Previous page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

 

Findings and Recommendations: Renewal

A driving force behind the AODA was the commitment to make Ontario a world leader in improving accessibility for people with disabilities through the development of accessibility standards. The consultations in 2004 (that led to the passage of the AODA in 2005) initiated a process that was successful in building momentum and support for the act. It is important to remember that no other jurisdiction that I am aware of has developed such a comprehensive agenda for the implementation of accessibility standards.

Implementation is now at a critical point, as the four remaining draft standards move through the approval process. A strong sense of commitment has been demonstrated and much hard work has already been accomplished by all the key players — the disability community, the government and the obligated sectors. In any review of this nature there is inevitably a focus on what has not worked and what needs to change. This is understandable and, indeed, necessary if the implementation process is to be improved and strengthened. The review, however, must also acknowledge that there have been many accomplishments since the AODA was passed in 2005.

Over the past two years the ADO has been focussed on several initiatives. First, a number of key changes have been made internally at the operational level to improve the overall administration of the Act. This has resulted in moving the development of the draft standards more quickly through the process. It has included working with the Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees (MAACs) and determining the kind of supports that they will require going forward. With respect to the obligated sectors, new tools have been developed to assist in the implementation of the first standard of Customer Service. Extensive work has also been undertaken internally to develop the enforcement and compliance mechanisms that will be required. In response to the many comments from the disability and obligated sectors regarding harmonization, the ADO has been working to address these concerns.

The AEBC hopes your review and Report will help to breathe new life into the process of making Ontario truly accessible for all its citizens and residents. Written Brief, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians (AEBC)

Notwithstanding the good will, sincere intentions and hard work on the part of all involved a certain sense of frustration and disappointment has been building among the many individuals and organizations that have been working to support the implementation of the AODA. Several reasons have been cited including: the current economic climate, disenchantment with the standards development committee process, ongoing uncertainties with respect to compliance requirements and timeframes, diminished focus and a relatively low level of public knowledge and engagement.

I do not believe that these sentiments are the result of a lack of commitment on the part of the minister responsible for the AODA, or the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario. Indeed, I believe that the minister and her staff as well as the ADO are engaged with the various issues that have been set out in this review and understand the need for renewed action and new approaches.

In my view the implications of implementing the AODA are far-reaching and necessitate a shift in attitudes and transformational change at a number of levels including cultural, social, political and economic. This shift can be likened to changes that have unfolded in society with respect to attitudes and actions on issues like the environment, smoking and diversity. Achieving transformational change on this scale requires more focused attention at the highest levels of government.

The ability to realize change of this magnitude is linked more to two broader realities — one internal to government and one involving our society. First, within government and perhaps similarly in other large and complex organizations, achieving change requires a focused and high level accountability structure. The degree of change required cannot occur in a “business as usual” environment. Those familiar with government processes confirm that a focused change management approach supported by strong leadership is essential to effect real change.

Second, public support for the objectives of the AODA and compliance with the standards depends on public awareness. There is no doubt that the real measure of the AODA’s success will be the reduction in barriers for persons with disabilities, but this can only be achieved by shifting attitudes among the general public to embrace and support the goals of the legislation. The government needs to develop and maintain a coordinated and integrated public awareness campaign.

These core elements — a change management strategy and an effective public awareness campaign – are essential if Ontario is to meet the goals of the AODA. With one standard in regulation, and four other standards in various stages of completion, now is the time to revitalize the implementation of the AODA. The government must breathe new life into the AODA by demonstrating a renewed commitment to its success by building momentum for change internally as well as across the obligated sectors and among the public at large. The changes proposed are intended to build on the work and progress made to date to ensure greater success in the future.

Options Considered

Before arriving at my recommendations, I weighed a number of options:

• Maintain the status quo by making no substantive changes to the ADO
• Move the ADO to another ministry
• Create a separate ministry of accessibility
• Create a separate government agency responsible for accessibility.

In assessing the options, I considered the goals, objectives and obligations under the AODA, the need for renewed momentum, the potential for disruption and the risk of slowing down the implementation process, and the status of the proposed accessibility standards.

I acknowledge that any degree of change will cause some disruption and require transition time. So I first considered recommending no substantive changes to the ADO. However, at this point I believe that change is necessary.

Then I looked at moving the ADO to another ministry. Several representatives from the disability community suggested that the current ministry is not the appropriate home for the AODA implementation. Some suggested moving the portfolio back to Citizenship and Immigration or aligning it with the work of the Attorney General so it can be under the same ministry as the Ontario Human Rights Commission. However, I do not see how shifting the ADO to another ministry would address the challenges at this stage of implementation.

