Previous page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

What the Review Heard: Key Themes - Implementation Challenges

While support for the vision behind the AODA is wide, much anxiety exists about how this will be achieved. In written submissions, public meetings, sector round tables and individual interviews, stakeholders raised four major challenges involving the implementation of standards, once adopted. These are: harmonization, costs, education and training, and compliance and enforcement.

Harmonization

First and foremost is what has been described as the challenge of harmonization. The AODA applies to all Ontarians – that is, all persons or organizations in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors, and soon five standards under the act will be in place. As the review has repeatedly heard, however, the standards as proposed were developed in isolation from each other and contain inconsistencies and overlaps. The lack of alignment is expected to increase compliance costs and in fact make those costs hard to estimate. Moreover, the review was advised that since communication between the committees was restricted to formal correspondence by the chairs, a number of interconnected issues appear to have been left unresolved.

The potential for confusion and misunderstanding is high. For example, each proposed standard uses its own criteria for classifying obligated organizations, by function and size, and establishes a series of accessibility requirements and timelines depending on the classification. Since the same organization could be classified in different ways by different standards, requirements could be more substantial and timeframes more demanding under one standard than others. Training is also a key issue — it appears organizations might be required to hold repeated training sessions for the same employees to meet different deadlines.

As well, given the various timeframes, concerns were expressed about the availability and supply of accessibility products and specialized consulting services to support compliance.

In considering timelines, stakeholders stressed the importance of setting priorities in the context of accessibility overall rather than viewing each of the five aspects of accessibility on its own. Since all five standards are linked to the common goal of full accessibility by 2025, they should be treated collectively. A bigger, integrated picture is needed to determine what should truly be done first.

Municipal and transit representatives in particular believe that this picture needs a local focus: some priorities should be set at the local level rather than taking a “cookie-cutter”, province wide approach. Transportation needs, for example, vary greatly between northern and southern Ontario, and between rural and urban areas, and the implementation of standards should reflect this reality.

One approach to address the challenge was outlined in a submission from London Transit on behalf of the transit industry and endorsed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and by many municipalities across Ontario. The paper suggested revising the proposed compliance timeframes to leave an element of the harmonization exercise to the discretion of obligated organizations. This approach would give obligated organizations the flexibility to implement changes in accordance with local priorities and capacity. The paper recommended a compliance process with four stages applicable to all standards: set priorities; change policies and procedures; train employees and communicate changes to the public; and implement the new policies and procedures. The stages could overlap but each would have a deadline. The implementation stage would be completed by 2020 — leaving five years to address any shortfalls before 2025. ³¹

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance responded that under this approach, accessibility requirements could not be enforced until 2020, 15 years after the AODA’s enactment. The alliance described this as “a formula for gutting the core of the AODA” that would substantially delay achieving accessibility for persons with disabilities.³²

While not everyone offered a solution, many stakeholders saw the issue of harmonization as one of the key priorities for the government to address in its review and preparation of the regulations for the remaining standards.

The Cost Question

At the root of many issues related to timelines are worries about cost. That is, if timelines are stretched, organizations will have more opportunity to build accessibility into their normal business and capital planning cycles. Several in the obligated sectors contend that many of the timelines in the proposed standards are unrealistic and set expectations too high, particularly given current economic conditions and financial challenges.

All obligated sectors expressed significant concerns about affordability. The review heard many calls for the provincial government to identify sources of funding for the broader public sector to implement the standards, as well as sources of financial assistance for business and not-for-profit groups. Even government ministries and agencies themselves are apprehensive about their capacity to meet accessibility requirements within their own operations.

The AODA imposes accessibility requirements on the private sector and the non-profit sector for the first time. Small business and small not-for-profit organizations are especially worried about the impact, pointing out that what would be small costs for large organizations could be big costs for them. A small not-for-profit housing provider hoped that financial help would be available from government. One suggestion from small business was to provide a training tax credit to help cover the cost of employee training required by the standards. The taxi industry proposed accelerated depreciation allowances for operators who invest to meet accessibility requirements. Many large organizations in the private and not-for-profit sectors have already done much to improve accessibility, but even these stakeholders are concerned about the cost as standards take effect.

