommendations on how to tear down disability barriers in Ontario’s health care system impeding patients with disabilities is especially hurtful.”

Lepofsky will argue that schools, colleges,, universities and health care providers deserved and were entitled to see all these initial recommendations immediately, so that they can try to put them into action where possible long before the Government enacts new regulations in this area.

“People with disabilities should not have to resort to going to court to get the Ford Government to obey the law,” said Lepofsky. “Fortunately, I’m blessed to have excellent pro bono representation by Martha McCarthy of McCarthy Hansen & Company LLP, and I have my own legal training, but no one should have to go through this.”

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, [email protected] Twitter: @davidlepofsky and @aodaalliance

More background at www.aodaalliance.org

Text of the May 7, 2021 Notice of Application

APPLICATION

  1. The applicant makes application for:
  1. Judicial review of the respondent’s failure to act in accordance with s. 10(1) of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (the “AODA”), more specifically:
  1. The respondent’s failure to make available the initial or draft recommendations of the Health Care Standards Development Committee for public viewing on a government website or through such other means as the Minister considers advisable;
  2. The respondent’s failure to make available the initial or draft recommendations of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee for public viewing on a government website or through such other means as the Minister considers advisable; and,
  • The respondent’s failure to make available the initial or draft recommendations of the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee for public viewing on a government website or through such other means as the Minister considers advisable.
  1. An order for mandamus, directing the respondent to make the documents listed in paragraph 1. a., above, immediately available to the public by posting them on a government website and by such other means the Minister considers advisable;
  2. If necessary, leave for this application to be heard urgently pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act and Part I of the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Hearings;
  3. The applicant’s costs in this proceeding on a full indemnity basis; and,
  4. Such further and other relief as counsel may request and as to this court seems just.
  5. The grounds for the application are:
  1. In or about 2017, the Government of Ontario appointed the Health Care Standards Development Committee to prepare recommendations on what should be included in a Health Care Accessibility Standard to be enacted under the AODA. A Health Care Accessibility Standard would outline disability barriers that should be removed and prevented in Ontario’s health care system that impede people with disabilities.
  2. In or about 2018, the Government of Ontario appointed the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee to prepare recommendations on what should be included in a Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. A Kindergarten to Grade 12 Accessibility Standard could require the removal and prevention of disability barriers in Ontario schools that impede students with disabilities.
  3. In or about 2018, the Government of Ontario appointed the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee to prepare recommendations on what should be included in a Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. A Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard could require the removal and prevention of disability barriers in post-secondary educational organizations such as colleges and universities in Ontario that impede students with disabilities.
  4. In or about December 2020, the Health Care Standards Development Committee delivered its initial or draft recommendations to the respondent, pursuant to s. 9 of the AODA.
  5. In or about March 2021, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee delivered its initial or draft recommendations to the respondent, pursuant to s. 9 of the AODA.
  6. In March 2021, the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee delivered its initial or draft recommendations to the respondent, pursuant to s. 9 of the AODA.
  7. Pursuant to s. 10 of the AODA, the respondent has a mandatory duty to post those initial or draft recommendations upon receiving them. Section 10(1) of the AODA provides:
  8. (1) Upon receiving a proposed accessibility standard from a standards development committee under subsection 9 (5) or clause 9 (9) (c), the Minister shall make it available to the public by posting it on a government internet site and by such other means as the Minister considers advisable.
  9. The respondent has not posted any of the initial or draft recommendations from any of the Committees on the Government of Ontario website or otherwise made them public.
  10. The respondent’s failure to fulfil his mandatory statutory duty post those initial or draft recommendations of the Committees on the internet and otherwise make them public is contrary to and flies in the face of the spirit and purpose of the AODA, which is to make Ontario accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. This failure delays Ontario from reaching the goal of becoming accessible to people with disabilities in the important contexts of health care and education – fields in which a lack of accessibility has dire consequences.
  11. The AODA aims to effectively implement the right to equality in areas like health care and education for people with disabilities that is guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
  12. The applicant has a strong public interest in this application’s issues, both as a blind person and having acted as a volunteer disability accessibility community organizer and advocate for decades. The applicant led the volunteer campaign from 1994 to 2005 to get the AODA The applicant is currently the chair of the AODA Alliance, a non-partisan coalition that leads the campaign to get the AODA implemented in a meaningful and timely manner.
  13. The Government of Ontario appointed the applicant as a member of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, on which he has served since the Committee was established.
  14. The applicant is a member and past chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board, established under O. Reg. 464/97.
  1. The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the application:
  2. The Affidavit of the Applicant, David Lepofsky; and,
  3. Such further and other material as counsel may request and this Honourable Court will permit.

Text of the May 7, 2021 Affidavit of David Lepofsky

I, David Lepofsky, CM, O. Ont., LLB (Osgoode Hall), LLM (Harvard University), LLD (Hon. Queen’s University, University of Western Ontario, Law Society of Ontario), of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario,

AFFIRM:

