Minutes of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC)
Meeting Date/Time: March 27, 2006; 9:30 am – 5:00 pm
March 28, 2006; 9:30 am – 4:00 pm
Meeting Number 2
Meeting Location: Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
5060 Spectrum Way
Mississauga, Ontario
Members Present:
- Al Cormier, Chair
- George Ansell, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
- V. Barkey (Alternate for Susan Thorning), Community Care City of Kawartha Lakes
- Spiros Bastas, Royal Taxi
- Jo-Ann Bentley, Canadian Hearing Society
- James Bisson, Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario
- Earl Black, Independent Living Resource Centre
- Mark Brose, Transportation Action Now
- William Brown
- Silvan Bruno, GO Transit
- Tanya Wanio, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
- Tony Carnovale, Community Living Ontario
- Katrina Carrera, Association des municipalités Francophones de l'Ontario
- David Carroll, Ontario Motor Coach Association and School Bus Association
- V. Szeto (Alternate for Sandy Chan), Ministry of Education
- Alex Grant, HAGI Community Services for Independence
- Blyth Helman, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
- Glenn Johnston, Toronto Transit Commission
- Rob Barnes (Alternate for Kim Lambert), Ministry of Transportation
- Caroline Lonsdale, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
- Lesley Anne MacDonald, Canadian National Institute for the Blind
- Alex Milojevic, Assocation of Municipalties of Ontario, City of Brampton, member of OCTA/CUTA
- Susan Mintz, The Kidney Foundation of Canada
- Tim Nolan, Council of Ontario Universities
- Kelly Palecnzy, Ontario Community Transportation Association
- Lloyd Pollock, Dignity Transportation Incorporated
- Danielle Svec, Life Skills Institute (Bloorview Kids Rehab)
Support Unit:
- Nancy Bestic, Canadian Standards Association
- Kevin Boehmer, Canadian Standards Association
- Terry Brand, Canadian Standards Association, Customer Service SDC Secretary (Day 1 only)
- Alicia Edano, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
- Nicki Islic, Canadian Standards Association (Day 1 only)
- George Schidowka, Canadian Standards Association, Transportation SDC Secretary
- Mansur Rahim, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, Liaison
- Michael Sullivan, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
- Nelly Tion, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
- Scot Weeres, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
M.2.1 Opening and Welcome
The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:30 am on March 27, 2006 and welcomed all members to the second meeting of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC).
M.2.2 Attendance
A sign-in sheet was circulated and the members were asked to give their name, affiliation and contact number.
M.2.3 Administrative Matters
M.2.3.1 Housekeeping
George Schidowka informed the members of the housekeeping issues for the meeting and reviewed the CSA procedures regarding emergency evacuation.
M.2.3.2 Acceptance of Meeting 2 Draft Agenda
The draft agenda for Meeting 2 was amended to reschedule the presentation by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) on jurisdictional issues pertaining to ferries and school buses to Day 2. With this change, the agenda was accepted.
M.2.3.3 Acceptance of Meeting 1 Minutes
The approved T-SDC Meeting 1 Minutes have been posted on the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario’s ( ADO ’s) Web site.
Members clarified that Clause M.1.4.1 Scope of Proposed Accessible Transportation Standard should reflect that the "items within scope" and "items out of scope" lists are indicative only as the final scope of the standard was still under discussion.
M2.4 Review of Action Items from Meeting 1
M2.4.1 Transportation Consultant
Scot Weeres reported that a transportation consultant has been hired to conduct an economic analysis of the technical requirements under development by the T-SDC. The consultant may be available to attend Meeting 3 to gather information from the T-SDC regarding technical requirements. Preliminary costing information may be available to the committee by Meeting 5. He added that the completion of the T-SDC’s draft proposed standard will be important information that will enable the consultant to assess the economic impact of the proposed standard.
He also advised that a transportation consultant had been retained to review best practices in transporting persons with disabilities from other jurisdictions for the information of the T-SDC. The report from this consultant should be available by meeting 4 at the latest.
The committee made the following comments for the consultants to consider:
- Hospital Care in communities that do not have public transportation
The use of an ambulance for transporting patients to dialysis treatments is costly. An alternative mode of transportation may be more desirable.
- Transportation vans
Private companies in communities in Israel and in the Caribbean operate accessible vans that travel the same fixed routes as conventional transit but provide their services at a lower fare.
