Weeks ago, the Ontario Government failed to meet a legislated deadline to appoint an Independent Review of AODA implementation.  Since that failure, there has been silence from the Government on the issue.  That silence has now been broken.  

In a media release dated June 18, 2013, Eric Hoskins, the Minister responsible, wrote that “The Ontario Government has not appointed an Independent Review or even made an announcement because the Government itself has a disability.  

“We appreciate some people will ask how an entire Government can have a disability.  First, our preferred terminology is that the Government is disabled. 
 
“In any event, when it was pointed out by community groups that we failed to meet the deadline to appoint the new Independent Review, we were shocked. 

Even though community groups had pressured us for months in advance, the deadline somehow just came and went.  And it was even during National Access Awareness Week.  The situation, when pointed out to us, was so awful that the Ontario Government was stunned speechless.   

“And, anticipating the criticism that we could have written something, the Ontario Government was also stunned writeless.   

“The Government is embarrassed about these failures and is claiming disabilities in speech and writing.  We must go to the core of these failures.  And that core is that the Government appears to have mental health challenges.   

“The Government feels read bad it has violated its own law.  Why would we say one thing and do another?  To understand why, we have we have hired psychologists familiar with The Three Faces of Eve, given that the Government appears to suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder—one personality for community advocates, another for the business community, another for the legislature, and so on.     

“Naturally, everyone must understand that therapy takes time.  The healing has begun.  One of our personalities will get back to you on the Government’s progress.  And about AODA, too.”   

Next:  Secret Green Plan For Legislature: Burn AODA Forms For Heat.

The Kitchener-Waterloo Disabilities and Human Rights Group has sent a letter to the Hon. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment, outlining their concerns with the AODA review process. The group has asked the provincial government to move forward with the independent review to assess whether the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act is working effectively to meet the needs of Ontarians with disabilities.

Hon Eric Hoskins
Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment
803 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto ON M6C 1B9
Phone: 416-656-0943
Fax: 416-656-0875
Email:
ehoskins.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
 
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Dear Mr. Hoskins:

The Disabilities and Human Rights Group Kitchener Waterloo is very concerned that the
Provincial Government is now past the May 31, 2013 deadline for an Independent Review of the
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act (AODA) implementation.

It is important that the Ontario government follow the legislated requirements for a
comprehensive review of the effectiveness of this Act and regulations. This review is essential
to assess whether the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act is working effectively to
meet the needs of Ontarians with disabilities.

As adults with varying challenges, we experience daily barriers that limit our ability to full
community participation. Regular reviews of the AODA are vital to ensure the province achieves
complete accessibility by 2025.

The Disabilities and Human Rights Group is keen to provide their perspective and look forward
to hearing how communities can contribute to the review process.

Inclusivity is good for all people. We appreciate the leadership of the Provincial Government in
enacting the AODA and eagerly await its full implementation for a totally accessible Ontario.

Sincerely,

Brad Ullner,
On behalf of the Disabilities and Human Rights Group Kitchener Waterloo
Cc: Premier Kathleen Wynne
John Milloy MPP (Lib) Kitchener Centre Riding
Michael Harris MPP (PC) Kitchener-Conestoga
Catherine Fife MPP (NDP) Kitchener Waterloo

Reproduced from http://www.waterlooregion.org/is-the-accessibility-for-ontarians-with-disability-act-aoda-meeting-the-needs-of-people-with-disabil

SUMMARY

Ontario provincial by-elections will be called in the next few weeks, arising out of recent resignations from the Ontario Legislature. As our latest effort to make elections in Ontario fully accessible for voters with disabilities, we wrote Elections Ontario on June 7, 2013. We urged Elections Ontario to deploy accessible telephone and internet voting in these upcoming by-elections. Elections Ontario is the non-partisan public agency responsible for administering provincial elections in Ontario, and for ensuring that the voting process is fully accessible to all voters with disabilities. Our June 7, 2013 letter to Elections Ontario is set out below.

Many voters, such as those with vision loss, dyslexia, or certain dexterity limitations, cannot independently mark a paper ballot at a polling station in private, and verify that the ballot was marked as they wished. Until now, Elections Ontario has not provided these voters fully accessible alternative ways to vote that are equally available all over the province, and that allow any voter at any polling station or elsewhere to mark their own ballot in private and verify their selection. Telephone and internet voting could achieve this for many of these voters with disabilities. It would also be popular for many other voters, including those with no disability.

At present Ontario’s Elections Act includes an unjustified, draconian ban on the use of telephone and internet voting in a general Ontario election. However, as an exception, it permits Elections Ontario to test these accessible voting alternatives in Ontario by-elections, any time after January 1, 2012.

We earlier urged Elections Ontario to be ready to deploy telephone and internet voting as soon as possible in 2012. Back on December 3, 2010, Elections Ontario committed to us in writing that it planned to be ready to test these accessible voting technologies by January 1, 2012.

Flying in the face of that commitment, Elections Ontario later told us in writing on May 22, 2012 that it categorically refused to deploy telephone and/or internet voting in any by-elections in 2012. There were two by-elections in 2012 where they could have been tested.

We are concerned that Elections Ontario not miss this next opportunity to test these technologies. The Elections Act lets Elections Ontario recommend to a Committee of the Legislature that it lift the absolute ban on the use of telephone and internet voting in a general Ontario election, but only after Elections Ontario has tested these voting options in a by-election. If Elections Ontario doesn’t test them in a by-election, we are left with this unfair and unjustified bar to fully accessible voting for many people with disabilities.

There is no reason why Elections Ontario cannot be ready to test these accessible voting technologies now. The Legislature gave it the power to do so in a by-election. Elections Ontario says it has been studying telephone and internet voting for the past three years. Ontario municipalities like Cobourg have successfully deployed these voting technologies in municipal elections.

In our June 7, 2013 letter to Elections Ontario, we raise a number of other important questions. For example, we ask whether Elections Ontario will be delivering its mandatory report to the Ontario Legislature on telephone and internet voting by June 30, 2013, the legal deadline which the Legislature has set. We also ask whether Elections Ontario will immediately release that report to the public, in a fully accessible format, as soon as it delivers that report to the Legislature.

Our June 7, 2013 letter includes links to key earlier correspondence between Elections Ontario and us on this issue. To learn more about our long and winding multi-year campaign for fully accessible voting in Ontario, visit http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/ElectionInOntario.asp

In other accessibility news, fully 10 days have passed since the legal deadline for the Ontario Government to appoint an Independent Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The Government is still violating that law. It is thereby setting a terrible example for other organizations that have to obey that law. You can read our May 31, 2013 guest column in the on-line edition of the Toronto Star on the Government’s failure to appoint an Independent Review of the Disabilities Act by the May 31, 2013 deadline by visiting http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/05312013.asp

As well, a troubling 139 days have passed since we wrote the Ontario Government to ask for its plans to keep its pledge to effectively enforce the AODA. We have received no substantive response to that inquiry. To learn more about our request for the Ontario Government’s plans to enforce the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, visit http://is.gd/XdwlVG

We welcome your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com
Follow us on Twitter and get others to do so as well! Twitter.com/aodaalliance

Please “like” our Facebook page and share our updates:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Accessibility-for-Ontarians-with-Disabilities-Act-Alliance/106232039438820

To sign up for, or unsubscribe from AODA Alliance e-mail updates, write to: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn more at: www.aodaalliance.org

*****

TEXT OF AODA ALLIANCE’S JUNE 7 2013 LETTER TO ELECTIONS ONTARIO

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE
1929 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M4G 3E8
email: aodafeedback@gmail.com
Visit: www.aodalliance.org

June 7, 2013

Via Email
Mr. Greg Essensa, Chief Electoral Officer
Elections Ontario
51 Rolark Drive
Scarborough, Ontario
M1R 3B1
facsimile (416) 326-6200
email greg.essensa@elections.on.ca

Dear Sir,

Re: Promoting Accessible Voting for Voters with Disabilities by Implementing Telephone and Internet Voting in Ontario Elections

We are writing to follow up on the March 11, 2013 letter to us from Deputy Chief Electoral Officer Lauren Wells. Our December 7, 2012 letter to Elections Ontario is available at http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/12072012.asp . Elections Ontario’s March 11, 2013 letter to the AODA Alliance is available at http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/06062013.asp

We regret that the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer’s March 11, 2013 letter left a number of our important questions totally or partially unanswered. See http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/06062013.asp

We are eager for your responses to those unanswered questions and to the following:

1. Will Elections Ontario be submitting its final report on telephone and internet voting by the mandatory June 30, 2013 deadline? On what specific date will it be submitted?

2. Will Elections Ontario post that entire final report including all supporting appendices or background papers on the Elections Ontario website immediately upon submitting it to the Legislature? We ask that the report be posted immediately, and that there be no lag time before it is available to the public. We also ask that it be posted on line, in a fully accessible MS Word format. We also ask that it be downloadable as one document, rather than our having to click on sequential pages or chapters to be able to acquire it in a fully accessible format.