Next, I considered proposing a separate new ministry of accessibility. A new ministry would give the portfolio of accessibility increased visibility and stature, and would be a clear signal that accessibility is a priority for the government. There are, however, disadvantages to establishing a new ministry at this point in the implementation process. First and foremost, I would be concerned that the resources used to create a new ministry would be diverted from the important work at hand in implementing the AODA and getting the first five standards in regulation. It is also clear that while setting up a new ministry would largely involve transferring staff of the ADO, it would have cost implications and would cause considerable distraction from the priorities of the AODA. On balance, I concluded that while the stature of a separate ministry could address some of the issues raised, what is more important at this time is to ensure continuity and stability in the implementation process.

Finally, I considered transferring all responsibilities for the AODA to a new arm’s-length agency. Creating a dedicated agency responsible for implementation could resolve many of the issues raised. The agency would be accountable to the government and have a clear and focused mandate to implement all elements of the AODA.

The government has established many independent agencies to perform regulatory and other functions. In the case of the AODA, the agency would need to play multiple roles, as the AODA requires an enforcement framework in addition to such functions as standards development and review, public education, training and compliance. While there may come a point where an independent agency would be appropriate to implement the AODA, I do not believe that this is the right solution at this time. I am convinced that there is still a need for direct government direction and involvement in the implementation of the AODA. I would also be concerned that this option, like setting up a new ministry, would risk disrupting and delaying implementation.

What I am recommending instead is a practical approach that builds on what has been accomplished to date and will revitalize the implementation of the AODA. This approach would raise the profile of accessibility, increase accountability for results, and promote a focus on accessibility across the Ontario government, the obligated sectors and the public.

Minister Responsible for Accessibility

The AODA makes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration responsible for administering the act. It also provides that this responsibility can be assigned to any member of the Executive Council (Cabinet), in accordance with the Executive Council Act. In late June 2005, responsibility for the AODA was transferred to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The accessibility portfolio is not part of the core business of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It may therefore not be self-evident to the public who, at the political level, is responsible for this file.

The review has found that transformative change is necessary to achieve accessibility by 2025. One of the key hurdles in meeting this goal is the low level of public awareness and understanding of accessibility and the AODA. To raise the profile of accessibility and support the transformational change needed both inside and outside government, I believe the minister’s title should reflect this important role. This change would acknowledge the work being done internally by the ADO and make it clear where political responsibility for the AODA lies within the government.

I, therefore, recommend that: The Minister of Community and Social Services be formally designated as Minister Responsible for Accessibility.

 

Strengthening the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario

The government is deep into the implementation of the AODA. The internal structures created to support this work are critical to success. Over the past two years the government has made changes regarding senior staff and direction to support implementation. I want to build on these changes and strengthen them.

Under my proposal, the roles and responsibilities of the ADO as outlined in Section 32 of the AODA would remain essentially the same. The functions pertaining to the standards development committees would move to the new Ontario Accessibility Standards Board, discussed below.

Appointment of Deputy Minister

I am recommending that the role of the assistant deputy minister for the ADO be elevated to that of deputy minister. This is a significant change from the current structure.

The recommendation must be seen in context of the stature that the office of a deputy minister carries in the provincial government. A deputy minister is accountable in different ways to the Premier, to the minister and to the Secretary of Cabinet, and has a detailed performance contract setting out priorities and expected results. Equally important is the awareness that a deputy minister has a clear mandate and authority to deliver on his or her responsibilities. Each deputy participates on key deputy ministerial committees across government. A deputy minister dedicated to accessibility would be able to ensure that the accessibility lens is brought to bear at the most senior levels of government on an ongoing basis. He or she would be in a position to lead a change management strategy to promote accessibility government-wide. A deputy focused on accessibility would be able to devote more time and attention to these tasks than it would be realistic to expect a Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services to do.

The designation of the minister and the appointment of a deputy minister would send a clear message across the public service that accessibility is a priority for the government. Together, these changes would revitalize the directorate and support its responsibility to ensure that Ontario meets the goals set out in the AODA. As well, a strengthened ADO would provide a clearer avenue for stakeholders (whether from the disability community, government or the other obligated sectors) to bring forward concerns and ideas about the implementation of the AODA as well as broader accessibility issues.

Let me add a point that relates to the Ontario government’s compliance responsibilities as the largest obligated sector under the AODA. While this has not been a specific focus of my review, it has struck me that as the ADO needs renewed authority to deliver change, the government as a whole needs to send a clear signal that it is doing all it can to get its own house in order. The recent creation of the position of Assistant Deputy Minister — Accessible Public Service in the Ministry of Government Services is vital for the government to meet its obligations under the AODA. I have heard from stakeholders that this change is already having a positive impact.