More generally, business representatives urged the government to consider the broader economic environment and the impact of the overall regulatory burden on growth and job creation, especially in a recession. People with disabilities had a different outlook on the cost issue and underlined the need for a balanced cost/benefit analysis. By and large, the disability community is concerned that cost will be used as an excuse for inaction.

All sides seemed to feel that the costing studies done for the committees were of little help. Perhaps the problem is that until standards are finalized, it is hard to define exactly what is being costed. People with disabilities also noted that no real attempt was made to measure the positive economic benefits of accessibility, such as increased labour force participation and consumer spending by people with disabilities. Hence, they contend that the net costs of accessibility are overestimated. The review is aware that the ministry has commissioned research by the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto to quantify the economic benefits of accessibility. The results of this research should lead to a more balanced perspective on the costs and benefits of accessibility.

Education and Training

A third implementation challenge focuses on stakeholder awareness, readiness and preparedness. Calls were heard on all sides for a massive effort to educate business, the broader public sector and other obligated organizations on what they must do to comply with the AODA. This issue is related to the harmonization question, as the package of standards currently proposed would be extremely difficult to communicate, making it hard to achieve compliance. Some stakeholders recalled the rollout of the Building Code in the 1970s and the Fire Code and site plan controls in the 1980s as examples of the scale of the compliance effort that will be necessary.

Several participants urged the government to supply free downloadable tools to help organizations understand their obligations. Others called on the government to release information materials at the same time as the final regulation is published, noting that the materials on the customer service standard were months late. Needs are especially great among small businesses and not-for-profit organizations, which do not have the human resources staff to handle the compliance effort anticipated.

Train-the-trainer programs and other training resources will be essential. Already, private trainers are offering services, even though there is little to go on as far as what the content should be. It was widely felt that the ADO must fill this void with training guidelines and resources.

The ADO’s EnAbling Change Partnerships program was recognized as a successful way of encouraging sectors to develop educational resources tailored to their own needs. The program funds projects by trade or service organizations to promote compliance with the AODA and accessibility standards. In 2008-09, Colleges Ontario, the Council of Ontario Universities, the Ontario Education Services Corporation, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Public Transit Association and the Ontario Community Support Association were among the organizations that received funds to develop resources — such as training tools — to help their members comply with the customer service standard. Earlier, the Retail Council of Canada secured funding from the ministry to create awareness and compliance materials for retailers, including the interactive “How May I Help You?” staff training resource.

A number of suggestions were made for associations in both the disability and obligated sectors to build on collaborative projects like these. These umbrella groups could organize the sharing of best practices and develop education and information resources so their members will be in a position to meet their obligations under the AODA.

Compliance and Enforcement Framework

During the consultations, much interest was expressed in the compliance and enforcement procedures the government will put in place to implement the standards. Stakeholders in both the obligated sectors and the disability community were surprised that the compliance and enforcement framework had not yet been released given the January 1, 2010 effective date for the customer service standard for the provincial government and broader public sector.

The AODA Alliance called for an independent, arm’s-length enforcement agency, as well as a new, independent tribunal to hear appeals.

Many wonder if the government will emphasize education and support, or take a more punitive approach. People seek answers to such questions as how often accessibility reports will be required, what they will contain, who will review them, what the follow-up will be, who will do inspections and under what circumstances, and which tribunal will hold hearings. While outside the scope of the review, these issues were frequently raised during the consultations.

³¹Written Brief - London Transit on behalf of the Canadian Urban Transit Association and the Ontario Public Transit Association (An Approach to the Harmonization of AODA Standards).

³²Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. “Harmonization Yes – Evisceration No!” October 2009.