Revised Draft Minutes to the Ninth Meeting of the
Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC)

Canadian Standards Association
5060 Spectrum Way
Mississauga, Ontario
November 20 and 21, 2006

Members Present:

• Al Cormier, Cor Al Services, Chair (November 20 only)
• George Ansell, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (Acting Chair on November 21)
• Valmay Barkey, Ontario Community Support Association
• Jo-Ann Bentley, Canadian Hearing Society
• James Bisson, Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario/City of Mississauga
• Earl Black, Independent Living Resource Centre
• Mark Brose, Transportation Action Now
• Silvan Bruno, GO Transit
• Tony Carnovale, Community Living Ontario
• Katrina Carrera, Association des municipalités Francophones de l'Ontario
• David Carroll, Ontario Motor Coach Association and School Bus Association
• Peter Chin, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
• Alex Grant, HAGI Community Services for Independence
• Sharon Hambleton, Ontario Federation of Labour (represented by Duncan MacDonald)
• Blyth Helman, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
• Glenn Johnston, Toronto Transit Commission
• Kim Lambert, Ministry of Transportation (represented by Rob Barnes November 20 afternoon)
• Lesley Anne MacDonald, Canadian National Institute for the Blind
• Alex Milojevic, Association of Municipalties of Ontario, City of Brampton
• Susan Enid Mintz, The Kidney Foundation of Canada
• Tim Nolan, Council of Ontario Universities
• Kelly Palecnzy, Ontario Community Transportation Association
• Lloyd Pollock, Dignity Transportation Incorporated (November 20 only)
• Danielle Svec, Bloorview Kids Rehab
• Tanya Wanio, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Absent Members:

• Spiros Bastas, Royal Taxi
• Vanissa Szeto, Ministry of Education

Support Unit:

• Kevin Boehmer, Canadian Standards Association
• Mike Dodd, Canadian Standards Association
• Mansur Rahim, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
• Nelly Tion, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
• Scot Weeres, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario

Consultants:

• David Dilks, Lura Consulting

M9.1 Call to Order
A. Cormier (Chair) called the 9th meeting of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. on November 20, 2006.

M9.2 Housekeeping and Facility Safety
M. Dodd advised members of facility safety procedures and other housekeeping matters.

M9.3 Meeting Objectives
The Chair detailed objectives of the 9th meeting, including:

• Update on the Chair's meeting with the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council (ASAC);
• Share best practice information through sector presentations;
• Discuss and approve Guiding Principles to direct the work of the T-SDC; and
• Develop the T-SDC work plan to the public review phase.

The Chair noted that Lura Consulting had been retained to facilitate Sector Best Practice Presentations (A9.6), Guiding Principles (A9.7) and Development of the Workplan (A9.8). The Chair introduced D. Dilks from Lura Consulting as the Meeting 9 facilitator.

M9.4 Administrative Matters

M9.4.1 Approval of the Meeting 9 Draft Agenda
The Meeting 9 draft agenda was approved as circulated.

M9.4.2 Approval of the Meeting 8 Draft Minutes
It was noted that written comments on the draft Meeting 8 minutes had been received from K. Lambert and D. Carroll and that comments had been incorporated into the revised draft minutes circulated in prior to the meeting. The revised Meeting 8 draft minutes were approved as circulated.

M9.4.3 Membership Review
The Chair noted that D. MacDonald would be the alternate for S. Hambleton and that S. Ryan of Bloorview Kids Rehab Centre had been invited as a guest to present on Occupant Safety Restraint systems.

M9.4.4 Report on Accessibility Standards Advisory Council Meeting
The Chair provided a written and verbal report on his November 10, 2006 meeting to update ASAC on T-SDC activities and progress. The Chair reported that, while ASAC congratulated the T-SDC on its progress, they had a number of suggestions on how the draft standard might be improved.

Several members of the T-SDC expressed concern that ASAC had commented prematurely on draft, non-approved T-SDC materials, potentially influencing committee decision making. Other members expressed gratitude to ASAC for sharing their views and encouraged members to consider their comments. S. Bruno requested that his disagreement with draft materials being circulated to non-committee members such as ASAC before the T-SDC had made final decisions be recorded in the minutes.

Clarification was sought regarding the ASAC Terms of Reference and its relationship with the T-SDC. S. Weeres noted that the role of ASAC was to provide advice to the Minister. The Chair noted that it would be important to explain the proposed Accessible Transportation standard to ASAC before they were required to provide such advice to the Minister. S. Weeres also noted that ASAC, having reviewed draft T-SDC documents in preparation for the Chair's update, provided feedback to the T-SDC in the spirit of cooperation and that the T-SDC was free to consider, or not consider, ASAC suggestions.

After significant discussion, the T-SDC decided that the T-SDC Chair should continue to brief ASAC on T-SDC progress. It was noted that ASAC would have the opportunity to formally comment on the draft standard at the public review stage.

M9.5 Process Review
The Chair noted that he had requested the inclusion of standing agenda items at the beginning and end of subsequent T-SDC meetings to review process issues. He noted that he had received process-related correspondence between meetings and preferred members table such concerns for committee discussion in the future.