3. As you know, there are now some vacancies in the Ontario Legislature. By-elections will have to be held in the coming months. Will Elections Ontario be testing telephone and/or internet voting in any or all of these by-elections? If not, why not? Elections Ontario has had fully three years to be ready to test them.

We strongly urge that Elections Ontario use these by-elections to test the accessible voting options of telephone and internet voting. Back in 2010, the Ontario Legislature gave Elections Ontario the authority and mandate to test such accessible voting options as telephone and internet voting starting in January 2012. Elections Ontario has said it has been studying these options over the past three years.

Elections Ontario had committed back on December 3, 2010 that it planned to be ready to test those accessible voting options in a by-election in 2012. Your December 3, 2010 letter stated:

“We plan to be ready for this testing in by-elections held after January 1, 2012 as there are currently no vacancies in the Legislative Assembly and it will be dissolved less than a year from now.”

Elections Ontario’s December3, 2010 letter to the AODA Alliance is available at http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/04082011.asp

Despite this, Elections Ontario told us on May 22, 2012 that it would not test telephone and internet voting any time in 2012. Elections Ontario’s May 22, 2012 letter to the AODA Alliance is available at http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/05242012.asp

As you know, the Elections Act requires Elections Ontario to test these accessible voting technologies in a by-election before it can recommend to a Committee of the Ontario Legislature to lift the draconian legislative ban on the use of those accessible voting technologies in a general provincial election. We have told Elections Ontario several times over the past three years that it is critical to voters with disabilities that Elections Ontario test these in a by-election as soon as possible.

We reaffirm our view that all voters, and not just voters with disabilities, will welcome and benefit from telephone and internet voting. They have been successfully deployed in Ontario at the municipal level. We still await a complete and informative answer to our December 7, 2012 letter to you, in which we asked for more specifics on your earlier reluctance to test these accessible voting technologies in a provincial by-election at any time in 2012.

4. In the 2010 amendments to the Elections Act, instead of approving telephone and internet voting as we requested, the Ontario Government proposed amendments to require deployment of a limited number of stand-alone accessible voting machines during an Ontario election or by-election. We have always felt that these were an inadequate alternative. The fact that fewer than 200 voters across Ontario used them in the 2011 Ontario general election amply proves our point.

We wish to know if you personally told the Ontario Government that the stand-alone accessible voting machines which the Legislature approved in 2010 for deployment in future elections, would cost $10,000 per machine, and/or $15,000 per machine (including training costs). In our December 7, 2012 letter to you, we asked about this. In her March 11, 2013 letter to us, sent on your behalf, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer Lauren Wells merely stated: “I am not aware of the source of that information.” She only spoke about her personal knowledge. That left unanswered the question whether you, as Chief Electoral Officer, gave that costing information to the Government, or if you know who did.

We want to know if that costing information came from you, and if not, if you could tell us who provided it to the Government. In any event, we want to know what costing information anyone gave the Ontario Government, on behalf of or at the request of Elections Ontario.

Liberal MPP Greg Sorbara, formerly chair of the Legislature’s Select Committee on Elections, spearheaded the amendments to the Elections Act in 2010 that included the amendments addressing voting accessibility generally, and these new stand-alone voting machines. We know that he worked closely with you on these amendments, and relied on advice from you. As but one illustration of how this came up, during Standing Committee hearings at the Legislature on March 31, 2010 into proposed accessibility amendments to the Elections Act, Mr. Sorbara asked the following to a representative of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind:

“Mr. Greg Sorbara: My question is along the lines of my friend Mr. Prue. Let me put it this way: In the work that we did in the select committee, we found that, currently, the voting machine of the type that Ontario is going to be using costs, with the training associated with it, about $15,000. As Mr. Prue said, there are about 15,000 locations – polling places – in the province of Ontario for a general election. If you do the math, that’s $225 million to supply all polling places with this kind of capacity. Does the CNIB realistically suggest to the government, which is looking at $20 billion in red ink, that to assist the disability community its first priority should be to spend $225 million on voting machines for the next election?”

During earlier proceedings of the Legislature’s Select Committee on Elections, chaired by Mr. Sorbara, you appeared and gave a detailed presentation about the proposed stand-alone accessible voting machine.

We look forward to hearing back from you on these issues as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

David Lepofsky, CM, O. Ont.
Chair, AODA Alliance

cc: Premier Kathleen Wynne, kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment, ehoskins.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Wendy Tilford, Deputy Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment wendy.tilford@ontario.ca
Ann Hoy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Accessibility Directorate, ann.hoy@ontario.ca
Tim Hudak, Leader of the Official Opposition, tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org
Andrea Horwath, Third Party Leader, ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca

Eric Hoskins, the Minister responsible for implementing AODA legislation designed to ensure reasonable access in Ontario by 2025, announced on June 7, 2013 that the delay in appointing an Independent Review of AODA implementation was part of a larger government plan on access for people who have disabilities. 

“The delay is a little trial we named The Hindenburg Project.  We sent up into the sky the possibility of implementing AODA and then blew it up.  We wanted to see how people would react.” 

Minister Hoskins explained, “The last Independent Review said we were not doing enough and needed to show leadership. We thought about that a lot.  How can we show the community, including the business community, how serious we are about implementing AODA?  The answer?  Demonstrate the Government’s intentions by delaying or perhaps not even appointing an Independent Review at all. 

“Ignoring our own law will help speed AODA implementation.” 

When asked how, Minister Hoskins stated “It is very simple.  The drive for AODA came from years of pressure from the community.  This is an example of the free market at work.  The Government should not interfere with this wonderful process, but instead continue to inspire the business community and service providers. 

“We do have plans for an Independent Review.  The delay has been due to the sweeping new powers we will provide to the new and improved Independent Review. 

With its new powers the Independent Review and the person we appoint will be able to sweep criticisms away.  In fact, we have already purchased a very large rug to be lifted when we sweep the criticisms.” 

Minister Hoskins also stated that “This is just the beginning.  We have gotten away with ignoring the law.  New plans are being developed for other laws we can ignore. 

First off, of course, we are looking at MLAs’ expense account requirements. 

Next, which conflict of interest legislation is proving way too conflicting?  We have many new, exciting plans!” 

The Minister promised there would be further announcements when the Government felt like informing people. 

Next:  what could possibly be next?? 

SUMMARY

There will be by-elections coming up soon in Ontario. With a minority Government in the Ontario Legislature, a general election could happen any time. Over a million Ontario voters have a disability. In the next Ontario general election or by-elections, will all Ontario voters with disabilities at last be able to mark their own ballot in private and verify their choice, for the first time in Ontario history?

Elections Ontario is the independent provincial government agency responsible for administering provincial elections in Ontario and for making sure they are fully accessible to voters with disabilities. Elections Ontario is required by law to submit a report to the Ontario Legislature by June 30, 2013 on alternative voting technology for voters with disabilities. In plain language, this means options like telephone voting and internet voting, as alternative options to the traditional paper ballot, marked in a voting booth at a provincial polling station during a provincial election.

Here is yet another instalment in the seemingly-unending saga of our efforts to make voting in Ontario fully accessible to voters with disabilities in Ontario. Back on December 7, 2012, we last wrote Elections Ontario to give feedback on our concerns regarding barriers facing voters with disabilities, and to ask a series of important questions. You can read the AODA Alliance’s December 7, 2012 letter to Elections Ontario by visiting http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/12072012.asp

As the latest news, Elections Ontario wrote us back on March 11, 2013. We set out that letter below. With that letter, Elections Ontario sent us the PowerPoint presentation it presented to the AODA Alliance delegation that met with senior Elections Ontario officials back on November 19, 2012. We also set out the contents of that PowerPoint presentation below. Elections Ontario’s latest letter leaves several important questions unanswered. The long road to accessible voting for voters with disabilities seems to have no end in sight.

MORE DETAILS

1. Our Unanswered Questions

As has too often happened in the past, Elections Ontario leaves a number of our important questions unanswered, even though it took fully three months to compose its response to us. This is especially troubling since Elections Ontario has repeatedly claimed to be committed to accessible voting for voters with disabilities, and to be open, accountable and transparent in its work.