  1. I am the Chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance (the “AODA Alliance”) and am blind. As such, I have knowledge of the matters to herein deposed.
  2. I affirm this affidavit in support of my application for judicial review, in which I am seeking mandamus directing the Minister of Seniors and Accessibility to fulfil his statutory duties under s. 10(1) the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (“AODA”), and for no other or improper purpose.
  1. The AODA Alliance is an unincorporated, volunteer-run, non-partisan community coalition of individuals and organizations.
  2. The AODA Alliance was established in the fall of 2005, shortly after the Ontario legislature enacted the AODA. Its mission is to contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free society for all persons with disabilities, by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the AODA. Its activities are documented in detail on its website at https://www.aodaalliance.org.
  3. The AODA Alliance is the successor to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee (the “ODA Committee”). From 1994 to mid-2005, the ODA Committee led a non-partisan province-wide campaign, advocating for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation in Ontario, culminating in the enactment of the AODA in 2005.
  4. The AODA Alliance builds on the ODA Committee’s work, and draws its membership from the ODA Committee’s broad grassroots base. The work of the ODA Committee from 1994 up to the time when it finished its work in mid-2005 is documented in detail at: http://www.odacommittee.net.
  5. The AODA Alliance has received broad recognition as a credible non-partisan voice on disability accessibility issues. For example:
    1. The Government of Ontario and members of the provincial legislature have repeatedly and publicly recognized and commended the efforts of the AODA Alliance, and before it, the ODA Committee, for its volunteer advocacy on the cause of accessibility for people with disabilities.
    2. In every provincial election starting in 1995, at least two of the major Ontario political parties have made election commitments concerning accessibility for people with disabilities. In every case where such commitments were made, they were set out in letters from the party leader to the ODA Committee up to 2005, and after that, to the AODA Alliance. For example, Premier Dalton McGuinty made his 2011 election promises on disability accessibility in his August 19, 2011 letter to me, as chair of the AODA Alliance. In the 2014 election, Premier Kathleen Wynne made her party’s disability accessibility election pledges in her May 14, 2014 letter to me, as chair of the AODA Alliance. In the 2018 election, Doug Ford made his party’s commitments on disability accessibility in his May 15, 2018 letter to me as chair of the AODA Alliance. All these letters are posted on one or other of the websites referred to above.
    3. Our input on accessibility issues has been provided to community groups and government officials in several Canadian provinces, by the Government of Canada, and in other countries, such as Israel and New Zealand.
  1. I am intimately familiar with the work of the AODA Alliance, and of its predecessor, the ODA Committee because:
    1. I served as Co-Chair, and later as Chair, of the ODA Committee from early 1995 up to its dissolution in August 2005.
    2. I was present during the establishment of the AODA Alliance and was a driving force behind its establishment as the successor to the ODA Committee. Its initial Chair was Catherine Dunphy Tardik. I initially took no leadership role with the AODA Alliance although I remained available to assist as requested.
    3. In early 2006, the AODA Alliance appointed me as its Human Rights Reform Representative. I served as lead spokesperson for the AODA Alliance during controversial public and legislative debates over Bill 107, a reform to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Over that period, I worked very closely with the AODA Alliance Chair.
    4. In February 2009, I became the Chair of the AODA Alliance, a position I have held to the present time.
  2. My extensive work for the AODA Alliance and the ODA Committee is documented on the two websites identified above. All my work for these coalitions has been conducted as a volunteer. I have never been an employee of the AODA Alliance or the ODA Committee and have never received any salary from either organization.
  3. Over more than two decades, I have had very extensive dealings with the Government of Ontario at all levels, both in my capacity with the AODA Alliance, and prior to that, as co-chair and then chair of the ODA Committee. In these capacities, I have met with Ontario Premiers, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Secretaries of Cabinet, Assistant Deputy Ministers, and a myriad of other public officials in the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Public Service. I have similarly had extensive dealings with opposition parties and their staffs throughout my time doing volunteer work in this area.
  4. I have received several awards for my volunteer activities on disability accessibility issues, including my volunteer work for the ODA Committee and later for the AODA Alliance. Among these, I was invested as a member of the Order of Canada in 1995, as a member of the Order of Ontario in 2008 and in the Terry Fox Hall of Fame in 2003. I have received honorary doctorates from Queen’s University, the University of Western Ontario, and the Law Society of Ontario arising from this activity.
  1. The AODA requires Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. Under the AODA, an Ontario cabinet minister is to be designated to be responsible to lead the Act’s implementation and enforcement.
  2. Since June 2018, that designated lead Minister has been the respondent, Ontario’s Minister for Seniors and Accessibility, the Hon. Raymond Cho (the “Minister”).
  3. Among other things, the Minister is responsible for leading the development, enactment, and enforcement of AODA accessibility standards, in accordance with the powers, duties, and procedures set out in the AODA.
  4. From 2003 to 2005, I was extensively involved in the negotiations with the Government of Ontario concerning the development of the provisions of the AODA, in my capacity as Chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee.
  5. In my capacity as AODA Alliance Chair, I have been extensively involved for years in grassroots non-partisan disability advocacy to ensure that strong and effective accessibility standards are enacted and enforced under the AODA. This has included an ongoing push since 2009 to remove and prevent the barriers that people with disabilities face in Ontario’s education and health care systems.
  6. If enacted, the enforceable regulations we seek would respectively be called the “Education Accessibility Standard” and the “Health Care Accessibility Standard”. Our efforts to secure the enactment of a strong Education Accessibility Standard are documented at aodaalliance.org/education. Our efforts to secure the enactment of a strong Health Care Accessibility Standard are set out at www.aodaalliance.org/healthcare.
  7. As a result of our years of advocacy, on February 13, 2015, the Ontario cabinet minister then responsible for the AODA, the Hon. Eric Hoskins, announced that the Government of Ontario would develop and enact a Health Care Accessibility Standard under the AODA. Over one year later, on December 5, 2016, Premier Kathleen Wynne announced during Question Period in the Ontario Legislature that the Government of Ontario would develop an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA.
  8. Under the AODA, the first step required for the government to develop an accessibility standard is for the Minister responsible for the AODA to appoint an advisory committee (a “Standards Development Committee”) to make recommendations on what the specific accessibility standard should include. That Standards Development Committee is required to include representatives from the disability community as well as representatives from the obligated sector, such as health or education.
  9. In or about 2017, the government appointed the “Health Care Standards Development Committee” (or the “Health Care Committee”) to develop recommendations on what should be included in the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard.
  10. In early 2018, the government appointed two Standards Development Committees to make recommendations on what should be included in the promised Education Accessibility Standard.
    1. One committee was appointed to deal with barriers impeding students with disabilities from kindergarten to grade twelve. That committee is called the “K-12 Education Standards Development Committee” (or the “K-12 Committee”).
    2. The other committee was appointed to deal with barriers facing students with disabilities in post-secondary education. It is called the “Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee” (or the “Post-Secondary Committee”).
  11. I was appointed to serve on the K-12 Committee and have spent a great many volunteer hours working on that Committee since it was established.
  1. Under the AODA, a Standards Development Committee is first required to develop initial or draft recommendations for the government. These initial or draft recommendations on what the accessibility standard in issue should include are to be submitted to the Minister. Under s. 10(1) of the AODA, upon receiving initial or draft recommendations from a Standards Development Committee, the minister is required to make those initial or draft recommendations public for at least 45 days, including posting them on the internet. The public is to be invited to give feedback on those initial or draft recommendations.
  2. That public feedback is to then be given to the Standards Development Committee. The public feedback can serve as an important aid for the Standards Development Committee to refine, improve, and finalize the Committee’s recommendations, drawing on input from people with disabilities, the obligated sector of the economy, and the public. After that public feedback is received, the Standards Development Committee meets to review the feedback and to finalize its recommendations for the government on what the accessibility standard in issue should include.
  3. Once finalized, the Standards Development Committee then is required to submit its final recommendations to the Minister. Section 10(1) of the AODA requires the Minister to make those final recommendations public upon receiving them. Thereafter, the government can enact some, all, or none of what the Standards Development Committee recommended.
  1. By December 31, 2020, the Health Care Standards Development Committee submitted its initial or draft recommendations to the Minister. Those initial or draft recommendations have not been made public, despite the statutory requirement for the Minister to do so.
  2. On or about March 12, 2021, the K-12 Committee submitted its initial or draft recommendations to the Minister. Just like the draft recommendations submitted by the Health Care Standards Development Committee, the K-12 Committee’s recommendations have still not been released to the public.
  3. I understand that the Post-Secondary Committee submitted its initial or draft recommendations to the Minister around the same time as did the K-12 Committee. The Post-Secondary Committee’s recommendations have also not been released to the public.
  4. I asked the Ministry of Senior Accessibility to provide the initial or draft recommendations of the Post-Secondary Committee to me, in my capacity as a member of the K-12 Committee. To date, the Ministry has not provided the Post-Secondary Committee’s recommendations to me.
  5. I requested a copy of the Post-Secondary Committee’s recommendations because there is an obvious and substantial connection between its work and the work of the K-12 Education Committee. Both committees are making recommendations concerning barriers in education for students with disabilities.
  6. As members of the K-12 Committee, we know about some of what the Post-Secondary Committee is recommending, because a joint subcommittee exists with representatives of the two Standards Development Committees to address technical overlap issues. There is thus no reason why we should not now have seen all of what the Post-Secondary Committee has recommended, and vice versa.
  7. I have been urging the Government to quickly make public all these Standards Development Committee recommendations, on Twitter and otherwise. On April 29, 2021, I along with the rest of the K-12 Committee received the following email from the Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility:

Dear K-12 Standards Development Committee members:

We hope this message finds you doing well.

