Liberal Party of Canada Answers Request for Election Commitments on Achieving an Accessible Canada for Over 6 Million People with Disabilities- Liberals Promise Less Than the NDP – Tories Greens, People’s Party and the Bloc Haven’t Answered the AODA Alliance’s Request for 11 Commitments


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

 

Liberal Party of Canada Answers Request for Election Commitments on Achieving an Accessible Canada for Over 6 Million People with Disabilities– Liberals Promise Less Than the NDP – Tories Greens, People’s Party and the Bloc Haven’t Answered the AODA Alliance’s Request for 11 Commitments

 

October 16, 2019

 

            SUMMARY

 

With the October 21 federal election so near, so close in the polls, and with every vote so important, what are the federal parties committing to do for over six million people with disabilities in Canada? The grassroots AODA Alliance has sought 11 specific commitments to strengthen the recently-enacted Accessible Canada Act (ACA), and to ensure that it is swiftly and effectively implemented and enforced. So far, only two federal parties have even answered.

Polls are suggesting that Canadians are about to elect a minority government. If there is a minority government, no matter who is our next Prime Minister, there is a real potential that Canada’s next Parliament could be persuaded to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act. While in opposition last year, the Greens, NDP and Conservatives all advocated for this law to be strengthened.

On October 15, 2019, the Liberal Party of Canada announced which election pledges it would make to people with disabilities, in response to the July 18, 2019 request for 11 major commitments which the AODA Alliance directed to the leaders of the six major federal parties. The Liberals’ response and its accompanying online statement on disability equality which it posted on its website on October 15, 2019, both set out below, give fewer promises than the only other federal party to respond to date.

On September 16, 2019, the federal New Democratic Party became the first federal party to answer the AODA Alliance’s request for these 11 commitments. The NDP response is available at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/what-pledges-will-the-federal-party-leaders-make-in-this-election-to-make-canada-accessible-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-federal-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-is-first-national-leader-to-wr/

With only five days left before voting day, the AODA Alliance is continuing its blitz. The federal Conservatives, Greens, People’s Party and Bloc Quebecois have not yet answered. Last year, the Greens and Tories teamed up with the NDP in an unsuccessful to press for amendments to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act, at the request of a number of disability organizations including the AODA Alliance. During debates on the bill in the House of Commons last fall, the Tories promised to make it a priority to strengthen this law if they form the next Government. On November 22, 2018, Tory MPP John Barlow pledged: “…when a Conservative government comes into power, we will do everything we can to address the shortcomings of Bill C-81.” Tory MP Alex Nuttall promised Parliament “…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.”

Below we also set out the excellent October 15, 2019 Canadian Press article by reporter Michelle McQuigge, posted online by Global News. It is the only news article we have seen in this election campaign covering the parties’ positions on this issue, and disability community efforts to secure such commitments. We urge the media to give this issue more coverage in the election campaign’s final days.

The non-partisan AODA Alliance does not support or oppose any party or candidate. It seeks to secure the strongest commitments on accessibility for people with disabilities from all the parties. As part of this campaign, it is tweeting to as many federal candidates across Canada as possible to press for the commitments it seeks. This evening, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky has been invited to speak on a panel that will give action tips for the election campaign’s final days at a federal election disability issues public forum in Toronto, organized by a number of disability organizations. It takes place from 7 to 9 pm at Ryerson University’s Tecumseh Auditorium, Ryerson Student Centre, 55 Gould Street, Toronto.

Here is a summary of the 11 commitments that the AODA Alliance asked each party to make in its July 18, 2019 letter to the leaders of the six major federal parties:

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

The AODA Alliance is deeply concerned that the voting process in federal elections has not been assured to be barrier-free for voters with disabilities. We will be monitoring for these barriers, and are urging voters with disabilities to alert us of any problems they encounter. To follow all the action on Twitter over the last days leading to the election, follow @aodaalliance Email reports of voting barriers to us at [email protected]

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

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

          MORE DETAILS

October 15, 2019 Response from the Liberal Party of Canada to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Disability equality benefits everyone. When Canadians with disabilities have equal opportunities to contribute to their communities, to have the same quality of service from their government, to have equal opportunities to work, and to enjoy the same quality of life as everyone else, we build a stronger economy – and a stronger country.

Since 2015, we’ve worked to make this the reality for more Canadians. We started with a human rights-based approach to disability equality — fundamentally changing the way we, as a country, treat inclusion and accessibility. Part of that meant moving beyond individual accommodation and instead addressing discrimination as a whole.

Now, we’re making another choice. We’re choosing forward — taking the progress we’ve achieved and going even further to make Canada a more fair, equal and affordable place to live.

Over the past four years, we have made accessibility and disability inclusion a priority. For a full list of these actions please refer to Appendix A.

There is more work to be done. Canadians with disabilities continue to face barriers and experience discrimination.

Canada requires strong leadership to ensure that a human rights-based approach to disability is reflected in all Government of Canada policies, programmes, practices and results. To ensure systemic disability inclusion and to lead by example as the Accessible Canada Act is implemented, a re-elected Liberal government will put these policies and practices into place, in consultation with the disability community. We will conduct a comprehensive review to ensure a consistent approach to disability inclusion and supports across government that addresses the unfairness and inequities in our programs and services, and challenges the biases built into our processes. This includes a definition of disability consistent with the Accessible Canada Act.

We heard from Canadians with disabilities that the most significant economic and social barrier they face to full economic and social participation is in the area of employment. This is particularly so for youth with disabilities. From the Canadian Survey on Disability, we know that approximately 59% of working-age adults with disabilities are employed compared to 80% of those without disabilities.

That’s why a re-elected Liberal government will improve the economic inclusion of persons with disabilities through various measures that target these barriers, address discrimination and stigma, raise public awareness, and work with employers and businesses in a coordinated way. One component of this will be the creation of a workplace accessibility fund to help increase the availability of accommodations that help close gaps in access to good paying jobs and education. We know that improving workplace accessibility and employment outcomes for Canadians with disabilities will have an overwhelmingly positive impact, leading to increased productivity and greater profits for businesses, as well as financial independence and a better quality of life for all Canadians.

We will also focus on the timely and ambitious implementation of the Accessible Canada Act. As we operationalize the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization, we will ensure that Canadians with disabilities and stakeholder groups are engaged in the process. We will also work with Provincial and Territorial governments, and Indigenous peoples to promote consistency in accessibility standards and a consistent experience of accessibility and inclusion for all Canadians.

Canada needs continued leadership to make sure people with disabilities can not only find good jobs, but can succeed for years and decades to come.

We won’t get that leadership from the Conservatives, who’ve proved that they only want to give a break to the very wealthiest Canadians — and cut programs and services for everyone else. Of the $53 billion they promise to cut, $14 billion is in hidden, mystery cuts could hurt Canadians with disabilities the most.

Only a re-elected Liberal government will continue on the progress we’ve made together. To help more Canadians with disabilities find and keep good jobs, we’ll address discrimination and stigma, raise public awareness, and work with employers and businesses.

These and other measures will ensure that disability inclusion is a priority for a re-elected Liberal government. We know that this is the best way to ensure that all Canadians have an equal and fair chance to succeed.

To read our full statement on disability equality and inclusion, as well as consult our 2019 platform, please visit: https://www.liberal.ca/disability-equality-statement/

Specific Additional Information in Response to Your Questions

Questions 1 and 2:

We are fully committed to the timely and ambitious implementation of the Accessible Canada Act so that it can fully benefit all Canadians. As we operationalize the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization, as well as the positions of Chief Accessibility Officer and Accessibility Commissioner, we will ensure that Canadians with disabilities and stakeholder groups are engaged in the process. We will also work with Provincial and Territorial governments, and Indigenous peoples to promote consistency in accessibility standards and a consistent experience of accessibility and inclusion for all Canadians.

Question 3 (application to public policy):

Disability rights are human rights and we will always stand up to see these rights brought to life across government. We will conduct a comprehensive review to ensure a consistent approach to disability inclusion and supports across government that addresses the unfairness and inequities in our programs and services, and challenges the biases built into our processes. This includes a definition of disability consistent with the Accessible Canada Act. This builds on the work we have done over the past four years, putting into place measures that harness the Government of Canada’s purchasing and contracting power to advance accessibility, including creating the Accessible Procurement Resource Centre, as well as the update to procurement policies across government.

Questions 4 to 6 (implementation and enforcement issues):

We are fully committed to the timely and ambitious implementation of the Accessible Canada Act so that it can fully benefit all Canadians. Our government established the broadest definitions of disability and barrier to date within federal legislation, and we will continue to work with stakeholders and the disability community to ensure the Act is implemented effectively and achieves its objectives.

We have already established a working group that includes all agencies involved in the ACA, and they have already started working on the coordination of the implementation and enforcement. This will be furthered by the leadership of the Minister of Accessibility, the Chief Accessibility Officer and the Accessibility Commissioner. As we move forward, we will continue to look for new ways to ensure that Canadians with disabilities are able to identify and resolve complaints in a timely and effective way.

As we operationalize the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization, we will also ensure that Canadians with disabilities and stakeholder groups are engaged in the process. We will also work with Provincial and Territorial governments, and Indigenous peoples to promote consistency in accessibility standards and a consistent experience of accessibility and inclusion for all Canadians.

Question 7

As stated above, we are fully committed to continuing to work with stakeholders and the disability community as the Accessible Canada Act is implemented to ensure it is fulfilling its objectives.

We will conduct a comprehensive review to ensure a consistent approach to disability inclusion and supports across government that addresses the unfairness and inequities in our programs and services, and challenges the biases built into our processes.

We will also work with Provincial and Territorial governments, and Indigenous peoples to promote consistency in accessibility standards and a consistent experience of accessibility and inclusion for all Canadians.

Question 8:

We modernized our electoral system, making it easier for citizens with disabilities to vote. As we do after every election, we will review lessons learned from these changes and work with stakeholders and the disability community on further steps we can take to address barriers that may exist.

Question 9:

Should any exemptions be implemented in accordance with the Accessible Canada Act these will be limited and due to very exceptional circumstances. The rationale for the exemptions will also be made public.

Question 10:

We will examine this issue as part of promised comprehensive review of federal policies and programs. In doing so we will work closely with provinces, territories, stakeholders and the disability community to effectively identify and reduce barriers.

Question 11:

We are fully committed to the timely and ambitious implementation of the Accessible Canada Act so that it can fully benefit all Canadians. We will continue to work with stakeholders and the disability community to ensure the Act is implemented effectively and achieves its objectives.

Appendix A: Our shared progress

After a decade of neglect from Harper’s Conservatives, over the past four years we’ve made accessibility and disability inclusion a priority. This started with the appointment of Canada’s first-ever Cabinet Minister responsible for Canadians with Disabilities. We also held a national discourse on disability issues through what would become the most inclusive consultation any government has ever had in the history of our country – on any topic. We held the first ever national summit for youth with disabilities, attended by the Prime Minister. The result: the Accessible Canada Act.

Canada is a proud signatory to the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD). Since 2015, we taken a human rights-based approach to disability equality, making fundamental changes to the way we put the principles of inclusion and accessibility into practice. We recognized the need for systems, policies and practices to be designed inclusively from the start. We recognized the need to move beyond relying on individual accommodation to address discrimination. We recognized the economic benefit of disability inclusion. And we moved beyond “Nothing About Us, Without Us”, to “Nothing Without Us”, because every decision the federal government makes impacts its citizens with disabilities. Our efforts culminated in the Accessible Canada Act, which is considered the most significant advancement in disability rights since the Charter in 1982.

At the same time, we worked across government to make federal laws, policies, procedures and programs more equitable and inclusive of Canadians with disabilities:

        We applied a disability lens to our flagship policies and programs, such as the Canada Child Benefit, the National Housing Strategy, and the National Infrastructure Program.

         We improved tax policies through measures such as permitting registered nurse practitioners to complete Disability Tax Credit (DTC) medical forms, and the enhanced caregiver credit.

         We addressed the financial security of Canadians with disabilities through important changes to the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP).

         We improved our immigration system by amending the outdated provisions on medical inadmissibility.  And we removed the processing fee to hire foreign caregivers, making these services more affordable.

         We modernized our electoral system, making it easier for citizens with disabilities to vote.

         We increased access to alternate format material, including the ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty in 2016.

         We created the Accessible Technology Fund.

         We included persons with disabilities in decision-making. Examples include the Disability Advisory Group to Elections Canada, the Canada Post Accessibility Advisory Panel, and the reconstituted Disability Advisory Group to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) — which was disbanded by Harper’s Conservatives.

         We focused on data collection to inform government decision-making.  This included enhancements the Canadian Survey on Disability, and funding a study on intersectionality as it relates to gender and disability called “More than a Footnote”.

         We appointed the first-ever Deputy Minister of Public Service Accessibility, and committed to hiring at least 5,000 persons with disabilities over the next five years into the federal public service. This will be complemented by a new internship program that will provide placements across the federal government for persons with disabilities.

         We invested in making government workspaces more accessible, and began working towards ensuring our buildings and properties meet the highest standards of accessibility.  We put into places measures that will harness the Government of Canada’s purchasing and contracting power to advance accessibility, including creating the Accessible Procurement Resource Centre.

         We adhered to our international human rights obligations: we signed the Optional Protocol to the UNCRPD, and appointed the Canadian Human Rights Commission to monitor the UNCRPD.

October 15, 2019 Online Statement on Disability Equality by the Liberal Party of Canada

DISABILITY EQUALITY STATEMENT

Originally posted at https://www.liberal.ca/disability-equality-statement/

Disability equality benefits everyone. When Canadians with disabilities have equal opportunities to contribute to their communities, to have the same quality of service from their government, to have equal opportunities to work, and to enjoy the same quality of life as everyone else, we build a stronger economy – and a stronger country.

Since 2015, we’ve worked to make this the reality for more Canadians. We started with a human rights-based approach to disability equality — fundamentally changing the way we, as a country, treat inclusion and accessibility. Part of that meant moving beyond individual accommodation and instead addressing discrimination as a whole.

Now, we’re making another choice. We’re choosing forward — taking the progress we’ve achieved and going even further to make Canada a more fair, equal and affordable place to live.

OUR SHARED PROGRESS

After a decade of neglect from Harper’s Conservatives, over the past four years we’ve made accessibility and disability inclusion a priority. This started with the appointment of Canada’s first-ever Cabinet Minister responsible for Canadians with Disabilities. We also held a national discourse on disability issues through what would become the most inclusive consultation any government has ever had in the history of our country – on any topic. We held the first ever national summit for youth with disabilities, attended by the Prime Minister. The result: the Accessible Canada Act.

Canada is a proud signatory to the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD). Since 2015, we taken a human rights-based approach to disability equality, making fundamental changes to the way we put the principles of inclusion and accessibility into practice. We recognized the need for systems, policies and practices to be designed inclusively from the start. We recognized the need to move beyond relying on individual accommodation to address discrimination. We recognized the economic benefit of disability inclusion. And we moved beyond “Nothing About Us, Without Us”, to “Nothing Without Us”, because every decision the federal government makes impacts its citizens with disabilities. Our efforts culminated in the Accessible Canada Act, which is considered the most significant advancement in disability rights since the Charter in 1982.

At the same time, we worked across government to make federal laws, policies, procedures and programs more equitable and inclusive of Canadians with disabilities:

We applied a disability lens to our flagship policies and programs, such as the Canada Child Benefit, the National Housing Strategy, and the National Infrastructure Program.

We improved tax policies through measures such as permitting registered nurse practitioners to complete Disability Tax Credit (DTC) medical forms, and the enhanced caregiver credit.

We addressed the financial security of Canadians with disabilities through important changes to the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP).

We improved our immigration system by amending the outdated provisions on medical inadmissibility. And we removed the processing fee to hire foreign caregivers, making these services more affordable.

We modernized our electoral system, making it easier for citizens with disabilities to vote.

We increased access to alternate format material, including the ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty in 2016.

We created the Accessible Technology Fund.

We included persons with disabilities in decision-making. Examples include the Disability Advisory Group to Elections Canada, the Canada Post Accessibility Advisory Panel, and the reconstituted Disability Advisory Group to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) — which was disbanded by Harper’s Conservatives.

We focused on data collection to inform government decision-making. This included enhancements the Canadian Survey on Disability, and funding a study on intersectionality as it relates to gender and disability called “More than a Footnote”.

We appointed the first-ever Deputy Minister of Public Service Accessibility, and committed to hiring at least 5,000 persons with disabilities over the next five years into the federal public service. This will be complemented by a new internship program that will provide placements across the federal government for persons with disabilities.

We invested in making government workspaces more accessible, and began working towards ensuring our buildings and properties meet the highest standards of accessibility. We put into places measures that will harness the Government of Canada’s purchasing and contracting power to advance accessibility, including creating the Accessible Procurement Resource Centre.

We adhered to our international human rights obligations: we signed the Optional Protocol to the UNCRPD, and appointed the Canadian Human Rights Commission to monitor the UNCRPD.

THE PATH TO EQUALITY THROUGH DISABILITY INCLUSION

Moving forward, there is more work to be done. Canadians with disabilities continue to face barriers and experience discrimination.

Canada requires strong leadership to ensure that a human rights-based approach to disability is reflected in all Government of Canada policies, programmes, practices and results. To ensure systemic disability inclusion and to lead by example as the Accessible Canada Act is implemented, a re-elected Liberal government will put these policies and practices into place, in consultation with the disability community. We will conduct a comprehensive review to ensure a consistent approach to disability inclusion and supports across government that addresses the unfairness and inequities in our programs and services, and challenges the biases built into our processes. This includes a definition of disability consistent with the Accessible Canada Act.

We heard from Canadians with disabilities that the most significant economic and social barrier they face to full economic and social participation is in the area of employment. This is particularly so for youth with disabilities. From the Canadian Survey on Disability, we know that approximately 59% of working-age adults with disabilities are employed compared to 80% of those without disabilities.

That’s why a re-elected Liberal government will improve the economic inclusion of persons with disabilities through various measures that target these barriers, address discrimination and stigma, raise public awareness, and work with employers and businesses in a coordinated way. One component of this will be the creation of a workplace accessibility fund to help increase the availability of accommodations that help close gaps in access to good paying jobs and education. We know that improving workplace accessibility and employment outcomes for Canadians with disabilities will have an overwhelmingly positive impact, leading to increased productivity and greater profits for businesses, as well as financial independence and a better quality of life for all Canadians.

We will also focus on the timely and ambitious implementation of the Accessible Canada Act. As we operationalize the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization, we will ensure that Canadians with disabilities and stakeholder groups are engaged in the process. We will also work with Provincial and Territorial governments, and Indigenous peoples to promote consistency in accessibility standards and a consistent experience of accessibility and inclusion for all Canadians.

Canada needs continued leadership to make sure people with disabilities can not only find good jobs, but can succeed for years and decades to come.

We won’t get that leadership from the Conservatives, who’ve proved that they only want to give a break to the very wealthiest Canadians — and cut programs and services for everyone else. Of the $53 billion they promise to cut, $14 billion is in hidden, mystery cuts could hurt Canadians with disabilities the most.

Only a re-elected Liberal government will continue on the progress we’ve made together. To help more Canadians with disabilities find and keep good jobs, we’ll address discrimination and stigma, raise public awareness, and work with employers and businesses.

These and other measures will ensure that disability inclusion is a priority for a re-elected Liberal government. We know that this is the best way to ensure that all Canadians have an equal and fair chance to succeed.

 Global News October 15, 2019

Originally posted at https://globalnews.ca/news/6034294/canadians-disabilities-election-campaign/

Canadians with disabilities cast doubt next federal government will address needs

BY MICHELLE MCQUIGGE -THE CANADIAN PRESS

Amy Amantea, who lost her eyesight due to complications while undergoing surgery more than a decade ago, poses for a photograph at her home in North Vancouver, on Oct. 11, 2019.

Amy Amantea tuned in to the English-language federal leaders’ debate with modest hope there would be at least some discussion of issues relevant to disabled Canadians.

The first half of the campaign had passed with barely a reference, even from the party that had delivered a historic achievement in national disability policy. Earlier this year, the Liberals made good on a 2015 campaign promise when the Accessible Canada Act received royal assent, marking the first time any government had enacted accessibility legislation at the federal level.

The government estimates one in five Canadians over the age of 15 is disabled, and Amantea, who is legally blind, hoped leaders would use the Oct. 7 debate to address some of the many issues they face. But those hopes faded as the debate progressed, giving way instead to doubts about how Canada’s disabled residents would fare after the Oct. 21 election.

“We have a lot of very unique needs and circumstances in our community that don’t get addressed,” Amantea said in a telephone interview from Vancouver. “Just a nod, just a mention would have been kind of nice, but it was not to be.”

Amantea said that relative silence has persisted into the final week of the campaign, giving rise to concerns throughout Canada’s disabled community. Many fear that parties who fail to make mention of key issues facing disabled Canadians while courting votes may prove even more dismissive once those votes have been cast.

They point to party platforms and public pledges, most of which make scant mention of either the Accessible Canada Act or disability-specific measures on issues such as infrastructure, health and affordable housing.

The Liberals response to questions on disability policy largely focused on past achievements. Spokesman Joe Pickerill did offer some future plans, including doubling the disability child benefit, establishing a $40-million-per-year national fund meant to help disabled Canadians find work, and simplifying the process veterans use to access disability benefits.

The Green party did not respond to request for comment, and the People’s Party of Canada said its platform contained “no policy related to disabled persons.”

The NDP did not provide comment to The Canadian Press, but made several commitments to strengthen the Accessible Canada Act in a letter sent to an Ontario-based disability advocacy group.

The act, while widely acknowledged as a significant milestone, was also broadly criticized by nearly a hundred grass-roots organizations across the country as too weak to be truly effective. Such critiques continued even after the government agreed to adopt some Senate amendments sought by the disability groups, who hoped future governments would continue to build on the new law.

Only the NDP agreed to do so when approached by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, which contacted all major parties in July.