- Regulatory and Industry frameworks
Why do some rural or small municipalities offer only taxi but no other transportation systems?
M2.4.2 School Buses
Rob Barnes volunteered to provide a report at Meeting 3 about whether school buses fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction.
Action Item 1. M2.4.2 – Rob Barnes to investigate whether school buses fall within provincial jurisdiction.
M2.4.3 Ferries
Rob Barnes made a presentation on jurisdictional issues regarding ferries. It is likely that ferries navigating intra-provincial waters fall under the AODA 2005 requirements.
There was a question about whether freighter canoes, water taxis (e.g., private club ferries), and harbours were provincially regulated.
Action Item 2. M2.4.3 – Rob Barnes to investigate if a freighter canoe, water taxis and harbours fall within provincial jurisdiction.
M2.4.4 Subway Platforms
There was a question about whether or not subway platforms were in the scope of the AODA 2025 requirements. It was suggested that if subway platforms were not in the scope of the AODA 2025 requirements, then ferry docks may not be in the scope either.
Action Item 3. M2.4.4 – SDC Support Unit to investigate if ferry docks are considered to be the same as subway platforms and to report back at the next meeting.
M2.4.5 Federal Accessibility Committee
William Brown provided an overview of the Federal Accessibility Committee’s report on mobility securement.
M.2.5 Development of 2025 List of Areas Pertaining to Barriers and Potential Solutions
M.2.5.1 Performance Requirements Review
Members completed their review of barriers to accessible transportation and potential performance or technical requirements to address barriers. Members then indicated whether they felt potential performance or technical requirements were transportation specific or fell within the scope of another standards development committee (e.g., built environment, customer service).
After a brief review and discussion, it was decided that the list of barriers would be edited to remove any duplications and provided to members for final review and justification of transport specific requirements.
Action Item 4. M2.5.1 – SDC Support Unit to provide members with an edited transport specific performance or technical requirements list. This list will include an additional column for members to provide justification for accessible transportation specific requirements. The list will be submitted to the members by March 31.
Action Item 5. M2.5.1 – T-SDC members to review the potential performance or technical requirements list and provide justification for transportation specific items to the Support Unit by April 17, 2006 .
M.2.6 General Discussion of the Revised Proposed Draft Standard
M.2.6.1 Overview
George Schidowka explained that the draft standard had been revised after the last meeting to i) remove references to other technical standard clauses, ii) focus on performance requirements, and iii) improve editorial and technical consistency and clarity.
The committee reviewed Clauses 6.12 through 6.30.5 and noted areas for improvement or clarification. It was agreed that much of the content of Clauses 6.1 through 6.11 may be under the scope of a built environment SDC.
Action Item 6. M2.6.1 – George Schidowka to revise the draft standard to incorporate the committee discussion. The revised draft and a comment form are to be sent to the T-SDC by April 5, 2006.
Action Item 7. M2.6.1 – The T-SDC to consult with their constituents regarding Draft 2, and to submit any comments, or proposed changes together with rationale to CSA by April 19, 2006.
M2.6.2 On-Demand Services
Clause 6.26, On-Demand Services, was reviewed. It was agreed that a task force should be established to review and propose requirements for this clause. The task force is to consist of :
- James Bisson;
- Spiros Bastas;
- Lloyd Pollock;
- Tim Nolan;
- Rob Barnes;
- Mark Brose;
- Tanya Wanio;,and
- the SDC Support Unit.
Action Item 8. M2.6.2 – The On-Demand Services Task Force to schedule discussion (with support from SDC Support Unit) and submit a proposal for Clause 6.26 to the Support Unit by April 19, 2006.
M2.6.3 Specialized Transit
Clause 6.28, Specialized transit, was reviewed. It was agreed that a task force be established to review and propose requirements for this clause. The task force is to consist of:
- Mark Brose;
- Earl Black;
- James Bisson;
- Danielle Svec;
- Rob Barnes;
- Tim Nolan;
- William Brown; and
- the SDC Support Unit.
Action Item 9. M2.6.3 – The Specialized Transit Task Force to schedule discussion (with support from SDC Support Unit) and submit a proposal for Clause 6.28 to the Support Unit by April 19, 2006.
M2.6.4 Additional Issues Discussed by the T-SDC
Additional issues that T-SDC members noted included:
- Rear entry vehicles may prevent an attendant from sitting with the passenger. Seats that can be moved around may help.