* In our December 7, 2012 letter, we asked Elections Ontario for informative specifics on why it has been so reluctant to test telephone and internet voting during an Ontario by-election. The Elections Act gives Elections Ontario a mandate to test this accessible voting technology in a provincial by-election, starting in 2012. Elections Ontario doesn’t answer this important question. In our December 7, 2012 letter, we wrote:

“On reflection, we believe that it is not sufficient for Elections Ontario to simply keep invoking the non-specific refrain that telephone and internet voting is “complex” and that there are “risks.” This was known when the Legislature enacted the recent amendments on this topic in the Elections Act. Operating an election is complex and has risks. We, voters with disabilities, and indeed all the public deserve to know specifically and in detail what risks and complexities have been addressed, and which ones remain outstanding. We deserve to know why telephone and internet voting can successfully work in Cobourg and Markham, Ontario for municipal elections, while voters in those same communities cannot be allowed to bear the same complexities and risks during an Ontario election. What exactly did you learn during the RFP process that you did not know before it, that led you to decide not to proceed with a test in 2012?”

* We asked Elections Ontario to explore other options for testing telephone and internet voting, apart from trying it out during a provincial by-election, and to let us know what conclusions it reached about this possibility. Their response says nothing about this. Our December 7, 2012 letter included:

“Beyond the foregoing, we understand that you face a practical problem when trying to test telephone and internet voting in a by-election. By-elections are typically called at the last minute. Elections Ontario is not necessarily given prior notice about them before they are called. To get around that problem, we therefore asked you at our meeting to explore other ways to test internet and/or telephone voting, other than at a by-election. Even if an alternative avenue for testing telephone and internet voting would not meet the Elections Act’s precondition for lifting the ban on these accessible voting technologies, it could help you break this ongoing log-jam. You agreed to consider this.

While we would prefer not to wait to 2014 for this technology to be tested, one avenue for Elections Ontario to test it could be during the next municipal elections. Some Ontario municipalities have already successfully used these options for voting at the municipal level, and expect to do so again in 2014. Elections Ontario could monitor that to gather all the information it needs. A second option would be for Elections Ontario to stage a fictional by-election at a date that Elections Ontario chooses, and to invite the public to use telephone and internet voting, to see how it works. A third option is to offer these voting options in one or more ridings in a general election, if one occurs in 2013, for example, but not as an actual way to cast one’s vote. It would instead be a test, to run in parallel to the actual vote. By that option, anyone who takes part in the pilot must still cast a vote using existing avenues under the Elections Act at their polling station, at an advance poll, or by mail-in ballot.

By any and all of these options for testing telephone and internet voting, there would be no threat to the actual security of the vote in an Ontario election. There must be other ways beyond these three options, to test it. We welcome a response from you on what options you explore and what conclusions you reach.”

* We asked Elections Ontario to investigate what banks do to protect against hacking into IVR systems i.e. automated telephone answering systems that give you options to press 1 for one option, press 2 for another option, and so on. Elections Ontario did not answer this. We wrote: “We suggested at our meeting that you should explore the measures that those organizations use to protect IVR systems from being hacked or disrupted. Those organizations would be an obvious source of expertise and experience. Hackers would likely wish to steal a bank account well before they would want to steal a vote. Moreover, those organizations’ IVR systems operate 24/7 all year, and not just during the short window of an election campaign.

We understood from our meeting that you will look into this. We are eager to hear back from you whether that investigation adequately addresses this concern.”

* We asked Elections Ontario when it sets the preliminary voter’s list for an election. It didn’t answer. Our December 7, 2012 letter stated: “Fourth, your business case indicates that telephone or internet voting would only be available to those who are already on the preliminary voters’ list. We were concerned about this restriction. We asked you to clarify when that list is set. ”

* We asked Elections Ontario to make a preliminary report on telephone and internet voting in February 2013, well before the final June 30, 2013 deadline. Its letter does not answer this. Moreover, Elections Ontario has not told us why it wouldn’t make the requested interim report. Our December 7, 2012 letter stated:

“At our meeting, we noted that your final report on telephone and internet voting must be delivered to the Legislature no later than June 30, 2013. We have been urging Elections Ontario for over two years to get that report delivered well before that end date. The Elections Act does not require Elections Ontario to wait until June 30, 2013 to deliver this report.

At our meeting, we noted that a spring election is a real possibility in Ontario. There may not be a sitting Legislature to receive your report on June 30, 2013. We asked if Elections Ontario could release an interim report in February 2013, in the event that your final report is then not ready. Voters deserve to know as much as possible about the state of your work, and about any final or tentative conclusions you have reached, at that time. Whether that interim report is formally delivered to the Legislature or is simply posted on your website, voters with disabilities and all voters would be able to learn where you stand at that time on this issue.”

* We asked Elections Ontario to re-constitute its Accessible Elections Advisory Committee that it had set up at public expense, and later disbanded. We have no answer. Our December 7, 2012, letter stated: “We recommended at this meeting that you reconstitute your recently-disbanded disability advisory committee. Elections Ontario only formed that committee in 2010. You confirmed that that committee was very helpful and constructive. We confirmed that its work is not yet finished.”

* We asked for a follow-up meeting in January or February 2013, to give further feedback on information that Elections Ontario gathered, before it formulated its final report. Elections Ontario appears to be prepared to meet us after it renders its final report. While that is helpful, it means we have lost out on the critical opportunity to give final input at the vital stage when Elections Ontario already has in hand all the data it needs, and is deciding what to recommend in its final report. Our December 7, 2012 letter stated:

“At this meeting, we asked for a further meeting with you in January or February 2013 after you have gathered most or all of your input on telephone and internet voting. We would welcome this to have a further discussion before you finalize your positions.”

2. Further Reflections

* We are deeply troubled that Elections Ontario took the full three years it was given by the Ontario Legislature back in 2010 to prepare its report to the Ontario Legislature on telephone and internet voting. This leisurely pace for preparing such a report is unjustified. It simply delays a workable solution to the barriers which too many voters with disabilities face when trying to exercise their fundamental democratic right to vote.

* Where Elections Ontario did opt to answer some of our questions in its March 11, 2013 letter to us, one answer sticks out like a sore thumb. Back in 2010, when we were pressing the Legislature to amend the Elections Act to ensure that voters with disabilities could enjoy the full right to accessible voting, the Ontario Government hitched its horse to one option alone, namely a stand-alone accessible voting machine in a polling station. It adopted that option on the recommendation of Elections Ontario, and after Elections Ontario tested it in a by-election. Clearly all the information that the Government got about this device came from Elections Ontario.

During those 2010 debates in the Legislature, the Government several times threw around the price of $10,000 per accessible voting machine or $15,000 per voting machine plus related training. It did so to support its decision to only require a minimum of one accessible voting machine per riding. It argued that at that high cost, it was simply too expensive to put one such machine in every polling station. In sharp contrast, the City of Chicago and the related Cook County has one accessible voting machine in each of thousands of polling stations.

As but one illustration of how this came up, during Standing Committee hearings at the Legislature on March 31, 2010 into proposed accessibility amendments to the Elections Act, Liberal MPP Greg Sorbara (who earlier chaired the Legislature’s Select Committee on Elections) asked the following to a representative of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind:

“Mr. Greg Sorbara: My question is along the lines of my friend Mr. Prue. Let me put it this way: In the work that we did in the select committee, we found that, currently, the voting machine of the type that Ontario is going to be using costs, with the training associated with it, about $15,000. As Mr. Prue said, there are about 15,000 locations—polling places—in the province of Ontario for a general election. If you do the math, that’s $225 million to supply all polling places with this kind of capacity. Does the CNIB realistically suggest to the government, which is looking at $20 billion in red ink, that to assist the disability community its first priority should be to spend $225 million on voting machines for the next election?”

During earlier proceedings of the Legislature’s Select Committee on Elections, chaired by senior Liberal MPP Greg Sorbara, Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa appeared and gave a detailed presentation about the proposed accessible voting machine.

Since those legislative debates, and as a result of our pressing this issue, Elections Ontario has released costing data. It showed that that $10,000 per machine figure was a gross overstatement. It is obviously troubling when a Government uses inaccurate and over-inflated costing information to claim that more effectively meeting an accessibility need costs too much.

We asked Elections Ontario where the Government got the $10,000 per machine figure that it threw around back in 2010. In its March 11, 2013 letter to us, Elections Ontario surprisingly claims not to know. It stated:

“You inquired about the differences in actual costs and costs that were discussed during Bill 231 debates. I understand that at one point during the debate a figure of $10,000 per machine was indicated. I am not aware of the source of that information.”

This is simply hard to believe. Back in 2010, it was obvious that the Government was relying exclusively on the advice and experience of Elections Ontario in adopting that accessible voting machine. When Elections Ontario invited us to take part in a test of that machine, it was clear that Elections Ontario was dealing directly with the company that provides it. We know that Elections Ontario, and especially the Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa, was in regular direct contact with Liberal MPP Greg Sorbara, who had lead carriage of this issue for the Government in the Legislature.

Elections Ontario’s March 11, 2013 letter to us was from The Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Lauren Wells, not from the Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa. It was Mr. Essensa whom we personally wrote and asked about this costing information, back on December 7, 2012. Ms. Wells simply says “I am not aware of the source of that information.”

