Applying the legislation: Who should be subject to it?

Question: Are there other organizations within federal jurisdiction that should be covered by the legislation?

One of the key findings from the online engagement is that many respondents did not draw much, if any, distinction between organizations that are federally legislated and those that are not. Analysis revealed that in some instances the concept is elusive and difficult to grasp, while in others, respondents consciously rejected this division as artificial and illegitimate; an accident of federalism. One of the best illustrations of how people grappled with this complex issue is found in the 1,193 responses to the above question.

As shown in Figure H, a large proportion of comments identified organizations that do not fall within the federal government’s jurisdiction, such as universities and colleges, other levels of government, private businesses and voluntary sector organizations. Relatively few people included rationale as part of their comments, though some suggested that these types of organizations should be (strongly) encouraged to adopt national standards, with national consistency and clear goals:

The key to success would be to engage with the provincial and municipal governments to see the legislation adopted as a practicing standard, similar to building codes - rather than developing their own, other levels of government can simply state that they are adopting the national legislation as their basis. It does much less for a disabled person to know they can get around in a federal building, if they encounter numerous barriers on their way there, for example.

– Anonymous

The Canadian government needs to extend its mandate to other entities beyond those it is responsible for. The government needs to be proactive on a provincial level. This kind of collaboration is essential.

– Suzanne Benoit

Text description of Figure H:

Responses	%
All organizations under federal jurisdiction	17%
Provinces/territories and municipalities	14%
All organizations that receive federal funding directly or indirectly (e.g., hospitals, parks)	15%
"All organizations should be included"	12%
All organizations across Canada (for example, all-encompassing)	10%
Federal government departments and agencies (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans)	10%
Private Sector (e.g., restaurants, coffee shops)	7%
Educational institutions (e.g., colleges, universities, high schools)	7%
Public transportation (e.g., airports, buses, trains, ferries)	7%
First Nations	5%
NGO’s that provide government services (e.g., day cares, public drop-in centres)	4%
Crown corporations (e.g., Bank of Canada, CBC)	3%
National parks	3%
Other	6%
I don’t know	15%

A number of comments fell under the category of “the legislation should apply to all organizations, regardless of federal jurisdiction.” This perspective sees accessibility as a human right, and rejects the notion that Persons with Disabilities should have to deal with barriers because of Canada’s division of powers between the federal government and their provincial/territorial counterparts:

We need all organizations to be covered by this legislation. It is no longer reasonable to allow several levels of government to decide what Canadians need. Accessibility must become a federally regulated legislation to ensure that all Canadians have the same right to access under the law. The current approach is too piecemeal.

– Gail Paton

Across the board at all levels of community and citizenship, we choose to look at Abilities through a Human Rights lens... I know this sounds massive but in the same vein Medicare was made universal.

– Anonymous

Many comments did identify organizations under federal jurisdiction (example: national parks, federal departments and agencies, crown corporations), including many who indicated that all organizations under federal jurisdictions should be covered by the legislation.

In one category of comments: “all organizations that receive federal funding, directly or indirectly,” respondents pointed to federal funding as a way of expanding the reach of the legislation beyond federal jurisdiction:

Hospitals, schools, universities, housing - anything receiving any federal funding from tax dollars. All businesses of any kind which have received any subsidy, grant or tax exemption, etc. from the federal government.

– Anonymous

One of the most successful ways that accessibility can be put into action is to tie accessibility and barrier-reduction to federally administered funding programs: housing, infrastructure, research, arts, etc. Any project, company, or jurisdiction to receive federal granting dollars could come with particular accessibility commitments that must be met in order to qualify for future funding. For example, federal funds for public transportation (for example metro systems) should come with measurable commitments to accessibility for new builds as well as for the system as a whole. Federal funds should benefit ALL Canadians.

– Dr. Danielle Peers

It is also worth noting that quite a few comments, coded under the category: “all organizations should be included,” did not specify whether the author was referring to only organizations under federal jurisdictions, or all organizations in Canada.

Question: Are there organizations that should be exempt from the legislation?

This question received a total of 1,202 responses.

A strong majority of comments (78%) indicated that no organization should be exempt from the legislation. In contrast, only 6% said that there should be, while a similar proportion (9%) said that maybe a few exceptions could be made.

Text description of Figure I:

Responses	%
No	78%
Maybe (e.g., some exceptions may be made)	9%
Yes	6%
Other	1%
I don’t know	6%

Sub-group analysis revealed that the comments of people who identify as having a disability are significantly more likely to reject the notion of exemptions:

Almost everyone who indicated that no organizations should be exempt from the legislation did so without providing any supporting rationale.

