RE: Proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA)

Transcription

1 October 5,2010 I service Ontario Regulation Registry Attention: Accessibility Directorate of Ontario Ministry of Communtty and Social Services 777 Bay Street, Suite 601A Toronto ON Canada M7A 2J4 Dear Minister Meilleur: RE: Proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) I am writing on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London (Corporation) to provide feedback on the proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation as posted on the Regulation Registry for public feedback. The Corporation has been interested and engaged in the standard development process over the past five years. We strongly support the ideals and objectives of the AODA, subject to our comments below. We are confident that our shared commitment with the Ministry of Community and Social Services will ensure a more inclusive, accessible Ontario in the future. On reviewing the documents released for public review, we believe that significant progress has been made during the standard development process. The summary of proposed Integrated Standard requirements appears less prescriptive than earlier drafts of the Employment, and Information and Communications standards, providing organizations with the ability to develop innovative approaches to meeting the requirements. The staggered compliance deadlines take advantage of the 2025 timeline envisioned in the AODA legislation. The Ministry has taken leadership in requiring the Ontario Public Service to comply first with the standard and provide an example for other sectors. However, there are still a number of aspects of the proposed Integrated Standard with which we have concerns. We believe that our recommendations provided below will enhance the effectiveness of the forthcoming regulation to meet the objectives of the AODA. General Comments The Corporation supports the Ontario Government s Open for Business initiative, aimed to make Ontario more attractive for business development while protecting the public interest. The Regulation Registry website provides a simple, convenient way for organizations to learn about regulatory proposals and changes. We were pleased to see information regarding the proposed Integrated Standard posted through this new process. According to the Ontario Regulatory Policy, regulations which affect business must be justified by a solid business case ; have a clear assessment of the total costs and benefits, including those to business, the public and government administration ; and, be accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment that addresses, at a minimum, the impact on the access of persons, goods, services and investments. I 1

2 In accordance with this policy, we strongly recommend: 1. That an independent regulatory impact assessment of the proposed regulation be conducted prior to the passage of any further regulations under the AODA, including the Integrated Standard. The report commissioned from the Martin Prosperity Institute, Releasing Constraints: Projecting the Economic Impacts of Increased Accessibility in Ontario did not address the costs or any other potential impacts of AODA standards on businesses and the broader public sector, but rather only addressed the potential benefits. This does not satisfy the requirement in the Regulatory Policy for an impact assessment including risks, costs, and potential impact on trade or investment. 2. That the actual draft regulation be released for public review. The plain language summary documents posted are not sufficient in order for organizations to provide meaningful feedback to the proposal. According to the Regulatory Policy, proposed regulations that have a significant effect on the access of persons, goods, services or investments, the posting on the Regulation Registry shall include, where available, the draft regulatory text. This is a critical step to build the internal consistency essential to the success of an Integrated Standard. We expect and look forward to the opportunity to provide further feedback on a draft regulation at a later date. Proposed Accessibility Requirements In general we believe that many of the proposed requirements are reasonable and will result in a more accessible Ontario. However, we recommend that the following changes be made in order to improve the clarity and feasibility of the standard. Note that our comments are based on our interpretation of the summary documents as the draft regulation has not yet been released to the public. PART A: GENERAL 1. Accessibility Plans -the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2007 (ODA) already requires municipalities to produce accessibility plans on an annual basis. The proposed Integrated Standard also requires the development of accessibility plans, but is silent on the frequency. We recommend that section 11 of the ODA be repealed upon enactment of the Integrated Standard, and that accessibility plans be developed every four (4) years, consistent with the term of Municipal Council, to support more long term, strategic planning. 2. Training -the obligation to train all employees, volunteers, persons who provide services on behalf of an organization, and persons who participate in the policies, practices and procedures of an organization is not feasible. For a municipality, this group would include volunteers giving only a few short hours of their time, hundreds of independent contractors, a large and often changing roster of citizen committee members, and many more. There is a high risk that this requirement will not succeed because there is not adequate means of implementing it. There would be extensive financial and human resources required to develop, deliver and sustain training programs to meet the needs of the diverse groups captured in this requirement, not to mention a limited ability to ensure the participation of individuals not employed by the Corporation. For these reasons, we firmly recommend that the training requirement be limited to employees. The Corporation has already administered extensive training under the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, and we are committed to continuing to provide accessibility training. As written we estimate the cost to comply with the Integrated Standard training requirement could exceed $200,000 including the development of a training program and delivery to approximately 4000 full and part time employees, and not including the 2

