Workbook final

370 / 454

2. According to the AODA Alliance, a civil society network that advocated for the AODA to be enacted, that this law
hasn't made nearly the promised impact on Ontarians with disabilities and that Ontario has fallen short on several
fronts.
3. As a study by the Martin Prosperity Institute has found, just a 2 percentage point increase in the proportion of
persons with disabilities who have jobs would generate more than $500 million in economic benefits to the province
in terms of higher employment income and reduced disability support payments. Moreover, increased access by
people with disabilities to retail and tourism opportunities would accelerate growth in these sectors, while clusters
of accessibility-focused businesses could open up new global markets for the province.
TRANSFERABILITY, SCALABILITY AND COST-EFFICIENCY
The AODA can be replicated in other Canadian provinces as well as at the national level, as long as the will of politicians
is there to take on the challenge of moving the disability/accessibility agenda forward as a priority. There is a great
interest in the AODA in other provinces, e.g. Manitoba. Canada is currently discussing a bill based on Ontario’s Act.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (WITH ADDITIONS FROM THE ZERO PROJECT TEAM)
As of the Article 41 of the AODA, there needs to be an independent review of the effectiveness of the Act every five
years. The first review by Charles Beer was completed in 2010 and outlined some challenges, including the “challenge of
harmonisation” among the five different standards, which overlap whilst having different timelines and requirements;
the cost challenge faced by small private businesses and the need for sources for financial assistance; the education and
training of organisations that need to comply with standards; the lack of enforcement; the confusion on the relationship
between the Human Rights Code and the AODA. The review report made three recommendations: Firstly, to harmonise
the timeframes and requirements of the five developed accessibility standards before issuing new regulations. Secondly,
designating a Minister for Accessibility and strengthening the Directorate to renew leadership. Lastly, the AODA should
be amended and an Advisory Body (Ontario Accessibility Standards Board) should replace the Standard development
committees. All three recommendations have been implemented. The second review carried out in 2014 by Prof. Mayo
Moran concluded that considerable progress has been achieved under the AODA and much has been learned and
refined along the way, but that despite good intentions, however, for various reasons the AODA has not lived up to that
early promise. His recommendations, which recall some of the finding of Charles Beer’s review, are: Renew Government
Leadership; Enforce the AODA; Resource and empower the ADO to provide robust compliance support; Undertake a
comprehensive public awareness campaign; Clarify the relationship between the Human Rights Code and the AODA;
Plan for new standards (especially health care and education); Encourage, support and celebrate accessibility planning
beyond the AODA; and Improve AODA Processes.