Those who indicated that some organizations should be exempt from the legislation most often identified either the Canadian Forces (49%) of the RCMP (43%), with the rationale being that the work performed by police officers and soldiers requires certain physical and psychological attributes^{Footnote 5}:

Canadian armed forces and RCMP are tricky jurisdictions as certain physical attributes are important. Contractors to these areas could be included.

– Anonymous

It is important to note that some who supported exemptions for police and military, however, qualified their view by noting that exemptions should apply only to “front line” or “active duty” personnel (for example those whose jobs have significant physical requirements):

The armed services should be a “special case” or exempted as only the active duty military have laws set in a different source. However, civilians working for the Armed Services should be covered by federal jurisdiction.

– Anonymous

Comments coded under “maybe” were those that expressed openness to exemptions, but without much precision:

Possibly in positions of higher security. It depends on what that legislation will look like.

– Anonymous

Among the “other” organizations (or circumstances) that should be exempt were “heritage”/“historical” buildings on the grounds that modification ran counter to the principle of preservation:

If there are historical buildings that require infrastructure changes to accommodate accessibility that would damage the cultural or historical significance of the building or landmark, there should be an exemption.

– Paige Gilmore

Also included within the “other” category were “smaller organizations,” “small businesses,” “NGOs” and organizations that might not be complying completely with the letter of the legislation, but could demonstrate equivalency. The rationale for this was that the costs of full compliance might be impossible to bear.

Question: The legislation could potentially set out different requirements and timelines for different types and sizes of organizations. Do you have any comments or suggestions for this?

This question received a total of 1,160 responses.

As shown in Figure J, there was no consensus on this issue. About one-third of comments indicated that requirements and timelines should be applied uniformly, with no exceptions. Roughly another third of responses suggested that some accommodation be made, either by adjusting requirements and/or timelines, based on certain factors.

Consistent with previous results, the analysis also revealed that respondents were not just thinking of organizations that fall within federal jurisdiction when formulating their views (example: they also mention the private sector, NGOs, other levels of government).

Text description of Figure J:

Responses	%
Uniform requirements and timelines (for example, no exceptions, same across the board)	27%
Different requirements and different timelines (e.g., case by case basis)	26%
Uniform requirements but different timelines	11%
No comments/suggestions	10%
Immediate action is required, no timeline (e.g., "just get it done")	8%
Other (e.g., provided examples of organizations that should be covered/exempt from the legislation)	10%
I don’t know	7%

Sub-group analysis indicated that the comments of younger people (for example between 18 and 34 years of age) were much more likely to contain support for legislation that includes uniform requirements but different timelines.

The desire to see uniform requirements and timelines was based on two reasons:

• 1) It would promote clarity among organizations and Persons with Disabilities in an area that has been traditionally plagued by uncertainty and confusion about rights and responsibilities:

Doing this just creates confusion, one timeline and requirement for all.

– R. Macklon

• 2) Accessibility is too important an issue to give organizations leeway in complying with the legislation:

The duty to accommodate and prevent human right violations should be universally applied. I cannot imagine a circumstance whereby one organization would need to be exempt or require more time to comply with legislation.

– Ms. Camley

Those who supported having different requirements and/or timelines for different types and sizes of organizations often noted that such an approach would reflect the reality that compared to smaller organizations, larger ones are more likely to have the financial resources to comply and to do so more quickly:

Non-profit organizations or those with a small number of employees or limited revenues could be provided longer timelines. Larger, for-profit companies should be provided shorter timelines.

– Christina Johnson

Interestingly, however, some people suggested that the opposite is the case: that small organizations are nimble enough to implement changes more quickly than large organizations, and that therefore, the larger ones should be accorded more time.

Other rationale in support of a flexible approach included:

• Timelines should vary depending on the nature of what needs to be complied with (example: a simple policy change, versus major construction):

That is reasonable considering things like infrastructure change (buildings, etc.) take longer to make accessible and at greater cost. It is also necessary to allow organizations time to ramp up to new requirements.

– Anonymous

• Smaller organizations and non-profits should be given a “grace-period,” as well as access to government funding to help them more fully and quickly comply with the legislation.
• There should be less flexibility with respect to organizations which deal a lot with the public, and for public sector organizations:

The requirements should be stricter and more detailed for organizations that want to work directly with the general public and the greatest number of people.

– Brigitte Poirier, M.P.O., RSLP, Certified Speech-Language Pathologist

The “other” consisted of suggestions for what 1) the requirements and/or timelines should be, or 2) how these should be monitored and enforced. Some also suggested Persons with Disabilities should be consulted or involved in the rollout of the legislation:

Reward and promote those making an effort within the resources they have available. Be more aggressive with those who show by their attitudes or behaviour that they really do not care to change, as Canada changes.

– Anonymous

Let a person with a disability present to organizations. It's more relatable for the individuals who are taking in the presentation. Speaking from experience with Muscular Dystrophy Canada.

– Anonymous