Previous page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

 

What the Review Heard: Key Themes - Standards Development Process

As might be expected, given the review’s focus, the standards development process generated the most discussion during the consultations. First and foremost, it was widely recognized that the process directly involved more than 200 disparate participants who came to the table with a strong sense of commitment and dedication. These individuals contributed an enormous amount of time, thought, resources and energy to a difficult and lengthy exercise with a genuine intent to achieve the vision of the legislation.

Overall, stakeholders agreed on the value of the collaborative approach and saw the inclusion of members from the disability community and from the obligated sectors including government as a positive feature. Bringing different perspectives together was seen as an ambitious but worthwhile undertaking. Though the experience was frustrating at times, most of those consulted were satisfied that an important conversation had at least been started. The challenge now — as seen by many — is to fix the problems that have emerged and build on the strengths of the inclusive, collaborative process established under the AODA.

Committee Membership and Composition

The ADO posted an application form for membership on each standards development committee online, with supporting information. These materials were also available by mail, fax, email and alternate formats. Once recruitment closed, the ADO and relevant ministries worked together to assess applicants and recommend candidates to the minister. Selection criteria were adopted, including:

• endorsement of the applicant by organizations, communities or areas of expertise (although unaffiliated individuals were also permitted to apply)
• knowledge or expertise about sectoral issues and about identifying, removing and preventing barriers
• experience on boards, committees or teams
• volunteer or professional skills linked to disability or accessibility and
• strong communication or interpersonal skills.

On paper, the selection process looks sound but a number of issues were raised about its transparency and effectiveness. While online applications were taken, it appears a number of the members appointed did not go through this process but were invited to join. The wisdom of appointing unaffiliated individuals was questioned, as they appeared to be advocating personal positions rather than speaking for a larger constituency. Committees were often dealing with highly technical issues but lacked the required technical expertise. In addition, a number of members did not have previous committee or negotiating experience. Larger municipalities and transit systems have accessibility advisory committees, but many suggested that this pool of talent went largely untapped in recruiting standards development committee members.

Despite the increase in the disability membership of committees to 50 per cent, concerns were expressed that non-visible disabilities — such as mental health or learning disabilities — were underrepresented. As a result, some felt the proposed standards did not effectively respond to the needs of these groups. There was also a widespread feeling that the private sector, especially small business, was underrepresented. Some private sector stakeholders called for a return to the original structure for committee membership, with a balance among disability, business, government and the broader public sector.

Mandate and Scope

Some problems can be traced to the very beginning of the committee process, in the terms of reference and initial orientation materials.

It is widely believed that the committees’ terms of reference were too vague, leading to an open-ended exercise. With hindsight, some feel that the committees’ scope should have been limited to policy issues — that is, setting goals and objectives — which a citizens’ committee of individuals who did not have technical expertise could readily do. Meanwhile, operational issues — how to accomplish the goals — could have been turned over to technical and sectoral advisory groups.

Along similar lines, some stakeholders believe the proposed standards in general are too prescriptive. They would have preferred a performance-based approach, where regulations set objectives and leave it to the obligated organizations to decide how to meet them.

The initial background documents — known as “seed documents” — provided by the ADO to most of the committees as a starting point for discussion were seen as problematic. One document, for instance, was said to take examples from some jurisdictions out of context while ignoring relevant best practices from others — including Ontario. In general, the documents did not present viable options and as a result the discussion began with unrealistic expectations and without a sharp focus or overall policy guideposts. Some suggested that the ministry should have provided a draft standard as a basis for the deliberations.

A disagreement arose within the built environment committee about whether single family housing and building retrofits were within its scope. When the ministry released the initial proposed standard for public review, it indicated that the standards regarding single family housing and retrofits would not be considered at present. This decision led some committee members to protest that the government should have made these parameters clear at the outset.

Resourcing

The review heard many comments about the lack of support and resources necessary to be effective, both individually as members and collectively as a committee.

Given the inexperience of some committee members with consensus-building exercises, intensive orientation in the basics of government processes, the content of the AODA and the role and objectives of the committee would have been helpful. It was frequently noted that the orientation program for committee members did not meet these needs.

Despite the increase in their representation to 50 per cent, people with disabilities who served on committees reported feeling overwhelmed by business and other sectors — as well as by the process itself and the sheer volume of materials and documents. Disability representatives did not have access to resource teams or technical and legal advice to develop their positions as other sectors did; as a result, many in the disability community felt that their voice was not as effective as it could have been.