“The Liberals hailed this bill as a historical piece of legislation. But without substantial amendments, it is yet another in a long line of Liberal half-measures,” reads the NDP’s response. “New Democrats are committed to ensuring that C-81 actually lives up to Liberal party rhetoric.”

The Conservatives, too, pledged to “work closely with the disability community to ensure that our laws reflect their lived realities.” Spokesman Simon Jefferies also noted party members pushed to strengthen the act but saw their amendments voted down by the government.

The vagueness of these commitments troubles Gabrielle Peters, a wheelchair-user and writer.

“Canada’s approach to accessibility has been to grant it as a gift they give us rather than a right we deserve,” Peters said. “Now that we have the ACA, the concern is that the broader public and the government think the issue is resolved when this law is, at best, a beginning.”

Other disabled voters expressed concerns about the handful of relevant promises that have been put forward on the campaign trail. In addition to pledging expanded eligibility for the disability tax credit, the Conservatives have said they would implement a $50-million national autism strategy focusing on research and services for children. The NDP and Greens have followed suit with similar proposals and larger pots of cash.

While widely lauded among parent-led advocacy groups, some autistic adults view the proposals with skepticism.

Alex Haagaard, who is autistic and uses a wheelchair, said that while much modern disability policy including the ACA tends to apply a social lens, discussion of autism is still framed through the outmoded medical model that positions the disability as an ailment to be cured rather than a part of a person’s identity.

Haagaard said action is clearly needed to help parents seeking supports for their children and teachers working to integrate autistic students into their classrooms, but said current attitudes at the heart of the campaign rhetoric are troubling.

A national strategy, Haagaard said, also risks undermining the goal of broader inclusion for other disabled populations.

“That is counter to the goals of disability justice to silo autism as this individual condition that warrants this level of attention compared to other disabilities,” Haagaard said.

Like Amantea, Peters felt let down by the leaders debates, citing the prevalence of discussion around medical assistance in dying over other issues that affect disabled people. The subject is polarizing, with many advocacy groups and individuals asserting such legislation devalues the lives of disabled people and places them at greater risk.

Such a narrow focus, Peters said, shows all parties’ failure to reckon with or address the diverse, complex needs of an overlooked demographic.

“What strikes me as missing in policy and in this election is us,” she said. “Disabled people. The not inspirational, not motivational, not middle class, not white, disabled people of this country. In other  words — most of us.”



Source link

AODA Alliance Finalizes and Makes Public Its Proposed Framework for the Promised Education Accessibility Standard


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

October 10, 2019

SUMMARY

Its done, and its public! Below we set out our finished product, the AODA Alliances Proposed Framework for the Promised AODA Education Accessibility Standard. We are now submitting it to the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee of which AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky is a member.

We are encouraging that Standards Development Committee to use this Framework to help with its work, as it prepares recommendations to the Ontario Government on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include. In the next few months, that Standards Development Committee will make public the draft recommendations that it is now preparing. That Committee is finally back at work after the Ford Government left it frozen for well over a year. The AODA Alliance led the campaign to get that committee and all Standards Development Committees unfrozen and back to work.

We and the public will be able to give our input on them. We hope that by offering this proposed Framework now, we can help the Standards Development Committee with its important work.

We thank all of those who took the time to give us their helpful and thoughtful feedback and suggestions after they took the time to read our draft of this proposed Framework. This finished product includes all the ideas that were in the draft. A number of great new ideas were added, thanks to the excellent and extremely helpful feedback that we received.

We were so gratified to receive such warm and supportive feedback for the draft that we circulated for public comment. This finished product reflects feedback we have received and research we have conducted over quite a stretch of time.

We always welcome your feedback. Email us at [email protected]

Today, as we make this important proposed Framework, we are sadly reminded that there have now been 253 days since the Ford Government received the final report of the independent review of the AODAs implementation prepared by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. We are still awaiting a plan from the Government on how it will implement that report.

MORE DETAILS

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance
United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

Proposed Framework for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard

October 10, 2019
Prepared by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Introduction — What is This Proposed Framework?

In Ontario, over a third of a million students with disabilities face too many barriers at all levels of Ontario’s education system. For years, the AODA Alliance led a campaign to get the Ontario Government to agree to create an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). In 2018, two committees were appointed by the Ontario Government to make recommendations on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include: The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee is responsible for making recommendations on what that accessibility standard should include to address barriers in Ontario’s publicly-funded schools from Kindergarten to Grade 12. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee was appointed to make recommendations for what that accessibility standard should include to address barriers in Ontario’s post-secondary education institutions, e.g. colleges and universities.

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

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

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

It is essential that the promised Education Accessibility Standard include the key ingredients that the AODA requires. It must identify the barriers to be removed and the actions required to remove them. It must set out deadlines for an obligated organization to take the steps set out in it.

To do this, it must do much more than to require organizations to have a policy on accessibility and to train its employees on that policy.

Ultimately, it is hoped that the promised Education Accessibility Standard will achieve a change in the culture regarding accessibility within education organizations, including a shift from a more traditional special education mentality to one of inclusion and accessibility. To achieve such a change within an organization, it is first necessary to change its practices on accessibility. From those changes in the organizations actions on accessibility will flow a change in its culture regarding accessibility. Therefore, the Education Accessibility Standard should be directed to change actions on accessibility.

The job of a Standards Development Committee is to recommend the contents of an AODA accessibility standard. If a Standards Development Committee chooses to also recommend some non-regulatory measures, that is beyond the Committees core mandate and should not detract from fulfilling that core mandate. For example, the 2018 final recommendations of the Transportation Standards Development Committee largely focused on recommendations of other measures, outside the revision of the 2011 Transportation Accessibility Standard that that Committee was assigned to review. Recommended practices that are not enshrined in an accessibility standard as a regulation, are not binding on school boards and cannot be enforced as an AODA standard.

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

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

2. A Vision of An Accessible Education System

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

#2.1 It would be designed and operated from top to bottom for all of its students, including students with all kinds of disabilities, as protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code and/or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would not in any way restrict its programs, services, supports, accommodations or other opportunities only to those students whose disability falls within the outdated and narrow definition of “exceptionality” in Ontario’s Education Act and regulations. Students with low-incidence disabilities would not be relegated to a second-class status within the administration of Ontarios education system as compared to those with high-incidence disabilities.

#2.2 The education system would no longer be designed and operated from the starting point of aiming to serve the fictional “average” student. It would not treat or label students with disabilities as “exceptions” or “exceptional”. It would not call their needs “special” or their disabilities exceptionalities. Their services, supports and needs would not be conflated with or funded from the same budget pot as the services and needs of gifted students who have no disability.

#2.3 The built environment in the education system, such as schools themselves, their yards, playgrounds etc., and the equipment on those premises (such as gym and playground equipment) would all be fully accessible to people with disabilities and would be designed based on the principle of universal design. Where school programs or trips take place outside the school, these will be held at locations that are disability-accessible.

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

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

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

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

#2.8 Students with disabilities would have prompt access to the up-to-date adaptive technology and specialized supports they need, and training on how to use it, to best enable them to fully take part in and benefit from education and other school-related programming. Students with disabilities would be able to bring to school and take home the accessibility technology and supports from which they benefit. For example, they would have the right to bring a qualified service animal to school with them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#2.17 Students with disabilities and their families would be kept regularly informed about the effectiveness of the placement, program, services, supports and accommodations that the student is receiving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. General Provisions that the Education Accessibility Standard Should Include

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

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

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

#3.4 Each school board should be required to establish in each school or related cluster of adjacent schools, a School Accessibility Committee. It should include representatives from the schools teachers, management, staff, students and parents/guardians, including representation where possible of people with disabilities from these groups. Its mandate should be to identify barriers in the school and its programs and to make recommendations for accessibility improvements to be shared with the school board administration and with the trustees Accessibility Committee.

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

#3.6 Each school board should set up and maintain a network of teachers and other staff with disabilities, and a network of students with disabilities, to get input on accessibility issues at the school board.

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

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

#3.9 Each school board should have an explicit duty to create a welcoming environment for students with disabilities and their families, including other family members with disabilities, to seek accommodations for their disabilities.

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

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

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

a) What special education is and who is entitled to receive it.

b) That the school board has a duty to ensure that a student with a disability has the right to full participation in and full inclusion in all the school board’s education and other programming, and to be accommodated in connection with those programs under the Ontario Human Rights Code and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whether or not the student is classified as a student with special education needs under Ontario’s Education Act and regulations.

c) The menu of options, placements, programs, services, supports and accommodations available at the school board for students with disabilities, whether or not they are classified as students with special education needs under the Education Act and regulations.

d) What persons and what office to approach at the school board to get this information, to request placements, programs, supports, services or accommodations for students with disabilities, whether or not they are classified as students with special education needs, or to raise concerns about whether the school board is effectively meeting the students education needs.

e) The processes and procedures at the school board for a parent, guardian or student to request or change placements, programs, services, supports or accommodations for students with disabilities, whether or not they are classified as students with special education needs. This includes formal legislated processes like the Identification and Placement Review Committee (IPRC) and the development and implementation of the students Individual Education Plan (IEP). It also includes other informal processes like requests for programs, services, supports and accommodations that are not covered in an IPRC or IEP.

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

a) Parents and guardians of students with disabilities can easily find out and, where necessary, visit different placement, program, service and support options for a student with a disability, whether or not they are classified as a student with special education needs, before the parent, guardian or, where practicable, the student must take a position on what placement, program or services should be provided to that student.

b) Parents and guardians of students with disabilities, and, where practicable, students with disabilities themselves, should be given clear, understandable explanations of their rights in the school system, including but not limited to the special education process. For example, when a school board presents parents or guardians with a proposed IEP, the school board should explain to them that they need not agree to and sign the proposed IEP, that the school board is open to consider the family’s suggestions for changes to the proposed IEP, and the avenues by which parents or guardians can seek to get the school board to make changes to the proposed IEP.

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

a) This plans objective should be to ensure that all parents, guardians and where practicable, students, get the information they need to ensure that students of all abilities can fully participate in and benefit from the educational and other opportunities available at the school board.

b) A school board should not simply leave it to each principal or teacher to make sure that this important information is effectively provided. Each school board should instead have an effective system in place to ensure that this information actually reaches all parents and guardians, and where applicable, students.

c) Each school board should ensure that all of this important information is fully and readily accessible in a prompt and timely way to all parents, guardians and students, in accessible formats and in jargon-free plain language, in a diverse range of languages. It should be easy to find this information. Among other things, this information should be posted on the school boards website, in a prominent place that is easy to find, with a link on the school boards home page. A school board should not simply rely on its website to share this information since this will not serve those families that do not have internet access.

d) Among other things, each school board should send home an information package to all families at the start of each school year, and not merely to families of those students who are already being identified or served as having special education needs or disabilities. This package should include, among other things, a Question and Answer format to help families see how this information could relate to the student in their family.

e) Each school board should also create a user-friendly package of information to be provided to families who first approach a school board about the possibility of enrolling a child at that school board, e.g. when they register for kindergarten. This should help enable a family to know whether they should be trying to access disability-related services and supports.

f) Each school board should periodically host events at local schools to help families learn how to navigate disability-related school board processes like the Individual Education Plan and the Identification and Placement Review Committee processes. Where possible these should be streamed online and archived online as a resource for families to watch online.

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

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

The procedures required by the Education Act and regulations for identifying and accommodating the needs of students with disabilities are out-of-date. They are insufficient to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are effectively met.

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

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

#5.3 If a school board refuses to provide an accommodation, service, or support for a childs disability that a parent, guardian, or where appropriate, the student requests, or if the school board does not provide an accommodation or support that it has agreed to provide, the school board should, on request, promptly provide written reasons for that refusal. It should let the family and student know that they can request written reasons.

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

a) It should be very prompt. Arrangements for a student’s accommodations, including an IEP, should be finalized as quickly as possible, so that the students needs are promptly met.

b) No proposed services, supports or accommodations that the school board is prepared to offer should be withheld from a student pending a review. The family should not feel pressured not to seek this review, lest the child be placed in a position of educational disadvantage during the review process. In other words, a family should not fear that if they launch a review, the student will suffer because the school board will not provide an accommodation or service that the school board has offered, while the review is pending.

c) The review process should be fair. The school board should let the family know all of its issues or concerns with a familys proposal regarding the student’s accommodations, including the contents of the IEP. The family should be given a fair chance to express its concerns and recommendations regarding the student’s accommodations’, including in the IEP.

d) The review should be by a person or persons who are independent and impartial. They should have expertise in the education of students with disabilities. They should not have taken part in any of the earlier discussions or decisions at that school board regarding the services, supports or accommodations or IEP for that child.

e) At the review, every effort should be made to mediate and resolve any disagreements between the family and the school board. If the matter cannot be resolved by agreement, there should be an option for the school board or the Ministry of Education to appoint a person or persons who are outside the school board to consider the review, along prompt time lines.

f) At the review, written reasons should be given for the decision, especially if any of the familys requests or concerns are not accepted.

g) If, after receiving the review’s decision and reasons, the family wishes to present any new information, they should be able to ask for the review to be reconsidered. This should be along short time lines.

H) After the review is decided, if the family is not satisfied, they should be able to bring their concerns regarding the proposed accommodations including any IEP to a designated senior official at the school board with authority to approve the requested accommodations, for a further review.

#5.5 Each school board should notify parents and guardians who themselves have a disability that they have a right to have their disability-related needs accommodated in these processes, so that they can fully participate in them. For example, they should be notified that they have a right to receive any information or documents to be used in any such meeting or process in an accessible format.

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

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

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

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

7. Ensuring a Fully Accessible Built Environment at Schools

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

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

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

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

a) Specific requirements to be included in a new school to be built.

b) Requirements to be included in a renovation of or addition to an existing school, and

c) Retrofit requirements for an existing school that is not slated for a major renovation or addition.

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

a) As a first step, each school board should develop a plan for making as many of its schools disability-accessible within its current financial context. Accessibility does not only include the needs of people with mobility disabilities. It includes the needs of people with all disabilities, for example people with vision and/or hearing loss, autism, or mental health disabilities.

b) Each school board should identify which of its existing schools can be more easily made accessible, and which schools would require substantially more extensive action to be made physically accessible. An interim plan should be developed to show what progress towards full physical accessibility can be made by first addressing schools that would require less money to be made physically accessible, taking into account the need to also consider geographic equity of access across the school board.

c) When designing a new school or managing an existing school, wherever possible, a quiet room should be assigned in a school facility to assist with learning by those students with disabilities who require such an environment. For example, when a school board is deciding what to do with excess building capacity, it should allocate unused or under-used rooms as quiet rooms whenever possible.

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

#7.4 When a school board is planning a new school, or expanding or renovating an existing school or other infrastructure, a qualified accessibility consultant should be retained by the school board (and not by a private architecture firm) to advise on the project from the outset, with their advice being transmitted directly to the school board and not only to the private design professionals who are retained to design the project. Completing the 8-day training course on accessibility offered by the Rick Hansen Foundation should not be treated as either necessary or sufficient for this purpose, as that course is substantially inadequate and has significant problems.

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

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

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

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

8. Ensuring Digital Accessibility at School

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

#8.1 Each school board should ensure that:

Educational equipment and technology, including hardware, software, and tablet/mobile apps deployed in educational settings should be designed based on universal design principles, to ensure that students with disabilities can use them.

a) A school board’s Learning Management Systems (LMS) should be accessible to staff and students with disabilities, including those who use adaptive technology. They should have all accessibility features turned on and available to ensure that information posted through them will be accessible to students with disabilities, including those using adaptive technology such as screen readers or voice recognition tools. Each school board should ensure that no teacher is able to turn off any feature of the LMS that is accessible in favour of one that is not.

b) Each school board’s internal and external websites and intranet content, including internet content available to students for learning purposes, including all online learning programs, should be fully accessible, with all new information posted on them to be fully accessible.

c) Electronic documents created at the school board for use in education and other programming and activities should be created in accessible formats unless there is a compelling and unavoidable reason requiring otherwise. PDF format should be avoided. If a PDF document is created, an alternate version of the content should be simultaneously provided and posted in an accessible Microsoft Word or HTML format.

d) Software used to produce a school board’s documents such as report cards, Individual Education Plans, or other key documents should be designed to ensure that they produce these documents in accessible formats.

e) Textbooks and learning software should be procured only if they include full information technology accessibility. Any textbook used in any learning environment must be accessible to teachers and students with disabilities at the time of procurement. Here again, PDF should not be used unless an accessible alternative format such as MS Word is also simultaneously available. For example, if a textbook is available in EPUB format, the textbooks must meet the international standard for that file format. For EPUB it is the W3C Digital Publishing Guidelines currently under review. If a textbook is available in print, the publisher should be required to provide the digital version of the textbook in an accessible format at the same time the print version is delivered to the school/Board.

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

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

Barrier: Too often, the curricula and lesson plans used in Ontario schools were not designed based on principles of accessibility and Universal Design in Learning.

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

Barrier: Too often, teachers and other school staff who work with students are not sufficiently trained on how to teach all students, including students with disabilities. Teachers colleges and other programs that are publicly funded to train professionals who will work with students in Ontario schools are therefore creating new generations of barriers that will impede students with disabilities.

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

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

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

a) This plans objective should be to ensure that all parents, guardians and where practicable, students, get the information they need to ensure that students of all abilities can fully participate in and benefit from the educational opportunities available at the school board.

b) Each school board should develop, implement and monitor a comprehensive plan to train its teachers, other teaching staff, teaching coaches and principals on using UDL and differentiated instruction principles when preparing lesson plans and teaching, in order to effectively meet the spectrum of different learning needs and styles. The Ontario Government should be required to provide a model program for this training which each school board can use.

c) Each school board should include knowledge of UDL and differentiated instruction principles as an important criterion when recruiting or promoting teachers, other teaching staff and principals.

d) Each school board should ensure that teachers are provided with appropriate resources and support to successfully implement the UDL training. Each school board should monitor how effectively UDL and differentiated instruction are incorporated into lesson plans and other teaching activities on the front lines.

e) Each school board should review any curriculum, textbooks and other instructional materials and learning resources used in its schools to ensure that they incorporate principles of UDL.

f) Each school board should create and implement a plan to ensure that teachers in the areas of science, technology, engineer and math (STEM) have resources and expertise to ensure the accessibility of STEM courses and learning resources.

g) Each school board should provide teaching coaches with expertise in UDL to support teachers and other teaching staff.

h) Similarly, specialized training should be included for those who teach sex education to ensure that it includes disability-related sex education.

i) The Ministry of Education should create templates or models for the foregoing training so that each school board does not have to reinvent the wheel in this context.

#9.4 Concentrated requirements to require the removal and prevention of workplace barriers at school boards impeding teachers and other school staff with disabilities would have the side-benefit of removing and preventing barriers that impede students with disabilities, such as specific measures to ensure that accessible student placements are provided in Ontario schools for teachers and other teaching staff with disabilities during their training in teachers college and other post-secondary programs.

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

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

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

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

11. Removing Attitudinal Barriers Against Students with Disabilities

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

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

a) Develop and implement a multi-year program/curriculum for teaching students, school board staff and families of school board students, about inclusion and full participation of students with disabilities, tailored to age levels. Because online courses are inadequate for this, where possible, this should include hearing from, meeting and interacting with people with disabilities e.g. at assemblies and/or via guest presentations.

b) Post in all schools and send information to all families of the school board’s students, on the school board’s commitment to inclusion of students with disabilities, and the benefits this brings to all students.

c) Provide specific training to all school board staff that deal with parents or students, on the importance of inclusion.

d) Implement human resources policies and practices to expand school board staff knowledge and skills regarding inclusion.

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

a) Making knowledge and experience on implementing inclusion an important hiring and promotions criterion especially for principals, vice-principals and teaching staff.

b) Emphasizing accessibility and inclusion knowledge and performance in any performance management and performance reviews.

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

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

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

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

a) Survey students with disabilities who need accessible instructional materials, and their teachers and families, to get their front-line experiences on whether they get timely access to accessible instructional materials, and to get specifics on where this has been most lacking.

b) Establish a dedicated resource within the school board, or shared among school boards, to convert instructional materials to an accessible format, where needed, on a timely basis, either alone or in combination with other school boards.

c) Review its procurement practices to ensure that any new instructional materials that are acquired is fully accessible or conversion-ready and monitor to ensure that this is always done in practice. A condition of procurement should be a requirement that the supplier or vender must remediate any inaccessible materials at its own expense.

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

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

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

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

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

#13.2 Each school board should:

a) Take an inventory of the accessibility of its existing indoor and outdoor play spaces and gym and playground equipment, and make this public, including posting it online.

b) Adopt a plan to remediate the accessibility of new gym or playground equipment, in consultation with the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and Accessibility Committee, and widely with families of students with disabilities.

c) Ensure that a qualified accessibility expert is engaged to ensure that purchase of new equipment or remediation of existing playground is properly conducted, with their advice being given directly to the school board.

#13.3 Where playground or other school equipment or facilities to be deployed on school property for use by students is funded and/or purchased by anyone other than the school board, the school board should remain responsible for approving the purchases and ensuring that only accessible equipment and facilities are placed on school property for use by students or the public. Decisions over whether accessibility features will be included, or which will be included, should not be left to community groups which may fund-raise for such equipment or facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) Have a policy that commits to ensure that testing and other assessments of students’ performance and learning are designed to be barrier-free for students with disabilities.

b) Give its teachers and principals training resources on how to ensure a test is a fair, accurate and barrier-free assessment for students with disabilities in their class, and where needed, how to provide an alternative evaluation method.

c) Monitor implementation of these guidelines.

#14.3 The Ministry of Education should ensure that any provincial standardized testing is fully accessible to and barrier-free for students with disabilities and will provide a fair and accurate assessment of their knowledge and abilities.

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

Barrier: Policy and bureaucratic impediments to students with disabilities getting the adaptive technology and other supports they need for school.