That leaves glaringly unanswered the key question whether chief electoral Officer Greg Essensa, the key player at Elections Ontario on this issue, is himself aware of the source of that inaccurate costing information. This is quite disquieting. Elections Ontario owes us and the public a complete answer to our inquiry.

* In sharp contrast to Elections Ontario’s lax approach to action on telephone or internet voting, Australia appears to be moving ahead in this context much more quickly. It is about to use a form of telephone voting in an upcoming election. Learn more about Australia’s plans for telephone voting by visiting http://t.co/Yg3iOCPfIS. Ontario voters deserve nothing less. Many Ontario voters without disabilities would no doubt welcome and enjoy the option of voting via telephone or internet. Our proposal for telephone voting would go further than Australia’s, but Australia still appears to be far ahead of Ontario.

* We hope and trust Elections Ontario will at least meet the legal deadline of delivering its final report to the Legislature by June 30, 2013, as the Elections Act requires. We remain deeply troubled that the Ontario Government remains in direct violation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It still has not appointed the mandatory Independent Review of that law. The legal deadline for making that appointment was back on May 31, 2013. To learn more about the Ontario Government’s violation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, visit http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/05312013.asp

* We also hope and trust that Elections Ontario will make its entire final report on telephone and internet voting, including all supporting appendices and documents immediately available by June 30, 2013 on its website in an accessible format, and not only in PDF format.

* We know that by-elections will soon be called in Ontario. We very strongly urge that Elections Ontario deploy telephone and internet voting in these by-elections. Elections Ontario committed to us many months ago that it would be ready to test these options in a by-election in 2012. It has now been three years since the Legislature gave it that mandate. There are no excuses for missing this next opportunity to test these accessible options in an Ontario by-election.

* You can learn all about our multi-year campaign for fully accessible voting in Ontario elections and about election promises that have been made to us on this issue, by visiting

http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/ElectionInOntario.asp

We always urge you to send us your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

Follow us on Twitter and get others to do so as well! Twitter.com/aodaalliance

Please “like” our Facebook page and share our updates:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Accessibility-for-Ontarians-with-Disabilities-Act-Alliance/106232039438820

To sign up for, or unsubscribe from AODA Alliance e-mail updates, write to: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn more at: www.aodaalliance.org

TEXT OF ELECTIONS ONTARIO’S MARCH 11, 2013 LETTER TO THE AODA ALLIANCE

Loren Wells
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer
Elections Ontario
51 Rolark Drive
Toronto, Ontario
M4G 3E8
416-326-6300

March 11, 2013

Mr. David Lepofsky, CM, O.Ont.
Chair, AODA Alliance
1929 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M4G 3E8

Dear Mr. Lepofsky,

The Chief Electoral Officer, Greg Essensa, has asked me to respond to questions you asked at our meeting of November 19, 2012 and in your letter addressed to him, dated December 7, 2012.
First, I would like to thank you for meeting with us as part of our consultation on alternative voting technology. We appreciated receiving your feedback at the meeting and the additional comments and questions you provided on the subject in your subsequent letter. We have reviewed your feedback in tandem with feedback we have received from other stakeholders.
As you are aware, the Chief Electoral Officer will be submitting a report on his review of alternative voting technology to the Legislative Assembly by June 30, 2013. The report will include themes that have emerged from the consultation process. After our report on the alternative voting technology review is tabled, we would be pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you again.
As you requested, we enclose a Word version of the power point presentation we gave on November 19th. With respect to your request for our concurrence that the AODA Alliance should post the Business Case on your website, I note that we plan to include the Business Case as an appendix to our final report in 2013. Once the report is tabled, the Business Case will be available online as well as in the Legislative Assembly’s library. As such, we prefer to continue following our current approach of providing copies upon request.
With respect to your comments about the accessibility of our website and documents available there, we are exploring your recommendations for addressing website accessibility issues. Thank you for your advice that Word documents are more accessible because they can be opened using a variety of electronic devices. We will continue to endeavour to post documents in Word instead of, or in addition to, PDFs.
You asked for some additional information about Assistive Voting Technology. I can tell you that the actual cost of using Assistive Voting Technology during the 2011 General Election was $1,052,140. This cost includes the equipment, ballots, delivery, training and support.
In an email to you just prior to the provincial election in 2011, responding to your request for this information, we advised you that the estimated cost was $875,000. The actual cost is higher than the estimated cost because of elements of the process, many of which allowed us to provide more service, such as an increase in training locations, ballots, four extra pieces of equipment, onsite user acceptance testing, and other elements. For example, in the Electoral District of Algoma-Manitoulin, Assistive Voting Technology was available in four offices across that district.
You inquired about the differences in actual costs and costs that were discussed during Bill 231 debates. I understand that at one point during the debate a figure of $10,000 per machine was indicated. I am not aware of the source of that information.
You also asked for a clear statement regarding problems with the Assistive Voting Technology that were reported to Elections Ontario about the use of the equipment.
As background, Elections Ontario invites feedback from all electors. During the 2011 General Election, Elections Ontario received more than 20,000 customer service feedback forms and a few hundred emails or phone calls from among the nine million electors who were eligible to vote. Of these, approximately 700 electors provided feedback specific to accessible customer service.
While a relatively small amount of feedback was provided about access by persons with disabilities to election processes, Elections Ontario takes this feedback very seriously. Where negative feedback was received, Elections Ontario typically used the information to fix problems that could affect subsequent voters or is making use of the information to review policies and procedures.
Of the approximately 700 pieces of feedback on accessibility issues, 42 people provided feedback pertaining to the Assistive Voting Technology and related ballot tabulators. Of these, 22 provided positive comments and 20 provided advice or negative feedback.
The Assistive Voting Technology was used by 161 voters, and the related ballot tabulators counted these ballots as well as all others cast in returning offices during the advance voting period and the final five days of special ballot voting before election day.
With respect to the 22 positive pieces of feedback we received, electors liked the electronic system. Some commented on the informative and courteous service they received from election staff and some thought the Assistive Voting Technology and tabulators were a step forward. They found the process quick and smooth. One person indicated they only voted because Assistive Voting Technology was available.
The following is a summary of the 20 pieces of advice or negative feedback we received regarding Assistive Voting Technology and related tabulators:
• Five voters appreciated the availability of Assistive Voting Technology but would like to see it made available during area advance polls or on election day.
• Three electors switched to a paper ballot voting method because of technical issues, issues related to customer service delivery, or the elector’s time constraints.
• Another voter recommended that we retain pencil and paper voting because of unidentified computer problems he or she experienced.
• Four voters suggested improvements to the Assistive Voting Technology equipment, based on their experiences using the equipment. This includes recommendations to explain instructions at the beginning while avoiding lengthy instructions, raise the pre-set volume level and increase the pre-set speed, and provide key pads instead of paddles.
• One voter had a poor voting experience because of the placement of the Assistive Voting Technology in the returning office and noise related to other voting activities at the same location.
• Six voters had concerns related to the tabulators used to count all of the ballots that were cast at returning offices when Assistive Voting Technology was in use. For instance, one voter recommended that voters be allowed to insert their completed ballots into the tabulator instead of this task being done by the Deputy Returning Officer. It is not known whether any of the six voters used the Assistive Voting Technology to vote or whether they marked their ballots by hand.
Election staff was usually able to quickly remedy problems, sometimes by receiving support through our office.
Where comments were received about customer service or instruction-related issues with regard to the Assistive Voting Technology, Elections Ontario provided detailed directions to Returning Officers and staff supervising the equipment. This included directions to advise Assistive Voting Technology users about the overall voting process and outline the required steps to receive audio verification of their choice of candidate after the ballot was printed.
We will continue to consider ways of improving the use of Assistive Voting Technology as we plan for future elections.
In closing, I would like to thank you for meeting with us on November 19th to discuss alternative voting technologies. We look forward to being in touch with you after the Chief Electoral Officer tables his report later this year.
Yours truly,

Loren A. Wells
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer

Attachment

cc: Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne, Premier
kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Hon. John Milloy, Minister, Community & Social Services
john.milloy@ontario.ca
Dalton McGuinty, MPP
mcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Marguerite Rappolt, Deputy Minister, Community & Social Services
marg.rappolt@ontario.ca
Ellen Waxman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Accessibility Directorate
Ellen.Waxman@ontario.ca
Tim Hudak, Leader, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario
tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org
Andrea Horwath, Leader, New Democratic Party of Ontario
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca

*****

TEXT OF ELECTIONS ONTARIO’S NOVEMBER 19, 2012 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ON TELEPHONE AND INTERNET VOTING

Slide 1
Elections Ontario
Alternative Voting Technology Consultation
Presentation to: AODA Alliance
November 19, 2012

Slide 2
Background
Election Act, Section 44.3
The Chief Electoral Officer shall conduct a review of alternative voting technologies, prepare a report of the review and, on or before June 30, 2013, submit the report to the Speaker of the Assembly.

