Minutes to the 17th Meeting of the
Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC)
89 Chestnut St, Ballroom
Toronto, ON
October 30-31, 2008

Present 

• Al Cormier, Chair Cor Al Services 
• Druce Ayres, Individual
• Valmay Barkey, Ontario Community Support Association (Oct 31 only)
• Louise Bark, Individual
• Glenn Barnes, Tetra Society
• 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
• Bob Brown, Individual
• Silvan Bruno, GO Transit, Ontario Public Transit Association/Canadian Urban Transit Association
• Katrina Carrera l'Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario (proxy with K. Paleczny)
• Joan Gallagher-Bell, Individual
• Brenda Deck, HAGI Community Services for Independence, City of Thunder Bay
• Sharon Hambleton, Ontario Federation of Labour
• Julianne Hay, Community Living Ontario
• Blyth Helman, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
• Glenn Johnston, Toronto Transit Commission
• Diann Krieger, Individual
• Chris McLean, CNIB National Office
• Alex Milojevic, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, City of Brampton, Ontario Public Transit Association/Canadian Urban Transit Association
• Tim Nolan, Council of Ontario Universities, Inter-University Disabilities Issues Association
• Bob Nunn, Creative Carriage Ltd.
• Kelly Paleczny, London Transit Commission, Ontario Public Transit Association/Canadian Urban Transit Association
• Maria Ann Pennacchietti, Individual
• Lloyd Pollock, Dignity Transportation Inc (proxy with G. Johnson)
• Bonnie Quesnel, London Ontario (via teleconference)
• Danielle Svec, Bloorview Kids Rehab

Advisors 

• Georges Ansell, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
• Terry Gilhen, Disabled Persons Community Resources
• Uzma Kahn, ASAC
• Linda McAusland, Ministry of Transportation (represented by Allan Moore)
• Susan Picarello, Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care
• Mark Nagler, Individual
• Ron Ross, Individual
• Vanissa Szeto, Ministry of Education
• Donna Simmonds, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (represented by Ruth Melady)

Support Unit 

• Kevin Boehmer, Canadian Standards Association
• David Dilks, Lura Consulting
• Jim Dixon, Ministry of Community and Social Services
• Mike Dodd, Canadian Standards Association
• Ido Monteiro, Ministry of Community and Social Services
• Nelly Tion, Ministry of Community and Social Services
• Michael Sullivan, Ministry of Community and Social Services

M17.1 Call to Order
A. Cormier (Chair) welcomed members and called the 17th meeting of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC) meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. on October 30, 2008.  A. Cormier thanked Georges Ansell for acting as chair of the committee for Meeting 16. He gave a brief review of the activities of the committee resulting from Meeting 16 and a review of the activities for Meeting 17.

M17.2 Housekeeping and Facility Safety
The Support Unit advised the T-SDC members about housekeeping matters and emergency procedures for the meeting.

M17.3 Meeting Objectives
A. Cormier summarized meeting objectives:

• To review comments received on the draft final proposed accessible transportation standard.
• To consider revising the draft final proposed standard to address any remaining key issues.
• To hold a recorded vote to approve the final proposed standard for submittal to the Minister.
• To finalize the Chair’s transmittal letter.
• Development of committee communiqué.

M17.4 Administrative Matters

M17.4.1 Approval of the Meeting 17 Draft Agenda
D. Dilks asked that the committee be reminded of the voting procedure.

N. Tion advised the members that the Information and Communication committee has developed a draft standard that was posted on the T-SDC accessibility.csa.ca website.

The agenda was accepted as presented with the above noted change and the comment from N. Tion.

M17.4.2 Approval of the Meeting 16 Draft Minutes
K. Boehmer reported that two comments had been received regarding the minutes to Meeting 16:

• B. Brown noted that J. Hay was not in attendance at the meeting.
• Under M16.9, K. Paleczny asked that her concern be recorded as follows: K. Paleczny raised concern respecting the transparency and equity of the taskforce review process noting a select few members had been working with a consultant provided by the ADO to create revised wording for sections 5 and 6 subsequent to the taskforce discussing and reaching agreement on same.

D. Ayres noted that he was present at Meeting 16.

The draft minutes were approved as presented with the corrections noted above.

M17.4.3 Membership Review (for information)
The following membership information was noted:

• there were no changes to the SDC membership since Meeting 16;
• D. Simmonds would be represented by R. Melady for Meeting 17;
• K. Palezcny holds the proxy for K. Carrera;
• G. Johnston holds the proxy for L. Pollock.

M17.5 Consideration of Comments on the Draft Final Proposed Accessible Transportation Standard
K. Boehmer noted that the focus of discussion would be on the draft standard dated October 24. He explained that T-SDC comments received on the draft standard dated September 29 were considered in preparing the October 24 draft.