There are inconsistent practices around Ontario for making available to students with disabilities the adaptive technology and support services they need, and the training required to be able to effectively use that equipment. For example, the Toronto District School Board does not at all support students with vision loss using Apple products such as the iPhone or iPad. Those products come with leading accessibility features and are widely used by people with vision loss around the world. There are also inconsistent practices on whether a student can take such equipment home for use there or can bring their own adaptive equipment from home for use at school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

#15.5 If the school board does not accept at first the sincerity or legitimacy of the student’s request, or the training of the service animal, the school board should immediately notify the student and their family of any and all concerns. The school board should investigate the request, including the student’s benefits from the service animal outside school and in the home, or any other concerns, as well as the experience of other schools or school boards that have allowed students with disabilities to bring service animals to school, before acting on any potential board reluctance or unwillingness to grant the student’s request. If a school board is not prepared to accept a request to be able to bring a service animal to school at first, the school board should undertake a test period of allowing the service animal at school, unless the school board can demonstrate that it would be impossible to conduct such a test period without causing the school board undue hardship. A school board should not refuse a request to bring a service animal to school based on no test period and based on speculative assumptions or stereotypes.

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

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

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

16. Removing Barriers to Participation in Experiential Learning

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

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

a) Review its experiential learning programs to identify and remove any accessibility barriers.

b) Put in place a process to affirmatively reach out to potential placement organizations in order to ensure that there will be a range of accessible placement opportunities in which students with disabilities can participate.

c) Ensure that its partner organizations that accept its students for experiential learning placements are effectively informed of their duty to accommodate the learning needs of students with disabilities.

d) Create and share supports and advice for placement organizations who need assistance to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in their experiential learning placements.

e) Monitor placement organizations to ensure they have someone in place to ensure that students with disabilities are effectively accommodated, and to ensure that effective accommodation was provided during each placement of a student with a disability who needed accommodation.

f) Survey students with disabilities and experiential learning placement organizations at the end of any experiential learning placements to see if their disability-related needs were effectively accommodated.

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

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

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

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

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

a) Identifying what percentage of the students in these programs are students with disabilities, to document any patterns of under-participation.

b) Reviewing the admission process for gaining entry to these programs, to identify possible accessibility barriers.

c) Reviewing the choice of the buildings and classrooms where these programs are to be delivered to ensure that students with disabilities will be able to physically attend these programs.

d) Identifying what efforts the school board now makes to ensure that students with disabilities are included in and accommodated in these programs, and the extent to which UDL and differentiated instruction principles are used in the teaching in these programs.

e) Developing an action plan to address any accessibility and inclusion shortfalls.

f) Actively publicizing to students with disabilities and their families about the opportunities to take part in these programs, and the school board’s readiness to ensure that their accommodation needs will be met.

g) Monitoring the effectiveness of efforts to ensure inclusion and accessibility of these programs for students with disabilities, and report publicly on this, including to school board trustees, to the trustees’ accessibility committee and to the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, on an annual basis.

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

Barrier: The school boards choice of in which schools to locate special education classes or programs for students with disabilities can force too many of these students to have to change the school they attend over their years at school much more than do other students, causing disruption and hardships for the students and their families. This can also make it harder for flexible placements that straddle more than one of these programs or classes.

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

a) If a student, attending a school other than their home school, for a special education program or class, is prepared to shift to inclusion in a fulltime regular classroom, then consistent with parental agreement, the student should have the option of remaining at the same school as the special education class, and treating it as their home school.

b) Where possible, the school board should locate in the same school a combination of two special education classes that involve different levels of support. This would enable a student to gradually progress through different levels of special education classes towards a regular class setting in that school, without having to switch schools in order to switch to a different level of special education class. It would also enable a student, where appropriate, to spend part of a school day in one program and another part of the school day in another program, to best and most flexibly meet the student’s needs.

c) Where feasible, if a student with a disability is required to attend a different school than his or her home school in order to take part in special education programming, the family should have the option of having that students’ siblings also attend that school, especially where this will help the student with a disability. Whenever possible, siblings, including those with disabilities, should be able to attend the same school.

19. Transportation for Students with Disabilities

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

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

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

a) The school board has individually consulted with each family to identify the accessibility and accommodation needs of the student with disabilities in relation to transportation, and the bus company and driver have been properly trained to accommodate that need.

b) Where the school board or its bussing contractor changes the driver assigned to transport the student, the replacement driver is given the same information and training prior to driving the student, or, in the case of an emergency replacement, as soon as possible.

c) The school board and, where applicable, any contractor it hires, shall retain records of the training provided, including when it was provided and shall make this information public.

d) The school board should have a readily available and reachable official, especially during periods when a student is being transported, to receive and address phone calls, emails and text messages from a family about problems regarding the student’s transportation.

e) The school board should document all complaints reported on transportation services, and the company to which it applies. A summary of these should be provided to all members of the school board including its Special Education Advisory Committee and its Accessibility Committee on a quarterly basis and shall make this public on the school board’s website.

f) The Education Accessibility Standard should make it clear that the fact that the school board has contracted for a private company to provide the student transportation does not remove or reduce the school board’s duties under this accessibility standard or otherwise under the AODA, the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that the student has been provided with barrier-free participation in the school board’s educational programs and opportunities. In any contract for bussing, the school board should be required to monitor the bus company for compliance with all obligations regarding bussing, such as the duty to properly train each bus driver on the specific disability-related needs of each passenger with a disability, and to document this training. Each school board should periodically audit the bus companies with whom they contract for compliance, and publicly report on the audits results. A bus companys failure to consistently and reliably meet its obligations should trigger substantial monetary penalties and termination of the contract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) This should include any time a school board formally or informally asks or directs that a student not attend school, or that the student be removed from school, whether in writing or in a discussion

b) This should include a school board request or direction that a student only attend school for part of the regular school day.

c) This does not include a situation where a family requests that a student be absent from school for all or part of a school day, but the school board is willing to let the student attend school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) A student and their families should have all the procedural protections that are required when a school board is going to impose discipline such as a suspension or expulsion.

b) The prior review and approval of the superintendent should be required, before a refusal to admit is imposed. If it is an emergency, then the superintendent should be required to review and approve this decision as quickly afterwards as possible, or else the refusal to admit should be terminated.

c) The superintendent should independently assess whether the school board has sufficient grounds to refuse to admit the student, and has met all the requirements of the school board’s refusal to admit policy (including ensuring alternative education programming is in place for the student).

d) The principal should be required to immediately notify the student and his or her family in writing of the refusal to admit, the reasons for it, and the duration. That should include outlining steps that the school board has taken or will be taking to expedite a students return to school and provide an expected timeline for the completion of these steps.

e) The principal should immediately tell the student and the student’s family, in clear and plain language, in writing, what a refusal to admit is, its duration, the reasons for it, the steps the school board is taking to expedite the students return to school and time lines for those steps, the school board’s process for reviewing that decision, and the family’s right to appeal it (including how to use that right of appeal). This should be provided in a language that the family speaks. These procedures should again be mandatory any time the school board extends a refusal to admit a student to school.

f) A refusal to admit a student to school should not be extended for an accumulated total of more than 15 days (within a surrounding 30 day period) without the independent review and written approval of an executive superintendent of the school board.

g) No refusal to admit a student to school should be extended for an accumulated total of more than 20 days (within a surrounding 45 day period) without the independent review and written approval of the Director of Education.

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

a) The appeal should be to school board officials who had no involvement with the initial decision to refuse to admit that student to school or any extensions of it.

b) The school board should promptly inform the student and the student’s family about how to start an appeal, who decides the appeal, the procedures for the appeal, that the student and family can present reports, support people or experts or any other information they wish, and can have a representative, either a lawyer or other person, to speak for them or assist them with the appeal.

c) The appeal should include an in-person meeting with the student and family.

d) The appeal should be heard and decided very promptly along time lines that the Education Accessibility Standard should set.

e) On the appeal, the school board should have the burden to prove that the refusal to admit was justified, that it went no further and lasted no longer than was necessary, and that proper alternative education programming was provided or offered.

f) A decision on the appeal should promptly be provided in writing with reasons along time lines that the Education Accessibility Standard should set.

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

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

#20.18 To help ensure that refusals to admit are not used due to a failure to accommodate a
student’s disability up to the point of undue hardship, each school board should create an emergency fund for accelerating education disability accommodations needed to facilitate a student’s remaining at or promptly returning to school, in connection with an actual or contemplated refusal to admit.




Source link

AODA Alliance Finalizes and Makes Public Its Proposed Framework for the Promised Education Accessibility Standard – AODA Alliance


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

AODA Alliance Finalizes and Makes Public Its Proposed Framework for the Promised Education Accessibility Standard

October 10, 2019

          SUMMARY

It’s done, and it’s public! Below we set out our finished product, the AODA Alliance’s Proposed Framework for the Promised AODA Education Accessibility Standard. We are now submitting it to the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee of which AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky is a member.

We are encouraging that Standards Development Committee to use this Framework to help with its work, as it prepares recommendations to the Ontario Government on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include. In the next few months, that Standards Development Committee will make public the draft recommendations that it is now preparing. That Committee is finally back at work after the Ford Government left it frozen for well over a year. The AODA Alliance led the campaign to get that committee and all Standards Development Committees unfrozen and back to work.

We and the public will be able to give our input on them. We hope that by offering this proposed Framework now, we can help the Standards Development Committee with its important work.

We thank all of those who took the time to give us their helpful and thoughtful feedback and suggestions after they took the time to read our draft of this proposed Framework. This finished product includes all the ideas that were in the draft. A number of great new ideas were added, thanks to the excellent and extremely helpful feedback that we received.

We were so gratified to receive such warm and supportive feedback for the draft that we circulated for public comment. This finished product reflects feedback we have received and research we have conducted over quite a stretch of time.

We always welcome your feedback. Email us at [email protected]

Today, as we make this important proposed Framework, we are sadly reminded that there have now been 253 days since the Ford Government received the final report of the independent review of the AODA’s implementation prepared by former Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley. We are still awaiting a plan from the Government on how it will implement that report.

          MORE DETAILS

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

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

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

Proposed Framework for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard

October 10, 2019

Prepared by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

Introduction — What is This Proposed Framework?

In Ontario, over a third of a million students with disabilities face too many barriers at all levels of Ontario’s education system. For years, the AODA Alliance led a campaign to get the Ontario Government to agree to create an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). In 2018, two committees were appointed by the Ontario Government to make recommendations on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include: The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee is responsible for making recommendations on what that accessibility standard should include to address barriers in Ontario’s publicly-funded schools from Kindergarten to Grade 12. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee was appointed to make recommendations for what that accessibility standard should include to address barriers in Ontario’s post-secondary education institutions, e.g. colleges and universities.

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

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

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

It is essential that the promised Education Accessibility Standard include the key ingredients that the AODA requires. It must identify the barriers to be removed and the actions required to remove them. It must set out deadlines for an obligated organization to take the steps set out in it.

To do this, it must do much more than to require organizations to have a policy on accessibility and to train its employees on that policy.

Ultimately, it is hoped that the promised Education Accessibility Standard will achieve a change in the culture regarding accessibility within education organizations, including a shift from a more traditional special education mentality to one of inclusion and accessibility. To achieve such a change within an organization, it is first necessary to change its practices on accessibility. From those changes in the organization’s actions on accessibility will flow a change in its culture regarding accessibility. Therefore, the Education Accessibility Standard should be directed to change actions on accessibility.

The job of a Standards Development Committee is to recommend the contents of an AODA accessibility standard. If a Standards Development Committee chooses to also recommend some non-regulatory measures, that is beyond the Committee’s core mandate and should not detract from fulfilling that core mandate. For example, the 2018 final recommendations of the Transportation Standards Development Committee largely focused on recommendations of other measures, outside the revision of the 2011 Transportation Accessibility Standard that that Committee was assigned to review. Recommended practices that are not enshrined in an accessibility standard as a regulation, are not binding on school boards and cannot be enforced as an AODA standard.

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

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

2. A Vision of An Accessible Education System

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

#2.1 It would be designed and operated from top to bottom for all of its students, including students with all kinds of disabilities, as protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code and/or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would not in any way restrict its programs, services, supports, accommodations or other opportunities only to those students whose disability falls within the outdated and narrow definition of “exceptionality” in Ontario’s Education Act and regulations. Students with low-incidence disabilities would not be relegated to a second-class status within the administration of Ontario’s education system as compared to those with high-incidence disabilities.

#2.2 The education system would no longer be designed and operated from the starting point of aiming to serve the fictional “average” student. It would not treat or label students with disabilities as “exceptions” or “exceptional”. It would not call their needs “special” or their disabilities “exceptionalities.” Their services, supports and needs would not be conflated with or funded from the same budget pot as the services and needs of gifted students who have no disability.

#2.3 The built environment in the education system, such as schools themselves, their yards, playgrounds etc., and the equipment on those premises (such as gym and playground equipment) would all be fully accessible to people with disabilities and would be designed based on the principle of universal design. Where school programs or trips take place outside the school, these will be held at locations that are disability-accessible.

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

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

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

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

#2.8 Students with disabilities would have prompt access to the up-to-date adaptive technology and specialized supports they need, and training on how to use it, to best enable them to fully take part in and benefit from education and other school-related programming. Students with disabilities would be able to bring to school and take home the accessibility technology and supports from which they benefit. For example, they would have the right to bring a qualified service animal to school with them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#2.17 Students with disabilities and their families would be kept regularly informed about the effectiveness of the placement, program, services, supports and accommodations that the student is receiving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. General Provisions that the Education Accessibility Standard Should Include

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

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

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

#3.4 Each school board should be required to establish in each school or related cluster of adjacent schools, a School Accessibility Committee. It should include representatives from the school’s teachers, management, staff, students and parents/guardians, including representation where possible of people with disabilities from these groups. Its mandate should be to identify barriers in the school and its programs and to make recommendations for accessibility improvements to be shared with the school board administration and with the trustees’ Accessibility Committee.

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

#3.6 Each school board should set up and maintain a network of teachers and other staff with disabilities, and a network of students with disabilities, to get input on accessibility issues at the school board.

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

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

#3.9 Each school board should have an explicit duty to create a welcoming environment for students with disabilities and their families, including other family members with disabilities, to seek accommodations for their disabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The procedures required by the Education Act and regulations for identifying and accommodating the needs of students with disabilities are out-of-date. They are insufficient to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are effectively met.

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

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

#5.3 If a school board refuses to provide an accommodation, service, or support for a child’s disability that a parent, guardian, or where appropriate, the student requests, or if the school board does not provide an accommodation or support that it has agreed to provide, the school board should, on request, promptly provide written reasons for that refusal. It should let the family and student know that they can request written reasons.

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

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

#5.5 Each school board should notify parents and guardians who themselves have a disability that they have a right to have their disability-related needs accommodated in these processes, so that they can fully participate in them. For example, they should be notified that they have a right to receive any information or documents to be used in any such meeting or process in an accessible format.

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

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

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

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

7. Ensuring a Fully Accessible Built Environment at Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. a) As a first step, each school board should develop a plan for making as many of its schools disability-accessible within its current financial context. Accessibility does not only include the needs of people with mobility disabilities. It includes the needs of people with all disabilities, for example people with vision and/or hearing loss, autism, or mental health disabilities.
  1. b) Each school board should identify which of its existing schools can be more easily made accessible, and which schools would require substantially more extensive action to be made physically accessible. An interim plan should be developed to show what progress towards full physical accessibility can be made by first addressing schools that would require less money to be made physically accessible, taking into account the need to also consider geographic equity of access across the school board.
  1. c) When designing a new school or managing an existing school, wherever possible, a quiet room should be assigned in a school facility to assist with learning by those students with disabilities who require such an environment. For example, when a school board is deciding what to do with excess building capacity, it should allocate unused or under-used rooms as quiet rooms whenever possible.

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

#7.4 When a school board is planning a new school, or expanding or renovating an existing school or other infrastructure, a qualified accessibility consultant should be retained by the school board (and not by a private architecture firm) to advise on the project from the outset, with their advice being transmitted directly to the school board and not only to the private design professionals who are retained to design the project. Completing the 8-day training course on accessibility offered by the Rick Hansen Foundation should not be treated as either necessary or sufficient for this purpose, as that course is substantially inadequate and has significant problems.

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

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

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

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

8. Ensuring Digital Accessibility at School

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

#8.1 Each school board should ensure that:

Educational equipment and technology, including hardware, software, and tablet/mobile apps deployed in educational settings should be designed based on universal design principles, to ensure that students with disabilities can use them.

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

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

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

Barrier: Too often, the curricula and lesson plans used in Ontario schools were not designed based on principles of accessibility and Universal Design in Learning.

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

Barrier: Too often, teachers and other school staff who work with students are not sufficiently trained on how to teach all students, including students with disabilities. Teacher’s colleges and other programs that are publicly funded to train professionals who will work with students in Ontario schools are therefore creating new generations of barriers that will impede students with disabilities.

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

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

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

  1. a) This plan’s objective should be to ensure that all parents, guardians and where practicable, students, get the information they need to ensure that students of all abilities can fully participate in and benefit from the educational opportunities available at the school board.
  1. b) Each school board should develop, implement and monitor a comprehensive plan to train its teachers, other teaching staff, teaching coaches and principals on using UDL and differentiated instruction principles when preparing lesson plans and teaching, in order to effectively meet the spectrum of different learning needs and styles. The Ontario Government should be required to provide a model program for this training which each school board can use.
  1. c) Each school board should include knowledge of UDL and differentiated instruction principles as an important criterion when recruiting or promoting teachers, other teaching staff and principals.
  1. d) Each school board should ensure that teachers are provided with appropriate resources and support to successfully implement the UDL training. Each school board should monitor how effectively UDL and differentiated instruction are incorporated into lesson plans and other teaching activities on the front lines.
  1. e) Each school board should review any curriculum, textbooks and other instructional materials and learning resources used in its schools to ensure that they incorporate principles of UDL.
  1. f) Each school board should create and implement a plan to ensure that teachers in the areas of science, technology, engineer and math (STEM) have resources and expertise to ensure the accessibility of STEM courses and learning resources.
  1. g) Each school board should provide teaching coaches with expertise in UDL to support teachers and other teaching staff.
  1. h) Similarly, specialized training should be included for those who teach sex education to ensure that it includes disability-related sex education.
  1. i) The Ministry of Education should create templates or models for the foregoing training so that each school board does not have to reinvent the wheel in this context.

#9.4 Concentrated requirements to require the removal and prevention of workplace barriers at school boards impeding teachers and other school staff with disabilities would have the side-benefit of removing and preventing barriers that impede students with disabilities, such as specific measures to ensure that accessible student placements are provided in Ontario schools for teachers and other teaching staff with disabilities during their training in teacher’s college and other post-secondary programs.

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

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

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

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

11. Removing Attitudinal Barriers Against Students with Disabilities

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

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

  1. a) Develop and implement a multi-year program/curriculum for teaching students, school board staff and families of school board students, about inclusion and full participation of students with disabilities, tailored to age levels. Because online courses are inadequate for this, where possible, this should include hearing from, meeting and interacting with people with disabilities e.g. at assemblies and/or via guest presentations.
  1. b) Post in all schools and send information to all families of the school board’s students, on the school board’s commitment to inclusion of students with disabilities, and the benefits this brings to all students.
  1. c) Provide specific training to all school board staff that deal with parents or students, on the importance of inclusion.
  1. d) Implement human resources policies and practices to expand school board staff knowledge and skills regarding inclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#13.2 Each school board should:

  1. a) Take an inventory of the accessibility of its existing indoor and outdoor play spaces and gym and playground equipment, and make this public, including posting it online.
  1. b) Adopt a plan to remediate the accessibility of new gym or playground equipment, in consultation with the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and Accessibility Committee, and widely with families of students with disabilities.
  1. c) Ensure that a qualified accessibility expert is engaged to ensure that purchase of new equipment or remediation of existing playground is properly conducted, with their advice being given directly to the school board.

#13.3 Where playground or other school equipment or facilities to be deployed on school property for use by students is funded and/or purchased by anyone other than the school board, the school board should remain responsible for approving the purchases and ensuring that only accessible equipment and facilities are placed on school property for use by students or the public. Decisions over whether accessibility features will be included, or which will be included, should not be left to community groups which may fund-raise for such equipment or facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#14.3 The Ministry of Education should ensure that any provincial standardized testing is fully accessible to and barrier-free for students with disabilities and will provide a fair and accurate assessment of their knowledge and abilities.

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

Barrier: Policy and bureaucratic impediments to students with disabilities getting the adaptive technology and other supports they need for school.

There are inconsistent practices around Ontario for making available to students with disabilities the adaptive technology and support services they need, and the training required to be able to effectively use that equipment. For example, the Toronto District School Board does not at all support students with vision loss using Apple products such as the iPhone or iPad. Those products come with leading accessibility features and are widely used by people with vision loss around the world. There are also inconsistent practices on whether a student can take such equipment home for use there or can bring their own adaptive equipment from home for use at school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

#15.5 If the school board does not accept at first the sincerity or legitimacy of the student’s request, or the training of the service animal, the school board should immediately notify the student and their family of any and all concerns. The school board should investigate the request, including the student’s benefits from the service animal outside school and in the home, or any other concerns, as well as the experience of other schools or school boards that have allowed students with disabilities to bring service animals to school, before acting on any potential board reluctance or unwillingness to grant the student’s request. If a school board is not prepared to accept a request to be able to bring a service animal to school at first, the school board should undertake a test period of allowing the service animal at school, unless the school board can demonstrate that it would be impossible to conduct such a test period without causing the school board undue hardship. A school board should not refuse a request to bring a service animal to school based on no test period and based on speculative assumptions or stereotypes.