Notes:
In line with the Chief Electoral Officer’s commitment to modernizing the voting process, Elections Ontario has done extensive analysis and research on alternative voting technology solutions such as online and telephone voting. There have been a number of changes over the past few years, and Elections Ontario must constantly negotiate the balance of integrity and accessibility in every decision we make.

With any changes to the electoral process, we need to be able to balance the responsibility of delivering accessible elections to all Ontarians with a more flexible administrative model that ensures the integrity of the process. Voting in Ontario remains to be mostly supervised and on paper. Introducing an alternative voting stream would mark a significant change in the process, and it’s an ongoing challenge to improve access to the voting process, while underlining integrity.

In addition, it’s important to remember that this new stream would not be replacing any of our existing voting options. This would be an additional channel; voters could still continue to cast a paper ballot in person, using AVT, or remotely via a special ballot. The complexity of implementing an additional steam in parallel with our existing processes should not be underestimated.

Slide 3
Purpose of Consultation
Elections Ontario is seeking feedback on the network voting principles and research conclusions, which we will describe in detail later in the presentation, in order to help identify any remaining gaps.

This feedback will be used for further evaluation.

Themes arising from the consultation will be included in final report to be submitted to the Speaker of the Assembly

Notes:

Just to make sure we are all on the same page: Network voting is the term Elections Ontario uses for a means of both casting and counting votes electronically, based on the transmission of ballots and votes via telephones, private computer networks, or the Internet. Network voting is a subset of a broader range of alternative voting technologies.

As has been said, Elections Ontario is neutral about the findings of the review – we have not predetermined the results, and are open and receptive to feedback. We will work to incorporate the feedback received into our report and future approach, where possible.

The information we’re sharing with you here is gleaned primarily from the Research Summary and Business Case, as a way to ensure we’re all on the same page before diving into the discussion and comments on our principles and research conclusions.

Slide 4
Research
Initiated research in fall of 2010
Internal research / inter-jurisdictional consultation
Contracted external consultants with a high level of technical expertise
Developed principles
Ontario-focused research and risk analysis
Developed broad-based implementation options
Developed research conclusions
Determined that concluding the research conducted via the procurement process was not feasible prior to the report submission deadline.
Public consultation process underway

Notes:
Beginning in fall of 2010, Elections Ontario sought out and reviewed extensively the best-practices in network voting being implemented worldwide.
Elections Ontario conducted internal research and consulted with jurisdictions that have utilized or studied network voting methods. We held a summit where we brought together people from different jurisdictions, many from across Ontario, who have run elections using online or telephone voting.
We contracted with external consultants with exceptional technical expertise to conduct research and analysis regarding the suitability of network voting technologies for Ontario.
Over the course of several months and comprehensive research and analysis, they helped the organization to develop a set of electoral principles to be applied against all proposed alternative voting solutions.
Then, they developed a broad range of networked voting options to evaluate – from internet voting, to voting via text message, to biometric authentication.
From the above, we developed our current research conclusions. This research and analysis was the basis of our Network Voting Business Case.
The Business Case was the source for a second procurement process we undertook to determine if there was a vendor who could help us develop an end-to-end solution that would match our principles and fit with our election processes to be piloted in a by-election.
Throughout the research and procurement processes, there were several critical pre-determined points in the project at which Elections Ontario would make a decision whether to proceed with a pilot. “Off ramp” points were based on substantial risk assessment, depending on technical, cost, testing, or other assessments or reasons, including assessments of the specific electoral district and its geography where a by-election would be held.
In the spring of 2012, taking into consideration the key electoral principles and the possible off-ramp points, the Chief Electoral Officer determined that a pilot was not feasible in 2012.
The procurement process was a key learning experience and the lessons learned were invaluable.
It was decided to cancel the procurement at that time, in order to do further consultation and research before moving forward.
Our research shows that, above all, we need to move forward in measured steps, and this additional consultation is part of that effort.

Slide 5
Principles
Accessibility
One vote per voter
Voter authentication and authorization
Only count votes from valid voters
Individual verifiability
Voter privacy
Results validation
Service availability

Notes:
After carefully researching the best examples worldwide of network voting principles, our consultants helped the organization, over the course of several months, to arrive at these eight principles. These were chosen with the context of Ontario and Ontarian voters in mind. They reflect what we believe to be the most critical factors in the successful implementation of a network voting solution, and provide the best possible balance of access and integrity.

We want to emphasize that “security is the watchword.” We must have a secure system; these principles will ensure we protect the security and integrity of the electoral process, and provide us with a framework for measurable outcomes.

We define the principles as such:
Accessibility: The voting process is equally accessible to all eligible voters, including voters with disabilities. In any case, the voting process will be performed by the voter without requiring any assistance for making their selections. We chose not to restrict the process to any individual stakeholder group.

One vote per voter: Only one vote per voter is counted for obtaining the election results. This will be fulfilled even in the case where the voter is allowed to cast their vote on multiple occasions (in some systems, people can cast their vote multiple times, with only the last one being counted).

Voter authentication and authorization: The electoral process will ensure that before allowing a voter to cast a vote, that the identity of the voter is the same as claimed, and that the elector is eligible to vote.

Only count votes from valid voters: The electoral process shall ensure that the votes used in the counting process are the ones cast by valid eligible voters.

Individual verifiability: The voting process will provide means for the voter to verify that their vote has been properly deposited inside the virtual ballot box.

Voter privacy: The voting process will prevent at any stage of the election the ability to connect a voter and the ballots cast by the voter.

Results validation: The voting process will provide means for verifying if the results clearly represent the intention of the voters that participated in the voting process.

Service availability: The election process and any of its critical components (e.g., voter’s list information, cast votes, voting channel, etc.) will be available during the whole election period to voters, election managers, observers or any other actor involved in the process.

Slide 6
Extensive Broad-Based Research
As a result of preliminary research, we started with:
7 network voting mechanisms (i.e., internet voting, voting via SMS, digital television voting)
6 means of voter authentication (i.e., biometrics, passwords, identification cards)
This produced 10 feasible network voting options, which were measured against Elections Ontario’s principles, and evaluated for cost, complexity and convenience factors. This created a shortlist of four options.

Notes:
Preliminary research identified seven basic network voting mechanisms which have been used internationally for election delivery, such as on-site or remote online voting or remote mobile phone voting through SMS. Research also identified six means of voter authentication, such as passwords, biometrics, and physical identification. Some of these were completely out of scope at this time due to their associated complexity and cost, such as biometric authentication. Every option was evaluated thoroughly against their ability to uphold our identified principles.

The intersection of these options produced ten feasible network voting scenarios. These combined scenarios were again assessed for their ability to support our electoral principles, and were also evaluated against an assessment of their cost, complexity, and convenience for electors.

Slide 7
Short List of Four Scenarios
1. Onsite online voting with supervised authentication,
2. Onsite telephone voting with supervised authentication,
3. Remote online voting based on password authentication, and
4. Remote telephone voting based on password authentication.

Notes:
From this really broad research, we were able to arrive at a short list of four scenarios qualified as suitable for a possible by-election pilot.

Slide 8
Research Conclusions
Recommended Approach:
remote online voting based on password authentication, and remote telephone voting based on password authentication.

There are three key parts of the election process impacted by this approach:
Registration & Authentication
Online Voting Process / Telephone Voting Process
Tabulation Process

Notes:
From the four options presented, it was narrowed down to two: (1) remote online voting based on password authentication, and (2) remote telephone voting based on password authentication.

The two options were chosen due to their ability to uphold the principles previously outlined. In addition, they are reflective of the capabilities allowed by Elections Ontario’s current technological solutions and authentication options. Finally, they also reflect the network voting technologies that were available at the time of the business case development.

There are three key parts of the election process impacted by this approach that we will now review:
Registration & Authentication
Online Voting Process / Telephone Voting Process
Tabulation Process or counting process

Slide 9
Registration and Authentication For Online and Telephone Voting
Flow Chart
Online or Telephone voting scenarios
Online or Telephone, Voter Receives ID
Voter registers online or, by telephone, Voter registers by IVR
For both online and telephone; Voter is validated and sets up voting password in NVS
Online voter signs in to voting web site
Telephone voter signs in to voting IVR

Notes:
The registration and authentication for both online and telephone voting is very similar, using different technologies. All electors would receive a network voting registration letter that includes a secure numeric Elector ID and instructions for accessing a remote network voting registration web site and a telephone number to call.

Electors who choose to register for online voting would visit the web site and enter their Elector ID and their date of birth to register. A second card would be mailed at this stage to provide the voter a secure second PIN before proceeding to the next step.

Once authenticated, the system would validate their eligibility and allow them to set up a secure password to use for voting.

