Previous page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Introduction: Participatory Consultation Process

The AODA requires the person reviewing the act to consult with the public and, in particular, persons with disabilities. The review was grounded in a commitment to an open and participatory process.

In line with this commitment, I have made every effort to reach out to anyone interested, especially people with disabilities and the organizations that represent them.

I am extremely grateful to everyone who took the time and made the effort to take part in the review. Their input and insights have been invaluable to me in my deliberations.

I believe the various consultation channels utilized have ensured that any individual or organization that wanted to participate was given an opportunity to be heard. It was very important to me that the review be inclusive and that is why I strived to make myself available and to make the process as open and transparent as possible.

Let me make an observation concerning the availability and importance of American Sign Language (ALS) interpreters and Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ) interpreters, real time captioners and attendant care workers. In my own consultations we experienced challenges in scheduling sessions as a result of the limited supply of these necessary services across the province. It became clear to me that it is critical for these resources to be available in order to make it possible for people with various disabilities to fully participate in public forums, especially where the issues being discussed relate directly to accessibility. As we move to 2025, strategies to increase the supply of these critical human resources need be considered.

The people who have taken part in activities under the act are in an excellent position to assess its effectiveness. I therefore held close to 90 meetings with people who could be categorized as key informants with first-hand exposure or specialized knowledge of the implementation of the legislation. These individuals represented a diverse array of interests – including disability groups, business associations, the provincial government, municipalities, transportation, hospitals, labour, postsecondary institutions and the school system.

In addition, four separate roundtable sessions were held   with the private sector, accessibility groups, the transportation sector, and the broader public sector (municipalities, universities and colleges, schools and hospitals).

All members of standards development committees were invited to complete an on-line questionnaire seeking their views on what worked, what didn’t and how the process could be improved. Close to 100 responses were received, approximately 40 per cent from people with disabilities or representatives of disability organizations.

Public outreach was a major aspect of the consultation process. The review held public meetings in Toronto, London, and Ottawa and heard from many presenters, most on behalf of disability groups or obligated organizations and some by individuals relating their personal experiences. In addition, there were many who attended the session as observers, some of whom also participated in the discussions. Videoconferences were arranged for five northern communities — Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Kenora and Marathon — involving local participants.

The review made use of current technology to reach people with disabilities who otherwise would not have been able to participate. Citizens with Disabilities Ontario (CWDO) organized an innovative webinar where more than 100 people engaged in an online discussion. In addition, in cooperation with CWDO, La table provinciale francophone pour la personne handicapée held a webinar with over 40 individuals from the francophone community. This approach allowed individuals across the province to participate from home.

Call for Submissions

A call for written submissions was posted on the ministry’s website shortly after the review began. In all, more than 58 written submissions — in addition to hundreds of emails — were received from both organizations and individuals providing input for the review. ³⁰

The most detailed brief came from the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, the successor to the ODA Committee. The alliance addressed a wide range of issues — such as the rate of progress so far, an approach to repeal the ODA, government leadership, the standards development process, enforcement of standards, and technical supports for the disability community. The alliance brief was endorsed by several disability organizations.

Many other groups made submissions or presentations, such as the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Ontario Home Builders' Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association (Ontario), the Canadian Hearing Society, Community Living Ontario, the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario, the Ontario Community Support Association, the March of Dimes, Persons United for Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the Ontario Public Transit Association/ Canadian Urban Transit Association.

³⁰ See the Appendix for list of written submissions.