We would like to provide an update on the progress of the committee’s initial recommendations report.

As you know, your committee Chair, Lynn Ziraldo, submitted the report – and the accompanying report of the Technical Sub-Committee on Transitions – to MSAA Minister Raymond Cho on March 12.

We have been busy preparing the reports for online posting, as well as translating them into French and preparing the survey that will accompany the postings. All of this work goes towards ensuring that the reports receive the most comprehensive feedback possible from the public.

As well, we understand the importance of posting this document as soon as possible, so that respondents will have a chance to consider providing input before the end of the school year. As I am sure you understand, our government is facing unprecedented challenges in delivering services to the public, and must prioritize all public-facing initiatives.

We look forward to notifying you when these postings are going to occur and appreciate your patience and understanding as we move closer to the posting date.

As always, you can reach out to the Chair, Lynn Ziraldo or the Ministry anytime with questions.

Thank you.

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Division

Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility

A copy of the email dated April 29, 2021 is attached as Exhibit A.

  1. Since receiving this email, the initial or draft recommendations of these three Standards Development Committees have not been publicly posted.
  1. The Government has not provided a compelling reason why it could not have earlier posted these initial or draft recommendations.
  2. The government was throughout well-aware of the work and the progress of each Standards Development Committee. The Ministry had staff organize and take part in committee meetings. Ministry staff had regular communications with each committee Chair and its members.
  3. As of the date of this affidavit, the Ministry has had the final text of each set of initial or draft recommendations for ample time – over five months in the case of the ones regarding health care, and almost two months in the case of those regarding education. The Ministry knew these were coming, well in advance, and what they would contain.
  4. It would take little or no time to make these documents available in an accessible format. That cannot justify this delay.
  5. Referring to the April 29, 2021 email quoted above, the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic do not justify this delay. The staff of the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility are not responsible for leading the government’s pandemic response.
  6. Moreover, that email states that the during the pandemic, the Government “…must prioritize all public-facing initiatives.” From my 33 years working in the Ontario Government before my retirement at the end of 2015, and from my extensive interaction with the Government as a disability rights community organizer and advocate, I understand this to mean that the Government wants to set priorities in the timing of messages it transmits to the public. Yet the Government can and does regularly transmit many different messages to the public at any one time. It can post multiple messages or documents on the internet on the same day. Its preferences or priorities over political messaging are not identified in s. 10 of the AODA with regard to the duty to make public a Standards Development Committee’s initial or draft recommendations upon the minister receiving them.
  1. Ontario only has 1,335 days left before January 1, 2025, the date by which the AODA requires Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities. This includes, among other things, a requirement that Ontario’s education system and health care system must have become accessible to people with disabilities by that date.
  2. I, and many other people with disabilities, are concerned about the delay that is facing accessibility initiatives in Ontario. Ontarians with disabilities are concerned about the delay that is facing accessibility initiatives in Ontario. According to the Final Report of the Third Independent Review of the AODA’s Implementation and Enforcement, by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley, prepared pursuant to s. 41 of the AODA, Ontario was not on schedule for reaching that goal on time, as of that report’s date (January 31, 2019). While I have linked to the Final Report, I have not attached it as an exhibit as I am conscious of the need to keep my materials brief.
  3. The delay in releasing these initial or draft recommendations hurts students with disabilities and patients with disabilities. Until Ontario enacts and effectively enforces strong and effective accessibility standards in the areas of health care and education, patients with disabilities and students with disabilities respectively will continue to suffer from the many barriers that they must face in Ontario’s health care and education systems.
  4. The unfortunate reality is that this is just one of many delays that has already plagued the development of the Health Care Accessibility Standard and Education Accessibility Standard, at the hands of the government.
  5. The previous government contributed to delay by taking some two years to just appoint the Health Care Committee. It also took that government over one year to appoint the K-12 Committee and the Post-Secondary Committee. In contrast, it took the government one year to develop the entire AODA and to introduce it into the Legislature for first reading in October 2004.
  6. The committees’ work was paused during the provincial 2018 election. However, upon the current government taking office, it left the committees frozen for months. The AODA Alliance had to campaign to get the government to permit the committees to continue their work. The committees eventually returned to work in the fall of 2019. This delay, at the hands of this government, further unnecessarily delayed the eventual enactment of a Health Care Accessibility Standard and an Education Accessibility Standard.
  7. I am particularly concerned about the government’s inaction because it delays progress on accessibility in health care and education that could begin immediately. For example, in a speech I gave last month, I encouraged senior officials of Ontario’s school boards to immediately study the K-12 recommendations and implement as many of them as possible, once the draft is public. I have been told by some officials at the Toronto District School Board (Canada’s largest school board) that they want to see the initial or draft recommendations so that they can start to use the recommendations. The government’s inaction is delaying this.
  8. Compounding my concern about delays is the impending summer break for school boards. Boards are seldom fully operational during the summer, and further delay risks the boards not providing feedback until the fall.
  9. I am also a member and past Chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee (“SEAC”) of the Toronto District School Board. Ontario regulations require each school board to have a SEAC to give advice on how to meet the needs of students with special education needs. I am eager for our SEAC and for each of the SEACs at every Ontario school board to see the K-12 Committee’s initial or draft recommendations as soon as possible, so they can recommend actions that their school boards should take now, drawing on the Standards Development Committee’s thorough and detailed work product.
  10. In the same way, it is my aim that the Health Care Standards Development Committee draft recommendations spawn action on disability barriers in Ontario hospitals.
  11. I similarly aim for the release of the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committees initial or draft recommendations to lead colleges and universities to act now to tackle the many barriers that students with disabilities face in those institutions. The government’s delay in releasing these initial or draft recommendations further delays those much-needed actions.
  12. Publicly, the government has claimed to lead by example on accessibility for people with disabilities, and to take an “all of government approach” to disability accessibility. For example, these commitments were made at a media event staged on February 28, 2020. It is difficult to reconcile the government’s promises with its unnecessary and inexplicable delay in the release of these initial or draft recommendations.
  13. The irony of the government attempting to explain its delay using the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic should not be lost on anyone. The harm caused to people with disabilities by the government’s delay in fulfilling its duty to make public the committees’ draft recommendations is exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Two key examples come to mind:
    1. First, people with disabilities are disproportionately adversely affected by COVID-19, including having higher rates of severe infection and death. For five months of the pandemic, the government has sat on the Health Care Standards Development Committee’s initial or draft recommendations, that could make health care more accessible to people with disabilities.
  1. Second, during the pandemic, students with disabilities have faced even more barriers in Ontario’s education system. I have been involved in advocating against these, on behalf of the AODA Alliance. The government is stalling efforts to help improve the plight of students with disabilities during the pandemic by keeping secret the draft or initial recommendations of the K-12 Committee and Post-Secondary Committee. While the government waits, these students fall further behind their peers.