Alternatively, electors who do not have easy online access could then call a toll-free number to perform the same steps. This would use an interactive voice response (IVR) system interface that connects to the same backend system.

Once the advance poll period begins, voters who had registered for remote voting could log in to either the voting web site or the voting IVR system using their Elector ID and password.

Slide 10
Online Voting Process
Online voter casts ballot on computer
Ballot encrypted with public key
Encrypted ballot is digitally signed
Ballot is sent to digital ballot box on servers

Notes:
Once a remote voter has been authenticated on the voting web site, he or she would cast a ballot by making a selection from an online screen. Voters who use the telephone would make their selections using an automated menu system. Both options would need to be optimized for usability and accessibility in order to provide the best user experience.

Slide 11
Telephone Voting Process
Voter dials a toll free number
Selects preferred language
Types predetermined password via keypad
Access gained to audio ballot
Completion and submission of ballot via keypad

Notes:
With the telephone voting option, electors could vote from any location, provided that they have access to a telephone, which can be a conventional phone, a mobile phone, or voice over IP (VOIP) from a computer or a telephone. Voters would dial a toll free number, select their preferred language, and then type a previously created password using the keypad. The system itself would authenticate the voter and determines eligibility to cast a ballot. If the authentication is approved, the voter would gain access to an audio ballot, which they would cast via audio instructions.

Slide 12
Back End Processes
Vote cast
Voter struck from the voter’s list
Voter receives a receipt
May then verify the inclusion of their ballot
Vote is stored in a secure server environment
This environment would be subject to stringent physical and application security measures

Notes:
After voting on one of these channels, the voter would be struck from the voter’s list and receive a receipt that would allow them to verify the inclusion of their ballot in the final election results.

After a ballot has been cast on either the telephone or online channels, it will be stored in a secure server environment that is subject to stringent physical and application security measures, as well as availability and performance requirements.

Slide 13
Tabulation Process
Polls Close
Digital Ballot Box is opened
Does each encrypted vote match a voter?
Decrypt ballots
Separate digital signatures from votes
Count unencrypted ballots
Publish results to Returning Officer

Notes:
The tabulation system, which would be unlocked by security keys held by no less than two Elections Ontario officials, will securely decrypt and tabulate valid ballots. It will then distribute the combined network voting results to the Returning Officer, who will include them in the official vote count.

Slide 14
Risk Identification and Mitigation
Risks were measured according to their complexity, impact, and residual risk, meaning the risk remaining after mitigation strategies.

There were three subsections of the risk analysis:
Security Risk Assessment
Operational Risk Assessment
Voter Risk Assessment

Notes:
Risk identification and mitigation played a key part of our review and comprises a substantial portion of the Business Case: over 1/3 of the Business Case outlines the risks and describes the planned mitigation strategies. It is an example of rigorous, thorough research and analysis.

While the approach I have outlined was based on our research because of its ability to support accessibility, integrity and security, there are risks. A network voting model based on a combination of online and telephone voting is potentially vulnerable to several types of risk, with the Security Risk Assessment having identified the highest number of threats.

Slide 15
Necessary Challenges in Current Circumstances
Available only to those on the preliminary list of electors
Two mail-outs
Offered only in the advance polls
Integration of new channels in parallel with all existing streams

Notes:
Our research conclusions have some challenges, but ones that are necessary for upholding the integrity of the process. Again, these challenges are as a result of the need for balancing accessibility and integrity. Changes to current circumstances – technological, legislative, or other changes – could affect these challenges in the future.

1. That the network voting option would be available only to those on the preliminary list of electors – this is unavoidable given our current processes and available technology, in order to ensure that the list and strike-off are managed in such a way that prevents electors from casting multiple ballots.
2. That there are two mail-outs – it was determined that the risk associated with only one-mailout was too high for the Chief Electoral Officer to accept. The two-step mailout process offered an acceptable, low level of risk that upheld the principles.
3. That network voting would only be offered during the advance polls – in the risk analysis, it was determined that the risk of a failure of the system on Election Day was far too high for the Chief Electoral Officer to accept.
4. In addition, it’s important to remember that this new stream would not be replacing any of our existing voting options – voters could still continue to cast a paper ballot in person, or remotely via a special ballot. We have to look at the complexity of adding another steam in parallel with our existing processes.

Slide 16
Other Considerations
For example, although we addressed the issue of the pilot in the presentation, you may have additional queries as to why we chose not to pilot at this time. Section 4.1 of the Election Act gave us the opportunity to pilot, but does not require that Elections Ontario pilot before we submit our report on alternative voting technologies. It is imperative that any solution we choose to pilot upholds the integrity of the vote, meets all requirements outlined by our principles, and is within the organization’s capacity to deliver. As you have seen, the process is extremely complex, and it is critical that all of our identified principles be upheld.

We are also consulting with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario to get their feedback on our principles and research conclusions.

I note that the Integrated Accessibility Standards were not published when the Business Case was in research and development. Elections Ontario would ensure that any implementation of Network Voting was in compliance with the standards, both in the web architecture and in the physical processes.

Notes:
Some other considerations, for example, although we addressed the issue of the pilot in the presentation, you may have additional queries as to why we chose not to pilot at this time. Section 4.1 of the Election Act gave us the opportunity to pilot, but does not require that Elections Ontario pilot before we submit our report on alternative voting technologies. It is imperative that any solution we choose to pilot upholds the integrity of the vote, meets all requirements outlined by our principles, and is within the organization’s capacity to deliver. As you have seen, the process is extremely complex, and it is critical that all of our identified principles be upheld.

We are also consulting with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario to get their feedback on our principles and research conclusions.

I note that the Integrated Accessibility Standards were not published when the Business Case was in research and development. Elections Ontario would ensure that any implementation of Network Voting was in compliance with the standards, both in the web architecture and in the physical processes.

Slide 17
Discussion
Has Elections Ontario identified the most appropriate principles?
How should they be ranked, if at all?
Do the research conclusions successfully reflect the principles?
Should we consider narrowing eligibility if that would allow us to reduce some of the accessibility challenges?
What are your thoughts on an identity card for all Ontario electors?
Have you identified any gaps in our research or analysis?
Other comments regarding Network Voting?

Notes:
Which brings us to our discussion.
Has Elections Ontario identified the most appropriate principles?
How should they be ranked, if at all?
Have we accurately identified the categories of risk? What are your thoughts on their prioritization?
Do the research conclusions successfully reflect the principles?
Since we can’t require a driver’s license, because not all electors have one, and the Ontario Photo Card has a cost associated with it, what would be the implications of proposing an identity card for all Ontario electors?
Have you identified any gaps in our research or analysis?
Are there any other comments regarding Network Voting?

Slide 18
Principles
Accessibility
One vote per voter
Voter authentication and authorization
Only count votes from valid voters
Individual verifiability
Voter privacy
Results validation
Service availability

Notes:
Accessibility: The voting process is equally accessible to all eligible voters, including voters with disabilities. In any case, the voting process will be performed by the voter without requiring any assistance for making their selections.

One vote per voter: Only one vote per voter is counted for obtaining the election results. This will be fulfilled even in the case the voter is allowed to cast multiple votes (in some systems, people can cast their vote multiple times, with only the last one being counted).

Voter authentication and authorization: The electoral process will ensure that before allowing a voter to cast a vote, that the identity of the voter is the same as claimed, that the elector is eligible to vote, and that he or she has not exceeded the allowed voting intents.

Only count votes from valid voters: The electoral process shall ensure that the votes used in the counting process are the ones cast by valid eligible voters.

Individual verifiability: The voting process will provide means to the voters for verifying that their votes have been properly deposited inside the ballot box.

Voter privacy: The voting process will prevent at any stage of the election the correlation between voters and the contents of the ballots cast by such voters.

Results validation: The voting process will provide means for verifying if the results clearly represent the intention of the voters that participated in the voting process.

Service availability: The election process and any of its critical components (e.g., voter’s list information, cast votes, voting channel, etc.) will be available during the whole election period to voters, election managers, observers or any other actor involved in the process.

Alison Brownlee
Jun 06, 2013 – 7:00 AM

SOUND ARGUMENT. Marcia Yale, left, and Jo-Anne Boulding argue in favour of audible pedestrian signals during a May 16 accessibility advisory committee meeting in Huntsville. Alison Brownlee HUNTSVILLE

Having audible pedestrian signals at two downtown Huntsville intersections is not about inconveniencing nearby residents with noise, says lawyer Jo-Anne Boulding.

Boulding represented Mike and Marcia Yale, Huntsville residents with visual impairments who are lobbying for continuously sounding audible pedestrian signals at two Main Street intersections.

She spoke at a Town of Huntsville accessibility advisory committee meeting on May 16 about how the request for continuously audible signals is about human rights.