Renewed Priorities

With the first five standards almost complete and the responsibility for future standards review and development moving to the proposed new board, the ADO will be able to focus on renewed priorities to move Ontario towards the goal of accessibility by 2025. In my view those priorities should include:

• public awareness and education
• a provincial policy on accessibility
• compliance and stakeholder support.

Public Awareness and Education

As I noted earlier, all stakeholders — including those representing the disability community, the government, and the other obligated sectors — are very concerned about the low level of public awareness and understanding of the AODA.

Achieving the transformational change needed to fulfil the vision for 2025 will require a, broad-based public awareness and education strategy. The benefits of accessibility should be profiled to help erode attitudinal barriers and to advocate for a philosophy of barrier prevention and a more inclusive society.

I believe it is imperative for the government to intensify its public awareness effort, particularly with respect to the new standards. The ADO should take the lead in communicating the purpose and intent of the AODA and the role of accessibility standards, to ensure successful implementation of the legislation. To date, the government has not developed a strong communications campaign to promote the AODA, its objectives, obligations and broad application.

At the political level, in addition to the minister, it is important for the Premier and senior ministers to reinforce accessibility in their speeches and communications to the public. Over time such a strategy will help build greater public awareness and understanding and reinforce the benefits and value of achieving accessibility by 2025.

Provincial Policy

One key element that has been missing to date in implementing the AODA is an overarching provincial policy framework for accessibility that reflects the public interest. Developing such a policy should be a further priority for the ADO. This framework should provide:

• Greater clarity on goals and expectations supporting the vision for an accessible Ontario by 2025 (i.e., what does an accessible Ontario in 2025 really look like?)
• A set of core principles to inform the ongoing standards development and review process and to evaluate the effectiveness of the AODA
• A focus on the economic impact of the AODA, and
• Criteria for the development of additional standards.

Compliance and Stakeholder Support

In addition, the ADO should implement a strategy to facilitate and encourage partnerships to support the obligated sectors in working to meet the 2025 goal set by the legislation. This would include:

• Development of effective and timely tools and supports for the obligated sectors to facilitate compliance with standards
• Exploration of policy options and a variety of incentives (including tax credits and other tax policies) to support the transformational change needed to fully embrace and achieve the goals of the AODA ³³
• Development, communication and implementation of a compliance and enforcement framework
• Ongoing consultations with the disability community and obligated sectors about the implementation of the AODA.

The review heard many suggestions for changes that could be introduced at the practical level to assist the obligated sectors and the disability community as well. For example, it is currently a challenge for anyone searching for information on the AODA or the ADO to find what they are looking for on the Internet. The ADO is listed as a program on the ministry’s home page, but it takes several additional steps to get up-to-date information on what is happening. In fact, during the review I heard many concerns that people were unable to locate the necessary information about the consultations. I recognize the ministry has launched the AccessON site as part of its strategy to provide information and support to the disability community and to better inform the public on accessibility and the AODA. This is an important step forward but more needs to be done.

The AODA should be given much more visibility on the government’s central website. There should be a direct link to the ADO like the one for the Office of Francophone Affairs. While this might seem obvious, it is another example of how accessibility needs to be front and centre, especially in light of the increased use of the Internet. The government should make full use of accessible formats in its communications. This is required under the ODA, but the review was told that it does not always happen.

Support for stakeholders is not a job for government alone. The various provincewide associations and organizations in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors also have a role. Many have already been involved with the ADO and the standards development process. In fact, a number have participated in the EnAbling Change program that I have referred to earlier.

I believe that the EnAbling Change program should be enhanced and that the ADO should continue to work closely with these provincial groups to include accessibility issues in their annual conference programs and from time to time to develop specific meetings or roundtables on the progress of the AODA. These provincial bodies can serve a very important purpose in expanding awareness and understanding of the AODA on the part of their members.

I, therefore, recommend that: The government, led by the Minister Responsible for Accessibility, strengthen the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario by: elevating the role of the assistant deputy minister to deputy minister to provide stronger leadership and accountability for the implementation of the AODA, and focusing the ADO on renewed priorities including a public awareness and education campaign to support the AODA.

³³ This is consistent with the AODA, Part IX, Section 33 (1) (2) (3) that addresses the minister’s authority to enter into incentive agreements providing exemptions and other benefits to encourage obligated organizations to exceed the requirements in accessibility standards.