Source link

In One Day, Advocacy Action on 3 Accessibility Fronts- Critical Care Triage, Electric Scooters and B.C. Disabilities Act


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities
Web: https://www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

April 29, 2021

SUMMARY

The grassroots volunteer campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities must be waged on so many fronts. Yesterday, we saw action at the same time on three of those fronts. In a nutshell:

1. On its April 28, 2021 evening TV news broadcast, Global News included a superb report on the disability discrimination in Ontarios critical care triage protocol by senior journalist Caryn Lieberman. We set out below the slightly longer text version of that report that Global also posted online. This is another in Ms. Liebermans consistently excellent reportage on disability issues in recent years.

For more on this issue, visit the AODA Alliance health care web page.

2. On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, after tenacious grassroots efforts by so many, the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee unanimously voted to not allow e-scooters in Toronto, and not to conduct a pilot project with e-scooters. E-scooters endanger the safety and accessibility for people with disabilities and seniors, and frankly, endanger everyone. Disability concerns were at the centre of this decision.

Thanks to all who joined in this grassroots campaign. However, we are not done yet. On May 5, 2021, the entire Toronto City Council will vote on the question. We must keep up the pressure. To help us press all members of Toronto City Council, please follow @aodaalliance on Twitter and retweet our tweets over the next days. Call as many members of Toronto City Council as possible to urge them to vote no to e-scooters, and no to conducting a Toronto e-scooter pilot project.

The disability campaign against e-scooters has gotten more media attention. Below we set out a letter to the editor in todays Toronto Star by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, and two articles on this issue in the Star over the past two days. You can also watch a good report by reporter Jessica Ng on this topic that appeared on the April 28, 2021 6 oclock Toronto news broadcast on CBC TV.

Yesterday was an unusual if not unique day for the AODA Alliance. At the same time over the supper hour, two different TV networks, Global and CBC, each aired news reports that included the AODA Alliance, each addressing different issues. On CBC, it was the dangers that e-scooters pose for people with disabilities. On Global, it was the dangers that Ontarios critical care triage protocol poses for people with disabilities.

The April 28, 2021 report on the e-scooters issue in the Toronto Star, set out below, that ran before the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee voted on this issue, included this information:

The chair of Bird Canada is John Bitove. His brother Jordan Bitove is the publisher of the Toronto Star and co-proprietor of Torstar, the company that owns the newspaper.

Bird Canada is one of the two biggest e-scooter rental companies that are aggressively lobbying Toronto City Council to let them rent e-scooters in Toronto, despite their danger for people with disabilities and others.

For more background, check out the AODA Alliances March 30, 2021 brief to the City of Toronto on e-scooters, the AODA Alliance video on why e-scooters are so dangerous (which media can use in any reports), and the AODA Alliance e-scooters web page.

3. While all this was going on in Ontario, great news reached us from Canadas west coast. Following the lead that Ontario set back in 2005 with the enactment of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the BC Government introduced a bill for first reading in the B.C. Legislature, Bill 6, the Accessible British Columbia Act. We have not yet had a chance to review the bill itself.

We congratulate B.C. disability advocates, led by the grassroots Barrier-Free BC, for this major milestone event. The AODA Alliance has been proud to lend assistance to their efforts from afar, when asked. Back in October 2015, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was the keynote speaker at a town hall event that led to the birth that day of Barrier-Free B.C. From there on in, it was the excellent work of grassroots disability advocates in B.C. that carried the ball, did the hard work, and got their province to this important point. We remain eager to help B.C. in any way we can as this bill makes its way through the B.C. Legislature.

The Ford Governments delays on disability accessibility seem endless. There have now been 819 days, or over 2 and a quarter years, since the Ford Government received the ground-breaking final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has announced no effective plan of new action to implement that report. That makes even worse the serious problems facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. The Ontario Government only has 1,343 days left until 2025, the deadline by which the Government must have led Ontario to become fully accessible to people with disabilities.

MORE DETAILS

Global News April 28, 2021

Originally posted at https://963bigfm.com/news/7816548/ontario-covid-triage-protocol-discriminates-disability-advocates/

Ontario’s COVID-19 triage protocol ‘discriminates because of disability,’ advocates say Caryn Lieberman GlobalNews.ca

With Ontarios ICUs being pushed to the brink, hospitals are preparing for the worst. For health-care workers, that means staring difficult life-changing choices in the face. If there arent enough beds, who gets one? As Caryn Lieberman reports, there would be a process to follow, but some says it discriminates against people with disabilities.

When Tracy Odell experienced bleeding in her stomach last summer during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, she went to hospital but vowed she would not return.

I dont feel safe in hospitals and a lot of people with disabilities similar to mine, where you need this much assistance, dont feel safe in a hospital, she said.

Odell was born with spinal muscular atrophy and requires assistance to complete many daily tasks.

Now, amid the third wave and with critical care units filling up, Odell said she fears if she ever needed the care, she would not be able to get it.

I, personally, wouldnt go to a hospital. I would feel it would be a waste of time and Id feel very unsafe to go there Its a real indictment, I think, of our system, that people who have disabilities, have severe needs, dont feel safe in a place where everyones supposed to be safe, she said.

Odell is most concerned about a critical care triage protocol that could be activated in Ontario.

It would essentially allow health-care providers to decide who gets potentially life-saving care and who doesnt.

Under the guidelines, as set out in a draft protocol circulating among hospitals, patients would be ranked on their likelihood to survive one year after the onset of critical illness.

Patients who have a high likelihood of dying within twelve months from the onset of their episode of critical illness (based on an evaluation of their clinical presentation at the point of triage) would have a lower priority for critical care resources, states the document.

Odell says its tough to predict who will survive an illness.

They have to guess whos going to last a year … As a child with my disability, my projected life expectancy was like a kid they didnt think Id live to be a teenager and here I am retired, so its a very hard thing to judge, said Odell.

Disability advocates have been raising alarm bells over the triage protocol for months.

David Lepofsky, of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, sent multiple letters to Minister of Health Christine Elliott demanding transparency, arguing the Ontario governments pervasive secrecy over its critical care triage plans has made many people with disabilities terrified, angry and distrustful.

People with disabilities have disproportionately had to suffer for the past year from the most severe aspects of COVID People with disabilities are disproportionately prone to end up in intensive care units and die from the disease, said Lepofsky.