- What should be the limit of direct assistance in helping someone in a transportation conveyance? What should be expected from the attendant or the transportation system?
- Should the complaint mechanism include private transportation as well as public transportation? It was suggested that the committee look at best practice requirements for complaint mechanisms.
Action Item 10. M2.6.4 – SDC Support Unit to investigate proposed draft 2 standards discussion issues and report findings at Meeting 3.
M.2.7 Path Forward
M.2.7.1 ADO presentation on use of terminology in the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC)
Nelly Tion provided members with information on the use of terminology in the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) regarding the terms equal, equivalent, and comparable.
Nelly Tion referred the T-SDC to Ontario ’s Human Rights Code which provides for a right to equal treatment without discrimination based on Code grounds, including disability, and to the Commission’s Policy on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate. The Commission’s policy states that it is well established in human rights law that equality may sometimes require different treatment that does not offend the individual's dignity. In some circumstances, the best way to ensure the dignity of persons with disabilities may be to provide separate or specialized services. However, employment, housing, services and facilities must be built or adapted to accommodate individuals with disabilities in a way that promotes their integration and full participation. Segregated treatment in services, employment, or housing for individuals with disabilities is less dignified and is unacceptable, unless it can be shown that integrated treatment would pose undue hardship or that segregation is the only way to achieve equality.
The Commission’s Policy on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate identifies the following principles:
- Integration and full participation: Persons with disabilities should be able to access their environment and face the same requirements (and obtain the same benefit) as everyone else, with dignity and without impediment. Segregated services are considered less acceptable, unless integrated treatment would cause undue hardship.
- Dignity: Services must be provided in the manner that most respects the dignity of persons with disabilities, unless to do so would cause undue hardship. Dignity includes privacy, confidentiality, autonomy, individuality, self-respect and self-worth. The common example of access without dignity would be a wheelchair entrance over a loading dock or through a service area.
- Include considerations of persons with non-mobility disabilities: The needs of persons with non-mobility-related disabilities are often overlooked. The needs of persons with learning disabilities, mental disorders, sensory disabilities, etc. should also be taken into consideration.
- Substantive versus technical compliance: Consideration should be given, not just to whether it is possible for a person with a disability to access a service, but how dignified, easy and fast it is for them to do so.
M.2.7.2 Confirm long-term objectives for submission to the Minister
Members reviewed, discussed and revised Clause 5 – Long-term Objectives in the proposed draft standard and requested George Schidowka, on behalf of the Chair, to transmit the objectives to the Minister of Community and Social Services.
Action Item 11. M2.7.2 – George Schidowka, on behalf of the Chair, to transmit the draft Long-term Objectives for Transportation to the Minister of Community and Social Services by April 12, 2006.
M.2.7.3 Review and update of the committee work plan
The committee reviewed the work plan and no revisions were made.
M.2.8 Communications
M.2.8.1 Communications Task Group
The committee agreed that a communications task group would be established in the future, if necessary. They agree that no meeting communiqué or other announcement was required at this time and agreed to revisit at each meeting.
M.2.9 Other Business
M.2.9.1 Meeting evaluation
The Chair asked the committee for feedback on the meeting. No concerns were raised.
M.2.9.2 Meeting and committee accommodations
The Chair asked members to notify M. Rahim if there were any additional accommodations required in advance of Meeting 3.
M.2.9.3 Meeting Schedule
The following meeting schedule was reviewed by the T-SDC. A change in the June 2006 meeting date was noted due to the closure of CSA’s facilities over the July 1, 2006 long week-end. Some members identified a conflict with the revised date. The SDC Support Unit as asked to review options for the June 2006 meeting and report back to the T-SDC a Meeting 3.
Meeting Times
Day 1 - 9:30 am to 5:00 pm
Day 2 - 9:30 am to 4:00 pm
Meeting Dates
- Meeting 1 - February 27 and 28, 2006
- Meeting 2 - March 27 and 28, 2006
- Meeting 3 - April 27 and 28, 2006
- Meeting 4 - May 29 and 30, 2006
- Meeting 5 - June 22 and 23, 2006 (tentative)
- Meeting 6 - July 26 and 27, 2006 (tentative)
- Meeting 7 - August 24 and 25, 2006 (tentative)
Action Item 12. M2.9.3 – The SDC Support Unit to review the options for the June meeting for presentation to committee at Meeting 3.
M.2.10 Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 pm on March 28, 2006.