Citizens with Disabilities – Ontario www.cwdo.org
Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario
www.cwdo.org
“Together We Are Stronger”
Response to the Proposed
Integrated Accessibility Regulation
Introduction
Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario (CWDO) was incorporated in 2005 under the Ontario Corporations Act. Since being incorporated, we have grown from an organization with a handful of members in the GTA to represent members in almost every electoral riding in Ontario.
Our members have a variety of types of disability – mobility, vision, hearing, mental health, learning and developmental disabilities.
Because of our cross-disability representation and our membership base well established in almost every electoral riding, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities recognized our organization and appointed us as its provincial representative for Ontario. We are proud of our growth and of this recognition.
Our Mandate
Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario (CWDO) is committed to the rights of all persons to participate fully in the civil, cultural, economic, political and social life of our communities. CWDO actively promotes the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of persons with disabilities through community development, social action, and member support and referral. Our primary activity is public education and awareness about the social and physical barriers that prevent the full inclusion of persons with disabilities in Ontario.
Summary
This response is informed by input from 76 members of CWDO who were able to participate in an on-line discussion, or return an on-line survey. We wish to acknowledge the time and effort our members invested in this process. Because of their input, our response has more validity.
Thank you, CWDO members!
Generally, our members support the detailed response provided by the AODA Alliance. The IAR is weak in all areas, but especially in:
· Information and Communications
· Implementation Timelines
· Compliance and Enforcement
· Appeal Mechanisms
Our members said that the IAR sections on Transportation and Employment were stronger, however, members identified specific elements to be added and deleted to promote a higher level of accessibility.
The strongest area of the IAR was its introduction, because it reminds people that accommodation must be provided to the point of undue hardship under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
As written, the IAR will not bring us very much closer to an accessible Ontario. The government has not offered any public explanation why it has rejected the advice of those bodies which it hand-picked. Our members expressed growing disappointment and skepticism with IAR and at times, doubted the government’s sincerity.
The government’s mindset must be inclusion by design rather than special accommodations for that person with a disability. Accessibility standards are the mechanism for getting to inclusive design.
The government has rejected most of the input it received from Standards Development Committees on the final proposals for accessibility standards on transportation, information and communication and employment. It has sided heavily with obligated organizations rather than with persons with disabilities. It appears at many points to be designed more to set out what obligated organizations are now doing, or are willing to do voluntarily, rather than what persons with disabilities need done, and what organizations are capable of doing.
Accommodation will be considered appropriate if it will result in equal opportunity to attain the same level of performance, or to enjoy the same level of benefits and privileges experienced by others; or if it is proposed and adopted for the purpose of achieving equal opportunity, and meets the individual's disability-related needs.
If the accommodation meets the individual's needs and does so in a way that most respects dignity, then a determination can be made as to whether or not this "most appropriate" accommodation would result in "undue hardship".
An Ontario Board of Inquiry has ruled that short of undue hardship, the highest point in the continuum of accommodation must be achieved. However, if there is a choice between two accommodations which are equally responsive to the person's needs in a dignified manner, then those responsible may select the one that is less expensive or that is less disruptive to the organization.
The IAR is a step in the right direction…but a very, very small step.
Persons with disabilities are tired of waiting, tired of explaining and tired of justifying what we need. We are astonished that our human rights continue to be violated by accessibility barriers and little is done about it.
In June 2010, the Martin Prosperity Institute issued a report called, “Releasing Constraints: Projecting the Economic Impacts of Increased Accessibility in Ontario.” It outlined the enormous potential for economic growth if accessibility is addressed:
· An accessible Ontario attracts more tourism, more business and becomes a destination of choice for business, commerce, residents and travelers.
· Accessible businesses have an edge over their competition, claiming higher market shares.
· Accessible workplaces mean more people will be able to work, return to work or continue working. This means fewer people will need to rely on public financial aid (such as the Ontario Disability Support Program) and will be able to pay a higher share of taxes as wage earners.
Surely it is time for the government to put in place what it has been espousing since 2001. Persons with disabilities have been lobbying for more than 30 years for accessibility to become a reality.
As Ontario citizens, we deserve nothing less than full accessibility.
Our Consultation
CWDO invited members to attend on-line discussions on the proposed new Integrated Accessibility Regulation (IAR) on the following dates:
· September 19, 2010 – Information & Communications
· September 26, 2010 - Employment
· October 3, 2010 - Transportation
At all the discussions, common elements, timelines and compliance / enforcement mechanisms were also discussed. In addition, we invited members to provide comments on the IAR through an on-line survey.
Details
Implementation Timelines
To understand our members’ objection to the timelines, the government needs to understand that persons with disabilities have been waiting for decades for accessibility reforms.
Our advocacy in the 1960’s and 1970’s culminated in the International Year of Persons with Disabilities and the United Nations’ declaration for December 3rd each year to be recognized as the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
After outcry from the community of persons with disabilities, particularly those with developmental disabilities, “disability” was included among the protected grounds in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was a hard-fought win, but once entrenched in federal law, the provinces followed suit.
The Ontario Human Rights Code protects persons with disabilities from discrimination. It requires that accommodation be provided to address discrimination. How much accommodation? Persons with disabilities must be accommodated “to the point of undue hardship.” When tested in the courts, this has been a very high bar.