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

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

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

16. Removing Barriers to Participation in Experiential Learning

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

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

  1. a) Review its experiential learning programs to identify and remove any accessibility barriers.
  1. b) Put in place a process to affirmatively reach out to potential placement organizations in order to ensure that there will be a range of accessible placement opportunities in which students with disabilities can participate.
  1. c) Ensure that its partner organizations that accept its students for experiential learning placements are effectively informed of their duty to accommodate the learning needs of students with disabilities.
  1. d) Create and share supports and advice for placement organizations who need assistance to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in their experiential learning placements.
  1. e) Monitor placement organizations to ensure they have someone in place to ensure that students with disabilities are effectively accommodated, and to ensure that effective accommodation was provided during each placement of a student with a disability who needed accommodation.
  1. f) Survey students with disabilities and experiential learning placement organizations at the end of any experiential learning placements to see if their disability-related needs were effectively accommodated.

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

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

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

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

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

  1. a) Identifying what percentage of the students in these programs are students with disabilities, to document any patterns of under-participation.
  1. b) Reviewing the admission process for gaining entry to these programs, to identify possible accessibility barriers.
  1. c) Reviewing the choice of the buildings and classrooms where these programs are to be delivered to ensure that students with disabilities will be able to physically attend these programs.
  1. d) Identifying what efforts the school board now makes to ensure that students with disabilities are included in and accommodated in these programs, and the extent to which UDL and differentiated instruction principles are used in the teaching in these programs.
  1. e) Developing an action plan to address any accessibility and inclusion shortfalls.
  1. f) Actively publicizing to students with disabilities and their families about the opportunities to take part in these programs, and the school board’s readiness to ensure that their accommodation needs will be met.
  1. g) Monitoring the effectiveness of efforts to ensure inclusion and accessibility of these programs for students with disabilities, and report publicly on this, including to school board trustees, to the trustees’ accessibility committee and to the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee, on an annual basis.

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

Barrier: The school board’s choice of in which schools to locate special education classes or programs for students with disabilities can force too many of these students to have to change the school they attend over their years at school much more than do other students, causing disruption and hardships for the students and their families. This can also make it harder for flexible placements that straddle more than one of these programs or classes.

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

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

19. Transportation for Students with Disabilities

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

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

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

  1. a) The school board has individually consulted with each family to identify the accessibility and accommodation needs of the student with disabilities in relation to transportation, and the bus company and driver have been properly trained to accommodate that need.
  1. b) Where the school board or its bussing contractor changes the driver assigned to transport the student, the replacement driver is given the same information and training prior to driving the student, or, in the case of an emergency replacement, as soon as possible.
  1. c) The school board and, where applicable, any contractor it hires, shall retain records of the training provided, including when it was provided and shall make this information public.
  1. d) The school board should have a readily available and reachable official, especially during periods when a student is being transported, to receive and address phone calls, emails and text messages from a family about problems regarding the student’s transportation.
  1. e) The school board should document all complaints reported on transportation services, and the company to which it applies. A summary of these should be provided to all members of the school board including its Special Education Advisory Committee and its Accessibility Committee on a quarterly basis and shall make this public on the school board’s website.
  1. f) The Education Accessibility Standard should make it clear that the fact that the school board has contracted for a private company to provide the student transportation does not remove or reduce the school board’s duties under this accessibility standard or otherwise under the AODA, the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that the student has been provided with barrier-free participation in the school board’s educational programs and opportunities. In any contract for bussing, the school board should be required to monitor the bus company for compliance with all obligations regarding bussing, such as the duty to properly train each bus driver on the specific disability-related needs of each passenger with a disability, and to document this training. Each school board should periodically audit the bus companies with whom they contract for compliance, and publicly report on the audit’s results. A bus company’s failure to consistently and reliably meet its obligations should trigger substantial monetary penalties and termination of the contract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Source link

The British Columbia Government Commits to Provincial Accessibility Legislation and Seeks Public Input on A Proposed Framework for a BC Disabilities Act – Read the AODA Alliance’s Submission to the BC Government


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

The British Columbia Government Commits to Provincial Accessibility Legislation and Seeks Public Input on A Proposed Framework for a BC Disabilities Act – Read the AODA Alliance’s Submission to the BC Government

October 1, 2019

          SUMMARY

The grassroots movement for enacting comprehensive disability accessibility legislation has spread to British Columbia and is making important progress. The BC Government has committed to bring forward a provincial accessibility law, and is now seeking public input on a proposed Framework for this legislation. Below we set out the input that the AODA Alliance has just submitted to the BC Government based on our experience in Ontario and on the federal scene. The Framework for the BC legislation, which the BC Government has posted for public comment, is permanently available on the AODA Alliance website as well at https://www.aodaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/BC-Framework-for-Accessibility-Legislation.pdf .

Anyone can send input to the BC Government from September 16 to November 29, 2019, by emailing [email protected] or by using the other avenues for input that the BC Framework specifies.

In summary, we commend the BC Government for committing to bring forward a provincial disability accessibility law, for its proposed Framework for this law, and for consulting the public on it. However, the Framework’s proposal, while helpful, is missing key ingredients. As written, and unless strengthened in accordance with our 12 recommendations, it risks running into the same serious problems as have been experienced in Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. These same problems are predicted for the new Accessible Canada Act.

We congratulate Barrier-Free BC’s tireless grassroots efforts over the past four years that have led to this important development. The AODA Alliance is proud to have played a small part in the launch of the grassroots movement that has brought BC to this point. Four years ago this month, on October 28, 2015, a meeting of grassroots activists was held in Vancouver. It led to the birth of Barrier-Free BC. Barrier-Free BC is BC’s counterpart to the AODA Alliance. At that kick-off meeting, the keynote speaker was AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. We congratulate Barrier-Free BC on their excellent work over the past four years, and continue to be available to offer our advice whenever asked.

Today, the topic of BC disability accessibility legislation is expected to be the focus of CBC’s provincial radio call-in program in BC. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky has been invited to be one of that program’s guests. If the program goes ahead as scheduled, the broadcast can be streamed live at this link https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-4-bc-today It should then be available as a podcast, at least for a few days. Search for the program “BC Today” on your favourite smart phone podcasting app, or via your computer, on the web.

          MORE DETAILS

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

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

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

Submission of the AODA Alliance to the Government of British Columbia on the BC Framework for New Provincial Accessibility Legislation

October 1, 2019

Sent to: [email protected]

Introduction

This is the AODA Alliance’s submission to the BC Government on its proposed Framework for a new BC disability accessibility law. We welcome this opportunity to share our experience in this area. We would be delighted to do whatever we can to assist the BC Government with this endeavour.

The BC Government’s proposed Framework for disability accessibility is available at ##

We heartily commend the BC Government for committing to bringing forward a provincial disability accessibility law, for posting its proposed Framework for this law, and for consulting the public on it. We call for all provincial governments in provinces lacking accessibility legislation to show this kind of commendable leadership.

This submission shows that the BC Framework, while helpful, is missing key ingredients. As written, and unless strengthened in accordance with our recommendations, it risks running into the same serious problems as have been experienced in Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. These same problems are also predicted for the new Accessible Canada Act.

Below we provide 12 practical suggestions on what to add to the BC Framework to make this legislation effective. What is needed is both clear and readily doable. We want to help BC learn from both the accomplishments and the problems experienced with existing legislation. BC has the chance to lead Canada by coming up with the best accessibility law developed to date. The Appendix at the end of this submission lists all our 12 recommendations in one place.

In addition to the specific recommendations below, we ask the BC Government to read the AODA Alliance’s September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act. It is among the most extensive analyses of that bill at First Reading. Some of our recommendations were eventually incorporated into the Accessible Canada Act. They were also incorporated into amendments which the federal NDP and Conservatives tried to get the Federal Government to agree to as amendments to the bill. However, the analysis is almost entirely applicable to the provincial context that the BC Government will be addressing. You can download the September 27, 2018 AODA Alliance brief to Parliament on Bill C-81 by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/click-here-to-download-in-ms-word-format-the-aoda-alliances-finalized-september-27-2018-brief-to-the-parliament-of-canada-requesting-amendments-to-bill-c-81-the-proposed-bill-c-81/

Who Are We?

What does the AODA Alliance have to offer BC? The AODA Alliance has extensive experience with the design, implementation and enforcement of accessibility legislation in Canada. Founded in 2005, we are a voluntary, non-partisan, grassroots coalition of individuals and community organizations. Our mission is:

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

To learn about us, visit our open filing cabinet at https://www.aodaalliance.org.

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

Beyond our work at the provincial level in Ontario, over the past four years, the AODA Alliance has been active, advocating for strong and effective national accessibility legislation for Canada. We have been formally and informally consulted by the Federal Government and some federal opposition parties on this issue. In 2016, AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky made public a Discussion Paper on what federal accessibility legislation should include. That widely-read Discussion Paper is now published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law at (2018) NJCL 169-207. Its contents can provide a great deal of guidance to BC, even though it was written to address the federal legislative sphere. You can download our Discussion Paper on what the promised national accessibility law should include by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/click-here-to-download-the-discussion-paper-on-what-canadas-promised-accessibility-legislation-should-include-as-published-last-year-in-the-national-journal-of-constitutional-law/

We presented on Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act, to both the House of Commons and the Senate. Our recommendations played a role in improvements to the Accessible Canada Act. Both the Government of Canada and opposition parties referred to the AODA Alliance and its proposals during parliamentary debates over that legislation.

The AODA Alliance has also spoken to or been consulted by disability organizations, individuals, and governments from various parts of Canada on the topic of designing and implementing provincial accessibility legislation. For example, we have been consulted by the Government of Manitoba and by Barrier-Free Manitoba (a leading grassroots accessibility advocacy coalition in Manitoba) in the design and implementation of the Accessibility for Manitobans Act 2013. We twice made deputations to a Committee of the Manitoba Legislature on the design of that legislation. We have been consulted by the previous BC Government on whether to create a BC Disabilities Act, and by Barrier-Free BC in its grassroots advocacy for that legislation. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was the keynote speaker at the October 28, 2015 meeting in Vancouver where Barrier-Free BC was established.

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

Our Recommendations

Purpose of the BC Legislation

The BC Framework proposes that the BC accessibility law should have these purposes, and asks what the public thinks of them:

“1. To support Canada’s ratification of the UNCRPD by promoting, protecting and ensuring the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and by promoting respect for their inherent dignity.

  1. To identify, remove, and prevent barriers encountered by people with disabilities in their daily lives through the development, implementation, and enforcement of accessibility standards.
  2. To allow persons with disabilities and other impacted stakeholders in the public and private sectors to work collaboratively towards the timely development of accessibility standards.
  3. To ensure there are adequate mechanisms in place to track progress on accessibility.
  4. To promote compatibility with the Accessible Canada Act and between federal and provincial accessibility standards.”

The proposed purposes of the BC accessibility law set out in the BC Framework, while helpful, are far too weak. It is very important to substantially strengthen the proposed purposes for the BC disabilities legislation. We have learned that the goal must be the achievement of an accessible or barrier-free society, or both, pure and simple. Nothing short of that will do.

We have also learned that an end date must be set in the legislation. Ontario’s AODA has both the goal of accessibility, and nothing less, and an end date. These are real strengths in that legislation. The Accessible Canada Act has both the goal of a barrier-free Canada and an end date. We and others fought long and hard to get this goal enshrined in the Accessible Canada Act. The Senate added the end date of 2040 to Bill C-81 last May. At the last minute, when Bill C-81 came back to the House of Commons this past June, on the eve of its rising for the federal election, the Federal Government finally withdrew its objection to enshrining an end date for accessibility in the bill.

We therefore recommend that:

#1. The BC accessibility law should have the purpose of achieving a barrier-free and accessible BC by an end date to be set in the legislation, using the definitions of “disability” and “barrier” proposed in the AODA Alliance’s Discussion Paper on national accessibility legislation.

Do Not Let the Accessible Canada Act Serve as a Constraint or Limit on BC Accessibility Legislation

The BC Framework includes the following, among other things, in its discussion of the proposed purposes of the BC accessibility law:

” To promote compatibility with the Accessible Canada Act and between federal and provincial accessibility standards.”

At first, that may seem sensible. However, it risks having BC measures on accessibility sink to the lowest common denominator. BC should never feel constrained to follow or imitate anything done at the federal level if it is too weak. BC should not commit in advance to be compatible with a federal accessibility measure that is insufficient.

For example, the Canadian Transportation Agency has recently adopted new federal transportation regulations on accessibility. They are helpful in part, but have serious problems. BC should not tie its hands in such circumstances.

We therefore recommend that:

#2. BC legislation should not commit to ensure that it or measures under it will be compatible with the Accessible Canada Act if this will lead to insufficient protections for people with disabilities.

 Nothing Should Ever Reduce the Rights of People with Disabilities

It is important that nothing be done under the new BC accessibility law that reduces the rights or opportunities of people with disabilities.

We therefore recommend that:

#3. Nothing in the BC disability accessibility law, or in its regulations or in any actions taken under it should be able to reduce in any way any rights which people with disabilities enjoy under law.

Several provincial laws address aspects of accessibility for people with disabilities. A new BC accessibility law and regulations enacted under it will hopefully add more accessibility requirements.

There is no assurance that these laws will all set the same level of accessibility. The new BC accessibility law should ensure that the law which provides the greatest amount of accessibility should always prevail. Section 38 of the AODA is instructive. It commendably provides:

” 38. If a provision of this Act, of an accessibility standard or of any other regulation 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.”

We therefore recommend that:

#4. If a provision of the BC accessibility law or of a regulation enacted under it conflicts with or sets a different accessibility standard than 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 should prevail.

Setting Mandatory Timelines for Enacting Accessibility Regulations

A central and fundamentally important part of the BC accessibility legislation would be the Government enacting new accessibility regulations. These would specify in detail what obligated organizations must do to become accessible to people with disabilities. The BC Framework states:

“Accessibility standards would provide guidance about best practices for accessibility including desired accessibility outcomes.”

The BC Framework suggests at one point that it would be permissible for the Government to enact accessibility regulations that are enforceable. However, it does not there make it clear that the Government would have a duty to do so. The Framework states:

“Government envisions accessibility legislation that allows for the creation of both voluntary accessibility standards as well as mandatory accessibility regulations. Accessibility legislation would allow the Government of British Columbia to adopt standards as binding regulations in part or in whole.”

Yet elsewhere the BC Framework states:

“To ensure progress, accessibility legislation could require timelines to achieve the timely development, implementation and revision of accessibility standards.”

It is essential that the law impose a clear and strong duty on the Government to create these standards, and for it to set enforceable timelines for creating these standards. Otherwise, they may never be created, or they may take excessive amounts of time to be created.

We know from experience under Ontario’s AODA’s predecessor law, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001, that it is insufficient to merely give a Government the power to enact accessibility standards or regulations, without requiring that Government to ever do so. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 permitted the Ontario Government to enact accessibility standards, but that Government never enacted any under that legislation. That in part is why Ontario later enacted the stronger AODA.

One of the major criticisms of the Accessible Canada Act is that it gives the Federal Government a number of helpful powers, such as the power to enact accessibility regulations, but for the most part does not require that these powers be used. it also does not for the most part set timelines for their deployment. That is why we and so many others said that the Accessible Canada Act is strong on good intentions but weak on implementation.

We therefore recommend that:

#5. The BC accessibility law should require the Government to create all the accessibility standards as enforceable regulations that are needed to achieve the law’s goal, and should set timelines for enacting these regulations.

Areas for Accessibility Standards to Cover

The BC Framework states:

“Accessibility standards could cover a variety of areas including:

Service Delivery

Employment

Built Environment

Information and Communication

Transportation”

These are all helpful areas. However, we know from extensive Ontario experience that this list is insufficient. It is helpful if the bill lists some of the areas that enforceable accessibility regulations can cover, so long as it is clear that they are not the only areas that these regulations can cover.

Moreover, the list that the law spells out should be expanded. It should include enforceable accessibility regulations to address disability accessibility barriers in education, health care, housing, and ensuring public money is never used to create or perpetuate disability accessibility barriers. This last area is addressed further below.

In Ontario, after years of campaigning, accessibility regulations are now under development in the areas of education and health care. The AODA Alliance led the fight for these to be included. We have been asking for almost a decade for an accessibility regulation to be created to address accessibility in residential housing. British Columbians with disabilities should not have to endure the hardship of having to wage similar multi-year battles just to get these topics on the regulatory agenda.

We therefore recommend that:

#6. The BC accessibility law should include requirements to enact accessibility standards in the areas of education, health care, housing and ensuring that public money is never used to create or perpetuate disability barriers. It should make it clear that its list of accessibility regulations is not exhaustive.

Adopting Other Pre-existing Accessibility Standards

The BC Government is contemplating the possibility of adopting some pre-existing accessibility standards that are in place elsewhere, as part of its efforts under this legislation. The BC Framework states:

“The Government of British Columbia could seek to expedite the development of accessibility standards by adopting or building on existing standards, policies and practices developed elsewhere in Canada or around the world.”

It is desirable to avoid re-inventing the wheel. However, we caution that pre-existing accessibility standards can be seriously deficient. For example, those enacted to date in Ontario are fraught with problems, as earlier Independent Reviews of the AODA have documented on our urging. We can provide ample details on this.

We therefore recommend that:

#7. The BC accessibility law should only allow BC to adopt an accessibility standard created in another jurisdiction “as is” if it is satisfied that that standard is sufficient as is.

Governance, Compliance and Enforcement

We strongly commend to BC our recommendations for governance, compliance and enforcement that are set out in our published Discussion Paper on what a national accessibility law should include, and our September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81, both referred to above.

The BC Framework considers as a possible feature of its implementation/enforcement regime the following:

“Reduced reporting requirements for individuals and organizations that show accessibility leadership.”

We disagree. It is of course commendable for an obligated organization to show leadership on accessibility. However, that should not lead to any reduction in that organization’s reporting obligations. Just because an organization has done well on accessibility in the past does not mean that it will continue to do so in the future and need only have reduced accountability. Reporting requirements are always needed to help monitor and motivate compliance.

We therefore recommend that:

#8. The BC accessibility law should include the compliance, monitoring and enforcement features recommended in the AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on national accessibility legislation, and in its September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81.

#9. The BC accessibility law should not provide for reduced reporting requirements for an obligated organization that has shown leadership on accessibility.

How Often Should There Be an Independent Review of the BC Accessibility Law’s Implementation?

It is good that the BC Framework contemplates including in the law a requirement for the Government to periodically appoint an Independent Review of the new accessibility law’s implementation. These have been very important in Ontario.

The BC Framework asks how often these should take place. Ontario’s legislation got it right.

The AODA required the first Independent Review to begin three years after the AODA was passed. It requires each successive Independent Review to be appointed four years after the previous one was completed. Each Independent Review takes one year to conduct, once appointed. Therefore, the interval between the first and second AODA Independent Review, and between the second and third AODA Independent Review, have in each case been in the range of 5 years, not four. Nothing shorter would be appropriate.

The recommendations from each of the three AODA Independent Reviews came at important times. It would have been harmful to Ontarians with disabilities had they been delayed any longer. We only regret that the Ontario Government has not acted promptly on any of those reports’ helpful findings and recommendations.

In contrast, the Federal Government set too long a period in the Accessible Canada Act. The first Independent Review won’t begin under federal legislation til almost twice as long a period as was the case in Ontario. That will work to the substantial disadvantage of people with disabilities across Canada. This is especially troubling since under the Accessible Canada Act, the Federal Government need not create any enforceable accessibility standard regulations in that period.

We therefore recommend that:

#10. The BC accessibility law should require the first Independent Review of that legislation to be appointed within three years after that law goes into effect, and thereafter, every four years after the previous Independent Review delivered its report.

Key Features Needed in the BC Accessibility Law that the BC Framework Does Not Identify

While the BC Framework includes several helpful key ingredients for a new BC accessibility law, there are additional features that are very important, and that were not identified in that Framework. We summarize these here. They are discussed in greater length in our Discussion Paper on national accessibility legislation, and in our September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81.

We therefore recommend that:

#11. The BC accessibility law should

  1. a) Specify that the BC Government as a whole is responsible for leading Canada to the goal of accessibility, in so far as the BC Government has constitutional authority to do so.
  1. b) Impose specific duties and implementation time lines on the BC Government, and on specified public officials and agencies, regarding their roles to implement and enforce the law.
  1. c) Require the BC Government to review all its statutes and regulations for accessibility barriers.
  1. d) Enforceably require that no public money can be used to create or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities, e.g. money spent on procurement, infrastructure, grants, loans or transfer payments.
  1. e) Require the BC Government to use all other readily-available levers of power to advance the goal of accessibility.
  1. f) Require that whenever a BC statute or regulation confers a discretionary power on any federal public official, department or agency, that decision-maker shall take into account, in its exercise, its impact on accessibility for people with disabilities.
  1. g) Require the BC Government to ensure that provincial and municipal elections become barrier-free for voters and candidates with disabilities.
  1. h) Include effective measures to ensure that the BC Government becomes a model accessible workplace and service-provider.
  1. i) Require the BC Government to develop and implement a plan to ensure that all provincially-operated courts and federally operated regulatory tribunals become accessible.

We especially focus on one of these needed additions. The BC Government can bring about significant progress towards accessibility by making sure that no one uses public money to create, perpetuate or exacerbate disability barriers. Many in society want to receive provincial public money, as venders, infrastructure builders, businesses, colleges, universities, hospitals, and governmental transfer partners. The law should attach clear monitored, enforced mandatory accessibility strings to that money. Anyone accepting those funds should be bound by the strings attached.

Provincial spending that should be subject to this requirement should include, for example:

  1. a) spending on procuring goods, services and facilities, for use by the BC Public Service and the public.
  1. b) BC spending on capital and infrastructure projects, including projects built by the BC Government, municipalities or others.
  1. c) BC spending on business development grants and loans, and on research grants for universities and other organizations.
  1. d) BC transfer payments to transfer agencies for programs, like health care.
  1. e) Any other BC Government contract.

This spending would give the BC Government substantial leverage to promote accessibility. Widely-viewed AODA Alliance online videos have demonstrated that new construction, including construction on infrastructure using public money, have included serious accessibility problems. These videos secured significant media coverage. See:

The AODA Alliance’s May 2018 video showing serious accessibility problems at new and recently renovated Toronto area public transit stations.

The AODA Alliance’s October 2017 video showing serious accessibility problems at the new Ryerson University Student Learning Centre.