She noted that human rights are often considered inconvenient, time-consuming, complicated and expensive, but they are necessary for equality and safety in the community.

“It’s often when we try to advance rights that the resistance arises,” she said.

The Town of Huntsville and the District of Muskoka agreed to conduct a test of continuously sounding audible pedestrian signals at Main Street and Brunel Road as well as Main and Centre streets as part of the minutes of settlement from an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Hearing held in Huntsville in November 2012.

Boulding made her comments after reviewing the 22 survey responses, 10 emails, four telephone calls and one Huntsville Forester letter to the editor, submitted to the town after a 48-hour test was conducted April 24 to 26.

The survey responses both supported and criticized the signals.

Those who supported the signals applauded the additional time the signals gave pedestrians to cross the street and the heightened warning they gave to motorists that pedestrians may be crossing.

But those who criticized the signals commented that they were unnecessarily loud, disturbed residents and businesses within a one-kilometre radius, distracted drivers, annoyed pedestrians and were a general round-the-clock audible annoyance.

One respondent questioned why those in need of an audible signal could not simply press the pedestrian signal button for three seconds to activate the audible signal, as is the case now.

“Change is always difficult and when it’s confused by lack of information or wrong information it makes it doubly so,” said Boulding.

She said it was clear from the survey submissions that some people were misinformed.

“This is not about inconvenience to either of the street residents or the visually impaired community. It’s not about holding a button for three seconds longer than a sighted person. This is about full inclusion and participation in our society,” said Boulding.

She said some people might take the ability to travel freely and safely for granted.

“We can all imagine what it is like to be blind by either closing our eyes or shutting out lights, but it does not get us anywhere near the experience,” she said.

Boulding said there were a number of options for the community to investigate regarding intersection safety for persons with visual impairments. Those options include continuously sounding signals, intersection alignment, different audible pedestrian signal systems beyond the cuckoo-chirp sounds, and further study of poles, curbs and surfaces, among others.

Marcia Yale spoke at the meeting about the need for safety and the right to equality.

“Everyone has the right to travel safely,” said Yale.

She noted that there are safety issues with the misalignment of the intersections and the placement of the poles that hold the push buttons.
And Yale commented that people with mobility issues might be unable to push the button to activate the audible signals.

She said the audible signals heard during the test period allowed her to cross the intersections safely because the signals clearly indicated the crossing points.
And she suggested noise should not be an issue.

“People who live on main streets in towns and cities can get used to the noise, whatever it is. Otherwise, you wouldn’t choose to live there,” she said, noting she lives near train tracks, which is no longer a noise issue for her. “You’ll get used to whatever you choose to get used to because otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen to live on the main street of the town. You would have chosen to live in a quieter place if noise really was an issue.”

But a committee member later countered that argument.

“Some of the apartments on Main Street, it’s probably not some people’s favourite place to live, but that’s where they can afford to live and that’s what’s available for them. To say someone can move if they don’t like a noise, it’s not as simple as that,” said the committee member.
Deb Kirwin, chair of the accessibility advisory committee, noted that the purpose of the meeting was to gather information and ask questions.
The advisory committee, she said, will be responsible for evaluating the survey submissions, identifying issues to be resolved, research audible pedestrian signal technology and provide a recommendation to town council.

Boulding noted that, as per the minutes of settlement agreed upon by the town and the complainants as part of the hearing, the Yales and their representative would need time to review the advisory committee’s findings before the report is sent to council.

The advisory committee met to discuss its final recommendation as this paper was going to press on June 4.

Reproduced from http://www.cottagecountrynow.ca/news/article/1624980–audible-signals-about-human-rights-lawyer

Workers with disabilities have a lot to offer, but there are some landmines to avoid in hiring process

On June 20, I am speaking on Employment Law in Today’s Workplace for the One Voice Network, an organization whose vision is the inclusion of all individuals in the workforce, creating a society that embraces people of all abilities.

They work to pair individuals with disabilities with employers that can benefit from their skills.

In preparation for the conference, I spoke with Sharon Stephenson-Avery about a variety of issues relating to the employment of those with disabilities. She commented that hiring someone with a disability should not be approached as an act of charity, but as a smart business decision.

Rather than “doing someone a favour,” employers should hire the best person for the job, regardless of their abilities or disabilities. Unfortunately, many employers assume a disabled worker will come with oppressive limitations, duties to accommodate and other costs that “normal” employees do not.

The reality, of course, is an individual with a disability may well be perfectly suited for a particular position, and in many cases will appreciate the opportunity far more than others — leading to a loyalty and willingness to work that exceeds the norm.

Much of my time is spent assisting employers in avoiding discrimination claims. In the hiring process, I often advise employers that “they don’t want to know anything more than they have to.”

This includes not asking or finding out about an applicant’s age, religion, background or disability. Otherwise, there is always the possibility a rejected applicant will allege she was discriminated against based upon a protected ground. As I advise employers, it is certainly helpful to be able to honestly say they were not even aware of the protected ground. For the full discussion, see “Guidelines for using social media when hiring.”

With the advent of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), this becomes more difficult for employers with workers in Ontario.

Employers now have a duty to inquire about any need for accommodation in the hiring process. Once they do, and an applicant reveals a need for accommodation, the employer cannot deny knowing about it.

However, one of the pieces of advice I always offer remains valid: Do not share this information with the people making the hiring decision. Someone else can look after the accommodation inquires and arrangements, and efforts can be made to ensure that the ultimate decision-makers are not privy to it.

Of course, this is not always feasible. It will be difficult to prevent someone from seeing that an applicant is, for example, in a wheelchair. That is why I also always recommend that detailed reasons be kept supporting hiring decisions so the organization can demonstrate why an applicant was rejected for legitimate reasons.

Unfortunately, some individuals will abuse legislation that exists to protect traditionally disadvantaged groups and allege discrimination when they were, simply put, not the best person for the job. Employers need to be able to defend against such accusations.

At the same time, employers should also assess their own practices and views in order to ensure they are not rejecting qualified candidates or, even worse, preventing them from applying in the first place.

Not only is this good business practice, it will also be required as AODA comes into force in Ontario.

Stuart Rudner is an HR lawyer and a founding partner of Rudner MacDonald LLP, a Toronto-based firm specializing in Canadian employment law. He provides clients with strategic advice regarding all aspects of the employment relationship, and represents them before courts, mediators and tribunals. He is author of You’re Fired: Just Cause for Dismissal in Canada, published by Carswell. He can be reached at srudner@rudnermacdonald.com. You can also follow him on Twitter @CanadianHRLaw and join his Canadian HR Law Group on LinkedIn.

Reproduced from http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/Canadian-HR-Law/archive/2013/06/03/hiring-a-worker-with-a-disability

The Ontario Government on June 2, 2013 issued a media release formally denying that its AODA consultation process with the community had been a confidence game. 

“Few people had confidence in the Government taking this seriously to begin with,” the media release noted, “so criticisms by advocates are unfair. 

Why did the advocates not complain during the consultation process that the Government would in the future not implement the legislation adequately?  Are advocates
willing to share responsibility?   

“That said, that ‘con’ and ‘consultation’ share the same letters means nothing, no more than it means that the consultation process meant nothing.  This ‘con’ in ‘consultation’ situation is very unlike the concurrent problem involving our inability to implement AODA because of the sexism inherent in the word ‘implement’, given there is no ‘implewoment’.” 

The statement appears to be as straightforward as any other Government media release.  But is there a further story behind it?  We went to an anonymous source within the Government for the inside scoop.   

“We’d been getting a lot of pressure for decades from the community to do something about access issues.  We came up with the consultation idea.  True, we developed the idea one night while we were watching The Sting, but that was a coincidence.  When it came to AODA, we could just as easily have been watching Diabolique or The Illusionist or even DOA (Dead On Arrival.”)  

When asked about the failure of the Government to properly implement AODA, the internal source stated “Frankly, we blew all our energy on the consultation process.  It took a lot to set up and carry out.  You should see all the reports we wrote, they fill many shelves.  I know it seems ironic, but after the consultation process when it came to implementing AODA there was nothing left in the tank.”  

However, the source confirmed that the Government is now taking steps on the AODA implementation situation.  “There’s been a lot of pressure from the advocates all over again, so we formed a special committee, and meet regularly.  Unfortunately, we’re still on the agenda phase.  Maybe that is because the meetings are scheduled for Friday afternoons.  At our last meeting we addressed this problem and had a very serious discussion about moving the meetings to Monday mornings, except in the end we all agreed that would be worse.  So there’s progress and we’re making decisions.”   

Next: Ontario Government Claims Disability In Its Disability In Enforcing AODA    

SUMMARY

The Kathleen Wynne Government has not fulfilled its obligation to appoint an Independent Review of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act by May 31, 2013, as is required by section 41 of the AODA.