Now we face the double cruelty that we are disproportionately prone to get told, No, you cant have that life-saving care.’

Lepofsky said the document that is circulating, while not finalized, is problematic, unethical and discriminatory.

The rules that have been given to intensive care units for deciding who gets critical care and who doesnt, if they have to ration, may look fine because theyre full of medical jargon, but they actually explicitly discriminate because of disability, he said.

We agree there should be a protocol, but it cant be one that discriminates because of disability. Thats illegal.

John Mossa, who is living with muscular dystrophy, has been homebound for more than a year, afraid he would contract COVID-19 if he went outside and not survive it.

COVID is a very serious disease for me if I do get COVID, I would probably become very ill and pass away because of my poor respiratory condition. I have about 30 per cent lung capacity due to my muscular dystrophy so COVID is very serious. Its been a very scary time, he said.

Never more frightening than right now, Mossa said, amid a surging third wave with a record number of patients in Ontarios critical care units and the potential for triaging life-saving care.

The people that would be affected the most are the least considered to get care Im afraid, Im totally afraid to go to hospital right now, he said.

A few weeks ago, Mossa said, he had a hip accident but he has avoided the hospital, even though he is suffering and should seek medical help.

I should be considering going to hospital, but Im not going to go to hospital because I know that I wont get the care I need and if it gets any worse. I know that I wouldnt be given an ICU bed, he said.

On Wednesday, when asked about the triage protocol, Elliott said it has not yet been activated.

That was echoed by Dr. James Downar, a palliative and critical care physician in Ottawa who co-wrote Ontarios ICU protocol.

I dont think that theres any plan to initiate a triage process in the next couple of days. I think a lot is going to depend on which way our ICU numbers go. They have been climbing at a fairly alarming rate, he said.

On concerns by advocates that the protocol discriminates against people with disabilities, Downar said, The only criterion in the triage plan is mortality risk.

We absolutely dont want to make any judgments about whose life is more valuable, certainly nothing based on ability, disability or need for accommodations If you value all lives equally, that, I think, is the strongest argument for using an approach that would save as many lives as you can, he said.

Toronto Star April 29, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2021/04/29/e-scooters-are-a-danger-to-people-with-disabilities.html Letters to the Editor

E-scooters are a danger to people with disabilities
Scoot over, progress. Not in this town, April 27

Matt Elliott is wrong to urge Toronto to allow e-scooters; city council must not unleash dangerous electric scooters in Toronto, now banned, unless council legalizes them.

A city staff report shows e-scooters endanger public safety. Riders and innocent pedestrians get seriously injured. They especially endanger seniors and people with disabilities. Blind people, like me, can’t know silent e-scooters rocket at us at over 20 kph, driven by unlicensed, uninsured, unhelmeted fun-seeking riders.

It is no solution to just ban e-scooters from sidewalks.

As a blind person, if I get hit by a silent e-scooter racing towards me, it injures me just as badly, whether the rider owns the e-scooter or rents it.

Toronto has too many disability barriers. E-scooters would make it worse.

Toronto’s Disability Accessibility Advisory Committee and disability organizations unanimously called on Toronto not to allow e-scooters.

Mayor John Tory should stand up for people with disabilities, and should stand up to the corporate lobbyists conducting a high-price feeding frenzy at City Hall. David Lepofsky, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Toronto Star April 29, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/04/28/committee-votes-unanimously-to-uphold-torontos-e-scooter-ban.html

Greater Toronto

Committee upholds T.O. e-scooter ban
Final decision on vehicles to be debated at council next month

Ben Spurr Toronto Star

A city committee has voted to uphold Toronto’s ban on e-scooters, setting up a final decision on the controversial vehicles at council next month.

More than 40 people signed up to speak to a city staff report on e-scooters at a remote meeting of the infrastructure and environment committee Wednesday.

The debate largely pitted transportation experts and representatives of e-scooter companies, who argued the vehicles are an innovative and sustainable transportation option, against disability and seniors advocates, who said e-scooters pose a danger to people with accessibility challenges.

Patricia Israel, a 69-year-old wheelchair user, told the committee she was scared of being hit by someone riding an e-scooter, which are quiet and can have top speeds of more than 40 km/h, although provincial guidelines say they should top out at 24 km/h.

“When a senior crashes to the sidewalk with a broken hip, he or she may die … do you want that?” she asked.

“E-scooters are left scattered all over sidewalks in cities around the world. Some people in wheelchairs cannot pick them up to move them … We’ll be on the sidewalk saying, ‘What do I do now?’” she added.

Jen Freiman, general manager of Lime Canada, an e-scooter sharing company, countered that cars represent the most serious threat on Toronto’s streets, and the city should be allowing safer alternatives.

“I’m not worried about my two young children being hit by someone (on) a scooter in Toronto,” she said. “What does scare me though is a frustrated driver ripping down the side streets by my house.”

She said that e-scooter companies operating in dozens of other cities have found ways to mitigate concerns about safety, street clutter and other issues raised by critics.

E-scooters have become popular in big cities around the world, both for private use and as part of sharing operations that allow users to hop on and off rented vehicles for short trips.

Both uses are currently prohibited on Toronto streets, sidewalks and other public spaces, and the staff report recommended against joining a provincial pilot project that allows cities to legalize the vehicles, subject to conditions.

Staff cited numerous concerns, including the vehicles becoming tripping hazards, unsafe riding on sidewalks, a lack of insurance coverage and insufficient enforcement resources.

Councillors on the committee voted unanimously to support the staff recommendation. Committee member Mike Layton (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) said he was “very conflicted” about the decision, because he believed that the city and e-scooter companies could likely find solutions to the objections critics raised about the vehicles.

But he said the disability community had “very real concerns” and he couldn’t vote against staff advice on a safety issue.

City council will debate the report at its May 5 meeting.

Toronto Star April 28, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/04/22/as-city-committee-debates-e-scooters-concerns-over-a-missed-opportunity.html#:~:text=GTA-,As%20city%20committee%20debates%20e%2Dscooters,concerns%20over%20’a%20missed%20opportunity’&text=They’re%20fun%2C%20fast%20and,to%20ride%20on%20city%20streets.&text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20there%20were,Association%20of%20City%20Transportation%20Officials.

Greater Toronto

E-scooters look for green light on T.O. streets
Method of transportation can be ‘useful part of the puzzle,’ one expert says

Ben Spurr Toronto Star

They’re fun, fast and for the moment, they’re illegal to ride on city streets.

But some transportation experts say Toronto is being too timid in its approach to e-scooters, and council should take a stab at legalizing the zippy two-wheeled vehicles on municipal roads, at least on a trial basis.

E-scooters are prohibited on Toronto streets and other public spaces, and in a report released last week, city transportation staff recommend maintaining the status quo. The city’s infrastructure committee will debate the report Wednesday, before the recommendation goes to council next month.

Jennifer Keesmaat, Toronto’s former chief city planner, argues the city should “work toward safely integrating e-scooters into the transportation landscape … because they can be a useful part of the puzzle.”