The AODA Alliance’s November 2016 video, showing serious accessibility problems at the new Centennial College Culinary arts Centre.

Ontario experience shows that this must be specifically legislated, monitored and enforced. There has been limited success in getting some new Ontario laws enacted and policies adopted. They lack needed visibility, strength and enforcement. They have not had the impact needed. The Ontario Government has thereby missed out on huge opportunities to generate greater accessibility.

The Federal Government has similarly missed out on a huge opportunity here. It declined to include the needed measures to address this in the Accessible Canada Act. The Accessible Canada Act allows the Government to make accessibility standards in the area of procurement, but does not require these to be made.

Canada’s Senate made a formal “observation” on Bill C-81 when it passed other amendments to strengthen the bill. It called for federal action to ensure that federal public money is not used to create disability barriers.

Don’t Make the Same Mistakes in the Accessible Canada Act

We commended the Federal Government for committing to national accessibility legislation, and have identified several helpful features in the Accessible Canada Act. However despite the efforts and recommendations of many from the disability including the AODA Alliance, there are several shortcomings in that law. BC should avoid these. These are extensively identified on the Canada page of the AODA Alliance website and in our September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament.

Apart from deficiencies already discussed above are the following major problems, identified in our March 29, 2019 brief to the Senate on Bill C-81:

* “The bill gives the Federal Government and federal accessibility agencies/officials helpful powers to promote accessibility. However, the bill imposes no duty on them to ever use those powers, with one inconsequential exception.

The bill also sets no deadlines for taking many of the major implementation steps that the Government must take to implement this bill. The Government could drag its feet for years if not indefinitely.

For example, the bill lets the Government enact accessibility standards as enforceable regulations. However, the bill does not require the Government to ever enact any. Without them, the bill is a hollow shell.

The bill gives the Federal Government enforcement powers. However it doesn’t require the bill to be effectively enforced.

During the first five years after this bill goes into effect, the Federal Government’s only mandatory duty under the bill is for Cabinet, the CRTC and Canada Transportation agency to enact one regulation within two years after the bill comes into force. However that regulation could be an inconsequential one on minor procedural matters, without ever requiring that any disability barriers be removed or prevented.”

* “The 105-page bill is far too complicated and confusing. It will be hard for people with disabilities and others to navigate it. This is because the bill splinters the power to make accessibility standard regulations and the power to enforce the bill among a number of federal agencies, such as the new federal Accessibility Commissioner, the Canada Transportation Agency (CTA) and the Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

This makes the bill’s implementation and enforcement less effective, more confusing, more complicated and more costly. It will take longer to get accessibility regulations enacted. It risks weak, contradictory or unnecessarily complex regulations.

This splintering makes it much harder for people with disabilities to navigate the system, to find out what rights they have, and to get violations fixed. People with disabilities are burdened to learn to navigate as many as three or four different sets of accessibility rules, enforcement agencies, procedures, forms and time lines for presenting an accessibility complaint. That weakens the rights and voices of people with disabilities.

This splintering only helps existing federal bureaucracies that want more power, and any large obligated organizations that want to dodge taking action on accessibility. Those organizations will relish exploiting the bill’s confusing complexity to delay and impede its implementation and enforcement.

It is wrong for the bill to give almost exclusive powers over accessibility to federally-regulated transportation organizations (like airlines) to the CTA, and almost exclusive powers over broadcasters and telecommunication companies (like Bell Canada and Rogers Communications) to the CRTC. The CTA and CRTC have had powers in this area for years. Their record on accessibility is not good.

The CTA and CRTC are too close to the industries they regulate. They lack expertise in disability accessibility. The industries the CTA and CRTC regulate would love to have those agencies stay largely in control of their accessibility obligations, given their inadequate regulatory track records on accessibility.

We ask for the bill to be simplified, to get rid of its harmful splintering of federal accessibility oversight responsibilities. Only the Federal Cabinet should make accessibility regulations. Only the new federal Accessibility Commissioner should enforce the bill. This ensures clearer, smoother, lower-cost, easier-to-access one-stop-shopping for people with disabilities, and easier implementation for the Federal Government and obligated organizations.

Under the bill, transportation organizations, broadcasters and telecommunication companies must make two concurrent accessibility plans, one supervised by the Accessibility Commissioner and the other supervised either by the CTA or CRTC. That also makes compliance and enforcement more costly and confusing. We ask for the bill to be amended so that all obligated organizations will only have to make one accessibility plan, not two, all supervised by the new federal Accessibility Commissioner.

It is no solution to the bill’s “splintering” problem for the Federal Government to say that there will be “no wrong door” for a person to file a complaint. The problem is not just the four different doors that a person with a disability must choose to enter. There are also as many as three or four different procedures they must figure out, even after they enter the right door. That is a formula for confusion, and for tripping up people with disabilities.”

* “The bill has too many loopholes. As one example, the bill gives the Federal Government the power to exempt itself from some of its duties under the bill. The Government should not be able to exempt itself. We request an amendment to close the bill’s loopholes, such as the Federal Government’s power to exempt itself from some of its duties under the bill.”

Concerns with Public Funding of the Rick Hansen Foundation Private Accessibility Certification Program

The BC Framework notes that the BC Government has given the Rick Hansen Foundation 10 million dollars in connection with its private accessibility certification program. When the Ontario Government recently announced its intention to give public money to the Rick Hansen Foundation for this purpose, we raised serious concerns. Our investigation of this process resulted in our making public two reports. These amply document our serious concerns.

Among other things, we are concerned that there is no assurance that those who conduct the RHF’s private accessibility certification assessments are qualified to do so. The RHF 8-day training course is woefully inadequate. As well, the RHF process for assessing a building’s accessibility itself has serious problems. It also lacks proper safeguards against conflicts of interest on the part of its assessors or the RHF itself.

As a result, there can be no assurance that a building that the RHF certifies as “accessible” is in fact accessible. Moreover, a government should not delegate to an unaccountable private organization any responsibility to decide what standard for accessibility should be used.

Any BC accessibility legislation should not involve any such private accessibility certification process. Any accessibility standards should be publicly set, publicly monitored and publicly enforced.

Feedback from the disability community has echoed and reinforced our concerns in this area. Our concerns have garnered media attention and coverage.

The AODA Alliance’s July 3, 2019 report on the RHF private accessibility certification program is available at https://www.aodaalliance.org/category/whats-new/

The AODA Alliance’s August 15, 2019 supplement report on the RHF private accessibility certification program is available at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/the-doug-ford-governments-controversial-plan-to-divert-1-3-million-into-the-rick-hansen-foundations-private-accessibility-certification-program-is-plagued-with-even-more-problems-than-earlier-rev/

We therefore recommend that:

#12. The BC accessibility law should ensure that the making and enforcing of accessibility standards are exclusively done by public officials. It should not provide for any public funding of any private accessibility certification programs.

Appendix – List of Recommendations

#1. The BC accessibility law should have the purpose of achieving a barrier-free and accessible BC by an end date to be set in the legislation, using the definitions of “disability” and “barrier” proposed in the AODA Alliance’s Discussion Paper on national accessibility legislation.

#2. BC legislation should not commit to ensure that it or measures under it will be compatible with the Accessible Canada Act if this will lead to insufficient protections for people with disabilities.

#3. Nothing in the BC disability accessibility law , or in its regulations or in any actions taken under it should be able to reduce in any way any rights which people with disabilities enjoy under law.

#4. If a provision of the BC accessibility law or of a regulation enacted under it conflicts with or sets a different accessibility standard than 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 should prevail.

#5. The BC accessibility law should require the Government to create all the accessibility standards as enforceable regulations that are needed to achieve the law’s goal, and should set timelines for enacting these regulations.

#6. The BC accessibility law should include requirements to enact accessibility standards in the areas of education, health care, housing and ensuring that public money is never used to create or perpetuate disability barriers. It should make it clear that its list of accessibility regulations is not exhaustive.

#7. The BC accessibility law should only allow BC to adopt an accessibility standard created in another jurisdiction “as is” if it is satisfied that that standard is sufficient as is.

#8. The BC accessibility law should include the compliance, monitoring and enforcement features recommended in the AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on national accessibility legislation, and in its September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81.

#9. The BC accessibility law should not provide for reduced reporting requirements for an obligated organization that has shown leadership on accessibility.

#10. The BC accessibility law should require the first Independent Review of that legislation to be appointed within three years after that law goes into effect, and thereafter, every four years after the previous Independent Review delivered its report.

#11. The BC accessibility law should

  1. a) specify that the BC Government as a whole is responsible for leading Canada to the goal of accessibility, in so far as the BC Government has constitutional authority to do so.
  1. b) impose specific duties and implementation timelines on the BC Government, and on specified public officials and agencies, regarding their roles to implement and enforce the law.
  1. c) require the BC Government to review all its statutes and regulations for accessibility barriers.
  1. d) enforceably require that no public money can be used to create or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities, e.g. money spent on procurement, infrastructure, grants, loans or transfer payments.
  1. e) require the BC Government to use all other readily-available levers of power to advance the goal of accessibility.
  1. f) require that whenever a BC statute or regulation confers a discretionary power on any federal public official, department or agency, that decision-maker shall take into account, in its exercise, its impact on accessibility for people with disabilities.
  1. g) require the BC Government to ensure that provincial and municipal elections become barrier-free for voters and candidates with disabilities.
  1. h) include effective measures to ensure that the BC Government becomes a model accessible workplace and service-provider.
  1. i) require the BC Government to develop and implement a plan to ensure that all provincially-operated courts and federally operated regulatory tribunals become accessible.

#12. The BC accessibility law should ensure that the making and enforcing of accessibility standards are exclusively done by public officials. It should not provide for any public funding of any private accessibility certification programs.



Source link

Why Haven’t Any of the Federal Parties Except the NDP Answered the AODA Alliance’s July 18, 2019 Letter, Seeking Election Commitments on Promoting Accessibility for Over Six Million People with Disabilities in Canada?


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

September 25, 2019

SUMMARY

The federal election is less than four weeks away. Why haven’t the federal Liberals, Tories, and Green Party answered our request, sent to them over two months ago, for specific election commitments on accessibility for over 6 million people with disabilities in Canada? Last fall and again this past June, these parties each voted unanimously for Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act and all spoke passionately about its importance to Canada.

On July 18, 2019, over two months ago, we wrote a letter to their leaders, asking for a series of election commitments. These commitments would be a roadmap for the strong and effective implementation of this new legislation.

The only federal political party that has answered us so far is the New Democratic Party. You can see the NDP response to us at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/what-pledges-will-the-federal-party-leaders-make-in-this-election-to-make-canada-accessible-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-federal-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-is-first-national-leader-to-wr/

Why have the Liberals not answered our July 18, 2019 letter? The Accessible Canada Act is legislation that they said they were so proud to introduce. They said the Accessible Canada Act is historic legislation. They promised it would do so much to tear down the many barriers that face people with disabilities in Canada. Their provincial counterparts, the Ontario Liberal Party, made election commitments on the implementation of Ontario’s accessibility law, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, in each of the four provincial elections since it was passed in 2005.

Why have the Conservatives not answered our July 18, 2019 letter? When the Accessible Canada Act was debated in the House of Commons and the Senate, they vigourously pointed to the weaknesses in this bill that we and others from the disability community had raised. On behalf of people with disabilities in Canada, they pressed for amendments to the bill to address those weaknesses amendments that the Government mostly voted down.

Less than a year ago, on November 22, 2019 during third reading debates in the House of Commons on this legislation, two Tory MPs with leadership roles on this bill explicitly committed that if the Tories are elected in 2019, they will strengthen this legislation. Those commitments came from MP John Barlow, who was vice chair of the Standing Committee that held hearings on the bill, and Alex Nuttall, who was then the Tory critic on this bill. We set out their statements, below.

Why has the Green Party not answered our July 18, 2019 letter? Green Party Leader Elizabeth May did a good job of raising our concerns with Bill C-81 when it was being debated in the House of Commons, even though her party had the least resources to mount such an effort.

We are continuing our non-partisan campaign to get strong commitments from all the parties and candidates in this election on the implementation and enforcement of the Accessible Canada Act. Please press your local candidates to get us an answer from their parties! Here are resources to help you help us all!

* Go on Twitter and follow us @aodaalliance. We are sending tweets each day to different federal candidates. We are asking them to give the commitments we seek on the implementation of the Accessible Canada Act. Please take a few moments each day to retweet our tweets. When you retweet them, you are adding your voice to ours.

* Use suggestions for helping our blitz that are set out in our new Federal Election Action Kit. You can find it at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/federal-election-action-kit-raise-disability-accessibility-issues-in-canadas-2019-federal-election/

Would you like to watch the all-candidates’ debate in Toronto on issues surrounding the implementation of the Accessible Canada Act, being hosted by the Holland Bloorview Kids Rehab Centre and the Reena Foundation tonight at the Bloorview facility , 150 Kilgour Road, Toronto? Our friends and colleagues at the Ontario Autism Coalition have volunteered to live stream the event on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 from 7 to 9 pm eastern time. The precise link for viewing it won’t be available until right before the event. However, you can go to the OAC’s Facebook page where the link will appear near the top of the page when the stream is ready to start. The OAC can make no promises about the quality of the live stream and no doubt will do their best. To go to the Ontario Autism Coalition’s Facebook page, visit https://www.facebook.com/groups/4179793644/

Learn all about the campaign for a strong and effective Accessible Canada Act by visiting our website’s Canada page.

MORE DETAILS

House of Commons of Canada Hansard

November 22, 2018

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

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?

Conservative

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.

House of Commons Hansard November 22, 2018

Third Reading Debates over Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act

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

Why Haven’t Any of the Federal Parties Except the NDP Answered the AODA Alliance’s July 18, 2019 Letter, Seeking Election Commitments on Promoting Accessibility for Over Six Million People with Disabilities in Canada?


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

Why Haven’t Any of the Federal Parties Except the NDP Answered the AODA Alliance’s July 18, 2019 Letter, Seeking Election Commitments on Promoting Accessibility for Over Six Million People with Disabilities in Canada?

September 25, 2019

SUMMARY

The federal election is less than four weeks away. Why haven’t the federal Liberals, Tories, and Green Party answered our request, sent to them over two months ago, for specific election commitments on accessibility for over 6 million people with disabilities in Canada? Last fall and again this past June, these parties each voted unanimously for Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act and all spoke passionately about its importance to Canada.

On July 18, 2019, over two months ago, we wrote a letter to their leaders, asking for a series of election commitments. These commitments would be a roadmap for the strong and effective implementation of this new legislation.

The only federal political party that has answered us so far is the New Democratic Party. You can see the NDP response to us at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/what-pledges-will-the-federal-party-leaders-make-in-this-election-to-make-canada-accessible-for-over-6-million-people-with-disabilities-federal-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-is-first-national-leader-to-wr/

Why have the Liberals not answered our July 18, 2019 letter? The Accessible Canada Act is legislation that they said they were so proud to introduce. They said the Accessible Canada Act is historic legislation. They promised it would do so much to tear down the many barriers that face people with disabilities in Canada. Their provincial counterparts, the Ontario Liberal Party, made election commitments on the implementation of Ontario’s accessibility law, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, in each of the four provincial elections since it was passed in 2005.

Why have the Conservatives not answered our July 18, 2019 letter? When the Accessible Canada Act was debated in the House of Commons and the Senate, they vigourously pointed to the weaknesses in this bill that we and others from the disability community had raised. On behalf of people with disabilities in Canada, they pressed for amendments to the bill to address those weaknesses – amendments that the Government mostly voted down.

Less than a year ago, on November 22, 2019 during third reading debates in the House of Commons on this legislation, two Tory MPs with leadership roles on this bill explicitly committed that if the Tories are elected in 2019, they will strengthen this legislation. Those commitments came from MP John Barlow, who was vice chair of the Standing Committee that held hearings on the bill, and Alex Nuttall, who was then the Tory critic on this bill. We set out their statements, below.

Why has the Green Party not answered our July 18, 2019 letter? Green Party Leader Elizabeth May did a good job of raising our concerns with Bill C-81 when it was being debated in the House of Commons, even though her party had the least resources to mount such an effort.

We are continuing our non-partisan campaign to get strong commitments from all the parties and candidates in this election on the implementation and enforcement of the Accessible Canada Act. Please press your local candidates to get us an answer from their parties! Here are resources to help you help us all!

* Go on Twitter and follow us @aodaalliance. We are sending tweets each day to different federal candidates. We are asking them to give the commitments we seek on the implementation of the Accessible Canada Act. Please take a few moments each day to retweet our tweets. When you retweet them, you are adding your voice to ours.

* Use suggestions for helping our blitz that are set out in our new Federal Election Action Kit. You can find it at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/federal-election-action-kit-raise-disability-accessibility-issues-in-canadas-2019-federal-election/

Would you like to watch the all-candidates’ debate in Toronto on issues surrounding the implementation of the Accessible Canada Act, being hosted by the Holland Bloorview Kids Rehab Centre and the Reena Foundation tonight at the Bloorview facility , 150 Kilgour Road, Toronto? Our friends and colleagues at the Ontario Autism Coalition have volunteered to live stream the event on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 from 7 to 9 pm eastern time. The precise link for viewing it won’t be available until right before the event. However, you can go to the OAC’s Facebook page where the link will appear near the top of the page when the stream is ready to start. The OAC can make no promises about the quality of the live stream and no doubt will do their best. To go to the Ontario Autism Coalition’s Facebook page, visit https://www.facebook.com/groups/4179793644/

Learn all about the campaign for a strong and effective Accessible Canada Act by visiting our website’s Canada page.

          MORE DETAILS

House of Commons of Canada Hansard

November 22, 2018

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

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?

Conservative

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.

House of Commons Hansard November 22, 2018

Third Reading Debates over Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act

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


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

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

September 20, 2019

Introduction

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

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

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

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

This Action Kit tells you:

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

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

* What you can do.

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

What We’re Seeking from the Federal Political Parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Do the Parties Stand?

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

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

How You Can Help

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What You Might Say to Candidates, Media Reporters and Voters

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Tips for Emailing a Candidate:

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

Sample email:

Dear [insert name],

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Tips for Attending a Local All-Candidates’ Debate

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

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

Here is my question for all the candidates:

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

 

Tweets You Might Wish to Send on Twitter or Facebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Source link

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


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your questionnaire.

Please find the NDP’s response attached.

All the best,

NDP Team

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

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

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

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

will be enacted under the ACA within four years?

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accordance with subsection 2.”?

 

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

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

pay up.

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

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

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

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

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

ACA to the Federal Cabinet.

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

“barrier means anything — including anything physical, architectural,

technological or attitudinal, anything that is based on information or

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

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

persons with an impairment, including a physical, mental,

intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory

impairment or a functional limitation.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accessibility for provincially-regulated courts in Ontario.

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

 

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

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

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

The specific pledges we seek include:

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



Source link

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


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

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

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

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

September 18, 2019

          SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction — What is This Proposed Framework?

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

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

          MORE DETAILS

 Proposed Framework for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard

Prepared by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

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

Introduction — What is This Proposed Framework?

