The goal of accessibility legislation
Official title: Federal Accessibility Legislation - Technical analysis report
On this page
The online engagement gathered feedback on what the goal of new legislation should be. It also asked respondents for input about how the legislation should define “accessibility” and “barrier.”
The Discussion Guide described the goal of the legislation as follows: “The overall goal of the legislation is to increase the inclusion and participation of Canadians in society and promote equality of opportunity by improving accessibility and removing barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction.”
Canadians who took part in the other consultation methods also had the opportunity to share their views on legislative goals and definitions.
While participants support the goal of “increasing the inclusion and participation of Canadians,” many find it either disappointing or surprising that the legislation can only cover areas of federal jurisdiction. Another finding discussed below is the consensus among participants that that the definitions of “accessibility” and “disability” should be sufficiently broad so everyone with a disability can see themselves in them.
Online engagement
The questionnaire invited input on the goal of the legislation. It also asked Canadians how the terms “accessibility” and “barrier” should be defined. The preamble to the questions included the following summary of the legislation’s goal: “The overall goal of the legislation is to increase the inclusion and participation of Canadians in society and promote equality of opportunity by improving accessibility and removing barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction.”
Question: Do you have any input regarding this goal?
This question received a total of 1,613 responses.
As shown in Figure D, relatively few comments expressed skepticism about the potential for the legislation to make a difference, or viewed the legislation as not aiming high enough. About an equal proportion voiced support for the goal of the legislation, without elaboration. Sub-group analysis indicated that the comments of younger respondents (for example 18 to 34 years of age) were much more likely to voice support without elaboration.
Text description of Figure D:
| Responses | % |
|---|---|
| Highlighted issues that the legislation should address | 38% |
| Supportive of the goal, without elaboration | 16% |
| Supportive of the goal, but emphasize need for broad public and employer awareness and support | 14% |
| The goal does not go far enough/needs to “aim higher” | 9% |
| No - do not have any input regarding this goal | 8% |
| Skeptcisim expressed about the potential for legislation to make a difference | 6% |
| Other | 9% |
| I don’t know | 1% |
The largest category of comments highlighted various areas or issues that respondents hoped would be addressed by the legislation, with the top three being that the legislation should:
- Address national inconsistency in accessibility requirements:
I understand the differences between federal, provincial and municipal levels of governments. However, regardless of these divisions it is important for the federal government to set the tone and the direction. To this end the federal government should promote continuity in Canada for the rights of all Persons with Disabilities.
– Karen
- Address financial barriers to access and participation:
You need to make it a standard that people with disabilities have access to adequate and independent financial resources to allow them to fully participate.
– Cat Peever
- Have enforcement provisions that do not place so much onus on the “victim”:
The federal government needs to put some teeth into disability legislation, to police provincial and municipal compliance with regulations, and should also provide paid advocates to help the disabled ensure that their voices are heard. – Anonymous
In a similar vein, quite a few respondents specifically highlighted the need to promote awareness of legislation among the public and employers:
Improve employment opportunities for those with disabilities which will improve the well-being of those with disabilities. Allow people to see the barriers those with disabilities face, using social media.
– Andrew Cruikshank
Question: How should the legislation define “accessibility” and/or “barrier”?
This question received a total of 1,536 responses. Sub-group analysis indicated that younger respondents (for example 18 to 34 years of age) were much more likely than other Canadians to provide input on this question.
Very few people tried to provide a complete definition for either of the two terms. Rather, they tended to identify elements that should be included as part of a comprehensive definition. About 6 in 10 comments addressed the definition of “accessibility,” while about half included views on defining “barrier.”
a) Defining “Accessibility”
With respect to defining “accessibility” one of the main reoccurring themes of the online engagement, as well as the Consultations in general, is that the definition should be sufficiently broad to insure that everyone with a disability can see themselves in it. In particular, many stressed that the definition should include “invisible” disabilities (example: epilepsy, learning disabilities).
Another common theme revolved around the view that the bar for designating something as “accessible” should be fairly high. Consistent, for example, with the standards and quality of service received by people who do not have a disability.
Accessibility is the complete ability to join in, participate or attend the activity or conversation as much as anybody else of my age in my community.
– Nicole McLaren
b) Defining “Barrier”
Most comments suggested that anything that prevents or limits access should be considered a “barrier.” Similarly, many people noted the importance of having a definition that is wide enough to include barriers of non-physical or technological nature, such as attitudinal and programmatic barriers:
My definition of "barrier" is anything that impairs or prevents access, physically or mentally to any physical movement, learning and/or acceptance by others. Ergo, "accessibility" successfully counters or eliminates the barriers.