Even so, decades later, persons with disabilities find themselves excluded from employment opportunities, side-swiped by advancing technology, and with doors slammed in our faces. We continue to fight every battle on a case by case basis: whether it is to get through a park entranceway blocked by a tree root; to be treated with dignity when requesting help to fill out a government form; to be able to use public transportation or to have information provided in a way we can make use of it.
More of us are underemployed as compared to our non-disabled peers. We are on waiting lists instead of getting essential services like attendant services. And in most communities in Ontario, we cannot even get on a bus. We continue to be systematically isolated, ignored and discriminated against.
Finally, in 2001, the government committed to an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It was criticized for having no teeth. So in 2005 the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act was put into law to provide those teeth – teeth in the form of standards, compliance requirements, deadlines and penalties.
As the Accessibility News editor wrote, the AODA’s teeth, if it has them, are in a glass.
This response from CWDO to the proposed IAR is an effort to break that glass – a glass ceiling that keeps us down, glass paper that we cannot access, glass walls that we cannot pass through, and glass roads that cannot or will not provide us with access.
Common Elements
Preamble
There was general support for the reference to the Ontario Human Rights Code as a reminder of the high bar that sets the tone for accessibility in this province.
Scope and Class
The dividing line at 49/50 employees was too high. 93% of businesses would be exempt from written requirements and this will not change the status quo. Written requirements will make businesses more accountable.
Kiosks
While the Built Environment standard might address kiosks, they are mentioned in the IAR and therefore need to be defined here. There was no reference to a kiosk standard for compliance, and there should be. Without a standard and a definition of a “kiosk” access will not be provided in a consistent way.
Provisions in the standard should be strengthened to ensure that electronic self-serve kiosks are fully accessible to persons with disabilities, and to ensure that governments do not use public money to create, exacerbate or perpetuate barriers against persons with disabilities when purchasing kiosks or any other goods and services.
There needs to be explicit reference to and inclusion of point-of-sale kiosks, which is becoming a big issue.
The standard needs to be amended to require that electronic kiosks actually be accessible to persons with disabilities, not merely that accessibility be “considered” when they are designed or acquired, and that the standard set out specifics of the accessibility requirements to be included in these kiosks.
Training
Training should include training on document accessibility, web accessibility, how to provide workplace accommodations, and so on, not just service in general.
Exemptions
The IAR provides too many exemptions.
Information & Communications
The IAR incorrectly assumes all people with disabilities have access to the internet. The IAR needs to be amended to require that any document or information be made available, on request, in an accessible format, whether or not it is also available on the organization’s website. Some members stated that it was an extra burden on them to always be required to ask for accessible formats. Key documents should be pro-actively available in at least three formats going forward: print, PDF and DAISY.
The IAR also needs to be amended to fully address all information and communication barriers in both provincial and municipal elections, with time lines that ensure that the next municipal and provincial elections in Ontario will be fully free of information and communication barriers.
The proposed timelines are so far off that by the time they are fully implemented, things will have changed tremendously. Practices that have became the norm will become obsolete. For example: classroom textbooks are being replaced by videos and other interactive methods of teaching. “Text books" may cease to exist. Students should have materials at the same time as other students. Anything less is discriminatory.
Most documents are typed into email or a Word and then converted to PDF. Content can even be shared through notepad. Why should newspapers and magazines be exempt? Documents at the time of print should be available in an accessible format. There is no reason that they couldn't be created as part of a unified publishing method, especially since the technology exists. if Documents they should be available in at least three formats: print, PDF, and DAISY. It is easy, low cost and technologically feasible. This provides choice for the end user.
There is no mention of plain language for documents. Plain language is essential for many people to access information. Plain language helps people with developmental disabilities, some people with learning disabilities, people who do not speak English or French as their first language, people who are culturally Deaf and use sign language, among others. The more important the information, the more important it is to put it into plain language.
Braille is used by a number of our members and so there must be a provision to include Braille as an alternate format. Key documents should be prepared in Braille simultaneously when released (e.g., report summaries) and with others prepared in Braille-ready formats to enable prompt response to requests.
Video
The IAR does not address captioning and alternate formats (such as ASL video) for persons who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing. As the population ages, more people will become hard of hearing and will benefit from captioning.
Some people who use ASL have difficulty understanding English or French printed material, since the vocabulary and syntax is very different. With the aging population, more people will not be able to hear, and onus should be on service providers to do it. The IAR is silent, ironically, about the accessibility needs of Ontarians with hearing disabilities.
Websites
WCAG 2.0 Level A is a very low standard, and one that can be implemented without difficulty. The difference between Level A and Level AA (double A) is not great from a technology perspective, but makes an enormous difference for many of our members.
There is no onus placed on web developers to ensure their sites are accessible. If the regulation required that web developers take a lead, it would strengthen their accountability for the products they create and accessibility would be in place from the ground up.
The proposed IAR timelines for website implementation will make any standard obsolete by the time the deadline is reached. This means that persons with disabilities will never enjoy the same right as their non-disabled peers to access information on the internet – and yet it is technically possible to do so: Australia recently announced their intention to implement Level AA. Their demographics and economic situation is very similar to Ontario. If it can be done “down under,” why not here in Ontario?
In Denmark, internet access has just been declared a human right. Ontario should be leading. We are among the highest users of technology in the developed world. The standard for the government must be raised so that Ontario can be pointed to as a leader and example.
Any organization with a website and more than 20 staff should be able to construct and maintain an accessible website. Documents available through websites should be posted in at least two formats: PDF and DAISY.