Objectives and methodology
Official title: Federal Accessibility Legislation - Technical analysis report
On this page
Context and objectives
Canadians, communities and workplaces benefit when everyone can participate equally in everyday life. Despite decades of effort from all orders of government, many Canadians continue to face barriers that affect their ability to participate in daily activities. In response, the Government of Canada committed to develop new federal accessibility legislation to promote equality of opportunity and increase the inclusion and participation of Canadians who have disabilities or functional limitations by removing barriers within federal jurisdiction. The legislation is a mandate commitment of Minister Qualtrough’s, Canada’s first minister of Persons with Disabilities.
In developing this new legislation, the Government consulted broadly with Canadians, both online and in person. The Consultations on Federal Accessibility Legislation (referred to in the rest of this report as “the Consultations”) were led by Employment and Social Development Canada’s Office for Disability Issues (ODI), and covered a range of broad issues, including:
- feedback on the overall goal and approach of the legislation
- to whom the legislation could apply
- what accessibility issues and barriers the legislation could address
- how compliance with the legislation could be monitored and enforced, and
- other approaches the Government could adopt to improve accessibility
The Consultations began during the summer of 2016 and ended in February 2017, generating a large volume of opinions, ideas and personal stories from a cross-section of Canadians. The purpose of this report is to convey what we heard.
The Consultations represent the first major Canadian discussion on disability since the mid 1990s, and they set a new standard for accessible consultations by the Government by enabling participation through multiple modes and providing materials in multiple formats.
In parallel to consultations, Employment and Social Development Canada is supporting five partnerships of disability organizations and three Indigenous organizations, which are undertaking various activities to engage their members and communities. These stakeholders will be publishing their results separately. Additionally, some Members of Parliament have undertaken constituency meetings and town halls on the planned legislation.
Project scope: Sources of input
The Consultations gathered feedback though the following meansFootnote 1:
- Online engagement questionnaire: The largest volume of input came from this method. The views of Canadians, including both individuals and organizational representatives, were gathered through a questionnaire consisting of two dozen open-ended questions organized around eight themes. The questionnaire also invited respondents to provide some background information, such as age, gender, region, whether they considered themselves to have a disability, etc. This information was analyzed to see if there were differences in views across population segments.Footnote 2 Individuals (and representatives of organizations) could complete the questionnaire in English, French, American Sign Language, or Langue des signes québécoise and in their preferred format such as digital, handwritten, video or audio submissions. People could also provide their input online or by telephone, mail, email, facsimile or TTY. A total of 4,375 people participated in the online consultation. In quite a few instances, respondents chose to focus on one or more specific themes or questions, while others complete the entire questionnaire. All responses were included in the data analysis.
- Letters from individuals and logged phone calls: About 200 letters and other communications were also submitted by individuals during the Consultations. The content of these letters was analyzed and coded with the online engagement questionnaire data.
- Public sessions: A total of 18 in-person sessions with members of the general public took place across Canada. The sessions covered a common set of broad themes/questions. There were also one-on-one interviews offered at the public sessions for participants who preferred providing their views in this fashion.
- National Youth Forum: An in-person Youth Forum took place in Ottawa. The data analysis was based on a summary report of the proceedings.
- Thematic roundtables: These consisted of nine in-person sessions with experts, academics and stakeholders held across Canada. Each roundtable focused on a different theme (example: transportation, the built environment, employment). The data analysis was based on the summary reports that were produced for each session.
- Stakeholder submissions: A total of 92 stakeholder organizations (example: advocacy groups, companies, industry associations) and individuals (example: academics) provided written submissions. All of the submissions were analyzed.
Analytical approach
Initially, a number of technology-based solutions for analyzing large amounts of qualitative data were considered for analyzing the input gathered from the online engagement. In the end, we judged that the complexity of the issues, as well as the richness and depth of participants’ input, warranted the use of analysts over software. The approach taken to analyze the data is described below.
Organizing principle
The data analysis, as well as the presentation of results in this report, reflect the themes and structure of the “What Does an Accessible Canada Mean to You?” Discussion Guide and the online engagement questionnaire, as follows:
- Attitudes and Awareness
- Goals of the Legislation
- Legislative Approach
- Applying the Legislation: Who Should be Subject to it?
- Accessibility Issues and Barriers
- Monitoring and Enforcement
- Supporting Organizations
- Effectiveness
Data analysis
The data was transferred from the ODI to the analysts using a secure channel. Each data set was assessed for quality and prepared for analysis (example: ensuring that comments obtained from the online engagement questionnaire were linked to demographic profiling information). All partially completed questionnaires were included in the analysis—that is, any response provided to a question.
a) Analysis of the online engagement questionnaire data
The analysis of the online engagement questionnaire data was both quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative aspect was based on the systematic coding of the question responses. Both mutually exclusive and non-mutually exclusive coding categories were used, along with sub-codes where needed (for example to allow for a second, deeper level of analysis).