K. Boehmer explained the comments from members on the draft dated September 29 had been consolidated into document N081 and sent out to the members on October 16. A revised document N081R1 was sent out on October 17. K. Boehmer noted that a subsequent revision – N081R2 – was prepared by the Support Unit in preparation for Meeting 17.  In this document, every committee comment was categorized as:

a) Editorial/Clarification/Correction;
b) Technical – not accepted; or
c)  Technical – for discussion.

K. Boehmer noted that Editorial/Clarification/Correction comments and comments categorized as “Technical – for discussion” were accompanied with specific proposals in the October 24 draft standard. K. Boehmer further noted that rationale for not including proposals for comments categorized as “Technical – not accepted” were included in N081R2.  Rationale for not including proposals included the likelihood of achieving consensus at Meeting 17, items that were previously discussed without resolution or the magnitude of proposed changes.

D. Dilks reminded the members that even if the comments were not included in the October 24th draft, the comments would form part of the committee record as documented in N081R2.  D. Dilks asked the SDC to consider adopting the following process for Meeting 17:

• Use October 24 draft as the starting point;
• Review proposed changes to each clause in response to T-SDC comments;
• Focus on "Technical - for discussion" items;
• After "Technical - for discussion" items are considered, discuss any other major remaining comments; and
• Finally, confirm what we will vote on tomorrow.

He suggested that the committee consider the following guidelines for discussion:

• Respect years/months on many issues;
• Keep comments concise and constructive;
• Don't repeat what others have said;
• Remember while consensus is the goal, we may not agree on everything; and
• Pause to celebrate our progress and the end of a challenging journey.

The SDC adopted the approach proposed by D. Dilks.

K. Boehmer led a discussion of the draft dated October 24 documenting any agreed to changes in a modified version of the draft standard dated October 30.

G. Barnes noted that the October 30 standard did not address areas where specialized transit systems exist and no other public transit system is available, while M. Brose noted that it did not address rental vehicles.  J.A. Bentley noted that in her opinion Clause 5.8 did not include adequate standards for visual on-board announcements during service disruptions.

The SDC agreed to vote on the October 30 version of the standard which was distributed following Day 1 of the meeting.

M17.6 Recorded Vote on Final Proposed Standard
K. Boehmer reviewed the voting procedures for the committee, noting that:

• Members would have an opportunity to approve/disapprove each Clause/Provision “for submittal to the Minister as the final proposed standard”;
• (Most) provisions include a requirement and a compliance schedule – the voting procedure would allow a member to approve a requirement, but disapprove the compliance schedule;
• The final proposed standard would be considered approved if through quorum:
  • a 2/3 majority of the votes cast are in favour; and
  • not more than 1/4 of the votes cast are negative;
• An opportunity to provide rationale for disapproval votes (requirement or schedule) would be provided;
• Results of voting, including the rationale for no votes, would be submitted to the Minister.

The Chair, on October 31, conducted a formal vote on each provision of the October 30 version of the draft final proposed standard.  Voting results are attached as Annex A.  The Chair noted that members should submit rationale for each disapproval or no vote to the Support Unit no later than November 14.

M17.7 Chair’s Transmittal Letter to the Minister
A revised draft Chair’s transmittal letter to the Minister distributed as N075R1 was tabled for discussion.  A. Milojevic moved the following motion (seconded by K. Paleczny) which carried:

With respect to the drafting of the final standards by legislative counsel, given the complex nature of the Transportation Standards being proposed which includes the need for integration between various requirements within the Standard in order to ensure the desired outcome, the Integrated Drafting Taskforce of the T-SDC should be afforded an opportunity to review and provide comments to the Minister or the Minister’s delegate regarding legislative counsel’s final proposed Transportation Standard prior to it being enacted as a regulation.

The Chair noted that the motion would be included in the transmittal letter and invited members to submit final comments on the draft letter by November 14.

J. Bentley asked that a statement be included in the Chair’s transmittal letter noting that requirements suggested through the public review by The Canadian Hearing Society, the Deaf and hard of hearing community were not included in the final proposed standard.

M17.8 Development of Meeting Communiqué
D. DiIks led a review of key Meeting 17 outcomes and the T-SDC agreed on the content of the committee communiqué.

M17.9 New Business
No new business items were identified.

M17.10 Process Review
No issues were identified.

M17.11 Comments on Meeting Accessibility
The T-SDC was advised that the ADO would be contacting the members to assess meeting accessibility issues.

M17.12 Adjournment
On behalf of the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, N. Tion sincerely thanked the Chair, Support Unit and SDC members for their dedication and hard work in voting to approve a final proposed accessible transportation standard for submittal to the Minister.

A. Cormier congratulated members for sharing their knowledge and time in moving the “accessibility yardstick” forward in Ontario and adjourned Meeting 17 at 12:00 pm on October 31, 2008.

Annex A – Voting Results (October 30, 2008 Version of Draft Accessible Transportation Standard)

• Print this article
• Email this article