Accessibility issues and barriers: What should the legislation address?

Question: 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?

This question received a total of 1,513 responses.

As shown in Figure K, about one in five comments indicated that the six areas listed in the preamble are equally important, with quite a few people explaining that they were uncomfortable with the idea of “prioritizing” issues and barriers:

It is problematic to prioritize these areas because doing so pits certain groups of disabled people against others (example: built environment is a priority for those using wheelchairs, while information is a priority for those who are Hard of Hearing). This question essentially asks people which kinds of people with disabilities should be prioritized, which I do not believe should be a question we should be asking. I believe we are better off to prioritize aspects within each of these categories, as often access in one area won't work without access in many of the others (example: accessible program delivery requires accessible built environment, communication, and often transportation to function accessibly).

– Dr. Danielle Peers, University of Alberta

All of the other comments did identify one or two areas as being most important. Employment was the area most often selected, followed closely by the built environment and transportation. People saw employment as important because it would provide Persons with Disabilities with financial security which would remove barriers in other areas and increase their overall independence. Similarly, access to transportation and housing were generally seen as key to getting and keeping a job. Indeed, analysis revealed that people tend to see these three issues as tightly interconnected:

Employment is the key element that will help people with disabilities live. Transportation allows people to get to their jobs and public/private services.

– Anonymous

Built environment and transportation are most important as they influence the rest (if you cannot use the metro you cannot get to work).

– Anonymous

Text description of Figure K:

Responses	%
Employment (e.g., fair hiring practices, faire wages, promotions)	39%
Build environment (e.g., buildings, recreational facilities, physical surroundings, washrooms)	32%
Transportation (e.g., airports, trains, buses)	28%
Program and service delivery (e.g., assistive technologies)	26%
All of the six areas are important	22%
Information and communications	21%
Procurement of goods and services	9%
I don’t know	3%

Sub-group analysis showed that transportation was more likely to be identified as most important in the comments of Quebec respondents.

A total 389 comments included suggestions for other areas that could be included. In some cases, people reiterated the importance of one of the six issues identified in the preamble. In other instances, they highlighted a particular facet of an area (for example, the need for more affordable/geared to income housing, which is an aspect of “the built environment”). Other suggestions included:

• promotion of awareness and understanding, which includes “educating” the public, as well as employers, and organizations that serve the public
• health care, which includes better access to therapies and treatments (example: Autism)
• financial assistance and support programs for Persons with Disabilities, their families and care providers
• wellness and leisure, which includes programs and increased opportunities for recreation, physical activity and social activities
• legal assistance, with the objective of removing the barriers that prevent Persons with Disabilities from ensuring that their rights are respected (example: filing official complaints and following through on these)
• research and development, for example into new technologies that will improve the quality of life and level of participation of Persons with Disabilities; and
• education, which includes better access to education and skills training (example: post-secondary education) for Persons with Disabilities

All are important. Include education, there are too many barriers for people with special needs wishing to get a decent education.

– Anonymous

Question: We have listed some potential mechanisms that the legislation could describe for the ongoing identification and prioritization of accessibility issues. What do you think of these mechanisms? Are there other mechanisms you would suggest?

This question received a total of 936 responses.

As shown in Figure L, the most common view, by far, was that both mechanisms should be used for the ongoing identification and prioritization of accessibility issues. The benefits of a permanent advisory council were viewed as:

• higher profile within society and government
• drawing on expert knowledge and rich experience (example: Persons with Disabilities who are scholars, scientists, legal experts, advocates with strong ties to grassroots organizations), and
• permanence (in contrast to ad hoc approaches)

The virtue of consulting periodically with Canadians with disabilities and other stakeholders was that: in contrast to an advisory council, this mechanism would give voice to “ordinary grassroots” people; and it would provide for a greater diversity of input, as well as allow for much greater numbers of Persons with Disabilities to be engaged.

It is also worth noting that some people suggested the two mechanisms be formally linked (example: the periodic consultations feeding into the work of the advisory council). Similarly, a few suggested that provincial advisory bodies could be tied to a national council.

“I think those are both great things to be created and maintained and very important. I like the idea of a mechanism wherein individuals and disability groups alike can provide reports of issues and receive feedback on this.”

– Cherry Thompson

Text description of Figure L:

Responses	%
Agree to both	49%
Agree – Advisory Council, silent on rest	14%
Agree – Consultations, silent on rest	10%
Do not support list of potential mechanisms	4%
Agree – Advisory Council but not consultations	2%
Agree – Consultations but not Advisory Council	2%
Other	1%
I don’t know	18%

Quite a few people included the caveat that any new advisory body should have real influence and “power”; they want to avoid the creation of “another empty committee.” The relatively few comments that rejected both mechanisms centered on this type of concern:

The mechanisms mentioned are already in place in government and have been for some time. Once again, rather than work with what has been put in place a new mechanism is being suggested. Government employees with disabilities are Canadians with disabilities and are already meeting through the Persons with Disabilities Champions and Chairs Committee as well as departmental committees and networks to identify accessibility and barriers issues. Listening to them and hearing them and giving them the respect that they deserve is what should be done...rather than ignoring them again!

– Anonymous

There were only a relative handful of suggestions of other mechanisms for the ongoing identification and prioritization of accessibility issues. Most of these contained encouragement and advice about how to engage Persons with Disabilities, such as holding public forums, conducting surveys and involving family members and caregivers in the process. Some people also took the opportunity to suggest that accessibility and the removal of barriers should be elevated as a priority in Canada, though increased funding and public awareness/education, for example.