In cases where a consultation question asked for two pieces of information, they were usually treated as two separate questions, each with its own set of codes (example: “We have listed six areas where accessibility could be improved. Of these, which are the most important to you? Are there other areas that should be included?).
Each set of codes was empirically developed based on a review of large random sample responses (n = 300 to 1,000)—that is, based on the data itself, as opposed to a preconceived hypothetical range of anticipated responses. The objective was to create codes that are at once reflective of Canadians’ input, as well as helpful to the development of accessibility legislation and related policy development.
Questions that could be responded to in the affirmative or negative, or for which it was highly unlikely that one would provide a range of views or suggestions, were given mutually exclusive codes (example: “How often should the legislation be reviewed?”). Other questions, such as those that ask for suggestions, were given non-mutually exclusive codes (example: “How can the government show leadership in improving accessibility and removing barriers for Canadians with disabilities?”). In all cases, the coding framework also allowed analysts to distinguish between “don’t know,” “other” and “no response.”
A draft coding framework was presented to ODI officials and finalized based on their suggestions. Further refinements to the coding framework were made as required during the initial phase of coding (example: expanding codes, collapsing codes, creating new codes to reduce the proportion coded under “Other”).
The coding was done in Excel, with analysts selecting codes from drop-down menus. Coded data files were transformed from Excel into SPSS to produce data tables of 1) overall results, and 2) cross-tabulations based on respondent profiling information (example: age, gender, region, etc.).
As part of the coding process, analysts made detailed notes (example: rationale for an opinion or idea) and selected verbatim representative quotes. The notes and quotes were used to qualitatively support and explain the quantitative results.
b) Analysis of the data generated by the other forms engagement
The analysis of the data produced by the public sessions, National Youth Forum, thematic roundtables and stakeholder submissions was qualitative. Guided by Grounded TheoryFootnote 3, content analysis matrices were developed for each data source/method of engagement and organized according to the main consultation themes.
Each set of notes, synthesis report, submission and letter was analyzed and disaggregated with each significant point or comment inserted under each theme as appropriate, along with verbatim quotes and source identifier (example: “Halifax public session”).
Once the analysis was complete, the matrices allowed us to identify key points of convergence and divergence.
A profile of online engagement respondents
The online engagement questionnaire contained 11 socio-demographic questions (example: age, gender, region), as well as questions that were specific to the subject matter of the consultation, such as whether or not respondents identified as a having a disability.
The profiling data was analyzed and compared to Statistics Canada figures in order to provide some indication of the extent to which the respondent population resembles the Canadian population. The detailed results of this analysis are presented in Appendix A. Overall, however, we find that compared to the Canadian general population, those who participated in the online engagement:
- over-represent British Columbia and under-represent Quebec
- under-represent seniors (for example 65 years of age and older)
- included 69% women
- included 2% of respondents from Canada’s North
- included 4% who identify as Indigenous, and
- included 52% who identify as having a disability
Organization of this report
The detailed results of the Consultations are presented in eight separate sections within Chapter 2 of this report, one for each of the main themes explored in the “What does an accessible Canada mean to you?” Discussion Guide.
All sections are organized in consistent fashion, as follows:
The findings from the online engagement are presented first, because it was by far the largest component of the Consultations in terms of both number of participants and volume of input received. Aggregated results (for example the total for everyone who provided a response) are presented for each question contained in the engagement questionnaire, along with noteworthy subgroup differences (example: by age, gender). This analysis is supported by qualitative insights and illustrations to help the reader gain some understanding of the rationale, motivations and experiences that lay behind Canadians’ views and suggestions.
Second, the findings from the other consultation streams (example: public sessions, National Youth Forum, thematic roundtables and stakeholder submissions) are presented. The findings for each stream are presented separately, and in the same order throughout the chapters, starting with the public sessions. Because these consultation streams addressed a more limited and broader set of issues, findings are summarized for the overall theme, as opposed to each of the questions contained in the engagement questionnaire.
We have also included a separate section at the end of the report that highlights the findings from the youth perspective, based on the National Youth Forum and an analysis of age-based differences in the online engagement results.
Note: As indicated earlier, there are very few meaningful statistically significant differences in the views of online engagement respondents based on their socio-demographic and other characteristics. Where they do exist, they are highlighted in this report. Attributing apparent differences in views obtained through qualitative research based on the location of the participants or other characteristics can produce spurious results and distract the reader from absorbing the report’s main findings. In discussing the results of the in-person consultations and submissions, we often identify the source of comments, but have been careful not attribute differences to participant characteristics (example: session location). The same cautious approach is used when discussing the content of submissions.