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. A Vision of An Accessible Education system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. General provisions that the Education Accessibility Standard Should Include

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Ensuring a Fully Accessible Built Environment at Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Ensuring Digital Accessibility at School

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

#8.1 Each school board should ensure that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Removing Attitudinal Barriers against Students with Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#13.2 Each school board should:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Removing Barriers to Participation in Experiential Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. Transportation for Students with Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Source link

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


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

 

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

 

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

 

Candidates for the Liberal Party of Canada

Cloverdale – Langley City

John Aldag

@jwaldag

[email protected]

Mississauga Centre

Omar Alghabra

[email protected]

@OmarAlghabra

Pontiac

William Amos

[email protected]

@WillAAmos

Oakville

Anita Anand

[email protected]

@AnitaOakville

Scarborough – Rouge Park

Gary Anandasangaree

[email protected]

@gary_srp

Madawaska – Restigouche

René Arsenault

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Nepean

Chandra Arya

@ChandraNepean

[email protected]

@ChandraNepean

Thérèse-de Blainville

Ramez Ayoub

[email protected]

@RamezAyoub

Niagara Centre

Vance Badawey

[email protected]

@VBadawey

Port Moody – Coquitlam

[email protected]

@sarabadiei

Yukon

Larry Bagnell

[email protected]

@LarryBagnell

Mississauga – Malton

Navdeep Bains

[email protected]

@NavdeepSBains

Etobicoke Centre

Yvan Baker

[email protected]

@Yvan_Baker

Wellington – Halton Hills

Lesley Barron

[email protected]

@DrLesleyBarron

Sydney – Victoria

Jaime Battiste

No contact email

@youngmedicine33

Burnaby North – Seymour

Terry Beech

[email protected]

@terrybeech

Outremont

Rachel Bendayan

[email protected]

@RachelBendayan

Carolyn Bennett

Toronto – St. Paul’s

Carolyn Bennett

[email protected]

@Carolyn_Bennett

Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Josh Bennett

No contact email

No Twitter account

Compton – Stanstead

Marie-Claude Bibeau

[email protected]

@mclaudebibeau

Ian Bigham

Niagara West

@LiberalBingham

[email protected]

Skeena – Bulkley Valley

Dave Birdi

[email protected]

No email account

St. Catharines

Chris Bittle

[email protected]

@Chris_Bittle

Scarborough Southwest

Bill Blair

[email protected]

@BillBlair

Kings – Hants

Kody Blois

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Timmins – James Bay

Michelle Boileau

[email protected]

@MicheBoileau

Edmonton Centre

Randy Boissonnault

[email protected]

@R_Boissonnault

Hastings – Lennox and Addington

Mike Bossio

[email protected]

@MikeBossio

Joliette

Michel Bourgeois

[email protected]

@MBourgeoisPLC

Hamilton East – Stoney Creek

Bob Bratina

[email protected]

@BobBratina

Shefford

Pierre Breton

[email protected]

@pierrebretonplc

Lethbridge

Amy Bronson

https://amybronson.com/contact

@AmyBronson

Beauport – Limoilou

Antoine Bujold

[email protected]

@AntoineBujold

Cariboo – Prince George

Tracy Calogheros

[email protected]

@TracyCalogheros

Winnipeg South Centre

Jim Carr

[email protected]

@jimcarr_wpg

Charlottetown

Sean Casey

[email protected]

@SeanCaseyLPC

Waterloo

Bardish Chagger

[email protected]

@BardishKW

Pierre-Boucher – Les Patriotes – Verchères

Simon Chalifoux

[email protected]

@SChalifouxPLC

Saint-Maurice – Champlain

François-Philippe Champagne

[email protected]

@FP_Champagne

Scarborough North

Shaun Chen

[email protected]

@Shaun_Chen

Desnethé – Missinippi – Churchill River

Tammy Cook-Searson

[email protected]

@ChiefTammy

Nanaimo – Ladysmith

Michelle Corfield

[email protected]

@micorfield

Serge Cormier

Acadie – Bathurst

@sergecormierlib

[email protected]

Parry Sound – Muskoka

Trisha Cowie

[email protected]

@trishacowie

Toronto – Danforth

Julie Dabrusin

[email protected]

@juliedabrusin

Oakville North – Burlington

Pam Damoff

[email protected]

@PamDamoff

Fredericton

Matt DeCourcey

[email protected]

@MattDeCourcey

Bruce – Grey – Owen Sound

Michael Den Tandt

[email protected]

@mdentandt

South Okanagan – West Kootenay

Connie Denesiuk

No contact email

@ConnieGDenesiuk

North Okanagan – Shuswap

Cindy Derkaz

[email protected]

@CDerkaz

West Nova

Jason Deveau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Surrey – Newton

Sukh Dhaliwal

[email protected]

@sukhdhaliwal

Dorval – Lachine – Lasalle

Anju Dhillon

[email protected]

@adhillonDLL

Glengarry – Prescott – Russell

Francis Drouin

[email protected]

@Francis_Drouin

Bourassa

Emmanuel Dubourg

[email protected]

@EmmanuelDubourg

Québec

Jean-Yves Duclos

[email protected]

@jyduclos

Winnipeg South

Terry Duguid

[email protected]

@TerryDuguid

Etobicoke North

Kirsty Duncan

[email protected]

@KirstyDuncanMP

Davenport

Julie Dzerowicz

[email protected]

@JulieDzerowicz

Wayne Easter

Malpeque

@WayneEaster

[email protected]

Willowdale

Ali Ehsassi

[email protected]

@AliEhsassi

Laval – Les Îles

Faycal El-Khoury

[email protected]

@F_ElKhoury

Edmonton Manning

Kamal Elkadri

No contact email

No Twitter account

Bay of Quinte

Neil Ellis

[email protected]

@NeilREllis

Beaches – East York

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

[email protected]

@beynate

Charleswood – St. James – Assiniboia – Headingley

Douglas Eyolfson

[email protected]

@DougEyolfson

Salaberry – Suroît

Marc Faubert

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Regina – Lewvan

Winter Fedyk

[email protected]

@winterfedyk

Hull – Aylmer

Greg Fergus

[email protected]

@GregFergus

Halifax

Andy Fillmore

[email protected]

@AndyFillmoreHFX

Miramichi – Grand Lake

Pat Finnigan

[email protected]

@PatFinniganMP

Dartmouth – Cole Harbour

Darren Fisher

[email protected]

@DarrenFisherNS

Dufferin – Caledon

Michele Fisher

[email protected]

@MicheleFisherDC

Mississauga East – Cooksville

Peter Fonseca

[email protected]

@PeterFonsecaMP

Haliburton – Kawartha Lakes – Brock

Judi Forbes

[email protected]

@ForbesHKLB

Ottawa – Vanier

Mona Fortier

[email protected]

@MonaFortier

London North Centre

Peter Fragiskatos

[email protected]

@pfragiskatos

Central Nova

Sean Fraser

[email protected]

@SeanFraserMP

University – Rosedale

Chrystia Freeland

[email protected]

@cafreeland

Vancouver Centre

Hedy Fry

[email protected]

@HedyFry

Kelowna – Lake Country

Stephen Fuhr

[email protected]

@FuhrMP

Rivière-du-Nord

Florence Gagnon

[email protected]

@FlorenceGagnon_

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce – Westmount

Marc Garneau

[email protected]

@MarcGarneau

Kingston and the Islands

Mark Gerretsen

[email protected]

@MarkGerretsen

Thornhill

Gary Gladstone

[email protected]

@Vote_Gladstone

Regina – Wascana

Ralph Goodale

[email protected]

@RalphGoodale

Burlington

Karina Gould

[email protected]

@karinagould

Laurentides – Labelle

David Graham

[email protected]

@daviddbgraham

Laurier – Sainte-Marie

Steven Guilbeault

No contact email

@s_guilbeault

Saint-Léonard – Saint-Michel

Hassan Guillet

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Thunder Bay – Superior North

Patty Hajdu

[email protected]

@PattyHadju

Beloeil – Chambly

Marie-Chantal Hamel

[email protected]

@HamelMarieC

Esquimalt – Saanich – Sooke

Jamie Hammond

[email protected]

@JamieHammondESS

Fleetwood – Port Kells

Ken Hardie

[email protected]

@KenHardie

Bellechasse – Les Etchemins – Lévis

Laurence Harvey

[email protected]

@Laurence_Harv

Simcoe North

Gerry Hawes

[email protected]

@hawes_gerry

Saskatoon – University

Susan Hayton

No contact email

No Twitter account

Lac-Saint-Jean

Richard Hébert

[email protected]

@RHebertPLC

Calgary Centre

Kent Hehr

[email protected]

@kenthehr

Rosemont – La Petite-Patrie

Genevieve Hinse

No contact email

@GenevieveHinse

Prince Albert

Estelle Hjertaas

[email protected]

@ehjertaas

South Surrey – White Rock

Gordon Hogg

[email protected]

@GordieHogg

Ajax

Mark Holland

[email protected]

@markhollandlib

Mount Royal

Anthony Housefather

[email protected]

@AHousefather

York South – Weston

Ahmed Hussen

[email protected]

@HonAhmedHussen

Long Range Mountains

Gudie Hutchings

[email protected]

@Gudie

Alfred-Pellan

Angelo Iacono

[email protected]

@AIaconoMP

Langley – Aldergrove

Leon Jensen

No Twitter account

[email protected]

Edmonton West

Kerrie Johnston

[email protected]

@KerrieLJohnston

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Mélanie Joly

[email protected]

@melaniejoly

Labrador

Yvonne Jones

[email protected]

@YvonneJJones

South Shore – St. Margarets

Bernadette Jordan

[email protected]

@BernJordanMP

Richmond Hill

Majid Jowhari

[email protected]

@MajidJowhari

Niagara Falls

Andrea Kaiser

[email protected]

@votekaiser

Calgary Rocky Ridge

Todd Kathol

[email protected]

@KatholTodd

Lanark – Frontenac – Kingston

Kayley Kennedy

[email protected]

@kayleykennedyca

Simcoe – Grey

Lorne Kenney

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mississauga – Erin Mills

Iqra Khalid

[email protected]

@iamIqraKhalid

Kamal Khera

Brampton West

@KamalKheraLib

[email protected]

Churchill – Keewatinook Aski

Judy Klassen

[email protected]

@JudyKlassenMLA

Kamloops – Thompson – Cariboo

Terry Lake

[email protected]

@TerryLake16

Saint-Laurent

Emmanuella Lambropoulos

[email protected]

@emlambropoulos

Lasalle–Émard–Verdun

David Lametti

[email protected]

@DavidLametti

Winnipeg North

Kevin Lamoureux

[email protected]

@Kevin_Lamoureux

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Linda Lapointe

[email protected]

@LapointeLinda

Argenteuil–La Petite-Nation

Stephane Lauzon

[email protected]

@stephanelauzon5

Beauséjour

Dominic LeBlanc

[email protected]

@DLeBlancNB

Diane Lebouthillier

Gaspésie – Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine

@DiLebouthillier

[email protected]

Sudbury

Paul Lefebvre

[email protected]

@LefebvrePaul

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

Aladin Legault d’Auteuil

[email protected]

@AladinLegault

Sarnia – Lambton

Carmen Lemieux

[email protected]

@lemieux_carmen

York Centre

Michael Levitt

[email protected]

@LevittMichael

Louis-Hébert

Joël Lightbound

[email protected]

@JoelLightbound

Fundy Royal

Alaina Lockhart

[email protected]

@AlainaLockhart

Saint John – Rothesay

Wayne Long

[email protected]

@WayneLongSJ

Guelph

Lloyd Longfield

[email protected]

@LloydLongfield

Kitchener – Conestoga

Tim Louis

No contact email

@votetimlouis

New Brunswick Southwest

Karen Ludwig

[email protected]

@KarenLudwigMP

Cardigan

Lawrence MacAulay

[email protected]

@L_MacAulay

Gatineau

Steve MacKinnon

[email protected]

@stevenmackinnon

Elmwood – Transcona

Jennifer Malabar

No contact email

No Twitter account

Etobicoke – Lakeshore

James Maloney

[email protected]

@j_maloney

Renfrew – Nipissing – Pembroke

Ruben D Marini

No contact email

No Twitter account

Hochelaga

Soraya Martinez

[email protected]

@SorayaMartinezF

Avignon–La Mitis–Matane–Matapédia

Rémi Massé

[email protected]

@Remi_Masse1

Cambridge

Bryan May

[email protected]

@_BryanMay

Kanata – Carleton

Karen McCrimmon

[email protected]

@karenmccrimmon

Avalon

Ken McDonald

[email protected]

@avalonMPKen

Ottawa South

David McGuinty

[email protected]

@DavidMcGuinty

Scarborough – Guildwood

John McKay

[email protected]

@JohnMcKayLib

Ottawa Centre

Catherine McKenna

[email protected]

@cathmckenna

Coquitlam – Port Coquitlam

Ron McKinnon

[email protected]

@RonMcKinnonLib

Northwest Territories

Michael McLeod

[email protected]

@MMcLeodNWT

Brossard – Saint-Lambert

Alexandra Mendes

[email protected]

@AlexandraBrStL

Eglinton – Lawrence

Marco Mendicino

[email protected]

@marcomendicino

Kildonan – St. Paul

Maryann Mihychuk

[email protected]

@MPMihychuk

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

Marc Miller

[email protected]

@MarcMillerVM

Perth – Wellington

Pirie Mitchell

[email protected]

@Pirie_Mitchell

Peterborough – Kawartha

Maryam Monsef

[email protected]

@MaryamMonsef

Toronto Centre

Bill Morneau

[email protected]

@Bill_Morneau

Egmont

Robert Morrissey

[email protected]

@MorrisseyEgmont

Saskatoon – Grasswood

Tracy Muggli

[email protected]

@tracymuggli

Central Okanagan – Similkameen – Nicola

Mary Ann Murphy

[email protected]

@Murphy4COSN

Vancouver Quadra

Joyce Murray

[email protected]

@joycemurray

Markham – Thornhill

Mary Ng

[email protected]

@mary_ng

Vancouver Granville

Taleed Noormohamed

[email protected]

@Taleeb

Pickering – Uxbridge

Jennifer O’Connell

[email protected]

@MPJenOConnell

St. John’s South – Mount Pearl

Seamus O’Regan

[email protected]

@SeamusORegan

Don Valley West

Rob Oliphant

[email protected]

@Rob_Oliphant

Edmonton Strathcona

Eleanor Olszewski

[email protected]

@Eleanor4Strath

Chatham-Kent – Leamington

Katie Omstead

[email protected]

@KatieOmstead

Winnipeg Centre

Robert-Falcon Ouellette

[email protected]

@DrRobbieO

Steveston – Richmond East

Joe Peschisolido

[email protected]

@jpeschisolido

Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe

Ginette Petitpas Taylor

[email protected]

@GinettePT

Montarville

Michel Picard

[email protected]

@MPicardLiberal

Rimouski-Neigette – Témiscouata – Les Basques

Chantal Pilon

No contact email

No Twitter account

Nunavut

Megan Pizzo Lyall

No contact email

No Twitter account

La Pointe-de-L’île

Jonathan Plamondon

[email protected]

@Plamondonj

La Prairie

Jean-Claude Poissant

[email protected]

@PLCLaPrairieJCP

Thunder Bay – Rainy River

Marcus Powlowski

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Delta

Carla Qualtrough

[email protected]

@CQualtro

Don Valley East

Yasmin Ratansi

[email protected]

@Yasmin_Ratansi

Geoff Regan

Halifax West

[email protected]

@geoffregan

Trois-Rivières

Valérie Renaud-Martin

No contact email

@ValRenaudMartin

Saint-Jean

Jean Rioux

[email protected]

@jeanriouxplc

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin

Yves Robillard

[email protected]

@YRobillardPLC

Carleton

Chris Rodgers

[email protected]

@VoteChris2019

Honoré-Mercier

Pablo Rodriguez

[email protected]

@pablorodriguez

Bonavista – Burin – Trinity

Churence Rogers

[email protected]

@ChurenceRogers

Longeuil – Charles-Lemoyne

Sherry Romanado

[email protected]

@SherryRomanado

Nipissing – Timiskaming

Anthony Rota

[email protected]

@AnthonyRota

Northumberland – Peterborough South

Kim Rudd

[email protected]

@RuddKim

Pitt Meadows – Maple Ridge

Dan Ruimy

[email protected]

@DanRuimyMP

Brampton North

Ruby Sahota

[email protected]

@MPRubySahota

Kitchener Centre

Raj Saini

[email protected]

@RajSainiMP

Vancouver South

Harjit Sajjan

[email protected]

@HarjitSajjan

Sackville – Preston – Chezzetcook

Darrell Samson

[email protected]

@darrellsamson

Brampton Centre

Ramesh Sangha

[email protected]

@sangharamesh

Surrey Centre

Randeep Sarai

[email protected]

@randeepssarai

Manicouagan

Dave Savard

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montcalm

Isabel Sayegh

No contact email

No Twitter account

Lac-Saint-Louis

Francis Scarpaleggia

[email protected]

@ScarpaleggiaLSL

Vaudreuil – Soulanges

Peter Schiefke

[email protected]

@PeterSchiefke

King – Vaughan

Deb Schulte

[email protected]

@_DebSchulte

North Island – Powell River

Peter Schwarzhoff

[email protected]

@PeteSchwarzhoff

Nickel Belt

Marc Serré

[email protected]

@MarcSerreMP

Humber River – Black Creek

Judy Sgro

[email protected]

@JudySgroMP

Châteauguay – Lacolle

Brenda Shanahan

[email protected]

@BShanahanLib

Sault Ste. Marie

Terry Sheehan

[email protected]

@TerrySheehanMP

Brampton South

Sonia Sidhu

[email protected]

@SoniaLiberal

Mission – Matsqui – Fraser Canyon

Jati Sidhu

[email protected]

@MPJatiSidhu

Brampton East

Maninder Sidhu

No contact email

@MSidhuLiberal

Mississauga – Streetsville

Gagan Sikand

[email protected]

@gagansikand

Coast of Bays – Central – Notre Dame

Scott Simms

[email protected]

@Scott_Simms

Edmonton Mill Woods

Amarjeet Sohi

[email protected]

@SohiAmarjeet

Vaughan – Woodbridge

Francesco Sorbara

[email protected]

@fsorbara

Mississauga – Lakeshore

Sven Spengemann

[email protected]

@SvenTrueNorth

Flamborough – Glanbrook

Jennifer Stebbing

[email protected]

@Jen_Stebbing

Calgary Confederation

Jordan Stein

[email protected]

@JordanSteinAB

Kitchener South – Hespeler

Marwan Tabbara

[email protected]

@MarwanTabbaraMP

Vancouver Kingsway

Tamara Taggart

[email protected]

@tamarataggart

Hamilton West – Ancaster – Dundas

Filomena Tassi

[email protected]

@FilomenaTassiMP

Aurora – Oak Ridges – Richmond Hill

Leah Taylor Roy

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Abitibi – Témiscamingue

Claude Thibault

No contact email

No Twitter account

Huron – Bruce

Allan Thompson

[email protected]

@ElectAllanT

Papineau

Justin Trudeau

[email protected]

@JustinTrudeau

Mirabel

Karl Trudel

[email protected]

@karl_trudel

Hamilton Mountain

Bruno Uggenti

[email protected]

@BUggenti

Newmarket – Aurora

Tony van Bynen

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

@TonyVanBynen

Milton

Adam van Koeverden

No contact email

@vankayak

Saint Boniface – Saint Vital

Dan Vandal

[email protected]

@stbstvdan

Ottawa West – Nepean

Anita Vandenbeld

[email protected]

@anitavandenbeld

Spadina – Fort York

Adam Vaughan

[email protected]

@TOAdamVaughan

Saint-Hyacinthe – Bagot

René Vincelette

No email contact

@Rene_Vincelette

Parkdale – High Park

Arif Virani

[email protected]

@viraniarif

Portage – Lisgar

Ken Werbiski

No contact email

No Twitter account

Nicholas Whalen

St. John’s East

[email protected]

@NickWhalenMP

North Vancouver

Jonathan Wilkinson

[email protected]

@JonathanWNV

Algoma – Manitoulin – Kapuskasing

Heather Wilson

No contact email

@HWilsonAMK

Saanich – Gulf Islands

Ryan Windsor

[email protected]

@RyanWindsor19

Scarborough – Agincourt

Jean Yip

[email protected]

@JeanYip3

London West

Kate Young

[email protected]

@KateYoungMP

Scarborough Centre

Salma Zahid

[email protected]

@SalmaZahid15

Cumberland – Colchester

Lenore Zann

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada

 

Alberta (34 Seats)

Banff—Airdrie

Blake Richards

[email protected]

@BlakeRichardsMP

Battle River—Crowfoot

Damien C. Kurek

[email protected]

@dckurek

Bow River

Martin Shields

[email protected]

@MartinBowRiver

Calgary Centre

Greg McLean

[email protected]

@GregMcLeanYYC

Calgary Confederation

Len Webber

[email protected]

@Webber4Confed

Calgary Forest Lawn

Candidate not yet announced

Calgary Heritage

Bob Benzen

[email protected]

@BobBenzen

Calgary Midnapore

Stephanie Kusie

[email protected]

@StephanieKusie

Calgary Nose Hill

Michelle Rempel Garner

[email protected]

@MichelleRempel

Calgary Rocky Ridge

Pat Kelly

[email protected]

@PatKelly_MP

Calgary Shepard

Tom Kmiec

[email protected]

@tomkmiec

Calgary Signal Hill

Ron Liepert

[email protected]

@RonLiepert

Calgary Skyview

Jagdeep Sahota

[email protected]

@votesahota

Edmonton Centre

James Cumming

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

@CummingK

Edmonton Griesbach

Kerry Diotte

[email protected]

@KerryDiotte

Edmonton Manning

Ziad Aboultaif

[email protected]

@ziad_aboultaif

Edmonton Mill Woods

Tim Uppal

[email protected]

@TimUppal

Edmonton Riverbend

Matt Jeneroux

[email protected]

@jeneroux

Edmonton Strathcona

Sam Lilly

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

@sam_lilly1

Edmonton West

Kelly McCauley

[email protected]

@KellyMcCauleyMP

Edmonton—Wetaskiwin

Mike Lake

[email protected]

@MikeLakeMP

Foothills

John Barlow

[email protected]

@JohnBarlowMP

Fort McMurray—Cold Lake

David Yurdiga

[email protected]

@DavidYurdiga

Grande Prairie—Mackenzie

Chris Warkentin

[email protected]

@chriswarkentin

Lakeland

Shannon Stubbs

[email protected]

@ShannonStubbsMP

Lethbridge

Rachael Harder

[email protected]

@RachaelHarderMP

Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner

Glen Motz

[email protected]

@GlenMotz

Peace River—Westlock

Arnold Viersen

[email protected]

@ArnoldViersen

Red Deer—Lacombe

Blaine Calkins

[email protected]

@blainecalkinsmp

Red Deer—Mountain View

Earl Dreeshen

[email protected]

@earl_dreeshen

Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Garnett Genuis

[email protected]

@GarnettGenuis

St. Albert—Edmonton

Michael Cooper

[email protected]

@Cooper4SAE

Sturgeon River—Parkland

Dane Lloyd

[email protected]

@DaneLIoyd

Yellowhead

Gerald Soroka

[email protected]

No Twitter account

British Columbia (42 seats)

Abbotsford

Ed Fast

[email protected]

@HonEdFast

Burnaby North—Seymour

Heather Leung

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

@NorthPpc

Burnaby South

Jay Shin

@jayshin2019

[email protected]

Cariboo—Prince George

Todd Doherty

[email protected]

@ToddDohertyMP

Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola

Dan Albas

[email protected]

@DanAlbas

Chilliwack—Hope

Mark Strahl

[email protected]

@markstrahl

Cloverdale—Langley City

Tamara Jansen

[email protected]

@Tamara_retired

Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam

Nicholas Insley

[email protected]

@InsleyNicholas

Courtenay—Alberni

Byron Horner

[email protected]

@Byron4CA

Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Alana DeLong

[email protected]

@alanadelong

Delta

Tanya Corbet

[email protected]

@TanyaCorbet

Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke

Randall Pewarchuk

[email protected]
No Twitter account

Fleetwood—Port Kells

Shinder Purewal

[email protected]

@ShinderPurewal

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo

Cathy McLeod

[email protected]

@Cathy_McLeod

Kelowna—Lake Country

Tracy Gray

[email protected]

@TracyGrayKLC

Kootenay—Columbia

Rob Morrison

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Langley—Aldergrove

Tako van Popta

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon

Brad Vis

[email protected]

@BradleyVis

Nanaimo—Ladysmith

John Hirst

[email protected]

@JohnHirst2019

New Westminster—Burnaby

Megan Veck

[email protected]

@MeganVeck

North Island—Powell River

Shelley Downey

[email protected]