Keesmaat said the disruption to travel patterns caused by COVID-19 has presented cities with a golden opportunity to rethink policies that have historically prioritized private cars above other modes. She argued e-scooters could provide an additional, more sustainable transportation alternative and help make cities “greener and quieter places.”

“If we take as a given that we need more micro mobility in the city, and that we want to move away from assuming that getting around in a car is the best or only approach, overcoming the challenges associated with scooters is in the best interest of the city over the long term,” she said, while acknowledging there have been problems with the rollout of e-scooters elsewhere.

Motorized electric stand-up scooters have exploded in popularity in recent years and they’re now used in dozens of cities around the world by both private owners and as part of e-scooter sharing operations, which allow riders to hop on and off rented vehicles for short trips.

In the U.S., there were 86 million trips taken on e-scooters in 2019, according to the National Association of City Transportation Officials. The average trip length was about 1.6 kilometres. Around one-third of all car trips in the U.S. are less than about three kilometres, which is why some experts believe the two-wheeled devices have the potential to significantly displace car use.

Shauna Brail, an urban planner and associate professor at the Institute for Management & Innovation at the University of Toronto Mississauga, said she’s not convinced e-scooters represent the transformative change their proponents sometimes pitch them as.

But Brail said there’s evidence the electric-powered vehicles have potential to help solve the first mile/last mile problem of connecting people to transit hubs at the beginning or end of their commutes, and not testing them out would be “a missed opportunity.”

Raktim Mitra, co-director of TransForm Laboratory of Transportation and Land Use Planning at Ryerson University, agreed that city staff are being overly conservative.

He said misgivings about safety, liability and street clutter related to e-scooters are valid, but those problems could likely be addressed through “a combination of technology and regulations.”

There is indication that e-scooters are “one of the most interesting innovations to solve the first mile/last mile problem,” Mitra said. “If it was up to me, I would probably support at least a pilot to try it out.”

The Toronto staff report flagged concerns about the devices, chief among them the potential risk they could pose to Torontonians with accessibility challenges if they were left on the street or improperly ridden on sidewalks. The report also warned insurers won’t cover the vehicles, and the city lacks enforcement resources to ensure users follow the rules.

Staff are advising that council vote against joining a five-year pilot project the Ontario government launched in 2020 that allows cities to legalize e-scooters. Under the terms of the pilot, the vehicles must have a top speed of 24 km/h, and weigh no more than 45 kg. Windsor and Ottawa are among those taking part.

Ahead of the Toronto council vote, global e-scooter sharing companies like Bird and Lime have lobbied city hall in an effort to open up the market to their operations.

The chair of Bird Canada is John Bitove. His brother Jordan Bitove is the publisher of the Toronto Star and co-proprietor of Torstar, the company that owns the newspaper.

Matti Siemiatycki, a professor of geography and interim director of the School of Cities at the University of Toronto, said city staff are right to not embrace e-scooters.

“I think that with every technology there’s trade-offs, and with e-scooters, especially the shared approach, the negative consequences of this technology (outweigh the benefits),” he said, citing the hazards they pose to people with disabilities.




Source link

In One Day, Advocacy Action on 3 Accessibility Fronts- Critical Care Triage, Electric Scooters and B.C. Disabilities Act – AODA Alliance


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

In One Day, Advocacy Action on 3 Accessibility Fronts– Critical Care Triage, Electric Scooters and B.C. Disabilities Act

April 29, 2021

            SUMMARY

The grassroots volunteer campaign for accessibility for people with disabilities must be waged on so many fronts. Yesterday, we saw action at the same time on three of those fronts. In a nutshell:

  1. On its April 28, 2021 evening TV news broadcast, Global News included a superb report on the disability discrimination in Ontario’s critical care triage protocol by senior journalist Caryn Lieberman. We set out below the slightly longer text version of that report that Global also posted online. This is another in Ms. Lieberman’s consistently excellent reportage on disability issues in recent years.

For more on this issue, visit the AODA Alliance health care web page.

  1. On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, after tenacious grassroots efforts by so many, the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee unanimously voted to not allow e-scooters in Toronto, and not to conduct a pilot project with e-scooters. E-scooters endanger the safety and accessibility for people with disabilities and seniors, and frankly, endanger everyone. Disability concerns were at the centre of this decision.

Thanks to all who joined in this grassroots campaign. However, we are not done yet. On May 5, 2021, the entire Toronto City Council will vote on the question. We must keep up the pressure. To help us press all members of Toronto City Council, please follow @aodaalliance on Twitter and retweet our tweets over the next days. Call as many members of Toronto City Council as possible to urge them to vote no to e-scooters, and no to conducting a Toronto e-scooter pilot project.

The disability campaign against e-scooters has gotten more media attention. Below we set out a letter to the editor in today’s Toronto Star by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, and two articles on this issue in the Star over the past two days. You can also watch a good report by reporter Jessica Ng on this topic that appeared on the April 28, 2021 6 o’clock Toronto news broadcast on CBC TV.

Yesterday was an unusual if not unique day for the AODA Alliance. At the same time over the supper hour, two different TV networks, Global and CBC, each aired news reports that included the AODA Alliance, each addressing different issues. On CBC, it was the dangers that e-scooters pose for people with disabilities. On Global, it was the dangers that Ontario’s critical care triage protocol poses for people with disabilities.

The April 28, 2021 report on the e-scooters issue in the Toronto Star, set out below, that ran before the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee voted on this issue, included this information:

“The chair of Bird Canada is John Bitove. His brother Jordan Bitove is the publisher of the Toronto Star and co-proprietor of Torstar, the company that owns the newspaper.”

Bird Canada is one of the two biggest e-scooter rental companies that are aggressively lobbying Toronto City Council to let them rent e-scooters in Toronto, despite their danger for people with disabilities and others.

For more background, check out the AODA Alliance’s March 30, 2021 brief to the City of Toronto on e-scooters, the AODA Alliance video on why e-scooters are so dangerous (which media can use in any reports), and the AODA Alliance e-scooters web page.

  1. While all this was going on in Ontario, great news reached us from Canada’s west coast. Following the lead that Ontario set back in 2005 with the enactment of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the BC Government introduced a bill for first reading in the B.C. Legislature, Bill 6, the Accessible British Columbia Act. We have not yet had a chance to review the bill itself.

We congratulate B.C. disability advocates, led by the grassroots Barrier-Free BC, for this major milestone event. The AODA Alliance has been proud to lend assistance to their efforts from afar, when asked. Back in October 2015, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was the keynote speaker at a town hall event that led to the birth that day of Barrier-Free B.C. From there on in, it was the excellent work of grassroots disability advocates in B.C. that carried the ball, did the hard work, and got their province to this important point. We remain eager to help B.C. in any way we can as this bill makes its way through the B.C. Legislature.