– Pat Almond
Public sessions
One of the strongest points of consensus to emerge from the public sessions was that current definitions of “disability” should be reviewed and expanded to include the “full spectrum” of causes.
According to participants, many of those with episodic or invisible disabilities do not feel included under current legislation. Participants in Calgary, for example, argued that in many ways those with visible disabilities in fact account for a minority of Persons with Disabilities, while “95% include dementia, autism, hearing impairment, vision impairment, etc.”
It was also strongly felt that any new legislation should clearly outline the rights of Persons with Disabilities, with participants in the Whitehorse session stressing the importance of “creating federal legislation that provides over-arching protection (like a Charter of Rights).”
National Youth Forum
National Youth Forum participants agreed that the ultimate goal of new federal legislation should be the creation of a completely barrier-free society that focuses on accessibility for all Canadians.
Thematic roundtables
There was consensus among roundtable participants that the new legislation should cover the “full spectrum” of disability. There is a “great opportunity now to think about [the] full spectrum of disability (example: the aging population) in structuring new legislation and changing [the] dialogue across Canada.” They also indicated that it was crucial to “enshrine” the rights of Persons with Disabilities in the legislation.
Participants at the Calgary, Saskatoon, Moncton and Toronto roundtable discussions suggested that one of the legislation’s secondary goals should be to foster policies and approaches to accessibility that are inclusive, innovative and even marketable. The idea is that there can be profit in things like accessible design, just like there have been profits made in environmental sustainability. As participants in the Calgary roundtable described: “Sustainability in new developments has become marketable. We need to recognize the same thing is possible for accessibility. Provide support for innovation and experimentation and if successful, it will get repeated without dollars from governments. We need to infiltrate the design community. Architects still see accessibility as an altruistic add-on, but as architects we have a lot of power to create a more accessible environment. As architects, we are problem-solvers and so we need to better understand the problem of accessibility. Schools of architecture should be mandated to include accessibility right from the beginning.”
Participants in Saskatoon provided another example of what policy experts and political leaders can draw inspiration from in defining the goals of the new accessibility legislation: “The evolution of the transit system provides a good example of how good design is good for everyone – and a useful lesson learned that could inform the development of the federal legislation. Ridership of people with disabilities is increasing and the cost of specialized, segregated services is increasing in comparison to the regular transit system ($3/person vs specialized $25/person). Because there is a monetary incentive to move from specialized transit into more mainstream travel, the whole industry across the country has become motivated to make changes.”
Stakeholder submissions
Advocacy groups such as Barrier Free Canada were unanimous in their assertion that the goal of the legislation should be to ensure that Canada becomes fully accessible within a reasonable length of time; a view echoed by a number of labour organizations, such as the United Steel Workers.
There was also a strong consensus among advocacy organizations that a major goal of the new legislation should be to create national standards for accessibility and service, for example: “… [by] sorting out overlapping jurisdictions, pressuring various levels of government into conforming to federal standards, and filling gaps in existing legislation.” As part of such efforts, many organizations also wanted to see improved communication and cooperation between levels of government, regulatory bodies, external organizations and the general public. The War Amps’ call for a standard approach to assistive technologies is indicative: “The federal government has an opportunity and, moreover, a responsibility for leadership in this area, which should be used to set the standard across the country. Assistive technology is a critical element of accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. Without these tools, Persons with Disabilities are barred from accessing our activities of daily living, our communities and our workplaces. The disability community needs a national standard which facilitates affordable access to assistive devices, as without this, accessibility will not be achieved. We believe that the federal government has the major responsibility to set and uphold this national standard for artificial limbs, as per their commitment to accessibility, to the United Nations and to all Canadians.”
Although industry stakeholders (example: Air Canada) often suggested that current legislation and regulations are adequate if properly enforced, there was also some agreement on the need for the harmonized requirements across Canada: “Varying requirements within its own national jurisdiction would be unacceptable and would inevitably create significant frustrations not only for our staff, but significantly for those that need to rely on the services and who have a legitimate interest in certainty and stability.”
A number of submissions from industry identified a need for clarity in defining the responsibilities and obligations of service providers. As stated by the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA): “Any new federal accessibility legislation should clearly define the responsibility of transportation service providers with regards to accessibility supports. For example, the difference between what airports and airlines are responsible for should be clearly outlined.”
Page details
- Date modified: