Accessible Transportation Planning and Reporting Regulations: SOR/2021-243

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 155, Number 26

Registration
SOR/2021-243 December 13, 2021

ACCESSIBLE CANADA ACT

P.C. 2021-1001 December 9, 2021

The Canadian Transportation Agency, pursuant to section 63 of the Accessible Canada Actfootnote a, makes the annexed Accessible Transportation Planning and Reporting Regulations.

Gatineau, November 3, 2021

France Pégeot
Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Transportation Agency

Elizabeth C. Barker
Vice-Chairperson
Canadian Transportation Agency

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to section 63 of the Accessible Canada Act footnote a, approves the annexed Accessible Transportation Planning and Reporting Regulations, made by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Accessible Transportation Planning and Reporting Regulations

Interpretation

Definitions

1 (1) The following definitions apply in these Regulations.

Act
means the Accessible Canada Act. (Loi)
Agency
means the Canadian Transportation Agency. (Office)
average number of employees
means the sum of the highest number of employees employed by a regulated entity in each month of a calendar year divided by 12 and rounded to the nearest whole number or, if the value is equidistant between two whole numbers, rounded up to the nearest whole number. (nombre moyen d’employés)
employee
means a person employed by a regulated entity referred to in paragraph 7(1)(e) or (f) of the Act and includes a dependent contractor as defined in subsection 3(1) of the Canada Labour Code, but does not include
  • (a) a person employed under a program designated by the employer as a student employment program; and
  • (b) a student employed solely during their vacation periods. (employé)
regulated transport entity
means a transport entity in respect of which a day has been fixed under section 3. (entité de transport réglementée)
transport entity
means an entity or person that is a member of one of the classes established under subsection 2(1). (entité de transport)
WCAG
means the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, published by the World Wide Web Consortium, as amended from time to time. (WCAG)

Interpretation of document incorporated by reference

(2) In these Regulations, if a document that is available in both official languages is incorporated by reference as amended from time to time, any amendment to that document is incorporated only when the amendment is available in both official languages.

Classes

Classes

2 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, the following classes are established:

Deemed class

(2) If the average number of employees of a regulated transport entity belonging to a certain class decreases such that the entity qualifies as a member of a class for entities having a lower average number of employees, that entity is deemed to have always been a member of that latter class and has the obligations of entities in that latter class.

Obligations before deemed change

(3) Despite subsection (2), if a regulated transport entity published an accessibility plan as a member of a particular class, it must fulfill its obligations relating to the feedback process and progress reports with respect to that plan as though it were still a member of that class.

Day fixed

3 (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of subsection 60(1) of the Act, the day fixed is

New transport entity

(2) If an entity or person qualifies as a Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 transport entity on or after January 1, 2022,

Updated accessibility plan

(3) An updated accessibility plan that is required by subsection 60(2) of the Act must be prepared and published no later than the third anniversary of the day on which the preceding accessibility plan was required to have been published.

Accessibility Plans

Form

4 (1) A regulated transport entity must include the following headings in its accessibility plan:

“General” heading

(2) The information that is included under the heading “General” must include

“Consultations” heading

(3) The information that is included under the heading “Consultations” must be drafted in accordance with subsection 60(5) of the Act.

Publication of accessibility plans

5 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a regulated transport entity must electronically publish its most recent accessibility plan in clear, simple and concise language

No public digital platform

(2) If the regulated transport entity does not use a digital platform to communicate information to the public, it must publish a print copy of its most recent accessibility plan in clear, simple and concise language and display it in a conspicuous location in the main reception area of each of its publicly accessible business locations.

Notice to Agency

6 A regulated transport entity must, by electronic means, notify the Agency of the publication of each version of its accessibility plan within 48 hours of publication and include in the notice a hyperlink to the URL of the plan or the addresses of the publicly accessible business locations where a print copy of the plan is available.

Alternate format

7 (1) A person may make a request that a regulated transport entity make its accessibility plan available to them in print, large print, braille or audio format or in an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology that is intended to assist persons with disabilities.

Form and manner of request

(2) The person may make the request through any means by which the regulated transport entity communicates with the public, including by mail, telephone or electronic means.

Response time

(3) The regulated transport entity must make its accessibility plan available to the person in the requested format as soon as feasible after the request is received, but at the latest,

Feedback

Feedback process

8 (1) For the purposes of subsection 61(1) of the Act, the feedback process established by a regulated transport entity must allow feedback to be provided by any means by which the regulated transport entity communicates with the public, including by mail, telephone or electronic means.

Anonymous feedback

(2) The feedback process must allow feedback to be provided anonymously.

Acknowledgement of feedback

(3) The regulated transport entity must acknowledge receipt of feedback, other than anonymous feedback, in the same manner in which it was received.

Designated position or person

(4) The regulated transport entity must designate and publicly identify a person responsible for receiving feedback on behalf of the entity or the position whose incumbent is designated to do so.

Publication of feedback process

9 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a regulated transport entity must, for the purposes of subsection 61(2) of the Act, electronically publish a description of its process for receiving feedback in clear, simple and concise language

No public digital platform

(2) If the regulated transport entity does not use a digital platform to communicate information to the public, it must publish a print copy of the most recent description of its process for receiving feedback, in clear, simple and concise language and, together with its accessibility plan or progress report, display it and in a conspicuous location in the main reception area of each of its publicly accessible business locations.

Date of publication

(3) The regulated transport entity must publish the description of its feedback process on the same day that it publishes its accessibility plan.

Updated feedback process

(4) If the regulated transport entity updates its feedback process, it must publish an updated description of the process in the manner set out in subsection (1) or (2), as applicable, as soon as feasible.

Alternate formats

10 (1) A person may make a request that a regulated transport entity make the description of its feedback process available to them in print, large print, braille or audio format, or in an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology that is intended to assist persons with disabilities.

Form and manner of request

(2) The person may make the request through any means by which the regulated transport entity communicates with the public, including by mail, telephone or electronic means.

Response time

(3) The regulated transport entity must make the description of its feedback process available to the person in the requested format as soon as feasible after the request is received, but at the latest,

Notice to Agency

11 A regulated transport entity must, by electronic means, notify the Agency of the publication of the description of its feedback process or of an updated description of its feedback process within 48 hours of publication and include in the notice a hyperlink to the URL of the description or updated description or the addresses of the publicly accessible business locations where a print copy of the description or updated description is available.

Progress Reports

Form

12 (1) A regulated transport entity must include the following headings in its progress report:

“General” heading

(2) The information that is included under the heading “General” must include

“Consultations” heading

(3) The information that is included under the heading "Consultations" must be drafted in accordance with subsection 62(4) of the Act.

Publication of progress reports

13 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a regulated transport entity must electronically publish its most recent progress report in clear, simple and concise language

No public digital platform

(2) If the regulated transport entity does not use a digital platform to communicate information to the public, it must publish a print copy of its most recent progress report in clear, simple and concise language and display it in a conspicuous location in the main reception area of each of its publicly accessible business locations.

Time limit for publication — Class 1

14 (1) A Class 1 regulated transport entity must publish a progress report, no later than the anniversary of the day fixed under section 3 in respect of that entity, in each calendar year in which it is not required to publish an accessibility plan.

Time limit for publication — Class 2 or Class 3

(2) A Class 2 or Class 3 regulated transport entity must publish a progress report by June 1 in each calendar year in which it is not required to publish an accessibility plan.

Notice to Agency

15 A regulated transport entity must, by electronic means, notify the Agency of the publication of its progress report within 48 hours of publication and include in the notice a hyperlink to the URL of the progress report or the addresses of the publicly accessible business locations where a print copy of the progress report is available.

Alternate formats

16 (1) A person may make a request that a regulated transport entity make its progress report available to them in print, large print, braille or audio format, or in an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology that is intended to assist persons with disabilities.

Form and manner of request

(2) The person may make the request through any means by which the regulated transport entity communicates with the public, including by mail, telephone or electronic means.

Response time

(3) The regulated transport entity must make its progress report available to the person in the requested format as soon as feasible after the request is received, but at the latest,

Coming into Force

Registration

17 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: Persons with disabilities face barriers that affect their ability to fully participate in activities of everyday living, including travel. All Canadians deserve the same opportunities and chances at success. The transportation system is an essential element to the inclusion and full participation of persons with disabilities in our society. These Regulations seek to eliminate barriers that limit accessibility through the proactive identification, removal and prevention of barriers to the accessibility of the Canadian transportation network.

The Accessible Canada Act (ACA) received royal assent on June 21, 2019, and came into effect on July 11, 2019. Its purpose, set out in section 5, is to “benefit all persons, especially persons with disabilities, through the realization, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, of a Canada without barriers, on or before January 1, 2040, particularly by the identification and removal of barriers, and the prevention of new barriers,” including in transportation.

Within two years of the coming into force of the ACA, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) was required to create a set of accessibility regulations related to accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports that set out detailed requirements for regulated entities, which in the case of the CTA are comprised of transportation service providers (TSPs) within the federal transportation system. The ACA’s planning and reporting requirements apply to TSPs that are required to comply with any provision of regulations made under subsection 170(1) of the Canada Transportation Act (the Act) and that are included in a class in the Regulations for which a date has been fixed. These TSPs include airlines, passenger railways, ferry operators, inter-provincial bus services, airports and other terminals as well as the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA).

Description: The ACA sets out a general framework for new accessibility planning and reporting requirements for regulated entities. However, regulations are needed to prescribe specific obligations and timelines.

The Accessible Transportation Planning and Reporting Regulations (ATPRR) set out specific requirements for (1) accessibility plans; (2) feedback processes; and (3) progress reports. They specify details regarding implementation timelines, the frequency and the manner in which the plans and reports are to be published; the timeline and the manner in which the CTA must be notified of their publication; the manner in which plans and reports may be requested; and the headers for the sections they are required to contain.

Rationale: The ATPRR operationalize the objectives of the ACA by establishing planning and reporting requirements for TSPs in the Canadian federal transportation network in order to contribute to the development of a barrier-free Canada. The ACA requires TSPs to create accessibility plans, feedback processes, and progress reports, thereby ensuring that they proactively develop accessible environments and services, and enabling persons with disabilities to raise accessibility issues with TSPs and to hold TSPs accountable for the creation of a barrier-free federal transportation network.

In the time since the ACA was passed and consultations were held, the COVID-19 pandemic has had substantial impacts on the transportation industry and persons with disabilities. The ATPRR will gradually phase in requirements in order to allow lead time for industry to come into compliance, taking into account the operational and financial disruptions that many TSPs are experiencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that now is a critical time to consider accessibility. Despite the difficulties faced by the transportation sector, it is as important as ever that accessibility be integrated in the development and modification of TSPs’ policies, operations, equipment and infrastructure. The rethinking of how transportation services are delivered — as the industry gradually recovers from the effects of the pandemic — is also an opportunity to implement the principles of universal design and give a larger percentage of the population the ability to travel barrier-free.

The ATPRR address concerns raised during consultations by the community of persons with disabilities, the transportation industry, and the general public. The Consultations section outlines the feedback the CTA received and explains how the ATPRR were revised in light of stakeholder input.

The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) estimates the impact of the ATPRR on the stakeholders discussed above. TSPs incur costs related to the required provisions in the ATPRR, and persons with disabilities experience time savings, reductions in anxiety, and independence. The CBA also estimates the cost to the CTA of enforcing the ATPRR. In terms of the present value, estimates of the total benefit of the ATPRR ($2,015,520) exceed the total costs ($1,133,997), for a present value net benefit of $881,523. The total estimated cost of the ATPRR has increased by $0.26M (present value) since prepublication. This increase is due to (1) the inclusion of costs to TSPs for feedback acknowledgment, which was inadvertently omitted as a cost in the analysis at prepublication; and (2) costs for providing alternate formats for the description of the feedback process, which was added as a requirement following prepublication. Although TSPs and the CTA will incur costs as a result of the ATPRR, the benefits experienced by persons with disabilities outweigh the costs, making the ATPRR an overall benefit to society.

Furthermore, by establishing reporting requirements, the CTA’s contribution to the ACA will in turn facilitate Canada’s compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and will thereby help to meet Canada’s obligations, including its obligation to report on compliance with disability-related standards.

As part of the ACA initiative, the CTA has aligned the ATPRR where appropriate, with similar planning and reporting regulations developed by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

The ATPRR are expected to have positive impacts for the inclusion and participation of all Canadians who are living with disabilities, and in doing so will promote equality of opportunity.

Issues

The core issue is the presence of barriers that limit accessibility for persons with disabilities in the Canadian transportation network. Barriers to accessibility are at the heart of inequalities between Canadians with and without disabilities. Persons with disabilities have a right to equal access to the Canadian transportation network, and the ACA promotes equality of opportunity and protects people from discrimination.

The CTA is required to put regulations in place within two years of the coming into force of the ACA. Due to the pandemic and to allow sufficient consultation time during this difficult period, the CTA has worked in lockstep with ESDC to finalize and have the ATPRR in place as early as possible.

The ATPRR establish requirements for TSPs to create accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports — and the duty to consult with persons with disabilities when developing these plans and reports — are a crucial and necessary step toward both eliminating existing barriers and preventing the introduction of others. These planning and reporting requirements require TSPs to critically assess their organizations’ operations and services in order to enable them to identify barriers and put into place plans to eliminate them. Feedback processes will allow persons with disabilities to take an active role in this process of identifying barriers, as well as establish a mechanism through which TSPs may be held accountable and ensure that meaningful progress is being made. The creation of progress reports will also serve as an accountability mechanism and ensure that TSPs are making meaningful progress toward the elimination of barriers in order to create a barrier-free federal transportation network for persons with disabilities and all Canadians.

Background

Overview

Accessibility is a human right that necessitates respect for dignity, equal opportunity, barrier-free environments, autonomy, inclusive design and meaningful involvement. It is recognized as a fundamental right in a number of international instruments and treaties, including the UNCRPD.

In 2015, the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities was mandated to lead consultations with Canadians to inform the development of new federal accessibility legislation. Following these consultations, the Minister was mandated to create a barrier-free Canada by January 1, 2040. As the plain language summary of the ACA indicates, in response to this mandate, the ACA would “lead to more consistent accessibility in areas within federal jurisdiction across Canada and would ensure that the Government of Canada leads by example.”

In 2017, approximately 22% of Canadians (6.2 million) aged 15 years and older reported being limited in their daily activities due to a disability. This percentage is expected to increase as the population in Canada ages, since the prevalence of disability increases with age. Every day, barriers prevent Canadians with disabilities from being able to access necessary services and buildings, and barriers continue to impact the participation of persons with disabilities across all aspects of work, family, and community life.

Accessible Canada Act

The stated purpose of the ACA is to benefit all persons in Canada, especially persons with disabilities, through the realization of a Canada without barriers. This will be achieved by the proactive identification, removal, and prevention of barriers in key priority areas, including in transportation.

The ACA defines a barrier as “anything — including anything physical, architectural, technological or attitudinal, anything that is based on information or communications or anything that is the result of a policy or a practice — that hinders the full and equal participation in society of persons with an impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment or a functional limitation.” It further defines disability as “any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment — or a functional limitation —whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society.”

In establishing a framework for accessibility, the legislation employs a sectoral approach that leverages and builds upon existing accessibility mandates. That is, under the ACA, the CTA, ESDC, and the CRTC maintain responsibility for accessibility within their respective jurisdictions.

The ACA creates a framework for developing accessibility standards and regulations, reporting on accessibility, and enforcing accessibility requirements, as well as monitoring implementation. Under the ACA, regulated entities —entities that are subject to the federal government’s jurisdiction as established in section 7 of the ACA — must comply with new planning and reporting requirements related to accessibility. In the case of the CTA, these regulated entities are TSPs, comprised of Crown Corporations and Agencies such as VIA Rail Canada, Marine Atlantic, CATSA and the CBSA and private sector entities, including airlines, ferry operators, passenger railways, and bus carriers, airports and other terminals.

Canadian Transportation Agency

The CTA is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and regulator responsible for ensuring that the national transportation system runs efficiently, protecting the rights of persons with disabilities to accessible transportation, and providing consumer protection for air passengers. The CTA has had, since 1988, a mandate to protect the fundamental human right of persons with disabilities to accessible transportation services. Under Part V of the Act, all TSPs in the federal transportation network must, up to the point of undue hardship, remove barriers to the mobility of persons with disabilities to facilitate equal access to the federal transportation network.

In enforcing this mandate, the CTA’s point of departure is universal accessibility. Universal accessibility differs from individual accommodation in that it is an engaged and innovative approach that proactively endeavours to avoid and remove barriers to accessibility on a systematic basis.

Guiding principles

The requirements of the ACA are to be carried out in recognition of, and in accordance with, the following principles provided in section 6 of the ACA:

Objective

The main objective of the ATPRR is to contribute to the ACA’s goal of the realization of a barrier-free Canada, by establishing regulations that ensure the development of processes that will work toward providing persons with disabilities with equitable access to the Canadian transportation network so they can fully participate in the social and economic aspects of Canadian society. The ATPRR do this by ensuring that TSPs specifically consider accessibility in the design, development and delivery of programs, policies and services, which would help to identify, remove, and prevent barriers to accessibility in the federal transportation network.

Description

The ATPRR create a set of requirements for the development of accessibility plans, progress reports and feedback processes, and through consultation and the feedback received, they would allow for the identification and removal of barriers to an accessible transportation network.

Key elements of the ACA

Accessibility planning and reporting can play a significant role in supporting a broader culture change on accessibility. The ACA requires TSPs to develop and publish accessibility plans that take into account the principles of the ACA and address their policies, programs, practices and services in relation to the identification and removal of barriers, and the prevention of new barriers, in the following priority areas:

  1. information and communication technologies;
  2. the procurement of goods, services, and facilities (e.g. to ensure that equipment and terminals are accessible);
  3. the design and delivery of programs and services;
  4. transportation;
  5. the built environment, to the extent that the built environment is a passenger aircraft, passenger train, passenger bus, passenger vessel, aerodrome passenger terminal, railway passenger station, bus passenger station, or marine passenger terminal; and
  6. communication, other than information and communication technologies, related to items 1 to 5, above.

TSPs must also, in their plans, address any provisions of regulations made under subsection 170(1) of the Act that apply to them, such as the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (ATPDR).

Under the ACA, TSPs must also prepare progress reports that provide updates on the progress made implementing accessibility plans and other accessibility-related progress that has been accomplished.

Accessibility plans and progress reports are subject to public feedback that TSPs are required to take into consideration. The ACA requires TSPs to establish a process for receiving and responding to feedback on the implementation of their accessibility plans, and the barriers encountered by persons that deal with them. They must also publish a description of the feedback process. As such, Canadians would be able to monitor what TSPs are doing to address barriers to accessibility and to hold them accountable. TSPs also need to regularly prepare and publish updated accessibility plans to describe progress that has been made and take account of the feedback received from persons with disabilities.

TSPs subject to the ATPRR are required to consult with persons with disabilities in the preparation of their accessibility plans and progress reports and explain how they did so. Furthermore, progress reports need to set out the feedback received and how it was considered.

Key provisions included in the ATPRR

In recognition of the human right to accessible transportation, the ATPRR have been designed to bring the core ACA provisions into effect in as timely a manner as possible while also providing TSPs with sufficient time to develop and implement their accessibility plans, and to collect and consider information received in feedback processes.

Recognizing that TSPs have different means to develop and implement their initial accessibility plans, feedback processes, and progress reports, the ATPRR stagger the coming into force of the requirements to publish initial accessibility plans and develop feedback processes, based on classes of TSPs:

Very small private sector TSPs with fewer than 10 employees are not subject to the ATPRR. This is accomplished by establishing a fourth class without a fixed date.

The ATPRR prescribe the following additional elements:

Regulatory development

Consultations

The CTA consultative process for the ATPRR took place in two phases. The first phase was initiated on December 2, 2019, and closed on February 28, 2020. The second phase began when the ATPRR were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 13, 2021, with a comment period of 65 days, which closed on April 18, 2021.

December 2019 to February 2020

On December 2, 2019, the CTA met with its Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) — which includes representatives from the community of persons with disabilities, TSPs and other interested parties — and indicated that the CTA would be launching consultations. The CTA published a discussion paper the following day, welcoming feedback from the public and stakeholders for three months from December 3, 2019, to February 28, 2020. The CTA invited representatives of the community of people with disabilities as well as TSPs to meet with CTA staff to discuss their comments and concerns.

The stakeholders that were consulted include the following:

  1. Persons with disabilities, and their advocacy organizations;
  2. Air carriers, both domestic and foreign;
  3. Rail carriers, both domestic and foreign, that operate across a national, provincial, or territorial border;
  4. Marine carriers, both domestic and foreign, that operate across a national, provincial, or territorial border;
  5. Bus carriers, both domestic and foreign, that operate across a national, provincial, or territorial border;
  6. Operators of terminals located in Canada which serve air carriers, and rail, marine, or bus carriers that operate across a national, provincial, or territorial border;
  7. Ports located in Canada which serve cruise ships; and
  8. CATSA and CBSA.

The CTA received 108 written submissions, including 67 from the public, 16 from the community of persons with disabilities, 21 from TSPs, and 4 from government entities. The CTA also held 5 meetings with the community of persons with disabilities and 4 with TSPs.

During consultations, representatives of the community of persons with disabilities, the general public and industry provided views on a number of issues central to the ATPRR.

Timing of initial accessibility plans

With respect to the timing of the submission of initial accessibility plans, the community of persons with disabilities and the public were of the view that 12 to 24 months would be sufficient, whereas most TSPs suggested a timeline of 24 months.

In response to the feedback received, the ATPRR allow for a staggered implementation approach over a three-year period to allow enough time for different TSPs to assess, consult, and develop their initial accessibility plans. Given that separate consultation processes for each TSP could generate multiple consultations, having staggered implementation dates for different classes of TSPs would also reduce consultation fatigue, a concern raised by representatives of persons with disabilities.

Specificity of accessibility plans

Community representatives indicated that accessibility plans should specify both the actions — including timelines — for TSPs to remove identified barriers as well as how TSPs will measure success. They also suggested that accessibility plans should provide detailed explanations of training, and include information about the hiring of persons with disabilities.

Pursuant to the ACA, the ATPRR can only prescribe the form and manner in which initial accessibility plans and updated plans are to be published. As such, these suggested elements are not included in the ATPRR.

Feedback processes

Members of the disability community and the public indicated that TSPs should be expected to respond to concerns raised by those providing feedback and making complaints. Some stated that persons with disabilities should be fairly compensated for their contributions to the development of the accessibility plans and progress reports. Persons with disabilities also expressed a preference for in-person engagement with TSPs. For example, one representative suggested that TSPs establish co-chaired advisory committees that include representatives from the disability community.

TSPs also provided a range of suggestions. Some responses emphasized that carriers should be allowed to define feedback intervals and processes, while others emphasized collecting feedback from individuals through the web, telephone, email, forms, or accessibility surveys. One suggested that requiring a diversity of feedback options would be an unreasonable and disproportionate burden.

In response to this input and in accordance with the requirement set out in the ACA that TSPs consider feedback received, the ATPRR enable persons with disabilities to provide feedback, including through any means that the TSP uses to communicate with the public, and also to provide feedback anonymously.

Progress reports

For both the community of persons with disabilities and TSPs, views with respect to progress reports varied considerably, although the range of recommendations from each group was comparable. Suggestions for the publication of initial reports varied between three months to a year and the frequency of updated reports similarly varied from a quarterly to an annual basis thereafter.

The ATPRR include a three-year cycle — with accessibility plans being followed by two subsequent progress reports — so there is sufficient time for persons with disabilities to follow progress and provide feedback to TSPs, as well as for TSPs to review the feedback received and to address concerns related to identified barriers in subsequent accessibility plans.

Publication of documents on digital platforms

Members of the disability community and the public, as well as TSPs, agreed that information should be published in a prominent location, meet accessibility standards, and include multiple forms of access. The disability community and public also emphasized the importance of a variety of accessible formats. The ATPRR require that accessibility plans, progress reports, and feedback processes are posted on accessible digital platforms and should be easy to find.

Alternative formats

Responses across stakeholder groups varied in relation to which alternative formats should be made available.

Some representatives of persons with disabilities suggested that multiple accessible formats should be available on demand, whereas others indicated that this could be burdensome and time consuming. Community suggestions included establishing a telephone request line or electronic text on websites, and ensuring that information is readily available in electronic text, audio and visual formats that are easily converted into other formats, formats compatible with screen readers or screen magnification software for both iOS and Android platforms, as well as DAISY readers or mobile applications, electronic files that are formatted for refreshable braille displays and alternate format hard copy materials including large print or braille.

TSPs did not generally comment on proposed formats, although they shared their experiences with providing transported-related information in various accessible formats. They widely indicated that print, large print and especially braille formats are virtually never requested by passengers given the wide availability of adaptive technologies. TSPs also commented on the timeframes within which they would be required to provide accessible formats on request; suggestions varied from “in a timely manner,” to days or several weeks.

The ATPRR require that accessibility plans and progress reports be made available in an electronic format that is compatible with an adaptive technology that assists persons with disabilities, as well as print and large print, braille and audio. Timeframes for making alternative formats available vary depending on the format requested and the class of TSP.

Small TSPs

Members of the disability community and public suggested that the ATPRR should apply in the same manner to TSPs of all sizes.

TSPs, on the other hand, indicated that requirements might need to be more flexible for smaller organizations, depending on their cost and/or complexity. They also recommended providing more lead time for small TSPs to meet the requirements.

Given the importance of accessibility, the ATPRR establish the same requirements for TSPs of different sizes for nearly all obligations. However, the deadlines for TSPs to come into compliance are staggered based on their number of employees. Very small TSPs with fewer than 10 employees are not subject to these regulatory requirements.

With respect to small TSPs who may not use a digital platform, some representatives of both the disability community and the public recommended that the CTA host a site for these circumstances. Community and TSP representatives also recommended a variety of alternative publication approaches, including email, mail, telephone, and documents available at TSPs’ locations.

To ensure consistency concerning where plans and reports are to be found, the ATPRR require TSPs that do not use a digital platform to publish their documents and make them available in a conspicuous location in the main reception area of each publicly accessible business location. TSPs that do not have a website are not required to establish one to publish their documents.

CTA notification

Members of the public generally agreed that the CTA should be notified on the same day that reports are published, whereas TSPs’ responses with respect to such notification varied considerably.

Given that not all TSPs have the same ability to publish and notify at the same time, and given that not all TSPs will be available on weekends, the ATPRR prescribe that TSPs must notify the CTA of publication within 48 hours.

COVID-19 pandemic

While most consultations were held prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CTA has continued to engage with stakeholders throughout 2020 and 2021. The CTA has also, in writing, advised stakeholders who participated in the consultations of its intent to proceed, as planned, to put regulations in place by the statutory deadline of July 2021.

TSPs agree that accessibility is important and did not raise substantive concerns about the impact of the pandemic on the ATPRR in principle. However, they have requested sufficient time for implementing new requirements given the operational and financial disruptions caused by the pandemic.

The CTA has heard from members of the disability community that they do not want to see the regulatory development process delayed, as these regulations support a fundamental human right.

February to April 2021

On February 13, 2021, the ATPRR were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, followed by a 65-day comment period which closed on April 18, 2021, to allow interested persons and stakeholders to submit comments. During the comment period, the CTA received a total of 15 written submissions: two from persons with disabilities; eight from representatives of the community of persons with disabilities; one from a crown corporation; three from TSPs; and a combined submission from four industry representative groups that together represent more than 300 domestic and foreign airlines.

The feedback received, and the CTA’s response, is outlined below.

Timing of initial accessibility plans

Representatives and members of the disability community pointed out that TSPs have known since 2019, when the ACA came into force, that they would eventually be required to develop accessibility plans. As such, these stakeholders suggested that the ATPRR prescribe stricter timelines for TSPs to produce their initial accessibility plans. Under the ATPRR, initial accessibility plans from departments, agencies and crown corporations would be due in December 2022; from large TSPs in June 2023; and from smaller TSPs in June 2024. Representatives and members of the disability community felt that these timelines were too generous. TSPs, on the other hand, felt that the deadlines fairly recognized the current state of the transportation industry.

After considering the comments received, the existing fixed dates for the development of the initial accessibility plans have been kept as is. The staggered implementation approach, over a three-year period, allows enough time for different TSPs to assess, consult, and develop their initial accessibility plans.

Content of accessibility plans

A number of representatives of persons with disabilities indicated that the CTA’s approach, which only requires that particular headings must be included in accessibility plans, will not obligate TSPs to effectively track barriers in a meaningful way. They suggested requiring that TSPs include essential information on how and when barriers will be removed; how consultations were conducted; and how input from persons with disabilities was taken into account. There were also suggestions that accessibility plans should provide detailed explanations of training and include information about the hiring of persons with disabilities.

TSPs stated that while they support the flexibility to adopt accessibility plans, the ATPRR should explicitly list the headers required under the ACA to avoid confusion. A number of TSPs also asked that the CTA produce guidance material to clarify the regulatory expectations in regards to contents of accessibility plans.

Pursuant to the ACA, the ATPRR can only prescribe the form and manner in which initial accessibility plans and updated plans are to be published; they cannot prescribe the content of accessibility plans or how to consult. However, guidance materials will be issued to address questions about content and appropriate consultations.

For clarity, the text of the ATPRR was adjusted to identify the headings required to be included in accessibility plans under the ACA. This change only ensures clarity; it does not introduce any new requirements. As such, it is not expected to impose any additional cost on stakeholders.

Publication of accessibility plans, feedback processes, and progress reports

TSPs submitted that the current requirement to post direct hyperlinks to accessibility plans, the description of the feedback processes, and progress reports on their main homepages is commercially/functionally unattainable given the limited and strictly managed space on their main digital platforms.

The CTA considered these comments and determined that requiring a TSP to have a separate direct hyperlink to each of the prescribed documents on their main webpage is unnecessarily burdensome for TSPs and could lead to confusion among persons with disabilities. As such, the word “direct” was removed from the regulatory text, thereby allowing TSPs to provide one hyperlink on their homepage that would lead a person to a separate landing page, which could contain a list (with hyperlinks) of all accessibility plans, progress reports and the feedback processes. This change is not expected to have any impact for users navigating a TSP’s website.

Notice to the CTA

Some representatives and members of the disability community stated that the ATPRR should require TSPs to notify the CTA at the time of publishing their accessibility plans, description of the feedback process and progress reports, as opposed to within 48 hours of publishing. TSPs submitted that they should have some flexibility as to when they notify the CTA of publications of the required documents.

The CTA considered the input and determined that the 48-hour timeframe to provide a notice will be kept as is, given that not all TSPs have the capacity to publish and notify at the same time.

Alternate formats

(a) Sign languages and braille

Representatives and members of the disability community submitted that the ATPRR should not include an exhaustive, i.e. limited, list of alternate formats that TSPs must use for providing accessibility plans, descriptions of feedback processes, and progress reports. Furthermore, members of the disability community suggested that ASL and LSQ be included as mandatory alternate formats, as not providing documents in sign languages could limit or undermine the participation of deaf people in the consultation process.

TSPs indicated that the ATPRR should follow the same approach as the ATPDR and specify the alternate formats that Canadian carriers are required to use. TSPs also suggested that requiring braille as an alternate format would force them to use outdated methods of communication rather than allowing the disability community and the industry to identify innovative solutions to address the needs of passengers with disabilities. Some smaller TSPs stated that many remote locations served by them do not provide services such as braille printing and may not even have adaptive technology for audio formats; while others indicated that they do not have operational capacity or dedicated staff to address requests for some alternate formats.

The CTA carefully considered all the comments received. Given that the ATPRR apply to a broad range of TSPs, including several smaller TSPs, and considering the potential costs associated with transcribing sign languages and that the general supply of sign language interpreters does not meet the demand in Canada, the CTA determined that it would be too burdensome for TSPs to have to provide required documents in sign languages. While the CTA recognizes that it may be challenging for smaller TSPs to provide the required documents in Braille, the 45-day timeline allows sufficient time for all TSPs to respond to such requests.

(b) Manner of request

Representatives of the disability community indicated support for the requirement that requests for alternate formats can be made through any means by which a TSP communicates with the public, and they also suggested that TSPs should not be permitted to set out designated methods of communication.

TSPs expressed a different perspective during the consultation process on this issue. They expressed the view that requiring them to accept requests for alternate formats through any means by which they communicate with the public would be impractical and would create an unnecessary burden. Rather than being constrained to a prescriptive list of means through which they are required to accept requests, TSPs indicated that they should be given latitude to establish designated contacts or processes that can manage these types of requests more efficiently. To provide additional clarity to persons with disabilities and TSPs, the ATPRR have been adjusted to explicitly require that a person “may make the request through any means by which the regulated transport entity communicates with the public, including by mail, telephone, or via electronic means.” This ensures that TSPs offer at least these means, but it does not remove the obligation to accept feedback in any other means that they use to communicate with the public.

(c) Timelines for alternate formats

Members of the disability community and representatives of persons with disabilities indicated that the response times for providing documents in certain alternate formats are too long. Some suggested that accessibility plans and progress reports should be available at the same time that the documents are published.

The timelines provided in the ATPRR are reasonable, as they recognize that some TSPs will require more time to provide documents in requested alternate formats given their limited resources and the lack of available services in some of the remote communities that smaller TSPs serve. In addition, while the ATPRR set out timeframes under which the alternate formats must be provided, these timeframes are maximums, and the ATPRR also indicate that TSPs should provide the documents as soon as it is feasible to do so.

Alternate format of the description of the feedback process

A number of representatives of persons with disabilities expressed concerns that the ATPRR do not provide for alternate formats of the description of the feedback process similar to accessibility plans and progress reports.

This gap was addressed by adding a provision which requires that the description of the feedback process be made available upon request in print, large print, braille, audio format or an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology that assists persons with disabilities.

Feedback processes

(a) Receiving feedback

Representatives and members of the disability community indicated that persons with disabilities should be able to provide feedback in any way that is accessible to them including in sign languages. A number of members of the disability community suggested that there should be an option of providing feedback in person and through face-to-face video calling in the primary languages of ASL or LSQ.

TSPs expressed concerns that requiring them to accept feedback by any means by which they communicate with the public does not reflect their operational realities. They recommended that the ATPRR provide flexibility to direct passengers to an electronic feedback method or other long-established methods. They also suggested that the ATPRR specify that alternate formats are not considered as means by which TSPs communicate with the public. Accepting feedback in some alternate formats would be costly and time-consuming.

The positions of all parties were carefully examined. Persons with disabilities should not be limited to submitting their feedback through a particular means, as feedback is an instrumental component of accessibility plans and progress reports. As such, the ATPRR were adjusted to clarify that feedback can be submitted by mail, by phone, or via electronic means. This ensures that TSPs offer at least these means, and it does not remove the obligation to accept feedback through any other means that TSPs use to communicate with the public. Allowing individuals to provide feedback by means of the telephone will allow individuals to provide feedback in ASL or LSQ via telephone using video relay services. These services are available to all Canadians at no cost.

(b) Anonymous feedback and retention of feedback

The representatives of persons with disabilities indicated that TSPs should be required to retain feedback over time to evaluate progress toward the removal of barriers and to determine which barriers to prioritize in the updated accessibility plans. One comment suggested that while TSPs are not required to provide acknowledgement of anonymous feedback, there should still be an acknowledgement that this feedback will be addressed.

TSPs have argued that they should not be required to address anonymous feedback as they believe that doing so would prevent them from excluding feedback from individuals who have not travelled with them. This is a misinterpretation of the regulatory intent, as TSPs are required to accept and consider all feedback received including anonymous feedback — irrespective of whether or not the person providing the feedback is a customer.

Pursuant to the ACA, the ATPRR do not prescribe the retention of feedback; the ATPRR can only prescribe the form and manner of the feedback. With regards to anonymous feedback, the intent is that any person can submit feedback related to the implementation of accessibility plans and all feedback must be considered regardless whether it was submitted anonymously or not, or if the person travelled or not with the TSP. The feedback does not need to be related to an individual traveller’s specific experience. Relevant guidance material will be produced to clarify issues that were raised by TSPs.

(c) Response to feedback

Representatives and members of the disability community expressed concerns that the ATPRR do not require TSPs to provide substantive responses to feedback. They indicated that TSPs should be required to respond to questions and explain how they will address feedback they receive and what actions will be taken. It was suggested that responses should include information about how and to whom a person can escalate the issue or make a complaint if they feel that the initial response is not adequate. A number of comments also stated that TSPs should be required to designate a person within an organization who would be responsible for receiving feedback and answering questions.

The ATPRR were adjusted by adding a provision which requires TSPs to designate and publicly identify a position or person who would be responsible for receiving feedback. This provides additional accountability and ensures that feedback is not lost. This change is not expected to result in any incremental costs, given that TSPs could designate an existing employee within an organization to be responsible for this role.

Plain language

Members of the disability community submitted that accessibility plans, the description of the feedback process, and progress reports should be published in “plain language” rather than in “clear, simple and concise language” since TSPs may interpret “clear, simple, concise” in different ways, which could lead to some TSPs using language that might be difficult to understand for persons with disabilities. Others also suggested the use of the “plain language” standard developed by Accessibility Standards Canada.

The requirement to have “clear, simple, concise” will require TSPs to provide accessibility plan, progress reports and feedback process that are easy to understand. This language is comparable to that included in section 86.11 of the Act. As such, no changes were made to the regulatory text in response to the concerns raised.

Class 4 regulated transport entities with less than 10 employees

A number of representatives of persons with disabilities submitted that entities with fewer than 10 employees should be subject to the regulatory requirements. They indicated that exempting such a large segment of transportation services providers will have the unintended consequence of removing incentives for these entities to remove barriers. One community representative suggested that the CTA should create a context-specific exemption based on quantifiable evidence of undue hardship that these smaller TSPs may experience.

The ATPRR apply to a broad range of TSPs, which cover the majority of the transportation network in Canada. Small entities with 9 employees or fewer are unlikely to have the operational or financial capacity to comply with the planning and reporting requirements. However, if an entity’s employee count goes up to 10 employees or more, it will be considered a Class 3 entity and thereby become subject to all planning and reporting requirements under the ATPRR. Furthermore, the ATPRR are aligned with the CRTC’s Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Accessibility Reporting Regulations (ARR) and ESDS’s Accessible Canada Regulations (ACR) which exclude entities with fewer than 10 employees.

Other issues raised in the context of regulatory alignment with ESDC and CRTC

The ATPRR have been developed to be aligned, to the extent possible, with the ARR and the ACR with the goal of maximizing consistency and minimizing administrative burden on regulated entities. The following adjustments to the ATPRR were made to resolve inconsistencies among the three sets of regulations.

Establishment of classes

Under the proposed ATPRR at prepublication, the provisions establishing classes for private sector entities referred to the average number of employees in the previous calendar year. This meant that an entity could only qualify as a member of a particular class on January 1 of the year following the year in which the average number of employees had been determined. The reference to “previous calendar year” would also delay the date by which an entity’s initial accessibility plan became due; e.g. it would be one year later than if the entity could qualify on December 31 of a given year. For example, under the proposed ATPRR at prepublication, if an entity’s average number of employees in 2022 was 100, it would qualify as Class 2 on January 1, 2023, the date fixed would be June 1, 2024, and their initial accessibility plan would not be due until June 1, 2025. By contrast, ESDC’s ACR would enable this entity to qualify on December 31, 2022, the fixed date would be June 1, 2023, the calendar year following the calendar year in which the entity or person qualified, and the initial accessibility plan would be due June 1, 2024. The wording difference between the two sets of regulations would have led to substantial misalignment in terms of the time between qualifying and when initial accessibility plans become due.

The ATPRR were adjusted by replacing the word “previous” with “current” to align with the ACR and close this gap.

Newly established regulated entities

The proposed ATPRR and the ACR had set different dates for newly established regulated entities to publish their initial accessibility plans, which would have resulted in significant misalignment for TSPs which are subject to both sets of regulations. The ATPRR were therefore adjusted to minimize misalignment with the ACR; however, there remains a small gap of one year for any TSPs that are newly established during 2021 and qualify as Class 4 regulated entities on December 31, 2021, but then, due to a change in size, qualify as Class 3 on December 31, 2022. Newly established TSPs that fall within this category will be required to produce their initial accessibility plans on June 1, 2023, which is one year earlier than the due date for existing Class 3 entities, which is June 1, 2024. This change will only affect those TSPs that are newly established in 2021 and qualify as Class 4, but then become Class 3 in 2022 as a result of a change in size. The CTA anticipates that very few TSPs — if any — will be captured by this requirement and, therefore, the impact of this requirement is expected to be negligible. Furthermore, any entity captured by this requirement could request a one-year exemption to be aligned with the reporting requirements for other Class 3 entities.

In addition, to correct the time differences and to create further alignment with the ACR, the ATPRR were adjusted by changing the date by which newly established Class 1 entities must publish their initial accessibility plans from December 31 to June 1.

Publication of the description of the feedback process together with the accessibility plan or progress repot

A new requirement was introduced for TSPs to publish a description of the feedback process together with the accessibility plan or progress report on a landing page or in a conspicuous location in the main reception area of each of its business locations if a TSP does not use a digital platform.

The intent of this change is to ensure that all documents required under the ATPRR are published in one location next to each other and that they can be quickly and easily located by persons with disabilities on the TSP’s main digital platform or its publicly accessible business locations. This change also aligns with the ACR. This requirement provides additional clarity and is consistent with the original policy intent of the proposal. No incremental costs associated with this requirement are anticipated.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

The ACA applies to federal TSPs (it applies to carriers, the terminals that serve them, as well as CATSA and CBSA) that operate or carry out an undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament, which includes Northern and remote areas served by small carriers and terminals (which could be owned by Indigenous peoples). As a result, a First Nation Band or Council, insofar as they own carriers or terminals, would be implicated in applying regulations made under the ACA, including the development of plans and progress reports.

The CTA’s initial assessment is that the Crown does not have a duty to consult Aboriginal groups with respect to the development of the ATPRR, given that there does not appear to be a potential adverse impact of the ATPRR on potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada as recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Considering that the CTA’s initial assessment of the Crown’s duty to consult is fact dependent, the CTA will remain attentive to any new information that could impact this initial assessment.

The CTA was particularly interested in hearing from Indigenous communities and representative organizations, and welcomed input that would enable the CTA to better understand the nature, extent and importance of accessible transportation issues affecting Indigenous communities and that could be considered in the development of the ATPRR.

As part of its consultation process, the CTA made efforts to contact the Land Claims Agreement Coalition and its members as well as a range of federal Indigenous organizations, including the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC), the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the Métis National Council (MNC), the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Congress), Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunatsiavut Government, Grand Council of the Crees, Teslin Tlingit Council, Selkirk First Nation, Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun.

During consultations, one organization met with the CTA to discuss a range of topics including the CTA’s ACA regulations. The group encouraged the CTA to take a broad approach and include gender-based analysis, noting that the CTA’s consultation paper did not explicitly mention Indigenous persons who constitute a substantial proportion of the population of the North and remote areas. With respect to the ACA in particular, the organization indicated that they were of the view that feedback processes that are in-person (e.g. round tables) have been the most productive, and that this type of feedback is important for remote communities as they may not have Internet access, which may impede their participation in virtual consultations. While the ACA allows TSPs flexibility in designing their feedback processes, the CTA intends to reflect these views and propose best practices in guidance.

Instrument choice

The ACA requires the development of regulations addressing accessible transportation planning and reporting within two years after the coming into force of the ACA. The ACA came into force in July 2019. As such, the ATPRR are required to fulfill a statutory requirement. Moreover, this statutory requirement was established to address a fundamental human right. As such, no non-regulatory options were considered.

Regulatory analysis

Cost-benefit analysis

Purpose

The CBA measures the incremental impacts on the affected Canadian stakeholders (governments, consumers, businesses and other organizations) from the ATPRR. Incremental impacts reflect the difference between two scenarios: what would happen in the absence of the ATPRR (baseline scenario); and what is expected to happen when the ATPRR are implemented (regulatory scenario). These scenarios are described in the next two sections.

That the CBA measures incremental impacts is important to remember when reviewing the following analysis. Any impact of the ATPRR which is determined to be out of scope, or not incremental to the baseline scenario, does not mean that the cost or benefit does not exist. These impacts are real, and sometimes substantial; however, in accordance with the Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, because they do not stem from the ATPRR, they are not considered.

Potential costs and benefits that arise from the following are out of scope when analyzing the costs and benefits of federal regulatory proposals:

Costs and benefits to be analyzed are those that stem solely from the new requirements of the ATPRR.

Baseline scenario

The baseline scenario defines the environment that would have existed in the absence of the ATPRR. It is the scenario against which the costs and benefits of the ATPRR are assessed.

The baseline scenario consists of the following Act and regulations:

In the baseline, the ACA is in force. Sections 60 to 62 of the ACA establish the obligation on TSPs with respect to the production and publication of an initial accessibility plan, a feedback process and progress reports respecting the implementation of their accessibility plan. The accessibility plans, progress reports and feedback processes will be referred to as the “required documents” in this analysis, when discussing these documents together.

In addition to sections 60 to 62, subsection 63(1.1) of the ACA states that the CTA must make at least one regulation under subsection 63(1) within the period of two years that begins on the day on which this subsection comes into force. Subsection 63(1) of the ACA outlines several possible areas for potential regulations to be made. This analysis assumes that in the baseline scenario, the CTA would make the regulation pursuant to paragraph 63(1)(a): fixing the date in which TSPs would have to begin complying to sections 60 to 62 of the ACA.

In the baseline scenario, like the regulatory scenario, private TSPs with fewer than 10 employees are not subject to the ATPRR. These entities are excluded given significant limitations in their capacity to comply with the new planning and reporting requirements.

In the baseline, the ATPRR apply equally to any TSP that must comply with any provision of any regulations under subsection 170(1) of the Act and for which a date has been fixed for the initial accessibility plan. These regulations include the ATPDR, the Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations (PTR) and the Air Transportation Regulations (ATR).

The ATPDR plays a significant role in the baseline scenario. Subsection 4(1) of the ATPDR requires that if an obligated TSP makes available to the public information about any transportation-related service or facility, the TSP must ensure that it is compatible with adaptive technology if made available in an electronic format, or made available in braille, large print and audio formats on request.

This CBA considers an accessibility plan, progress report and feedback process as “information about any transportation-related service or facility.” Therefore, in the baseline, those TSPs subject to the ATPDR are required to make them available in alternate formats.

The ATPDR applies to large TSPs. The CTA recently held consultations on a proposed Phase II ATPDR, which would extend the ATPDR to small TSPs. Based on the input received in those consultations, the CTA determined that further discussions are needed to better understand the operating realities of these TSPs and the needs of the communities they serve.

Regulatory scenario

The regulatory scenario includes the legislative requirements of the ACA that will be in effect. However, in addition to the above-noted regulation (made pursuant to paragraph 63(1)(a) of the ACA) fixing or determining, for the purposes of subsection 60(1), a day in respect of a regulated entity to comply, the ATPRR would also be in place, specifying the form and manner in which the required documents are to be prepared (further discussed in the cost section).

The regulatory scenario, as described earlier in the “Description” section, establishes three classes of TSPs for which the application of the ATPRR would be staggered over a three-year time period. TSPs with fewer than 10 employees would not be subject to the requirements.

Stakeholders
TSPs

TSPs in the context of the ATPRR are companies that provide services to the travelling public, and are regulated by one or more of the following regulations: ATPDR; ATR; and PTR. These include private sector air, rail, bus, and marine carriers and terminals; and Departments, Agencies or Crown Corporations.

Under the ATPRR, TSPs would be affected differently based on their class, and whether or not they are subject to the ATPDR. The ATPDR apply to a wide range of air, rail, bus and ferry terminals/ports, as well as to the activities/responsibilities of CATSA and CBSA. Since subsection 4(1) of the ATPDR requires information provided to the public to be available in accessible formats, the similar requirements in the ATPRR would not impose incremental costs on TSPs regulated by the ATPDR.

This analysis assumes that the number of TSPs remains constant for the ten-year period of the analysis. The following table displays the breakdown of TSPs by class.

Table 1: Summary of TSPs per class
TSPs classification Number of TSPs table c1 note a
Class 1 7
Class 2 38
Class 3 68

Table c1 note(s)

Table c1 note a

If a TSP has subsidiaries or one TSP owns/operates multiple terminals, it is counted as a single TSP for the purposes of this CBA. Of the 113 TSPs, 71 are subject to the ATPDR.

Return to table c1 note a referrer
Persons with disabilities

The provisions in the ATPRR are expected to make it easier for persons with disabilities to read and understand accessibility plans and allow them to provide feedback to TSPs, as well as to make the best transportation-related decisions based on their particular needs. This is discussed in more detail below.

CTA

The CTA will incur costs related to ensuring that the accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports are in the form and manner prescribed in the ATPRR.

Benefits and costs

This analysis quantifies/monetizes impacts where possible and provides a qualitative assessment of the costs and benefits where quantification was not possible. This CBA is estimated over a ten-year “analysis period” between 2021, and 2030.

As summarized later in this analysis, the ATPRR are estimated to result in a net present value (NPV) benefit of approximately $0.88M over the ten-year period, expressed in 2019 dollars. At prepublication, it was estimated that the monetized benefits of the ATPRR ($2,015,520) would exceed the total costs ($878,514) resulting in a NPV benefit of $1,137,006.The current estimated net present value benefit ($0.88M) is down from the prepublication NPV benefit ($1.137M) due to the addition of costs associated with the requirement that TSPs acknowledge feedback received. This requirement and the associated costs are discussed in further detail below.

Costs
Web accessibility

The ATPRR require that TSPs publish required documents on the main publicly used digital platform that they own, operate or control and that they use to communicate information to the public, and in a manner that makes the documents accessible by way of a hyperlink, at minimum, in an accessible format that is compliant with Level AA conformance with the last bilingual version of WCAG. These web accessibility requirements do not apply in respect of a TSP that does not own, operate or control a digital platform; however, such a TSP would be required to publish physical copies of the documents and make them available. All TSPs in this analysis do have a digital platform to communicate information.

The latest bilingual version of WCAG is 2.0. However, version 2.1 was published in June of 2018 (in English). Given that the first accessibility plan would not be published until June 1, 2022, this analysis assumes that a bilingual version of WCAG 2.1 will be available by then.

In order to be WCAG 2.1 compliant, a digital platform must be robust. Guideline 4.1 indicates that this means that the platform maximizes compatibility with current and future user agents, and assistive (adaptive) technologies. Therefore, the requirement for electronic formats to be compatible with adaptive technology that is intended to assist persons with disabilities is embedded within the WCAG compliant requirement.

The cost to TSPs in complying with the WCAG 2.1 requirements would include the cost for an IT developer to make the required changes to become WCAG-compliant and an audit by internal or external personnel to verify that all features of the web accessibility are working correctly. Additionally, the ATPRR require that the documents are WCAG-compliant in both English and French, thus imposing the additional cost of translation. These costs are applicable for each version of the accessibility plan and progress reports over the course of the ten-year analysis period for each TSP.

It is assumed that both French and English accessibility plans for Class 1 and 2 TSPs (larger TSPs) would be 10 pages in length, progress reports five pages, and the feedback process half a page. The required documents for Class 3 TSPs (smaller TSPs) were assumed to be half the length, with the exception of the feedback process which was also assumed to be half a page. The IT developer would require several hours per page to ensure compliance with WCAG 2.1. The number of hours per page was derived from industry feedback and is different for smaller and larger TSPs. The web development cost of converting the required documents to WCAG 2.1 was estimated by multiplying the average wage rate of the IT developer by the total number of hours per document to convert (number of pages per document multiplied by hours per page to convert).

The audit/verification cost of ensuring compliance was estimated by multiplying the number of hours needed to complete the audit per document by the wage rate of the auditor. The auditor is assumed to be a third-party consultant and the number of hours is based on an internal CTA consultant report.

The incremental cost of becoming WCAG 2.1-compliant for the applicable TSPs (subject to ATR or PTR only) is estimated to be $443,239 NPV (2019 CAD) over the ten-year period, or an annualized average of $63,107. This is the sum of the total IT developer cost for making the bilingual required documents WCAG 2.1 compliant and the total audit/verification costs.

Print, large print and braille

This analysis does not assess the cost of potential requests for regular print formats of the required documents. It is assumed that minimal requests will be made for this format, based on feedback received from TSPs. Additionally, it is assumed that most people who would like a regular print version would print it themselves due to the time lag involved in receiving the print version from the TSPs. The cost to TSPs would involve just the cost of the paper and postage to mail it to the requestor. A small cost per TSP is expected per year for this format.

The CTA conducted a survey of all TSPs to determine how many requests for large print and braille a TSP might receive for any of the required documents. TSPs were asked how many requests per year, over the last three years (on average), were received. Of the 21 respondents to the survey, the majority (84%) stated that they received no requests for the alternate format. The remaining respondents (16%) received between one and 10 requests per document per year.

The overall average number of requests for large print and braille from all responses was less than one request per year, per document that they currently have published. Given that responses were received from roughly 17% of TSPs subject to the ACA, most of whom are within the third class of TSPs (smaller TSPs), it cannot be taken as fully representative of the entire population of TSPs. As such, this analysis assumes that larger TSPs will receive three requests per year for large print and braille per required document, and smaller TSPs will receive two.

This analysis estimates the cost of a master copy, plus three copies for larger TSPs and two copies for smaller TSPs, as explained in the previous paragraph. The master copy is estimated by multiplying the number of pages per required document by the cost per page. For large print and braille, it is assumed that the content of the required documents will take more space, thus requiring more pages than what was estimated in the web accessibility section. It is assumed that the large print documents will be 1.5 times the length of the regular print format for both larger and smaller TSPs. The cost per page was based on quotes received from third-party companies which produce alternate formats. In addition to the development of the master copies, the cost of printing the copies for the TSPs is estimated. The cost to print is calculated by multiplying the number of pages per copy of the large print and braille documents by the per page cost to print. This is then multiplied by the number of copies of the required document for the given year. An additional cost to fulfill the request is also calculated by multiplying the number of requests a TSP receives by the appropriate employee wage. It is assumed that it would take 20 minutes to fulfill one request.

It is estimated that the incremental cost to TSPs for providing large print and braille formats would be $76,681 NPV (2019 CAD) over the ten-year period, or an annualized average of $10,917.

Audio

Similar to the other alternate formats, TSPs have indicated that they do not receive many requests for audio versions of documents. It is believed that most, if not all, persons with disabilities who would like an audio version, would turn to e-readers. This analysis assumes one copy will be requested per required document. It is important to note that the largest cost with the audio format is in creating the first copy, as any subsequent request would not require the audio file to be reproduced. As such, the assumption of one request per TSP would capture the main cost to TSPs, even if the actual number of requests were higher. The request will either be for a French or English version of the required document. The cost per audio format is similar for French and English versions.

The cost per TSP of producing an audio version of a required document is calculated by multiplying the total number of words in the document by the cost per word for converting the document to audio. This analysis assumes that each required document (accessibility plans and progress reports) will have 250 words per page. Therefore, multiplying 250 by the corresponding number of pages of the required document results in the total number of words. The cost per word is estimated using internal CTA contracts and invoices from third-party contractors for previous conversions of documents into audio versions. This analysis assumes that TSPs would also use third-party contractors to produce the audio formats.

It is estimated that the incremental cost to TSPs for providing an audio format is $116,065 NPV (2019 CAD) over the ten-year period, or an annualized average of $16,525.

Feedback acknowledgement

TSPs will be required to accept and acknowledge feedback through the means by which it is received. In the CTA’s analysis, it is assumed that the main forms of communication used by TSPs to communicate with the public are telephone, mail, email, and other electronic means including social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.). It is expected that TSPs will incur an initial cost to set up processes for acknowledgement of submissions and an ongoing cost related to monitoring their platforms.

TSPs are expected to incur a one-time set up cost and an ongoing acknowledgement cost. It is assumed that a TSP’s acknowledgement of receipt will be one page in length and the same acknowledgement will be used for all platforms of communications. Furthermore, this analysis assumes that TSPs will utilize the available auto-acknowledgement features or saved replies in many communication platforms. It is estimated that the one-time set up cost to save an acknowledgement to the various communications platform of a TSP will represent one hour of a customer service representative time at their wage rate plus overhead of $42 (2019 CAD) per hour. The ongoing costs incurred by TSPs will be related to monitoring their communication platforms and acknowledging receipt of any feedback related to accessibility plans or progress reports. TSPs are required to acknowledge any feedback received related to the implementation of the accessibility plans or barriers encountered by PWD. For class 1 and 2 entities, it is estimated that the representative would spend 10 to 30 minutes per week acknowledging feedback. For class 3, it is estimated that it would take between 2.5 and 7.5 minutes per week due to the assumption that they will receive lower volumes of feedback. Time ranges are used because the true time spent on acknowledging feedback is unknown. That said, it is believed the above stated ranges are a reasonable estimate. The ongoing cost is calculated by multiplying the number of TSPs by an employee’s time, the appropriate wage rate, and the number of weeks in a year.

It is therefore estimated that the incremental cost to TSPs for acknowledging feedback will range between $126,912 and $372,737 NPV (2019 CAD) over the ten-year analytical period, or an annualized value ranging between $18,069 and $53,069. The average incremental cost to TSPs will be $249,824 NPV (2019 CAD), or an annualized value of $35,569 based on the midpoints of the ranges. The reported CBA results use the average of the ranges; however, a sensitivity analysis is provided below, which considers different cost scenarios based on the time ranges.

The ATPRR will also require TSPs to designate and publicly identify a position or person to receive feedback. However, it is unlikely that TSPs will need to hire new employees to be the designated contact person and, therefore, the requirement to designate a contact person is not expected to result in any incremental costs to TSPs.

Second progress report

Subsection 62(1) of the ACA states TSPs must prepare and publish, in accordance with the ACA and regulations made under subsection 63(1), a progress report respecting implementation of its accessibility plan. The ATPRR require TSPs in Classes 1 to 3 to publish a progress report in each year between updated accessibility plans. The following table helps visualize the additional requirement of the ATPRR. This table is for illustration purposes only and does not reflect specific timelines for required for documents for all TSPs.

Table 2: Accessibility plan implementation requirements
Year Deliverable
Year 1 Initial accessibility plan
Year 2 Progress report 1
Year 3 Progress report 2
Year 4 Updated accessibility plan
Year 5 Progress report 1
Year 6 Progress report 2
Year 7 Updated accessibility plan
Year 8 Progress report 1
Year 9 Progress report 2
Year 10 Updated accessibility plan

In the above table, progress report 1 is a requirement under the ACA, and thus its creation and publication are not considered in the analysis. Progress report 2 is a requirement of the ATPRR and is therefore considered an incremental cost in this analysis. It is important to note that the costs for alternate formats described above include both progress reports 1 and 2, as the requirement to provide alternate formats is established in the ATPRR. The cost estimated in this section is only related to the actual creation and publication of the second progress report.

It is assumed that the second progress report would take less time (half) to produce than the first progress report given that a lot of the content would likely be taken directly from the first report. This analysis assumes it would take 7.5 hours (one business day) to develop each page of the second progress report. This analysis assumes the progress report would be 5 pages in length for Class 1 and 2 TSPs and 2.5 pages for Class 3 TSPs. The cost per TSP of the second progress report was estimated by multiplying the number of hours per page by the total number of pages by the wage rate of support workers of TSPs as reported by Statistics Canada. This was then multiplied by the number of TSPs to calculate the industry cost.

The total cost to all TSPs for producing the second progress report is estimated to be $174,609 NPV (2019 CAD) over the ten-year period, or an annualized average of $24,860.

Notification to the CTA

Under the ATPRR, TSPs would be required to notify the CTA within 48 hours of publishing their accessibility plans, progress reports and feedback processes by electronic means (e.g. email, web portal) including the URL, where applicable. It is assumed that senior management-level employees would make this notification.

This analysis assumes that it will take the employee 20 minutes to make the notification to the CTA. The cost is estimated by multiplying the time it takes to make the notification by the employee’s wage rate.

It is estimated that notifying the CTA will cost TSPs $15,414 NPV (2019 CAD) over the ten-year period, or an annualized average of $2,194.

Compliance monitoring cost

The CTA would incur costs related to monitoring compliance with the ATPRR. That is, ensuring that the CTA has been notified when a required document has been published, and verifying that it is in the appropriate form and follows the appropriate manner as prescribed in the ATPRR. The CTA would also review other aspects of the required documents, such as the content being complete as per the requirements of the ACA. As a result of content requirements falling under the ACA, and not the ATPRR, the review of content is not included in the cost estimates below.

The CTA can assess the costs based on traditional monitoring activity. A factor was applied to the cost estimate to exclude the tasks related to the ACA requirements. It was assumed in this analysis that only 15% of the estimated time was related to the compliance monitoring tasks borne by the ATPRR. The estimated per document cost of compliance monitoring was multiplied by the number of required documents per year to calculate the total cost.

The compliance monitoring costs are estimated at $ 58,165 NPV (2019 CAD) over the ten-year period, or an annualized average of $ 8,281.

Benefits
Time savings

By having access to the required documents in a format amenable to their specific disability (as described in the cost section), persons with disabilities save time in reading and understanding those documents. It is expected that, of the population of persons with disabilities, it is those with vision impairments who will benefit most from this provision. It is assumed that this benefit would mostly be attributed to the digital platform accessible versions, given the low demand for the other alternative formats mentioned in the cost section.

As discussed earlier, since the requirement for alternate formats is also present in the ATPDR, persons with disabilities using the services of TSPs subject to the ATPDR would have access to the required documents in an accessible format in the baseline scenario. Approximately 273 000 persons with disabilities would benefit from alternate formats, of which roughly 250 000 use the services of TSPs subject to the ATPDR. Therefore approximately 23 000 persons with disabilities per year would experience the incremental time savings benefit, which is estimated to be $1,938,000 NPV (2019 CAD), or an annualized average benefit of $275,928.

For simplicity, the methodology used for calculating this benefit is described in four steps:

  1. Determine the number of persons with disabilities that would save time with accessible formats:
    • The population of persons with moderate or severe vision impairments over the age of 15 was taken from Statistics Canada’s 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability, and adjusted downwards by the percentage of persons with disabilities who are online and by the percentage of persons with disabilities who travel each year (non-commuter travel). This CBA estimates 58% of persons with disabilities are online in year one of the analysis (from the U.S. Census Bureau’s publication: Americans with Disabilities: 2010), growing by one percent per year throughout the analysis period, and from Statistics Canada’s Participation and Activity Limitation Survey that 57% engage in non-commuter travel.
  2. Determine the time saved per person with disability:
    • (a) This analysis borrows the following data from the 2017 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (hereafter “The Access Board”) to update federal section 508 Standards and section 255 Guidelines. The Access Board is an independent federal agency devoted to accessibility for persons with disabilities.
    • Table 3: Analysis of time saved per person with disability
      Variable Proxy Estimate
      Average number of required documents visited annually per person with disability (electronically) Average number of visits to Federal Government web sites annually 15
      Percentage of time lost with inaccessible website N/A 18%
    • (b) In the absence of an accessible digital platform, it is assumed that a person with a disability would spend 15 minutes reviewing required documents.
    • (c) In total, persons with disabilities are assumed to spend 225 minutes annually reviewing the required documents from TSPs (15 required documents reviewed multiplied by 15 minutes per required document). Of the 225 minutes, 18%, or roughly 41 minutes, is assumed to be time lost due to the inaccessible website.
  3. Total time-saving benefit: Multiplying the time savings per person, per year from step 2, by the number of persons with disabilities affected from step 1 equals the total time saved by all persons with disabilities impacted by the digital platform accessibility requirement in the APTRR for a given year. The total time-saving benefit is equal to the total time saved by all persons with disabilities multiplied by the average wage rate of persons with disabilities. The wage rate is estimated as the median total income of tax filers aged 15 years and over (Statistics Canada Table 11-10-0072-01) divided by the number of hours worked per week (assumed 40 hours/week).
  4. The ATPDR factor: As noted earlier, the majority of passengers with disabilities use the services of TSPs that are subject to the ATPDR. Since the benefits to these passengers would be accrued in the baseline scenario as well, such benefits must be removed from the calculation in step 3 above. Based on internal calculations of passengers by modes of transportation over the last few years, it is estimated that roughly 8% of all passengers are not served by ATPDR obligated TSPs (92% served by ATPDR obligated TSPs). This analysis assumes that passengers with disabilities are served by ATPDR obligated TSPs at the same rate as all passengers. Therefore, the time savings benefit to persons with disabilities, as a result of the ATPRR, is the total time savings benefit from step 3 multiplied by the ATPDR factor of 8%.

In addition to the direct benefits accrued to persons with disabilities from the time saved reviewing plans and reports in a format of their choice, persons with disabilities would also experience a reduction in the anxiety that exists with not having access to documents in accessible formats. This benefit is estimated to be $77,520 NPV (2019 CAD), an annualized average benefit of $11,037.

In the baseline, where digital platform accessibility is not necessary for the required documents, for TSPs not subject to the ATPDR, persons with vision impairments would have difficulty in reading and understanding the content, causing some anxiety. This was alluded to in the time savings benefit. An anxiety premium, expressed as a percentage of time, is applied to the time saved benefit from above to calculate the reduced cost of anxiety to persons with disabilities associated with the easier consumption of content with the accessible digital platform format.

The U.S. Department of Transportation, in their Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of Rulemaking on Enhanced Airline Passenger Protections (2009, p. 22), used an anxiety premium of 0.01 for all passengers in their calculation. Furthermore, in a study by the mental health foundation: Living with Anxiety, it is suggested that anxiety levels for persons with disabilities to be 4 times higher than that of non-disabled persons on average. Therefore, this analysis uses an anxiety premium of 4%.

This analysis only considers visually impaired persons with disabilities; however, persons with cognitive/learning disabilities are also likely to benefit from the accessible format requirements of the ATPRR. One of the standards of WCAG compliance is clarity in the content, and that the webpage is easily navigable. Presumably, this would be helpful to many people, but more so persons with learning or cognitive disabilities. The amount of time this group of persons with disabilities may save is difficult to estimate, and is thus not monetized; however, it is worth noting the potential benefit to this group.

Increased independence and participation

Finally, the accessible formats of the required documents would provide persons with disabilities with some independence. Persons with disabilities would not have to rely on family, friends or other assistance to read and understand the required documents. Such independence would provide them the opportunity to be actively involved in the decision-making process of which TSP they will use. The accessible formats enable the participation of persons with disabilities in important family and work-related travel decisions, thus increasing their self-worth and overall quality of life.

Staggered implementation of classes

As explained in the regulatory scenario, TSPs in the first three classes created by the ATPRR will have different dates by which they have to publish their initial accessibility plan, and as a result, all of the subsequent progress reports and accessibility plans. Over the ten-year analysis period, this results in a time value of money benefit for certain TSPs.

There is no benefit to the first class from the ATPRR as their timeline to publish the initial accessibility plan does not change between the baseline and regulatory scenarios. TSPs in the second and third classes can delay their initial accessibility plan by one and two years respectively, thus experiencing a financial benefit from the delayed investments required in publishing the documents.

The time value of money principle states that individuals or companies would prefer to make payments later due to the fact there is a time preference for current consumption over future consumption. The concept explains that the money you have now is worth more than the identical sum in the future due to earning capacity. To calculate the amount of the benefit, the cost of producing the accessible formats of the required documents is discounted by one and two years respectively by an appropriate market rate. This benefit is embedded in the digital platform accessibility and alternate formats costs described above. It acts to bring down the overall costs of those provisions.

Summary

The ATPRR would result in a cost to TSPs and the CTA of $ 1.13 million PV, benefits to persons with disabilities of $2.02 million PV for a net present benefit of $ 0.88 million, expressed in 2019 Canadian dollars, over the 10-year period following the coming into force of the ATPRR. The benefits of the ATPRR to Canadians outweigh the cost to TSPs and the CTA. The cost of ATPRR was $0.88 milion PV in prepublication, costs have increased by $0.26 million PV. The increase in cost is largely the result of including the feedback acknowledgement provision found in the prepublished ATPRR, the remainder is from the new requirement for TSPs to make the description of the feedback process available in alternate formats. Persons with disabilities are expected to benefit from a decrease in time wasted reading and understanding inaccessible documents, and reduced anxiety that comes with the availability of accessible formats. In addition to the monetized benefits, persons with disabilities will experience heightened independence, and will be able to increase their participation in important personal and professional travelling decisions.

Consolidated cost-benefit summary
Table 4: Monetized costs
Impacted stakeholder Description of cost Base year: 2021 Year 4: 2024 Year 7: 2027 Final year: 2030 Total
(present value)		 Annualized value
CTA Monitoring and compliance $0 $13,156 $8,050 $8,050 $58,165 $8,281
TSPs Web accessibility/ Adaptive technology $0 $234,015 $189,828 $189,828 $443,239 $63,107
Large print and braille $0 $35,329 $29,905 $29,905 $76,681 $10,918
Audio $0 $53,672 $49,817 $49,817 $116,065 $16,525
Feedback acknowledgement $0 $47,989 $45,133 $45,133 $249,824 $35,569
Second progress report $0 $11,024 $11,024 $11,024 $174,609 $24,860
Notification to the CTA $0 $4,146 $2,588 $2,588 $15,414 $2,195
All stakeholders Total costs $0 $399,331 $336,345 $336,345 $1,133,997 $161,455
Table 5: Monetized benefits
Impacted stakeholder Description of benefit Base year: 2021 Year 4: 2024 Year 7: 2027 Final year: 2030 Total
(present value)		 Annualized value
Canadians: Persons with disabilities Time savings $0 $355,234 $385,247 $418,881 $1,938,000 $275,928
Reduced anxiety $0 $14,209 $15,410 $16,755 $77,520 $11,037
All stakeholders Total benefits $0 $369,444 $400,656 $435,637 $2,015,520 $286,965
Table 6: Summary of monetized costs and benefits
Impacts Base year: 2021 Year 4: 2024 Year 7: 2027 Final year: 2030 Total
(present value)		 Annualized value
Total costs $0 $399,331 $336,345 $336,345 $1,133,997 $161,455
Total benefits $0 $369,444 $400,656 $435,637 $2,015,520 $286,965
NET BENEFIT $0 –$29,887 $64,311 $99,292 $881,523 $125,510
Qualitative benefit
Sensitivity analysis

The following table shows how the estimated net benefit changes with the different estimates for time to acknowledge feedback within the ranges shown earlier. Low range is 2.5 minutes per week of acknowledging feedback for class 3 TSPs and 10 minutes per week for class 1 and 2 TSPs; mid range for the same classes is 5 and 20 minutes, respectively; and high range is 7.5 and 30 minutes, respectively. Values in the table are total present value.

Table 7: Sensitivity analysis
  Low range Mid range High range
Feedback acknowledgement $126,912 $249,824 $372,737
Total costs $1,011,085 $1,133,997 $1,256,910
Total benefits $2,015,520 $2,015,520 $2,015,520
Net benefit $1,004,435 $881,523 $758,610

This analysis estimates a NPV benefit of between $0.76 and $1 million (2019 CAD) dependent on how long it takes TSPs to acknowledge feedback they may receive.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies since there is an incremental increase in administrative burden on business, and a new regulatory title is being introduced. The ATPRR include a requirement that TSPs notify the CTA upon publication of any of the required documents to demonstrate compliance.

Table 8: One-for-one rule summary
  Constant 2012 Canadian dollars, present value base year 2012
Annualized administrative costs $1,037
Annualized administrative costs per business $9.78

It is assumed that for each publication of the required documents under the ATPRR a TSP will require 0.33 of an hour of a manager or senior manager’s time to notify the CTA of a TSP’s publication. Using the National Occupation Classification (NOC), the average of management and senior management wages is used as the closest proxy to estimate the hourly cost for a TSP to notify the CTA. The frequency of these costs is expected to be annual with each published report. In total there are 113 stakeholders subject to these administrative burdens. Over a ten-year period, the total administrative cost is $14,708 or $9.78 annually for each TSP.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the ATPRR will impact small businesses. In addition to the administrative costs, small businesses would face compliance costs under the ATPRR. This includes any upfront costs associated with the digital platform accessibility of the required documents and/or the production of physical copies of alternate formats for accessibility plans, feedback process descriptions or progress reports. This would be an ongoing cost related to the various updates of the required documents.

The ACA establishes the requirements that regulated entities must follow. That said, the ATPRR have considered, and reduced, the potential burden they may impose on small businesses by creating classes which allow TSPs with 10 to 99 employees more time to comply with the provisions in the ATPRR. This extra time allows them to better prepare and plan for the eventual compliance with the ATPRR. The delay in incurring the costs related to the provisions also results in a compliance cost savings for small businesses.

Additional flexibility was provided with respect to the amount of time small- to medium-sized TSPs have to provide required documents in alternative formats (e.g. print, large print or in an electronic format that is compatible with adaptive technology).The ATPRR require Class 1 and 2 TSPs to provide alternative formats within 15 days upon request, whereas Class 3 TSPs would have 20 days within which to provide alternative formats.

It is also worth noting another step that has been taken in order to mitigate the impact on small businesses was to exclude businesses with less than 10 employees from the requirements given their limited capacity to comply. The ATPRR identify these businesses as a class (Class 4) but do not fix a date by which these TSPs must produce an accessibility plan.

To ensure a consistent application of the ATPRR, and to ensure that persons with disabilities experience a consistent level of service, engagement and access across the transportation sector in Canada, other flexibilities for small business were not considered. A barrier-free transportation system is essential to the inclusion and full participation of persons with disabilities in Canadian society.

In total, there are 68 small businesses who would be subject to the ATPRR. The total present value of costs to small business owners is $5,028 per owner or $716 per small business annualized.

Small business lens summary
Table 9: Compliance costs
Activity Annualized value Present value
Web accessibility / Adaptive technology $25,219 $177,127
Large print and braille $1,405 $9,870
Audio $3,910 $27,466
Second progress Report $9,228 $64,815
Feedback acknowledgement $7,783 $54,659
Total compliance cost $47,545 $333,937
Table 10: Administrative costs
Activity Annualized value Present value
Notification to the CTA $1,138 $7,992
Total administrative cost $1,138 $7,992
Table 11: Total compliance and administrative costs
Totals Annualized value Present value
Total cost (all impacted small businesses) $48,683 $341,929
Cost per impacted small business $716 $5,028

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The amendments are not related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum; however, consideration was given in the design and development of the ATPRR to ensure alignment and minimize differences and duplication between jurisdictions.

Domestic

The interdepartmental nature of the ACA provides a framework for collaboration among the federal organizations responsible for different aspects of its administration, compliance and enforcement.

The CTA has closely collaborated with ESDC and the CRTC to align, to the extent possible, regulatory approaches with the goal of maximizing consistency and minimizing duplication and administrative burden. For instance, in response to comments received from persons with disabilities and industry, the CTA has developed classes of regulated entities that are similar to those of ESDC, based on numbers of employees and also distinguishing between the public sector (Departments, Agencies and Crown Corporations) and the other TSPs to adapt the coming into force of the requirements for the publishing of the initial accessibility plans and feedback processes. As such, the ATPRR include staggered implementation timelines, as is also the case for ESDC. In order to simplify the application of the ATPRR for TSPs, these classes are comparable to those used by ESDC, such that TSPs with fewer than 10 employees are not subject to the ATPRR. Requirements related to accessible and alternative formats, the publishing of progress reports and notifying the CTA within 48 hours are also aligned with ESDC.

As some provinces have accessibility legislation under which they have established accessibility reporting requirements, an assessment of provincial requirements was conducted to help facilitate alignment between provincial and proposed federal requirements where possible. With respect to developing accessibility planning and reporting requirements, the CTA’s regulations align with a number of recent initiatives at the provincial level. For example, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires private sector organizations with more than 50 employees and all public sector organizations to develop and provide periodic updates on accessibility plans. Public sector organizations must develop their accessibility plans in consultation with persons with disabilities and post annual status reports to let the public know what they have accomplished in their accessibility plans. Nova Scotia’s Accessibility Act requires public sector organizations listed in this act to develop and update accessibility plans, and the Accessibility for Manitobans Act also requires public sector organizations to develop and update accessibility plans.

International

As is the case with other provinces, other countries also already incorporate planning and reporting requirements, particularly for public sector institutions. The United States includes record-keeping and reporting requirements for air carriers and communications companies, and compliance plans and progress reports for cities. Cities are also required to produce regional transportation plans as a condition of receiving federal funding, and many but not all of these plans include accessibility considerations. In the United Kingdom, schools are required to develop accessibility strategies and accessibility plans, and accessibility planning is also mandated in local transportation planning processes which must include accessibility strategies. In terms of comprehensiveness, however, in conjunction with provincial counterparts, the ACA planning and reporting requirements establish Canada as a world leader with respect to accessibility planning and reporting generally, and accessible transportation planning and reporting in particular.

The ATPRR will also support Canada’s implementation of the UNCRPD, to which Canada is a party. The United Nations, to whom Canada periodically reports on its progress and new initiatives, monitors Canada’s implementation of the UNCRPD. The ATPRR represent concrete steps to ensure that persons with disabilities will have equal access to Canada’s national transportation system, contributing to Canada’s implementation of the UNCRPD and its broader leadership on human rights, and potentially serving as an example in other jurisdictions.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, the CTA conducted a preliminary environmental assessment scan. This scan concluded that the ATPRR would have no direct or indirect environmental impact, and therefore a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus (GBA+)

Impacts

The ATPRR, which operationalize key aspects of the ACA, are anticipated to have a significant positive impact on persons with disabilities who travel using the federal transportation network. The provisions in the ATPRR are expected to facilitate persons with disabilities to access and understand accessibility plans and progress reports as well as allow them to make the best transportation-related decisions based on their particular needs. Persons with disabilities will be able to play a major role in providing feedback to TSPs regarding the implementation of their accessibility plans.

Demographics

Occasionally, the media report negative experiences of persons with disabilities while using the transportation network. These cases, such as a couple in wheelchairs left alone for almost 12 hours at the airport or an amputee who had their scooter batteries seized while travelling, may appear to be isolated incidents. However, in 2019–2020, the CTA received 227 accessibility complaints, which represents a significant increase from the two previous years (122 for 2017–2018 and 182 for 2018–2019). In 2020– 2021, although there was a slight decrease in accessibility complaints received (174) — in line with the decrease of air travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic — the increasing trend over the last several years is indicative of the negative experiences that persons with disabilities have faced, and continue to face, related to barriers in accessing transportation services in Canada.

In Canada, 22% of the population over the age of 15 have at least one disability. Based on Statistic Canada’s Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD) [2017], persons with disabilities are represented at all levels in society in Canada. Among approximately 6.2 million Canadians who are members of the disability community, disability is not uncommon in the group of women and seniors. For instance, women experience disabilities at a higher rate than men (24% versus 20%). The prevalence of disability increases with age, from 13% for those aged 15 to 24 years to 47% for those aged 75 years and over. The disability rate among other vulnerable groups such as Indigenous people, youth, and visible minorities is also worthy of reference. The disability rate among off-reserve Indigenous people aged 15 and older was 31% (compared with 22% in the general population). Although information about children with disabilities under the age of 15 in Canada is limited due to gaps in data, the CSD finds more than one in ten youth aged 15 to 24 years have one or more disabilities. As well, the prevalence of disability among immigrant women aged 65 or older is significantly higher compared to the non-immigrant woman (40.8% versus 32.9%, respectively).

The provisions in the ATPRR help all persons with disabilities including men, women, visible minorities, youth, Indigenous people, LGBTQ2 persons, and seniors. Certain disabled persons may benefit more or less than other disabled persons, but there is no significant difference among the listed demographics.

While information associated with the travelling rate for each sub-group of the disability community is limited due to data gaps, Table 7.1 of Statistics Canada’s Disability Supports in Canada, 2001 (PDF) report provides some insights into the travel patterns of persons with disabilities. The report (published by Statistics Canada in 2001) found that approximately 22% of the respondents with disabilities who were 15 and older reported that they would travel long distances. Among approximately 750 000 Canadians with disabilities, 20% reported that they travelled but had difficulty. Despite there being no further analysis or data detailing what specific difficulties or barriers they had encountered while travelling, the finding suggests that persons with disabilities experience significant disadvantages when it comes to travelling.

Research suggests that access to transportation is indispensable for connecting people with the society. By using the transportation network, people can travel independently to engage in different activities such as going to work or study, visiting family and friends, attending a social event or seeking medical help, etc. This independence allows individuals to fully participate in society. However, persons with disabilities who have been encountering barriers while travelling using the transportation system face fewer opportunities to interact within their communities. As a result, these “transportation disadvantaged” people are at risk of feeling excluded from society as their social lives were hindered by the limited access to transportation.

Through the ATPRR, it is expected that the persons with disabilities would be enabled to access, on a more equal basis with others, the Canadian transportation network. This would enable the persons with disabilities to live more independently and participate fully in all aspects of life in their communities. Accessible transportation is a human right whose realization is essential to achieving equality, inclusion, and dignity for Canadians with disabilities. While these regulations specifically aim to benefit persons with disabilities who travel using the federal transportation network, the disability community in Canada is a diverse and intersectional group, and promoting inclusion through the removal of barriers would widely benefit all Canadians.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The ATPRR come into force on the day on which they are registered. The ATPRR have been developed with the intention to have an implementation approach staggered over 3 years.

TSPs that are established when the ATPRR come into force would be required to publish their initial accessibility plans one year from the date fixed in subsection 3(1) of the ATPRR.

The day fixed for TSPs that are not established when the ATPRR come into force and qualify as a Class 1, 2 or 3 transport entity on or after January 1, 2022, would be June 1 of the calendar year after the calendar year in which they qualified as a Class 1, 2, or 3 entity unless they qualified as a Class 4 transport entity in the preceding year. In that case, the day fixed would be June 1 of the calendar year after the calendar year in which they qualified as a Class 4 transport entity.

To assist TSPs in the implementation of the ATPRR, the CTA intends to provide guidance material on the development of accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports. Furthermore, the CTA will continue its engagement with persons with disabilities and TSPs.

The outcomes of the ATPRR will be measured by the use of multiple streams of data which may include monitoring and enforcement activities, data from accessibility-related complaints, and surveys of or feedback from persons with disabilities.

Compliance and enforcement

The CTA employs a number of different tools and activities across the compliance continuum to monitor and enforce compliance by TSPs, and to identify and address instances of non-compliance. For example, the CTA proactively monitors and assesses compliance of regulated entities with legal obligations, through activities such as the review and follow-up to compliance self-assessment questionnaires, websites and routine documentation reviews, desk inspections and on-site inspections to verify compliance, among others.

The CTA approach to compliance monitoring and enforcement is guided by its modern compliance monitoring and enforcement policy and enforcement process that were recently developed and published. In a situation where a TSP has violated a provision of the ACA intended to identify or remove barriers to the mobility of persons with disabilities, a Designated Enforcement Officer (DEO) of the CTA may issue a Notice of Violation (NOV) with a warning or an Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) that the regulated entity is liable to pay. The amount of penalty for each violation, which can be up to $250,000, is based on the level of severity of the violation and whether there is recurring non-compliance. In addition, once a NOV with an AMP has been issued, the CTA may, upon request by a TSP, enter into a compliance agreement subject to terms that the CTA considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the TSP’s compliance with its legal obligations.

All CTA costs associated with the ATPRR will be managed within existing reference levels.

Contact

Sonia Gangopadhyay
Director
Centre for Expertise in Accessible Transportation
Analysis and Outreach Branch
Canadian Transportation Agency
15 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0N9
Telephone: 873‑353‑4498
Email: sonia.gangopadhyay@otc-cta.gc.ca