The Toronto Star On-Line edition has run a guest column by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky responding to this serious issue. We set that column out below.

We encourage you to:

* Send this guest column to your member of the Ontario Legislature. Let them know how you feel about the Government’s failure to meet the deadline in the Disabilities Act for appointing this mandatory Independent Review.

* Send a letter to the editors at the Toronto Star. Write the Star at lettertoed@thestar.ca

* Circulate this guest column to your local media. Encourage your local media to report on this issue.

* Spread the word to your family, friends and co-workers. Circulate this email. Post this information on your Facebook page or on Twitter. Spread the news about it that we are making public on our Twitter feed and Facebook page..

Learn more about the Government’s duty to appoint an Independent Review of the AODA by May 31, 2013 by visiting http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/05242013.asp

Send us your feedback at aodafeedback@gmail.com

If you don’t now receive our updates directly from us, sign up for AODA Alliance e-mail updates by writing to us: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Follow us on Twitter and get others to do so as well! Twitter.com/aodaalliance

Please “like” our Facebook page and share our updates:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Accessibility-for-Ontarians-with-Disabilities-Act-Alliance/106232039438820

To sign up for, or unsubscribe from AODA Alliance e-mail updates, write to: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Learn more at: www.aodaalliance.org

*****

THE TORONTO STAR ON-LINE MAY 31, 2013

POSTED AT: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/31/ontario_honours_national_access_awareness_week_by_breaching_provinces_disability_accessibility_law.html

GUEST COLUMN

Ontario honours National Access Awareness Week by breaching province’s disability accessibility law
Government fails to fulfil its duty to appoint independent review of the Disabilities Act by May 31

We expect our government to strictly obey the law. That’s why, today, many Ontarians with disabilities will feel the Kathleen Wynne Government let them down.

Premier Wynne’s government recently said that making Ontario accessible for people with disabilities is a top priority. Yet today her government is in breach of its own Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

The government didn’t fulfil its duty to appoint a much-needed independent review of the Disabilities Act by May 31, 2013. That review is required to assess whether the Disabilities Act is working effectively to ensure that Ontario becomes fully accessible to Ontarians with disabilities by 2025.

If you are one of the 1.7 million Ontarians with a physical, sensory or mental disability, or if you get a disability later in life (as most do), you face too many barriers when trying to use public transit or other public services, get an education or a job, or buy goods in a store. As an example that leaves many dumbfounded, I had to fight TTC for years in two human rights tribunal cases to force them to audibly announce all bus and subway stops, so blind people like me can know what stop we’re at. TTC spent $450,000 on lawyers opposing me.

To overcome these barriers, Ontarians with disabilities waged an exhausting, tenacious 10-year campaign to get the 2005 Disabilities Act passed. It imposes detailed requirements on the Ontario government to lead all Ontario to full accessibility by 2025.

To help ensure that Ontario doesn’t fall behind schedule for full accessibility, the Disabilities Act requires the government to appoint periodic independent reviews to investigate how well progress is proceeding, and to recommend changes if we’re behind schedule. It’s inexcusable that the government hasn’t appointed the latest review by May 31. It’s known of this deadline for years. We reminded the government in writing three months ago. We’ve run a daily countdown on Twitter.

We want this independent review appointed so it can hear that Ontario is behind schedule for reaching full accessibility by 2025 and that, in the past two years, government action has ground down to a snail’s pace. It is a cruel irony that the government’s tardiness in appointing this independent review delays our efforts to rectify the government’s tardiness in getting Ontario to the goal of full accessibility. It’s another cruel irony that the government fails to meet this deadline that falls during National Access Awareness Week — a week the government celebrated in the Legislature.

The government’s disregard of its accessibility law’s deadline sends the wrong message to all organizations around Ontario that must obey accessibility deadlines set under this law. It flies in the face of the government’s pledge to lead by example in making Ontario disability-accessible. When running for the Liberal leadership, Kathleen Wynne promised in writing to ensure Ontario is on schedule for full accessibility by 2025, to keep Dalton McGuinty’s earlier commitments to us, and not to weaken anything the Accessibility Act gives us.

In the legislature this week, the NDP asked the government if it will appoint this review by the May 31 deadline. The responsible minister, Eric Hoskins, said he’d have an announcement very soon. Since then, the deadline passed.

The government might argue that it matters not if it appoints this independent review days or weeks late. Yet it matters! The Disabilities Act requires the government to set and strictly enforce mandatory time lines for all organizations in Ontario to take effective action to remove and prevent disability barriers. If the government ignores its own legal deadlines, it signals to others that they can do the same.

Having missed the deadline, we don’t want the government to appoint just anyone with a pulse to conduct this review. It must be a respected person, arms-length from the government, who will impartially listen to all with an open mind, and offer credible findings and workable solutions.

This is even more frustrating since the government promised to effectively enforce this law. Yet the media reports about some restaurants and stores that deny customer service to people with disabilities, despite government boasting about its Customer Service Accessibility Standard.

Early on, this government commendably showed it can act promptly and boldly on accessibility. When it took office in 2003, it developed a comprehensive Disabilities Act within months, that won significant community support and all-party approval. It then promptly got to work on implementing the law. While we weren’t fully satisfied with the initial results, we saw real potential.

Yet in the past two years, the government has largely slowed to a crawl on this issue. It’s not because it only has a minority government. To speed up progress toward accessibility, the government needs to win no votes in the Legislature.

Three years ago, the last independent review of the Disabilities Act was appointed on time. It urged the government to show strengthened leadership and revitalize this law’s implementation. Sadly, the government didn’t.

We agree with Hoskins that what we need is action on this “top priority” of theirs, not just talk. The government needs to kick-start an ambitious agenda of concrete action to get Ontario back on schedule for full accessibility. We sent Premier Wynne and Minister Hoskins an affordable, constructive list of accessibility priorities almost three months ago.

No matter how frustrated, we soldier on, undeterred. Premier Wynne called me two months ago, warmly offering to work together on making Ontario fully accessible to people with disabilities. Today’s failure to obey the law should be a wake-up call to the government to take the entire accessibility issue off its back burner where it has languished for two years. Let today’s bad news spur our new premier to act decisively, boldly and broadly on accessibility. Let it cause her to restore the swiftness, determination and vigour on this issue that the government commendably demonstrated a decade ago, and to keep all her commitments on accessibility.

David Lepofsky is chair of the voluntary, non-partisan Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

As previously discussed, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, (AODA) is continuously evolving legislation with staggered compliance deadlines. As of January 1, 2013, organizations were required to achieve compliance with the Customer Service Standard, and the emergency response information requirements in the Employment Standard and Information and Communication Standard. This post is intended to address those aspects of the AODA that private or non-profit organizations with 50 or more employees (large organizations) must comply with by January 1, 2014.

The Integrated Accessibility Standard requires that large organizations develop accessibility policies and multi-year accessibility plans and consider accessibility in their self-service kiosks, while the Information and Communication Standard mandates that large organizations’ websites and web content meet specific accessibility thresholds.

Accessibility Policy

Large organizations must develop, implement and maintain a policy about how they will meet the requirements of the Integrated Standard. The elements of the policy can be woven into existing policies that discuss similar topics (i.e. training), or can be addressed via a standalone document. However, regardless of the chosen method, each organization must write a statement of commitment that establishes its vision and goals for accessibility and confirms its commitment to meeting the accessibility needs of people with disabilities in a timely manner. The policy and statement of commitment must be in writing and available to the public.

Multi-year Accessibility Plan

The accessibility policy sets out the rules that large organizations will implement to become more accessible (the what), while the accessibility plan creates a roadmap to achieving compliance and removing barriers to accessibility (the how).
The format and level of detail contained in the accessibility plan is entirely within the organization’s discretion. However, the plan must be reduced to writing, be publicly available, and reviewed every five years.

Self Service Kiosks

While the Integrated Standard requires government and public sector organizations to include accessibility features in those self-service kiosks they design or purchase, all other organizations are required to only consider the accessibility of their kiosks.
Examples of self-service kiosks are: those used for parking payments, ticket validation, self-check-out grocery purchases or license renewals. When considering accessibility while designing or purchasing kiosks, the following should be taken into account:
Technical aspects, such as colour contrast and voice activated features; and
Structural aspects, such as height and stability, specialized keypads or keyboards and headset jacks with volume control.

Accessible Websites

Websites and their content must meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, an internationally accepted standard for web accessibility developed by the World Wide Web Consortium. WCAG 2.0 contains guidelines regarding writing web content in clear language, providing alternate text for images, and ensuring that individuals can navigate the website using only a keyboard.

WCAG 2.0 contains three levels of accessibility: A; AA; and AAA (being the highest). By January 1, 2014, large organizations must ensure that their new public websites and web content conform with WCAG 2.0 Level A.

Reproduced from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=826ada93-1010-46b4-a073-ac4399f18424