No Twitter account

North Okanagan—Shuswap

Mel Arnold

[email protected]

@MelArnoldMP

North Vancouver

Andrew Saxton

[email protected]

@Andrewesaxton

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge

Marc Dalton

[email protected]

@MarcDalton

Port Moody—Coquitlam

Nicholas Insley

[email protected]

@InsleyNicholas

Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies

Bob Zimmer

[email protected]

@bobzimmermp

Richmond Centre

Alice Wong

[email protected]

@AliceWongCanada

Saanich—Gulf Islands

David Busch

[email protected]

@DavidBusch2019

Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Claire Rattée

[email protected]

@ClaireRattee

South Okanagan—West Kootenay

Helena Konanz

[email protected]

@HelenaKonanz

South Surrey—White Rock

Kerry-Lynne Findlay

[email protected]

@KerryLynneFindl

Steveston—Richmond East

Kenny Chiu

[email protected]

@RmdKenny

Surrey Centre

Tina Bains

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Surrey—Newton

Harpreet Singh

[email protected]

@harpreetcpc

Vancouver Centre

David Cavey

[email protected]

@DavidCavey

Vancouver East

Candidate not yet announced

 

Vancouver Granville

Zach Segal

[email protected]

@vancouver_segal

Vancouver Kingsway

Helen Quan

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

No Twitter account

Vancouver Quadra

Kathleen Dixon

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

No Twitter account

Vancouver South

Wai Young

[email protected]

@WaiYoung

Victoria

Richard Caron

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

@RichardCaronCPC

West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country

Gabrielle M. Loren

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

@GabrielleMLoren

Manitoba (14 seats)

Brandon—Souris

Robert Kitchen

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley

Marty Morantz

[email protected]

@marty_morantz

Churchill—Keewatinook Aski

Cyara Bird

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

@CyaraBird

Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa

Daniel Mazier

[email protected]

@MBDan7

Elmwood—Transcona

Lawrence Toet

[email protected]

@lawrencetoet

Kildonan—St. Paul

Raquel Dancho

[email protected]

@RaquelDancho

Portage—Lisgar

Candice Bergen

[email protected]

@CandiceBergenMP

Provencher

Ted Falk

[email protected]

@MPTedFalk

Saint Boniface—Saint Vital

Réjeanne Caron

[email protected]

@rejeanne2019

Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman

James Bezan

[email protected]

@jamesbezan

Winnipeg Centre

Ryan Dyck

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

@WpgCentreCPC

Winnipeg North

Cameron Ogilive

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Winnipeg South

Melanie Maher

[email protected]

@melanielmaher

Winnipeg South Centre

Joyce Bateman

[email protected]

@JoyceBatemanCPC

New Brunswick (10 seats)

Acadie—Bathurst

Martine Savoie

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

No Twitter account

Beauséjour

Candidate not yet announced

Fredericton

Andrea Johnson

[email protected]

@andreajohnsonNB

Fundy Royal

Rob Moore

[email protected]

@RobMoore_CPC

Madawaska—Restigouche

Nelson Fox

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Miramichi—Grand Lake

Peggy McLean

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe

Sylvie Godin-Charest

[email protected]

@sgc555

New Brunswick Southwest

John Williamson

[email protected]

@JohnW_NB

Saint John—Rothesay

Rodney Weston

[email protected]

@rodneywestonsj

Tobique—Mactaquac

Richard Bragdon

[email protected]

@RichardBragdon

Newfoundland and Labrador (7 seats)

Avalon

Matthew Chapman

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

No Twitter account

Bonavista—Burin—Trinity

Mike Windsor

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

No Twitter account

Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame

Alex Bracci

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Labrador

Larry Flemming

[email protected]

@Larry4Labrador

Long Range Mountains

Candidate not yet announced

St. John’s East

Joedy Wall

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

@wall_joedy

St. John’s South—Mount Pearl

Terry Martin

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

@terrycmartin

Northwest Territories (1 seat)

Northwest Territories

Yanik D’Aigle

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

@yanikdaigle

Nova Scotia (11 seats)

Cape Breton—Canso

Alfie MacLeod

No contact email

No Twitter account

Central Nova

Roger MacKay

No contact email

@RogerMacKayCPC

Cumberland—Colchester

Scott Armstrong

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Dartmouth—Cole Harbour

Jason Cole

[email protected]

@JasonColeCPC

Halifax

Bruce Holland

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Halifax West

Fred Shuman

[email protected]

@ForShuman

Kings—Hants

Martha MacQuarrie

[email protected]

@Martha4KH

Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook

Kevin Copley

[email protected]

@SPCconservative

South Shore—St. Margarets

Rick Perkins

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Sydney—Victoria

Eddie Orrell

[email protected]

@sydneyvicTORYa

West Nova

Chris d’Entremont

[email protected]

@ChrisMLA

Nunavut (1 seat)

Nunavut

Leona Aglukkaq

[email protected]

@leonaaglukkaq

Prince Edward Island (4 seats)

Cardigan

Wayne Phelan

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Charlottetown

Robert Campbell

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Egmont

Logan McLellan

[email protected]

@loganmp2019

Malpeque

Stephen Stewart

[email protected]

@StephenMalpeque

Yukon (1 seat)

Yukon

Jonas Smith

[email protected]

@jonasjsmith

Saskatchewan (14 seats)

Battlefords—Lloydminster

Rosemarie Falk

[email protected]

@rosemarie_falk

Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

Kelly Block

[email protected]

@KellyBlockmp

Cypress Hills—Grasslands

Jeremy Patzer

@jp4cp

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River

Gary Vidal

[email protected]

@GaryAVidal

Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan

Tom Lukiwski

[email protected]

@TomLukiwski

Prince Albert

Randy Hoback

[email protected]

@MPRandyHoback

Regina—Lewvan

Warren Steinley

[email protected]

@WSteinley_SP

Regina—Qu’Appelle

Andrew Scheer

[email protected]

@AndrewScheer

Regina—Wascana

Micheal Kram

[email protected]

@MichaelKramSK

Saskatoon—Grasswood

Kevin Waugh

[email protected]

@KevinWaugh_CPC

Saskatoon—University

Corey Tochor

[email protected]

@ctochor

Saskatoon West

Brad Redekopp

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

@BradRedekopp

Souris—Moose Mountain

Robert Kitchen

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Yorkton—Melville

Cathay Wagantall

[email protected]

@cathayw

Ontario (121 seats)

Ajax

Tom Dingwall

[email protected]

@TomDingwallAjax

Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing

Dave Williamson

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

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill

Leona Alleslev

[email protected]

@LeonaAlleslev

Barrie—Innisfil

John Brassard

[email protected]

@JohnBrassardCPC

Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte

Doug Shipley

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

@DougShipleyBSOM

Bay of Quinte

Tim Durkin

[email protected]

@QuinteDurkin

Beaches—East York

Nadirah Nazeer

[email protected]

@NadirahNazeer

Brampton Centre

Pawanjit Gosal

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

No Twitter account

Brampton East

Ramona Singh

[email protected]

@RamonaToday

Brampton North

Arpan Khanna

[email protected]

@ArpanKhanna

Brampton South

Ramandeep Brar

[email protected]

@electbrar

Brampton West

Murarilal Thapliyal

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

@thapliyalbw

Brantford—Brant

Phil McColeman

[email protected]

@Phil4Brant

Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Alex Ruff

[email protected]

@AlexRuff17

Burlington

Jane Michael

[email protected]

@JaneMichael1

Cambridge

Sunny Attwal

[email protected]

@SunnyCBridge

Carleton

Pierre Poilievre

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

@PierrePoilievre

Chatham-Kent—Leamington

David Epp

[email protected]

@DaveEppCKL

Davenport

Sanjay Bhatia

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Don Valley East

Michael Ma

[email protected]

@MichaelMaCPC

Don Valley North

Sarah Fischer

[email protected]

@SarahFischerDVN

Don Valley West

Yvonne Robertson

[email protected]

@YRobertsonCa

Dufferin—Caledon

Kyle Seeback

[email protected]

@KyleSeeback

Durham

Erin O’Toole

[email protected]

@ErinOTooleMP

Eglinton—Lawrence

Chani Aryeh

[email protected]

@chaniaryehbain

Elgin—Middlesex—London

Karen Vecchio

[email protected]

@karen_vecchio

Essex

Chris Lewis

[email protected]

@ChrisLewisEssex

Etobicoke Centre

Ted Opitz

[email protected]

@TedOpitz

Etobicoke—Lakeshore

Barry O’Brien

[email protected]

@VoteBarry4EL

Etobicoke North

Sarabjit Kaur

[email protected]

@electsarabjitk

Flamborough—Glanbrook

David Sweet

[email protected]

@DavidSweetMP

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell

Pierre Lemieux

[email protected]

@CPCLemieux

Guelph

Ashish Sachan

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Haldimand—Norfolk

Diane Finley

[email protected]

@dianefinleymp

Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock

Jamie Schmale

[email protected]

@Jamie_Schmale

Hamilton Centre

Monica Ciriello

[email protected]

@CirielloMonica

Hamilton East—Stoney Creek

Nikki Kaur

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

No Twitter account

Hamilton Mountain

Peter Dyakowski

[email protected]

@PeterDyakowski

Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Bert Laranjo

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

@BertLaranjo

Hastings—Lennox and Addington

Derek Sloan

[email protected]

@DerekSloanCPC

Humber River—Black Creek

Iftikhar Choudry

[email protected]

@iachoudry

Huron—Bruce

Ben Lobb

[email protected]

@BenLobbMP

Kanata—Carleton

Justina McCaffrey

[email protected]

@justinabridal

Kenora

Eric Melillo

[email protected]

@Eric_Melillo

King—Vaughan

Anna Roberts

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

@VoteRoberts_CPC

Kingston and the Islands

Ruslan Yakoviychuk

[email protected]

@RYakoviychuk

Kitchener Centre

Stephen Woodworth

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

@Woodworth1CPC

Kitchener—Conestoga

Harold Albrecht

[email protected]

@Albrecht4KitCon

Kitchener South—Hespeler

Alan Keeso

[email protected]

@AlanKeeso

Lambton—Kent—Middlesex

Lianne Rood

[email protected]

@Lianne_Rood

Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston

Scott Reid

[email protected]

@ScottReidCPC

Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Michael Barrett

[email protected]

@MikeBarrettON

London—Fanshawe

Michael van Holst

[email protected]

@mikevanholst

London North Centre

Sarah Bokhari

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

No Twitter account

London West

Liz Snelgrove

[email protected]

@LizSnelgroveCPC

Markham—Stouffville

Theodore Antony

[email protected]

@theodore_antony

Markham—Thornhill

Alex Yuan

[email protected]

@AlexyuanCPC

Markham—Unionville

Bob Saroya

[email protected]

@BobSaroya

Milton

Lisa Raitt

[email protected]

@lraitt

Mississauga Centre

Milad Mikael

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

No Twitter account

Mississauga East—Cooksville

Wladyslaw Lizon

[email protected]

@wladyslawlizon

Mississauga—Erin Mills

Hani Tawfilis

[email protected]

@VoteTawfilis

Mississauga—Lakeshore

Stella Ambler

[email protected]

@StellaAmbler

Mississauga—Malton

Tom Varughese

[email protected]

@TomVarughese4

Mississauga—Streetsville

Ghada Melek

[email protected]

@ghada_melek

Nepean

Brian St. Louis

[email protected]

@BrianForNepean

Newmarket—Aurora

Lois Brown

[email protected]

@LoisBrownCanada

Niagara Centre

April Jeffs

Contact form: https://apriljeffs.com/

@April_Jeffs

Niagara Falls

Tony Baldinelli

[email protected]

@NiagaraTonyfor

Niagara West

Dean Allison

[email protected]

@DeanAllisonMP

Nickel Belt

Aino Laamanen

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

No Twitter account

Nipissing—Timiskaming

Jordy Carr

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Northumberland—Peterborough South

Philip Lawrence

[email protected]

@PLawrence2019

Oakville

Terence Young

[email protected]

@Young4Oakville

Oakville North—Burlington

Sean Weir

[email protected]

@SeanWeirONB

Orléans

David Bertschi

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

@David_Bertschi

Oshawa

Colin Carrie

[email protected]

@ColinCarrieCPC

Ottawa Centre

Carol Clemenhagen

[email protected]

@ottawaccarol

Ottawa South

Eli Tannis

[email protected]

@eli_tannis

Ottawa—Vanier

Joel Bernard

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

@VoteJoelCPC

Ottawa West—Nepean

Abdul Abdi

[email protected]

@AbdulAbdi6

Oxford

Dave Mackenzie

[email protected]

@DaveMacKenzieMP

Parkdale—High Park

Adam Pham

[email protected]

@AdamPhamforMP

Parry Sound—Muskoka

Scott Aitchison

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

@ScottAAitchison

Perth—Wellington

John Nater

[email protected]

@JohnNaterMP

Peterborough—Kawartha

Michael Skinner

[email protected]

@mikeskinnerptbo

Pickering—Uxbridge

Cyma Musarat

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

@cmusarat

Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke

Cheryl Gallant

[email protected]

@cherylgallant

Richmond Hill

Costas Menegakis

[email protected]

@CostasMenegakis

St. Catharines

Krystina Waler

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

@KrystinaWaler

Sarnia—Lambton

Marilyn Gladu

[email protected]

@MPMarilynGladu

Sault Ste. Marie

Sonny Spina

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

@SonnySpina

Scarborough—Agincourt

Sean Hu

[email protected]

@SeanHuCPC

Scarborough Centre

Irshad Chaudhry

[email protected]

@Irshad_C18

Scarborough—Guildwood

Quintus Thuraisingham

[email protected]

@Qthu123

Scarborough North

David Kong

[email protected]

@votedavidkong

Scarborough—Rouge Park

Bobby Singh

[email protected]

[email protected]

Scarborough Southwest

Kimberly Fawcett

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

@KimberlyFawcett

Simcoe—Grey

Terry Dowdall

[email protected]

@TerryDowdallcpc

Simcoe North

Bruce Stanton

[email protected]

@bruce_stanton

Spadina—Fort York

Frank Fang

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry

Eric Duncan

[email protected]

@EricDuncanSDSG

Sudbury

Pierre St-Amant

No contact email

No Twitter account

Thornhill

Peter Kent

[email protected]

@KentThornhillMP

Thunder Bay—Rainy River

Linda Rydholm

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

No Twitter account

Thunder Bay—Superior North

Frank Pullia

[email protected]

@frank_pullia

Timmins—James Bay

Kraymr Grenke

[email protected]

@Kraymr

Toronto Centre

Ryan Lester

[email protected]

@RyanLesterTO

Toronto—Danforth

Zia Choudhary

[email protected]

@votezia2019

Toronto—St. Paul’s

Jae Truesdell

[email protected]

No Twitter account

University—Rosedale

Helen-Claire Tingling

[email protected]

@HCTingling

Vaughan—Woodbridge

Teresa Kruze

[email protected]

@TeresaKruze

Waterloo

Jerry Zhang

[email protected]

@jerryzwaterloo

Wellington—Halton Hills

Michael Chong

[email protected]

@MichaelChongMP

Whitby

Todd McCarthy

[email protected]

@ToddMcCarthyCPC

Willowdale

Daniel Lee

[email protected]

@DanielLeeCPC

Windsor—Tecumseh

Leo Demarce

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Windsor West

Henry Lau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

York Centre

Rachel Willson

[email protected]

@rachelbwillson

York—Simcoe

Scot Davidson

[email protected]

@ScotDavidsonMP

York South—Weston

Jasveen Rattan

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

@jasveenrattan

Quebec (78 seats)

Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou

Martin Ferron

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Abitibi—Témiscamingue

Mario Provencher

[email protected]

@MarioProvenche1

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Kathy Laframboise

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Alfred-Pellan

Angelo Esposito

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation

Marie Louis-Seize

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia

Candidate not yet announced

Beauce

Richard Lehoux

[email protected]

No Twitter account

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

Sylvie Boucher

[email protected]

@SBoucherMP

Beauport—Limoilou

Alupa Clarke

[email protected]

@Alupa_Clarke

Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel

Pierre-André Émond

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis

Steven Blaney

[email protected]

@HonStevenBlaney

Beloeil—Chambly

Candidate not yet announced

Berthier—Maskinongé

Josée Bélanger

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Bourassa

Catherine Lefebvre

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Brome—Missisquoi

Bruno Côté

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Brossard—Saint-Lambert

Glenn Hoa

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles

Pierre Paul-Hus

[email protected]

@PierrePaulHus

Châteauguay—Lacolle

Hugues Laplante

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord

Richard Martel

[email protected]

@richardmartelpc

Compton—Stanstead

Jessy McNeil

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Celine Laquerre

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Drummond

Jessica Ebacher

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine

Jean-Pierre Pigeon

[email protected]

@JPierrePigeon

Gatineau

Sylvie Goneau

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

No Twitter account

Hochelaga

Christine Marcoux

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

@HochelagaC

Honoré-Mercier

Guy Croteau

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

No Twitter account

Hull—Aylmer

Mike Duggan

[email protected]

@MikeDugganPCC

Joliette

Jean-Martin Masse

No contact email

No Twitter account

Jonquière

Philippe Gagnon

[email protected]

No Twitter account

La Pointe-de-l’Île

Robert Coutu

[email protected]

@RobertJrCoutu

La Prairie

Isabelle Lapointe

[email protected]

@ilapointePCC

Lac-Saint-Jean

Jocelyn Fradette

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Lac-Saint-Louis

Ann Francis

[email protected]

No Twitter account

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun

Claudio Rocchi

[email protected]

@ClaudioRocchi1

Laurentides—Labelle

Serge Grégoire

[email protected]

@SergeGregoire

Laurier—Sainte-Marie

Lise des Greniers

No contact email

No Twitter account

Laval—Les Îles

Tom Pentefountas

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Lévis—Lotbinière

Jacques Gourde

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne

Stéphane Robichaud

[email protected]

@StefrobiCAQ

Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

Patrick Clune

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

No Twitter account

Louis-Hébert

Marie-Josée Guérette

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

No Twitter account

Louis-Saint-Laurent

Gérard Deltell

[email protected]

@gerarddeltell

Manicouagan

François Corriveau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin

Sonia Baudelot

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

@BaudelotSonia

Mégantic—L’Érable

Luc Berthold

[email protected]

@LucBerthold

Mirabel

François Desrochers

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montarville

Julie Sauvageau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montcalm

Gisèle Desroches

[email protected]

No Twitter account

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

Bernard Généreux

[email protected]

@GenereuxBernard

Mount Royal

David Tordjman

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount

Neil Drabkin

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

@CPCNDGWest

Outremont

Jasmine Louras

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

@JasmineLouras

Papineau

Sophie Veilleux

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

@VeilleuxSophie

Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères

Mathieu Daviault

[email protected]

@DaviaultMathieu

Pierrefonds—Dollard

Mariam Ishak

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

@MariamIshakCPC

Pontiac

Dave Blackburn

[email protected]

@Blackburn2019

Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier

Joël Godin

[email protected]

@Pjcjoelgodin

Québec

Bianca Boutin

[email protected]

@BiancaBoutin

Repentigny

Pierre Branchaud

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

No Twitter Account

Richmond—Arthabaska

Alain Rayes

[email protected]

@AlainRayes

Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques

Candidate not yet announced

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Maikel Mikhael

[email protected]

No Twitter Account

Rivière-du-Nord

Candidate not yet announced

Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie

Johanna Sarfati

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

No Twitter Account

Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot

Bernard Barré

[email protected]

No Twitter Account

Saint-Jean

Martin Thibert

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

No Twitter Account

Saint-Laurent

Richard Serour

[email protected]

@SerourRichard

Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel

Ilario Maiolo

[email protected]

@IlarioMaioloPCC

Saint-Maurice—Champlain

Bruno-Pier Courchesne

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Salaberry—Suroît

Cynthia Larivière

c[email protected]

No Twitter account

Shefford

Nathalie Clermont

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Sherbrooke

Dany Sévigny

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

No Twitter account

Terrebonne

Annie Trudel

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Thérèse-De Blainville

Marie Claude Fournier

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Trois-Rivières

Yves Lévesque

[email protected]

@Yveslevesque_tr

Vaudreuil—Soulanges

Karen Cox

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

No Twitter account

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

Michael Forian

[email protected]

@ForianVM

Vimy

Rima El-Helou

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

No Twitter account

Candidates for the New Democratic Party of Canada

 

Thunder Bay-Superior North

Anna Betty Achneepineskum

No contact email

@DGCAnnaBetty

Oakville

Jerome Adamo

[email protected]

@JEROME4Oakville

Niagara Centre

Malcolm Allen

No contact email

@NDPMalcolmAllen

Timmins–James Bay

Charlie Angus

[email protected]

@CharlieAngusNDP

Churchill—Keewatinook—Aski

Niki Ashton

[email protected]

@nikiashton

Trois-Rivières

Robert Aubin

[email protected]

@RobertAubinNPD

Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Taylor Bachrach

[email protected]

@taylorbachrach

Niagara Falls

Brian Barker

[email protected]

@BBarker77

North Vancouver

Justine Bell

[email protected]

@justinegbell

Bay of Quinte

Stephanie Bell

No contact email

@Bell4Council

Saskatoon West

Sheri Benson

[email protected]

@sherirbenson

Elmwood—Transcona

Daniel Blaikie

[email protected]

@Daniel_Blaikie

North Island—Powell River

Rachel Blaney

[email protected]

@RABlaney

Rosemont—La-Petite-Patrie

Alexandre Boulerice

[email protected]

@alexboulerice

Berthier—Maskinongé

Ruth Ellen Brosseau

[email protected]

@RE_Brosseau

Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill

Aaron Brown

No contact email

No Twitter account

Waterloo

Lori Campbell

[email protected]

@campbelllor

South Okanagan—West Kootenay

Richard Cannings

[email protected]

@CanningsNDP

Davenport

Andrew Cash

No contact email

@AndrewCash

Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Bob Chamberlin

[email protected]