The Ford Government’s delays on disability accessibility seem endless. There have now been 819 days, or over 2 and a quarter years, since the Ford Government received the ground-breaking final report of the Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Government has announced no effective plan of new action to implement that report. That makes even worse the serious problems facing Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. The Ontario Government only has 1,343 days left until 2025, the deadline by which the Government must have led Ontario to become fully accessible to people with disabilities.

            MORE DETAILS

Global News April 28, 2021

Originally posted at https://963bigfm.com/news/7816548/ontario-covid-triage-protocol-discriminates-disability-advocates/

Ontario’s COVID-19 triage protocol ‘discriminates because of disability,’ advocates say

Caryn Lieberman GlobalNews.ca

With Ontario’s ICUs being pushed to the brink, hospitals are preparing for the worst. For health-care workers, that means staring difficult life-changing choices in the face. If there aren’t enough beds, who gets one? As Caryn Lieberman reports, there would be a process to follow, but some says it discriminates against people with disabilities.

When Tracy Odell experienced bleeding in her stomach last summer during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, she went to hospital but vowed she would not return.

“I don’t feel safe in hospitals and a lot of people with disabilities similar to mine, where you need this much assistance, don’t feel safe in a hospital,” she said.

Odell was born with spinal muscular atrophy and requires assistance to complete many daily tasks.

Now, amid the third wave and with critical care units filling up, Odell said she fears if she ever needed the care, she would not be able to get it.

“I, personally, wouldn’t go to a hospital. I would feel it would be a waste of time and I’d feel very unsafe to go there … It’s a real indictment, I think, of our system, that people who have disabilities, have severe needs, don’t feel safe in a place where everyone’s supposed to be safe,” she said.

Odell is most concerned about a “critical care triage protocol” that could be activated in Ontario.

It would essentially allow health-care providers to decide who gets potentially life-saving care and who doesn’t.

Under the guidelines, as set out in a draft protocol circulating among hospitals, patients would be ranked on their likelihood to survive one year after the onset of critical illness.

“Patients who have a high likelihood of dying within twelve months from the onset of their episode of critical illness (based on an evaluation of their clinical presentation at the point of triage) would have a lower priority for critical care resources,” states the document.

Odell says it’s tough to predict who will survive an illness.

“They have to guess who’s going to last a year … As a child with my disability, my projected life expectancy was like a kid … they didn’t think I’d live to be a teenager and here I am retired, so it’s a very hard thing to judge,” said Odell.

Disability advocates have been raising alarm bells over the triage protocol for months.

David Lepofsky, of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, sent multiple letters to Minister of Health Christine Elliott demanding transparency, arguing “the Ontario government’s pervasive secrecy over its critical care triage plans has made many people with disabilities terrified, angry and distrustful.”

“People with disabilities have disproportionately had to suffer for the past year from the most severe aspects of COVID … People with disabilities are disproportionately prone to end up in intensive care units and die from the disease,” said Lepofsky.

“Now we face the double cruelty that we are disproportionately prone to get told, ‘No, you can’t have that life-saving care.’”

Lepofsky said the document that is circulating, while not finalized, is problematic, unethical and discriminatory.

“The rules that have been given to intensive care units for deciding who gets critical care and who doesn’t, if they have to ration, may look fine because they’re full of medical jargon, but they actually explicitly discriminate because of disability,” he said.

“We agree there should be a protocol, but it can’t be one that discriminates because of disability. That’s illegal.”

John Mossa, who is living with muscular dystrophy, has been homebound for more than a year, afraid he would contract COVID-19 if he went outside and not survive it.

“COVID is a very serious disease for me … if I do get COVID, I would probably become very ill and pass away because of my poor respiratory condition. I have about 30 per cent lung capacity due to my muscular dystrophy so COVID is very serious. It’s been a very scary time,” he said.

Never more frightening than right now, Mossa said, amid a surging third wave with a record number of patients in Ontario’s critical care units and the potential for triaging life-saving care.

“The people that would be affected the most are the least considered to get care … I’m afraid, I’m totally afraid to go to hospital right now,” he said.

A few weeks ago, Mossa said, he had a hip accident but he has avoided the hospital, even though he is suffering and should seek medical help.

“I should be considering going to hospital, but I’m not going to go to hospital because I know that I won’t get the care I need and if it gets any worse. I know that I wouldn’t be given an ICU bed,” he said.

On Wednesday, when asked about the triage protocol, Elliott said it has not yet been activated.

That was echoed by Dr. James Downar, a palliative and critical care physician in Ottawa who co-wrote Ontario’s ICU protocol.

“I don’t think that there’s any plan to initiate a triage process in the next couple of days. I think a lot is going to depend on which way our ICU numbers go. They have been climbing at a fairly alarming rate,” he said.

On concerns by advocates that the protocol discriminates against people with disabilities, Downar said, “The only criterion in the triage plan is mortality risk.”

“We absolutely don’t want to make any judgments about whose life is more valuable, certainly nothing based on ability, disability or need for accommodations … If you value all lives equally, that, I think, is the strongest argument for using an approach that would save as many lives as you can,” he said.

Toronto Star April 29, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2021/04/29/e-scooters-are-a-danger-to-people-with-disabilities.html

Letters to the Editor

E-scooters are a danger to people with disabilities

Scoot over, progress. Not in this town, April 27

Matt Elliott is wrong to urge Toronto to allow e-scooters; city council must not unleash dangerous electric scooters in Toronto, now banned, unless council legalizes them.

A city staff report shows e-scooters endanger public safety. Riders and innocent pedestrians get seriously injured. They especially endanger seniors and people with disabilities. Blind people, like me, can’t know silent e-scooters rocket at us at over 20 kph, driven by unlicensed, uninsured, unhelmeted fun-seeking riders.

It is no solution to just ban e-scooters from sidewalks.

As a blind person, if I get hit by a silent e-scooter racing towards me, it injures me just as badly, whether the rider owns the e-scooter or rents it.

Toronto has too many disability barriers. E-scooters would make it worse.

Toronto’s Disability Accessibility Advisory Committee and disability organizations unanimously called on Toronto not to allow e-scooters.

Mayor John Tory should stand up for people with disabilities, and should stand up to the corporate lobbyists conducting a high-price feeding frenzy at City Hall.

David Lepofsky, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

 Toronto Star April 29, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/04/28/committee-votes-unanimously-to-uphold-torontos-e-scooter-ban.html

Greater Toronto

Committee upholds T.O. e-scooter ban

Final decision on vehicles to be debated at council next month

Ben Spurr Toronto Star

A city committee has voted to uphold Toronto’s ban on e-scooters, setting up a final decision on the controversial vehicles at council next month.

More than 40 people signed up to speak to a city staff report on e-scooters at a remote meeting of the infrastructure and environment committee Wednesday.

The debate largely pitted transportation experts and representatives of e-scooter companies, who argued the vehicles are an innovative and sustainable transportation option, against disability and seniors advocates, who said e-scooters pose a danger to people with accessibility challenges.

Patricia Israel, a 69-year-old wheelchair user, told the committee she was scared of being hit by someone riding an e-scooter, which are quiet and can have top speeds of more than 40 km/h, although provincial guidelines say they should top out at 24 km/h.