Many suggestions revolved around the idea that the advisory council should do more than advise the government—it would have a significant oversight role, with the resources, tools (example: compliance audits) and authority to monitor adherence to the legislation. Quite a few characterized this function as that of an “ombudsperson”:

Too much talking, not enough doing. Spend that money on tangible aid to people with disabilities / toolkits to fight discrimination / ombudspeople.

– Clinical Psychologist Dr. Tanya Spencer

Question: Canada has a number of laws in place to address human rights issues and improve accessibility. Do you have any comments on how the new accessibility legislation could interact with these existing laws? Should the legislation describe a process by which these laws would be reviewed and potentially revised?

a) How Should New Legislation Interact with Existing Laws?

One of the loudest and most frequent refrains coming from those who participated in the online engagement was about their frustration with the current state of legislation in Canada. In their eyes, the lack of an overarching piece of legislation, akin to the U.S.’s ADA, has meant that both Persons with Disabilities, as well as organizations (example: employers, retailers, landlords), have struggled to understand the laws and regulations. Many respondents also lamented what they consider to be a lack of consistency across provinces, a sign to some that accessibility is not a priority in this country (example: because some jurisdictions are free to be less accessible than others). Just as significantly, many comments described the barriers that Persons with Disabilities and their families face in getting redress: the process is too often cumbersome, complex, time-consuming, resource-consuming, energy-draining, intimidating and legalistic.

Going forward, and as summarized in Figure M, respondents would like to see any new legislation address current deficiencies in the legal framework:

We may have laws but enforcement is weak, restitution and reconciliation is not implemented.

– Gael Hepworth

This question received a total of 770 responses.

Text description of Figure M:

Responses	%
New legislation would complement/build upon existing legislation	45%
New legislation would strengthen existing “weak” or ineffective legislation (e.g., “give it teeth,” help ensure compliance)	24%
New legislation should replace existing legislation (e.g., new legislation would supersede existing legislation)	5%
New legislation is not needed (e.g., don’t write new laws, enforce laws we already have)	5%
Other	3%
I don’t know	17%

About 4 in 10 comments suggested that new legislation should complement and build on existing legislation in order to avoid duplication, which otherwise would exacerbate the current situation. These respondents also hoped that new legislation would inject a significant measure of coherence and consistency in the legal framework.

I think people will need to understand which law supersedes and or interacts with the other to avoid confusion (example: provincial human rights legislation vs the new federal legislation).

– Anonymous

The new legislation should be written to have quasi-constitutional status such that it takes priority over other legislation (though perhaps not over the Human Rights Act, to ensure that all types of human rights are appropriately balanced where disability rights conflict with other rights).

– Anonymous

About one in five comments expressed a desire for new legislation to be effective at removing barriers and creating access. In their supporting rationale, many described current legislation as “weak,” “lacking teeth” and difficult to enforce, in part because too much of the onus is on the Persons with Disabilities:

The new accessibility legislation must "plug into" all other relevant acts including human rights legislation to ensure enforcement of accessibility as enshrined in those acts. The new accessibility act must have teeth and must ensure that the other acts have teeth as well. Yes there should be a process for revising the other acts and laws.

– Anonymous

b) Should the legislation describe a process by which these laws would be reviewed and potentially revised?

Almost all of the 477 comments (for example about 95%) that expressed a view on whether or not the legislation should describe a process by which accessibility-related laws would be reviewed and potentially revised felt that it should. Analysis suggested that people viewed the periodic review of legislation as common sense, in that laws should always continue to reflect society’s values, as well as technological evolution:

Yes, I agree that the legislation should describe a process which could lead to potential revisions. I believe that as our country and people change often so should our existing laws. The legislation is there to improve the laws and I think that it becomes a necessary step in an ever-changing country.

– Judith Sharp, NWT Disabilities Council

The few who indicated that the legislation should not describe a process by which accessibility-related laws would be reviewed and potentially revised argued that it would be a distraction; one that would draw attention and resources away from monitoring and enforcing compliance with the laws.

Questions: Should the legislation build on accessibility standards already developed by provincial/territorial governments and other countries?

This question received a total of 1,330 responses.

The results presented in Figure N show consensus that the legislation should build on accessibility standards already developed by provincial/territorial governments and other countries. Collectively, the reasoning behind this view includes that such an approach would:

• help reduce the chances of duplication;
• allow the legislation to be shaped by lessons learned and best practices in other jurisdictions, both within Canada and internationally; and
• increase the possibility that the legislation will be able to provide an overarching coherence and clarity to the other parts of the Canadian accessibility-related legislative framework.

Text description of Figure N:

Responses	%
Yes - the legislation should build on standards that have been developed by provinces and territories AND other countries	59%
Yes - Little or no supporting rationale	24%
Yes - the legislation should build on standards that have been developed by provinces and territories	5%
No - current standards anywhere are not adequate (e.g., complete overhaul is needed)	4%
Yes - the legislation should build on standards that have been developed by other countries	3%
Other	1%
I don't know	3%

As part of their comments, a number of respondents suggested legislation and jurisdiction that they felt were worth studying, notably the ADA:

Yes. I've already stated that the programs developed in Japan and some in the U.S.A. provide models for replication. Our organization is the Ontario International Affiliate of Very Special Arts International. The program was originally developed by Jean Kennedy Smith (JFK's sister) to provide access to the arts in the educational/primary school system in the United States. The program is the flip side of the Special Olympics developed by the other sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver. The ADA has a section which states that access to the arts is a "right" not a privilege. I would like Canada to include that in the legislation or act. Art is about culture and our identity is determined by our culture which is determined by our arts.

– Ellen Anderson, Creative Spirit Art Centre