K. Paleczny expressed concern that members who provided written submissions on guiding principles in preparation for Meeting 8 were not afforded an opportunity to present their submissions. She also noted concern with materials being distributed to the committee without adequate time for review. S. Bruno expressed concern that the Support Unit had drafted guiding principles for Editorial Task Force consideration and that the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario (ADO) had provided written comments on the draft guiding principles prepared by the Editorial Task Force. S. Weeres explained that it is the responsibility of the ADO to ensure that the AODA 2005 legislation is respected in T-SDC discussions and materials. S. Weeres noted that the T-SDC was free to consider, or not consider, ADO comments. A. Milojevic suggested that the ADO's role be clarified in the T-SDC Terms of Reference.

M9.6 Sector Best Practice Presentations and Discussion
D. Dilks invited the following members and guests to deliver respective "sector best practice" presentations:

G. Johnston noted that the TTC would be willing to present streetcar accessibility proposals at a future meeting if the T-SDC so desired.

D. Dilks facilitated discussion between and following sector profile presentations where the following question was posed: "Thinking about the presentation you just heard as well as the work we’ve completed on the standard to date, what are the key implications for our efforts to further develop and finalize the standard?" Discussion included:

• Need for flexible, local solutions;
• Multi-vehicle trips might be appropriate as long as trip lengths are not increased;
• Innovative solutions to meet dialysis treatment needs are required;
• Inter-jurisdictional transfers may be required, but the responsibility for such transfers is unclear (eg, transit, health);
• Significant cost constraints exist for parents of children with disabilities who require restraint systems;
• The responsibilities of bus operators and taxis in providing occupant restraint systems;
• Driver training is an important best practice consideration;
• Providers should have to make reasonable accommodation in policies and procedures to accommodate persons with disabilities;
• Voluntary Code of Practice for Inter-city Buses has been the basis for many highway coach accessibility initiatives; and
• Best practices for sensory and cognitive disabilities are not as widespread as those for physical disabilities.

M9.7 Approval of Guiding Principles
D. Carroll reported that the Editorial Task Force had met and developed draft Guiding Principles for consideration and comment by the T-SDC. D. Dilks referred members to submitted comments and facilitated a discussion to approve Guiding Principles. Members agreed that the Accessible Transportation Standard should include one set of overarching principles and not include sector or clause specific principles. After discussion, members agreed on the attached Guiding Principles (Attachment 1).

M9.8 Development of the Workplan
The Chair, at the end of Day 1, noted that he was prepared to request an extension of the T-SDC mandate under its Terms of Reference to allow it sufficient time to complete its work. At the beginning of Day 2, The Acting Chair initiated discussion on the amount of work and time required to move the draft Accessible Transportation standards to the public review phase. Members agreed that three more meetings (Meetings 10, 11 and 12) would be required to prepare and agree to a public review draft of the standard to be submitted to the Minister in April 2007. Members further agreed that an additional, contingency meeting be planned for May 2007 (Meeting 13) in case consensus was not achieved at Meeting 12. The Acting Chair agreed to report the committee's decision to the Chair such that he could draft a request to the Minister.

D. Dilks facilitated discussion of the path forward. Members debated whether Task Groups should be assigned responsibility for reviewing and potentially updating relevant sections of the draft standard or if the committee as a whole should review and comment on the draft. After significant discussion, participants decided that all T-SDC members would review Draft 5 of the Accessible Transportation standard and provide detailed written comments to CSA by January 9, 2007. Submitted comments would then be considered by the T-SDC at their 10th meeting.

D. Dilks facilitated development of the committee workplan to the public review stage as follows:

M9.9 Next Meetings
The committee decided to convene subsequent meetings as follows:

M9.10 New Business
No new business was identified.

M9.11 Process Review
No process review comments or suggestions were identified.

M9.12 Adjournment
The Acting Chair adjourned the 9th meeting of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee at 12:35 p.m. on November 21, 2006.

Attachment 1

Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee
Approved Guiding Principles
November 21, 2006

The following guiding principles are intended to help the Committee design an accessible transportation standard having regard to shared values and a collective vision of accessible transportation for public passenger transportation in the province of Ontario. These principles express intent, rules, norms and constraints and serve as a basis for integrated decision-making, thus influencing the development of an accessible transportation standard for Ontario.

Accessibility
Public transportation services should be inclusive and integrated.

Within public transit systems, conventional public transit services should be the primary accessible service. Specialized transit services should be the primary service available to those unable to use the conventional system or where specialized transit is the only public transportation service available. A component of a specialized transit trip may be completed using an accessible conventional service.

Safety
That safety be fundamental in the provision of accessible public transportation services.

Participation in Ontario Society
Public transportation services should provide access to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, and employment to facilitate full participation in society.

Compatibility of Regulations and Standards
The standard should be complementary and harmonized with other current legislated standards and regulations, including other common and sector specific AODA standards.

Performance Measurement
The standard (and ultimately the regulations created pursuant thereto) should be measurable, enforceable and maintainable.

Innovation and Continuous Improvement
The standard should encourage the pursuit of innovation and continuous quality improvement based on technologies that are feasible for use within the Province of Ontario.

The standards should incorporate accessible public transportation best practices from Ontario and elsewhere.

Flexibility and Phase-in
While the standard will result in full accessibility by 2025, the standard should promote the removal of specific barriers as quickly as possible.

The standard should contain requirements and implementation time frames specific to the type of service and reflective of the diversity and fiscal and operational capacity of jurisdictions and private sector businesses to meet the requirements.

The standard should enable participation of persons with disabilities from the community concerning how the standard can best be implemented.

The standard should not result in the degradation of transportation services to the community as a whole.

The determination of the extent to which retrofitting may be required will be based on a cost benefit analysis.

• Print this article
• Email this article