When the committees resumed deliberations in 2008, the ADO assisted disability members on some committees to work together between meetings. Still, it was widely felt that the committee members from the disability community did not receive enough support to tackle many of the more technical issues.

While the ADO was generally respected as a valuable resource throughout the process, some believe staff could have been better prepared and more helpful at times. A high level of staff turnover was a problem, breaking continuity in the support provided and sometimes leaving committee members wondering exactly what resources were available.

The efforts of the ADO to provide accommodations so that the committee members from the disability community could participate fully in the deliberations were widely appreciated. However, the review was told of a few instances where accessibility needs were not met.

The Workings of the Committees — Key Challenges

Size of Committees

Many people expressed the view that the committees were simply too big and unwieldy to work well. Four of the five committees had from 38 to 46 members. Such numbers were seen as making it almost impossible to engage in constructive conversation and debate, ensure everyone’s voice was heard and reach consensus on key issues.

Workload

The commitment of time and effort required of committee members and chairs was far greater than anticipated when they agreed to serve. The workload increased with the government’s decision to add more representatives of people with disabilities. Many issues had to be revisited for benefit of the new members and much of the same ground covered again. It appears the progress of some committees was significantly delayed due to the expansion of membership. Given the workload, it was frequently mentioned that committee members should have received some form of monetary compensation.

Decision-Making Model

Concerns were raised with the model of decision-making adopted by the committees. Approval of a measure required at least 50 per cent of the total voting membership to vote “yes”, and at least two thirds of the votes cast to be “yes” votes.

A number of observers feel the increase in disability representation shifted the model from consensus to negotiation, but the committees lacked the negotiating skills and support structure to make this approach work. In some cases the change in membership affected the working relationships on the committee. For example, stakeholders advised that the transit committee became polarized into “us and them” camps, and some say this happened to a degree on other committees as well. To some extent, these issues were also the result of the timing of the changes, as some committees were already far along with their work.

More generally, many representatives from the obligated sectors found it hard to explain why ideas would not work without seeming insensitive to people with disabilities. Some members representing various sectors noted that they often did not have enough time to get feedback from their constituents on issues before the committee moved on to other matters. As a result, decisions were made too quickly and without enough consultation with those affected. Subcommittees did much work to develop proposals, but it was not always clear what their decision-making procedures were and how their recommendations were reviewed by the full committee.

However, all this is not to say that no meeting of minds occurred; there were a number of “aha” moments, as one committee member put it.

Voting Procedures

The way voting was conducted drew criticism. In some cases, it appears documents to be voted on were presented at the last minute — and sometimes not in accessible formats — so members could not properly review them. Some committee members believe clause by clause voting proved to be impractical, as rejection of one clause could undermine other clauses that stayed in place. Since abstentions were not permitted (and were recorded as a no vote), some members felt obliged to vote on technical issues they did not understand. Others felt the results were influenced by pressure to meet deadlines when more time should have been spent on some questions. A number of issues that could not be resolved were put aside for discussion later, but never revisited.

Public Review

Problems were reported with the process for public review of the initial proposed standards, which involved public meetings and written submissions. Apparently committee members were not permitted to speak at the meetings, even though many of those attending were expecting an opportunity for dialogue. Moreover, little in the way of background information was provided at the meetings. As a result, some stakeholders felt that the sessions did not provide an opportunity for meaningful feedback on the proposed standards.

Some committee members remarked that they found the summaries of comments from the public review to be incomplete or misleading. It was noted that at present, once the committee submits the final proposed standard to the minister, that is the end of the formal public consultation process. Some observers suggested that the government should release draft regulations for public comment before finalizing them.

Roles and Responsibilities

Apart from the committee members representing people with disabilities and various sectors, the standards development process involved other players: the committee chairs, the ADO, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), facilitators, and committee members representing government ministries. Often the roles and responsibilities of these different players were perceived as unclear or overlapping. This situation undermined the effectiveness and efficiency of the process, despite good will on all sides.

For example, some committee members were uncertain whether the government representatives were there as advisors or stakeholders, even after they no longer had voting rights. For their part, after they ceased to have a voting role, the role of government representatives became more that of observers. And there were various opinions about the CSA’s contribution. Several participants felt the CSA staff were not allowed to do what they do best — develop standards — and were instead relegated to an administrative role. Others expressed doubts that the CSA had the policy expertise needed to deal with standards that are not mainly technical in nature.

Some suggested that the government should not be involved in the standards development process, while others felt government should be at the table.