“When a senior crashes to the sidewalk with a broken hip, he or she may die … do you want that?” she asked.

“E-scooters are left scattered all over sidewalks in cities around the world. Some people in wheelchairs cannot pick them up to move them … We’ll be on the sidewalk saying, ‘What do I do now?’” she added.

Jen Freiman, general manager of Lime Canada, an e-scooter sharing company, countered that cars represent the most serious threat on Toronto’s streets, and the city should be allowing safer alternatives.

“I’m not worried about my two young children being hit by someone (on) a scooter in Toronto,” she said. “What does scare me though is a frustrated driver ripping down the side streets by my house.”

She said that e-scooter companies operating in dozens of other cities have found ways to mitigate concerns about safety, street clutter and other issues raised by critics.

E-scooters have become popular in big cities around the world, both for private use and as part of sharing operations that allow users to hop on and off rented vehicles for short trips.

Both uses are currently prohibited on Toronto streets, sidewalks and other public spaces, and the staff report recommended against joining a provincial pilot project that allows cities to legalize the vehicles, subject to conditions.

Staff cited numerous concerns, including the vehicles becoming tripping hazards, unsafe riding on sidewalks, a lack of insurance coverage and insufficient enforcement resources.

Councillors on the committee voted unanimously to support the staff recommendation. Committee member Mike Layton (Ward 11, University-Rosedale) said he was “very conflicted” about the decision, because he believed that the city and e-scooter companies could likely find solutions to the objections critics raised about the vehicles.

But he said the disability community had “very real concerns” and he couldn’t vote against staff advice on a safety issue.

City council will debate the report at its May 5 meeting.

Toronto Star April 28, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/04/22/as-city-committee-debates-e-scooters-concerns-over-a-missed-opportunity.html#:~:text=GTA-,As%20city%20committee%20debates%20e%2Dscooters,concerns%20over%20’a%20missed%20opportunity’&text=They’re%20fun%2C%20fast%20and,to%20ride%20on%20city%20streets.&text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20there%20were,Association%20of%20City%20Transportation%20Officials.

Greater Toronto

E-scooters look for green light on T.O. streets

Method of transportation can be ‘useful part of the puzzle,’ one expert says

Ben Spurr Toronto Star

They’re fun, fast and for the moment, they’re illegal to ride on city streets.

But some transportation experts say Toronto is being too timid in its approach to e-scooters, and council should take a stab at legalizing the zippy two-wheeled vehicles on municipal roads, at least on a trial basis.

E-scooters are prohibited on Toronto streets and other public spaces, and in a report released last week, city transportation staff recommend maintaining the status quo. The city’s infrastructure committee will debate the report Wednesday, before the recommendation goes to council next month.

Jennifer Keesmaat, Toronto’s former chief city planner, argues the city should “work toward safely integrating e-scooters into the transportation landscape … because they can be a useful part of the puzzle.”

Keesmaat said the disruption to travel patterns caused by COVID-19 has presented cities with a golden opportunity to rethink policies that have historically prioritized private cars above other modes. She argued e-scooters could provide an additional, more sustainable transportation alternative and help make cities “greener and quieter places.”

“If we take as a given that we need more micro mobility in the city, and that we want to move away from assuming that getting around in a car is the best or only approach, overcoming the challenges associated with scooters is in the best interest of the city over the long term,” she said, while acknowledging there have been problems with the rollout of e-scooters elsewhere.

Motorized electric stand-up scooters have exploded in popularity in recent years and they’re now used in dozens of cities around the world by both private owners and as part of e-scooter sharing operations, which allow riders to hop on and off rented vehicles for short trips.

In the U.S., there were 86 million trips taken on e-scooters in 2019, according to the National Association of City Transportation Officials. The average trip length was about 1.6 kilometres. Around one-third of all car trips in the U.S. are less than about three kilometres, which is why some experts believe the two-wheeled devices have the potential to significantly displace car use.

Shauna Brail, an urban planner and associate professor at the Institute for Management & Innovation at the University of Toronto Mississauga, said she’s not convinced e-scooters represent the transformative change their proponents sometimes pitch them as.

But Brail said there’s evidence the electric-powered vehicles have potential to help solve the first mile/last mile problem of connecting people to transit hubs at the beginning or end of their commutes, and not testing them out would be “a missed opportunity.”

Raktim Mitra, co-director of TransForm Laboratory of Transportation and Land Use Planning at Ryerson University, agreed that city staff are being overly conservative.

He said misgivings about safety, liability and street clutter related to e-scooters are valid, but those problems could likely be addressed through “a combination of technology and regulations.”

There is indication that e-scooters are “one of the most interesting innovations to solve the first mile/last mile problem,” Mitra said. “If it was up to me, I would probably support at least a pilot to try it out.”

The Toronto staff report flagged concerns about the devices, chief among them the potential risk they could pose to Torontonians with accessibility challenges if they were left on the street or improperly ridden on sidewalks. The report also warned insurers won’t cover the vehicles, and the city lacks enforcement resources to ensure users follow the rules.

Staff are advising that council vote against joining a five-year pilot project the Ontario government launched in 2020 that allows cities to legalize e-scooters. Under the terms of the pilot, the vehicles must have a top speed of 24 km/h, and weigh no more than 45 kg. Windsor and Ottawa are among those taking part.

Ahead of the Toronto council vote, global e-scooter sharing companies like Bird and Lime have lobbied city hall in an effort to open up the market to their operations.

The chair of Bird Canada is John Bitove. His brother Jordan Bitove is the publisher of the Toronto Star and co-proprietor of Torstar, the company that owns the newspaper.

Matti Siemiatycki, a professor of geography and interim director of the School of Cities at the University of Toronto, said city staff are right to not embrace e-scooters.

“I think that with every technology there’s trade-offs, and with e-scooters, especially the shared approach, the negative consequences of this technology (outweigh the benefits),” he said, citing the hazards they pose to people with disabilities.



Source link

Woodstock woman charged under Reopening Ontario Act


Woodstock police report that a 48-year-old Woodstock woman has been charged under the Reopening Ontario Act for attending a church service downtown Woodstock on Sunday.

Police say the gathering exceeded the allowed limits for religious gatherings, which under the current lockdown restriction cannot exceed 10 people both indoors and outdoors.

All of Ontario moved into lockdown on Saturday to try and slow the spread of COVID-19.

Police say that well over 10 people were inside the place of worship on Sunday, with many not physically distancing or wearing masks.

Read more:
More than 100 unmasked people gather at Wheatley, Ont., church for 2nd day in a row

Other Ontarians are facing similar charges from over the weekend.

Story continues below advertisement

Chatham-Kent police say they charged a 50-year-old Merlin, Ont., man following a church service in Wheatley, Ont., on Sunday.

Police also charged a 37-year-old man from Malahide, Ont., following a church service in Aylmer, Ont. He is also facing charges of obstructing a peace officer and intimidation of an officer.





© 2020 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.





Source link