3 independent contractors or others captured in this requirement. We recommend that the forthcoming regulation require organizations to provide accessibility training to employees only when appropriate to their job duties. This will ensure that the training is relevant, meaningful, and does not result in needless additional expense or lost productivity time. 3. Feedback Process -this proposed requirement duplicates section 7 of the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service. As feedback is mainly an element of customer service, we recommend that this section be removed from the Integrated Standard. 4. Emergency and Public Safety Information -further clarification is required as to the definition of emergency and public safety information. In a municipal context, Fire Services provide several hundred public education documents, and support information such as fire exit routes in thousands of buildings. The proposed compliance timeframe of 2012 is not reasonable unless the application of this section is made more specific. We recommend further consultation with public safety and emergency services providers for the development of this section. Regarding the format of emergency and public safety information, reference is made to the Information and Communications Standard s Accessible Formats and Communication Supports requirement ; however, this has not been included in the Integrated Standard requirements as released. We recommend that, consistent with the Regulatory Policy s focus on flexibility, this reference be removed and organizations be granted the ability to determine which accessible formats be provided based on the needs of their customers. PART B: ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS 5. Accessible Formats and Communication Supports -we appreciate that the Ministry has made clear that organizations are not required to have every alternate format in stock, but rather have the means to provide the information as soon as possible once a request has been made. This greatly enhances the feasibility and affordability of compliance with this requirement. We urge the Ministry to include this language in the final regulation. 6. Websites - the WCAG 2.0 AA is a lengthy and highly technical standard that may be difficult for organizations to understand and implement. Municipalities may not have the resources necessary to analyze the standard, train web authors or establish new protocols, and therefore may resort to limiting the information that they post online. With the rapid evolution of technology, the W3C standards will change over time. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the Ministry develop resources to assist organizations to understand the standard and how it relates to specific formats (Java, PDF, video) at least three years prior to compliance deadlines, and on an ongoing basis. 7. Public Libraries - libraries operate in a unique environment of information and communications, and it is critical.that the Ministry fully understand the impact of any related regulation on libraries. We fully endorse the response sent under separate cover from the London Public Library, and encourage the Ministry to consult with public and academic libraries through the standard development process. PART C: ACCESSIBLE EMPLOYMENT 8. Employees and Accommodation -the previously released draft Employment Standard defined accommodation as being to the point of undue hardship, a definition that is not contained in the proposed Integrated Standard summary. Without this definition, there could be an argument that employers will be held to a higher standard with respect to the duty to accommodate. The definition of 3

4 undue hardship should mirror the Ontario Human Rights Code definition. We strongly recommend that this language be reintroduced into any forthcoming regulation in order to ensure consistency between legislation. Additionally, the previous Employment Standard draft required that employees participate in the accommodation process, rather than consult and collaborate as stated in this version. These terms are not well established in employment and labour law, and should be removed. 9. Accommodation Plans - the obligation to develop documented individual accommodation plans, on request could be unduly onerous from an administrative perspective. An employee s accommodation needs may change on an ongoing and frequent basis depending on medical status. In cases where accommodation is of a fixed, short-term nature, documented plans may be unnecessary. We recommend that flexibility be introduced to account for these issues. Additionally, there is a reference to managing and protecting the privacy of personal information. This should be specifically noted to be in accordance with applicable legislation (eg: Municipal Freedom of lnfomation and Protection of Privacy Act) as to not create a separate obligation. 10. Employees Returning to Work - the proposal states that this procedure will include the use of individual accommodation plans where appropriate. It is unclear what is meant by this and what needs to be included in the procedure. We recommend that further clarification be provided. 11. Performance Management, Career Development and Redeployment -we recommend that the obligation to take into account the individual accommodation needs or plans of employees be limited to those cases where the accommodation needs or plans are applicable to the circumstances; that is, where the individual s performance, career development or redeployment may be affected by their disability. PART D: TRANSPORTATION 12. Transportation Requirements - the requirements proposed in this section will have significant operational and budgetary impacts on public transit providers, such as the London Transit Commission (LTC). LTC estimates the cumulative incremental cost to comply with the proposed requirements as written would be $15.3 million for the period of to We fully support the recommendations submitted under separate cover by LTC, and strongly recommend that a less prescriptive approach be taken in any forthcoming regulation to support organizations in finding efficient, effective ways to meet the intentions of the proposed Integrated Standard. 13. Proportion of On-Demand Accessible Taxis -we appreciate that the standard allows municipalities to work with persons with disabilities and the taxi industry to determine the proportion of on-demand accessible taxis required in their community. We recommend that this language be retained in the final regulation. This provides municipalities with the flexibility necessary to find solutions to fit the unique needs of each community. 14.Taxi Registration, Company and Vehicle Identification - while the display of this information is a valuable public safety provision, we do not understand how it is an accessibility improvement. Therefore, we recommend that this requirement be removed from the standard and continue to be addressed through municipal bylaws. 4

5 Compliance Enforcement Initiatives IO The Compliance Assurance Framework was designed to ensure that organizations comply with requirements under the AODA. We are pleased that this framework includes education and awareness. We firmly believe that this is the most effective way to make progress and the only way that the goal of an accessible Ontario can be realized. However, we fear that there is still unawareness about requirements under the AODA, particularly in the private sector and in small businesses. We urge the Ministry to make this element of the framework the main focus area. The vast majority of organizations in Ontario already support improving accessibility; however, if they are not made aware of newly established requirements and equipped with available and timely compliance tools, they will not be able to achieve compliance. Additionally, we encourage the Ministry to continue to work with sector organizations such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO) to support education, communication and the development of sectorspecific resources. Proposed Compliance Timelines As already noted, we support the leadership that the Ministry has taken in requiring the Ontario Public Service (OPS) to comply with the regulation first and set an example for other sectors. However, the one-year interval between OPS compliance and Broader Public Sector (50+ employees) is not sufficient to provide an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness or learn from the OPS experience. The policy development process, as an example, can take several years for large organizations, so this work would have to be initiated far before a year prior to the compliance deadline. We recommend a minimum two-year gap to fully utilize the lessons learned from the OPS as first starters in implementation of the standards. In summary, subject to our concerns noted above we believe that the Proposed Integrated Accessibility Standard marks a positive evolution towards a more effective and achievable standard. We are confident that our recommendations will further support this evolution and result in a stronger, more accessible Ontario for the future. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anne Marie DeCicco-Best Mayor City of London cc. Chris Bentley, MPP - London West Deb Matthews, MPP - London North Centre Khalil Ramal, MPP - London-Fanshawe Steve Peters, MPP - Elgin-Middlesex-London Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario Rick Bartolucci, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Association of Municipalities of Ontario Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 5