@ChiefBobbyc

Oxford

Matthew Chambers

No contact email

@MatthewNewDem

Toronto Centre

Brian Chang

[email protected]

@bfchangTO

Mississauga–Malton

ikki Clarke

[email protected]

@NikkiClarkeNDP

Kanata–Carleton

Melissa Coenraad

[email protected]

@MelissaCoenraad

Victoria

Laurel Collins

[email protected]

@Laurel_BC

Vancouver Kingsway

Don Davies

[email protected]

@DonDavies

Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock

Barbara Doyle

[email protected]

@DoyleHKLB

Beloeil–Chambly

Matthew Dubé

[email protected]

@MattDube

Burlington

Lenaee Dupuis

Email not available

Twitter not available

Sherbrooke

Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[email protected]

@PLDusseault

Hamilton Mountain

Scott Duvall

[email protected]

@sduvall07

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Zahia El Masri

No contact email

@MasriZahia

Etobicoke North

Naiima Farah

No contact email

@Naiima_Farah

Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke

Randall Garrison

[email protected]

@r_garrison

Ottawa South

Morgan Gay

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

@Morgan_Gay

Winnipeg Centre

Candidate Leah Gazan

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

@LeahGazan

Pontiac

Denise Giroux

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

No Twitter account

Salaberry-Suroît

Joan Gottman

No contact email

No Twitter account

Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam

Christina Gower

No contact email

No Twitter account

Hamilton Centre

Matthew Green

No contact email

@MatthewGreenNDP

Cambridge

Scott Hamilton

[email protected]

@HamiltonCbridge

Vancouver Granville

Yvonne Hanson

No contact email

@YVR_Hanson

Windsor-Tecumseh

Cheryl Hardcastle

[email protected]

@CHardcastleNDP

St. John’s East

Jack Harris

[email protected]

@JackHarrisNDP

South Shore—St. Margaret’s

Jessika Hepburn

[email protected]

@ohmyhandmade

Carleton

Kevin Hua

No contact email

@HuaForCarleton

Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing

Carol Hughes

[email protected]

@CarolHughesMP

Beaches–East York

Mae J. Nam

[email protected]

@MaeJNam

Guelph

Aisha Jahangir

[email protected]

@JahangirAisha

Barrie—Springwater—Oro—Medonte

Dan Janssen

[email protected]

@IAMDanJ

Brome—Missisquoi

Sylvie Jetté

No contact email

No Twitter account

York Centre

Andrea Vasquez Jimenez

No contact email

@AndreaVasquezJ

Courtenay-Alberni

Gord Johns

[email protected]

@GordJohns

New Westminster—Burnaby

Peter Julian

[email protected]ca

@MPJulian

Brampton West

Navjit Kaur

No contact email

@Navjitkaurndp

Brampton South

Mandeep Kaur

https://mandeepkaur.ndp.ca/

No contact email

@mandeepndp

Newmarket—Aurora

Yvonne Kelly

No contact email

@YvonneKellyCRF

Vancouver Quadra

Leigh Kenny

No contact email

No Twitter account

Sarnia—Lambton

Adam Kilner

No contact email

No Twitter account

Kildonan—St. Paul

Evan Krosney

No contact email

@EvanKrosney

Kelowna–Lake Country

Justin Kulik

[email protected]

@JustinKulik

Vancouver East

Jenny Kwan

[email protected]

@JennyKwanBC

Toronto—Danforth

Min Sook Lee

[email protected]

@minsooklee

Yukon

Justin Lemphers

[email protected]

@YukonNDP

London West

Shawna Lewkowitz

No contact email

@ShawnaLewk

Haldimand—Norfolk

Jordan Louis

[email protected]

@jordanlouis

Central Nova

Betsy MacDonald

No contact email

No Twitter account Twitter not available

Vaudreuil—Soulanges

Amanda MacDonald

No contact email

No Twitter account

Don Valley West

Laurel MacDowell

No contact email

No Twitter account

Ottawa West—Nepean

Angella MacEwen

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

@AMacEwen

Cowichan-Malahat-Langford

Alistair MacGregor

[email protected]

@AMacGregor4CML

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell

Konstantine Malakos

[email protected]

@kmalakos

Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Yousaf Malik

No contact email

No Twitter account

Winnipeg North

Kyle Mason

[email protected]

@kyle_j_mason

Windsor West

Brian Masse

[email protected]

@BrianMasseMP

London—Fanshawe

Lindsay Mathyssen

No contact email

@LMathys

Sault Ste. Marie

Sara McCleary

No contact email

@saramccleary

York—Simcoe

Jessa McLean

No contact email

@JessaMcLeanNDP

Ottawa—Vanier

Stéphanie Mercier

No contact email

No Twitter account

Hamilton East Stoney Creek

Nick Milanovic

[email protected]

@nickemilanovic

Kitchener Centre

Andrew Moraga

[email protected]

@andrew_moraga

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo

Gina Myhill-Jones

No contact email

No Twitter account

Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

Pierre Nantel

[email protected]

@pierrenantel

Eglinton—Lawrence

Alexandra Nash

No contact email

@_AlexNash

Dartmouth–Cole Harbour

Emma Norton

No contact email

@dilemmmanorton

Fleetwood—Port Kells

Annie Ohana

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

@ohana_annie

Nickel Belt

Stef Paquette

No contact email

@StefPaquette

Central Okanagan–Similkameen–Nicola

Joan Phillip

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Shefford

Raymonde Plamondon

No contact email

No Twitter account

London North Centre

Dirka Prout

No contact email

@DirkaProut

Essex

Tracey Ramsey

[email protected]

@traceyram

Burnaby North-Seymour

Svend Robinson

[email protected]

@Svend4MP

Hochelaga

Catheryn Roy-Goyette

[email protected]

@roy_goyette

North Okanagan-Shuswap

Harwinder Sandhu

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot

Brigitte Sansoucy

[email protected]

@bsansoucynpd

Surrey Centre

Sarjit Saran

[email protected]

@SaranSarjit

Halifax

Christine Saulnier

[email protected]

@cmysaul

Abbotsford

Madeleine Sauvé

[email protected]

@MadeleineSauve

Brantford—Brant

Sabrina Sawyer

No contact email

No Twitter account

Kings—Hants

Stephen Schneider

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

@NdpStephen

Peterborough-Kawartha

Candace Shaw

[email protected]

@CSHawPKNDP

Brampton East

Saranjit Singh

[email protected]

@SaranjitSingh_

Burnaby South

Jagmeet Singh

[email protected]

@theJagmeetSingh

Saanich–Gulf Islands

Sabina Singh

[email protected]

@Sabina4SGI

Surrey-Newton

Harjit Singh Gill

No contact email

No Twitter account

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley

Ken St.George

[email protected]

No contact email

No Twitter account

Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Chris Stephen

[email protected]

@NDPChrisBGOS

Kootenay—Columbia

Wayne Stetski

[email protected]

@WayneStetski

Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel

Nicolas Tabah

No contact email

@NicolasTabah

Ottawa Centre

Emilie Taman

No contact email

@EmilieTaman

Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Michelle Taylor

No contact email

@M_TaylorNDP

Parkdale—High Park

Paul Taylor

[email protected]

@PaulTaylorNDP

York South—Weston

Yafet Tewelde

[email protected]

@YafetYSW

Don Valley East

Nicholas Thompson

No contact email

No Twitter account

Jonquière

Karine Trudel

[email protected]

@trudel_karine

St. Catharines

Dennis Van Meer

No contact email

@scfndp

Langley–Aldergrove

Stacey Wakelin

No contact email

@staceywakelin

Kingston and the Islands

Barrington Walker

[email protected]

@WalkerNDP

Durham

Sarah Whalen-Wright

No contact email

@Swhalen87

Orléans

Jacqueline Wiens

No contact email

@JacquiWiensNDP

Thunder Bay—Rainy River

Yuk-Sem Won

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Spadina—Fort York

Diana Yoon

[email protected]

@DianaDYoon

Parry Sound—Muskoka

Tom Young

No contact email

No Twitter account

Port Moody–Coquitlam

Bonita Zarrillo

No contact email

@BonitaZarrillo

Rimouski-Neigette–Témiscouata–Les Basques

Guy Caron

[email protected]

@GuyCaronNPD

Drummond

François Choquette

[email protected]

@F_Choquette

Laurier–Sainte-Marie

Nimâ Machouf

[email protected]

@nimamachoufnpd

Candidates for the Green Party of Canada

Kootenay – Columbia

Abra Brynne

No contact email

No Twitter account

Saint-Léonard – Saint-Michel

Alessandra Szilagyi

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Abitibi – Témiscamingue

Aline Bégin

No contact email

@alinebegin

Scarborough Southwest

Amanda Cain

No contact email

@AskAmandaCain

Don Valley West

Amanda Kistindey

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Burnaby North – Seymour

Amita Kuttner

No contact email

@AmitaKuttner

Bellechasse – Les Etchemins – Lévis

André Voyer

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Winnipeg Centre

Andrea Shalay

No contact email

No Twitter account

Ottawa – Centre

Angela Keller-Herzog

[email protected]

@akellerherzog

Malpeque

Anna Keenan

[email protected]

@annackeenan

Toronto Centre

Annamie Paul

[email protected]

@AnnamiePaul

Sackville – Preston – Chezzetcook

Anthony Edmonds

No contact email

@ALEdmonds

Lambton – Kent – Middlesex

Anthony Li

[email protected]

@anthonytonyli

Chilliwack – Hope

Arthur Green

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Banff – Airdrie

Austin Mullins

[email protected]

@ausjermullins

Marc –Aurele – Fortin

Bao Tran Le

No contact email

No Twitter account

La Prairie

Barbara Joannette

No contact email

No Twitter account

Central Nova

Barry Randle

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saint-Boniface – Saint-Vital

Ben Linnick

No contact email

@bennydelnorte

Portage – Lisgar

Beverly Eert

[email protected]

@PL_GreenParty

South Surrey – White Rock

Beverly (Pixie) Hobby

No contact email

No Twitter account

Brantford – Brant

Bob Jonkman

[email protected]

@BobJonkmanGPC

Barrie – Innisfil

Bonnie North

[email protected]

@BonnieNorthGP

Burnaby South

Brennan Wauters

[email protected]

@brennanwauters

Vancouver East

Bridget Burns

[email protected]y.ca

@votebridgetb

Kigns – Hants

Brogan Anderson

[email protected]

@anderson4greens

Haldimand – Norfolk

Brooke Martin

No contact email

@Brookemartin_13

Coast of Bays – Central – Notre Dame

Byron White

No contact email

No Twitter account

Vaudreuil – Soulanges

Cameron Stiff

[email protected]

@CamStiff_Vert

Kingston and the Islands

Candice Christmas

[email protected]

No Twitter account

London North Centre

Carol Dyck

[email protected]

@CarolDyckGPC

Longueuil – Saint-Hubert

Casandra Poitras

No contact email

No Twitter account

Sturgeon River – Parkland

Cass Romyn

[email protected]

@ED75Green

Calgary Rocky Ridge

Catriona Wright

[email protected]

@CatsWright1

Etobicoke – Lakeshore

Chris Caldwell

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mississauga – Streetsville

Chris Hill

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Toronto – Danforth

Chris Tolley

[email protected]

@christolley

Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe

Claire Kelly

[email protected]

@clairekellyCAN

Pontiac

Claude Bertrand

[email protected]

@BertrandGreen

Mount Royal

Clement Badra

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Perth – Wellington

Collan Simmons

[email protected]

@Csimmons21

Red Deer – Mountain View

Conner Borle

[email protected]

@BorleGpc

Delta

Craig DeCraene

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mississauga – Lakeshore

Cynthia Trentelman

No contact email

@CCTrentelman

Regina – Qu’Appelle

Dale Dewar

[email protected]

@daledewar

Beauport – Limoilou

Dalila Elhak

No Twitter account

[email protected]@greenparty.ca

Don Valley East

Dan Turcotte

[email protected]

@Dan4Greens

West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country

Dana Taylor

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Don Valley North

Daniel Giavedoni

No contact email

No Twitter account

Outremont

Daniel Green

[email protected]

@DanielGreen_PVC

Bruce – Grey – Owen Sound

Danielle Valiquette

[email protected]

@DaniValiquette

Bay of Qunite

Danny Celovsky

[email protected]

@CelovskyDanny

Charlottetown

Darcie Lanthier

[email protected]

@DarcieLanthier

Hamilton Mountain

Dave Urquhart

[email protected]

@DaveUrquhartGP

Esquimalt – Saanich – Sooke

David Merner

[email protected]

@DavidMerner

Ottawa West – Nepean

David Stibbe

[email protected]

@davidstibbe

David Turcotte

Bécancour – Nicolet – Saurel

No contact email

No Twitter account

Kitchener South – Hespeler

David Weber

[email protected]

@davidwebergreen

Spadina – Fort York

Dean Maher

No contact email

@VoteDeanMaher

Gaspésie – Les Iles-de-la-Madeline

Dennis Drainville

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Red Deer – Lacombe

Desmond Bull

No contact email

No Twitter account

Milton

Elanor Hayward

[email protected]

@eleanorhayward4

Haliburton – Kawartha Lakes – Brock

Elizabeth Fraser

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saanich – Gulf Islands

Elizabeth May

[email protected]

@ElizabethMay

Markham – Unionville

Elvin Kao

[email protected]

@ElvinKao

Berthier – Maskinongé

Éric Laferriere

No contact email

No Twitter account

Simcoe North

Erik Schomann

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Durham

Evan Price

[email protected]

@_evanp

Burlington

Gareth Williams

[email protected]

@WilliamsGarethE

Vancouver Quadra

Geoff Wright

[email protected]

@geoffwright64

North Vancouver

George Orr

[email protected]

@george_orr

Saint-Laurent

Georgia Kokotsis

No contact email

No Twitter account

Parry Sound – Muskoka

Gord Miller

No contact email

@Ecogai

Carleton

Gordon Kubanek

[email protected]

@gordonjkubanek

Edmonton Centre

Grad Murray

No contact email

No Twitter account

Brossard – Saint-Lambert

Greg De Luca

[email protected]

@GregTheGreenMan

Avalon

Greg Malone

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Gatineau

Guy Dostaler

No contact email

No Twitter account

Davenport

Hannah Conover-Arthurs

[email protected]

@ArthursConover

Missisauga Centre

Hugo Reinoso

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Kamloops – Thompson – Cariboo

Iain Currie

[email protected]

@IanCurrie4

Renfrew – Nipissing – Pembroke

Ian Pineau

No contact email

@pineaui

Manicouagan

Jacques Gélineau

No contact email

No Twitter account

Winnipeg – South Centre

James Beddome

[email protected]

@JamesBeddome

Avignon – La Mitis – Matane – Matapédia

James Morrison

No contact email

No Twitter account

Laurier – Sainte-Marie

Jamil Azzaoui

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saskatoon – University

Jan Norris

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Flamborough – Glanbrook

Janet Errygers

@JanetGPO

[email protected]

Provencher

Janine Gibson

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Cumberland – Colchester

Jason Blanch

[email protected]

@JasonBlanch

Rosemont – La Petitie-Patrie

Jean Désy

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Compton – Stanstead

Jean Rousseau

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Montraville

Jean-Charles Pelland

No contact email

No Twitter account

Nepean

Jean-Luc Cooke

[email protected]

@VoteJeanLuc

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Jean-Michel Lavarenne

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Northumberland – Peterborough South

Jeff Wheeldon

[email protected]

@Jeff_Wheeldon

LaSalle – Émard – Verdun

Jency Mercier

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Fredericton

Jenica Atwin

[email protected]

@JenicaAtwin

Kanata – Carleton

Jennifer Purdy

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Vancouver Centre

Jesse Brown

[email protected]

@votejesse2019

Scarborough – Rouge Park

Jessica Hamilton

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Halifax

Jo-Ann Roberts

[email protected]

@JoAnnRobertsHFX

Riviere-du-Nord

Joey Leckman

[email protected]

@JoeyLeckman

Mission – Matsqui – Fraser Canyon

John Kidder

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Beauce

Josiane Fortin

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Oshawa

Jovannah Ramsden

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Papineau

Juan Vazquez

[email protected]

@Chitacosmico7

Vancouver South

Judith Zaichkowsky

[email protected]

@Zaichkow

West Nova

Judy N Green

[email protected]

@RAWnGreen

Langley – Aldergrove

Kaija Farstad

[email protected]

@KaijaF

Dauphin – Swan River – Neepawa

Katherine Storey

[email protected]

@KateStorey_

Shefford

Katherine Turgeon

No contact email

No Twitter account

Bonavista – Burin – Trinity

Kelsey Reichel

No contact email

@kelsreichel

Charleswood – St. James – Assiniboia – Headingley

Kevin Nichols

[email protected]

@KevinNichols11

Waterloo

Kirsten Wright

[email protected]

@kirstenllwright

Beauséjour

Laura Reinsborough

[email protected]

@lauraatthereins

Vancouver Kingsway

Lawrence Taylor

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Ottawa South

Les Schram

[email protected]

@Les4OS

Dartmouth – Cole Harbour

Lil MacPherson

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Oxford

Lisa Birtch-Carriere

[email protected]

@lisac_gpc

Leeds – Greenville – Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Lorraine Rekmans

[email protected]

@Goddessonloose

Vancouver Granville

Louise Boutin

No contact email

No Twitter account

Lévis – Lotbiniere

Luc Saint-Hilaire

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Long Range Mountains

Lucas Knill

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Cowichan – Malahat – Langford

Lydia Hwitsum

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Chicoutimi – Le Fjord

Lynda Youde

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Louis-Hébert

Macarena Diab

@macarenadiab

[email protected]

Cariboo – Prince George

Mackenzie Kerr

[email protected]

No Twitter account

North Okanagan – Shuswap

Marc Reinarz

[email protected]

No Titter account

Trois-Rivieres

Marie Duplessis

[email protected]

No Twitter account

North Island – Powell River

Mark de Bruijn

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Chatham-Kent – Leamington

Mark Vercouteren

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Barrie – Springwater – Oro-Medonte

Marty Lancaster

[email protected]

@gp_marty

Sherbrooke

Mathieu Morin

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Algoma – Manitoulin – Kapuskasing

Max Chapman

[email protected]

@MaxChapmanAMK

Niagara Centre

Michael Tomaino

[email protected]

@MichaelPTomaino

Cambridge

Michele Braniff

[email protected]

@MicheleBraniff

Orléans

Michelle Petersen

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Kitchener Centre

Mike Morrice

[email protected]

@morricemike

Humber River – Black Creek

Mike Schmitz

No contact email

No Twitter account

Oakville North – Burlington

Mithu Valika

[email protected]

@MithuValika

Regina – Lewvan

Naomi Hunter

[email protected]

@GpcHunter

Calgary Confederation

Natalie Odd

[email protected]

@natalieodd

Huron – Bruce

Nicholas Wendler

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Nanaimo – Ladysmith

Paul Manly

[email protected]

@paulmanly

Hamilton East – Stoney Creek

Peter Ormond

[email protected]

@Peter_Ormond

Sarnia – Lambton

Peter Smith

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Beloeil – Chambly

Pierre Carrier

No contact email

No Twitter account

Victoria

Racelle Kooy

[email protected]

@racellekooy

Stormont – Dundas – South Glengarry

Raheem Arman

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Wellington – Halton Hills

Ralph Martin

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Churchill – Keewatinook Aski

Ralph McLean

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Vaughan – Woodbridge

Raquel Fronte

No contact email

No Twitter account

Dorval – Lachine – LaSalle

Réjean Malette

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Mississauga – Erin Mills

Remo Boscarino-Gaetano

[email protected]

@Remo_Bosco

Halifax West

Richard Zurawski

No contact email

No Twitter account

Hochelaga

Robert D. Morais

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Notre-Dame-de-Grace – Westmount

Robert Green

[email protected]

@RobertGreenPVC

Central Okanagan – Similkameen – Nicola

Robert Mellalieu

[email protected]

@RobMellalieu

Tobique – Mactaquac

Rowan Miller

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Charlesbourg – Haute-Saint-Charles

Samuel Moisan-Domm

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Niagara Falls

Sandra O’Connor

[email protected]

@SandraONFGreens

Beaches – East York

Sean Manners

No contact email

No Twitter account

Courtenay – Alberni

Sean Wood

[email protected]

@SeanWood4Greens

Saskatoon West

Shawn Setyo

[email protected]

@ShawnSetyo

Simcoe – Grey

Sherri Jackson

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Saint-Maurice – Champlain

Stéphanie Dufresne

[email protected]

@StephanieDufr

Kitchener – Conestoga

Stephanie Goertz

[email protected]

@GoertzSteph

Lanark – Frontenac – Kingston

Stephen Kotze

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Guelph

Steven Dyck

[email protected]

@SteveDyck

New Westminster – Burnaby

Suzanne De Montigny

[email protected]

@sfierymountain

Fleetwood – Port Kells

Tanya Baertl

No contact email

No Twitter account

Edmonton Mill Woods

Tanya Herbert

[email protected]

No Twitter account

South Okanagan – West Kootenay

Tara Howse

[email protected]

@taralynhowse

Niagara West

Terry Teather

[email protected]

@terry_teather

Calgary Centre

Thana Boonlert

[email protected]

@thana4yyc

South Shore – St. Margarets

Thomas Trappenberg

[email protected]

@ttrappenberg

University – Rosedale

Tim Grant

[email protected]

No Twitter account

Fundy Royal

Timothy Thompson

[email protected]

No Twitter account

London – Fanshawe

Tom Cull

[email protected]

@waltercull

Edmonton Riverbend

Valerie Kennedy

[email protected]

@4valeriekennedy

Hamilton West – Ancaster – Dundas

Victoria Galea

[email protected]

@vote_victoria

Newmarket – Aurora

Walter Bauer

[email protected]

@WalterB23697518

Calgary Forest Lawn

William Carnegie

No contact email

@WillCarnegieYYC

Selkirk – Interlake – Eastman

William James

[email protected]

No Twitter account



Source link