By Jean-François Bertrand
Libertarians would like you to believe that the less government the better. But that kind of thinking just doesn’t cut it when it comes to ensuring that the disabled can enjoy the same access as the “temporarily able.”
Why temporarily able? Because, once one hits old age, one cannot get around like they used to. When a flight of stairs becomes a challenge, a line is crossed, the one separating the able from the disabled.
And, of course, as the demographic cohort known as the baby boomers gets older, the magnitude of the problem of access will only increase.
The libertarians, for whom no action is the best recourse, would not make any efforts to ensure full accessibility for the elderly and the disabled. While such ideologues would argue that the market place – by extension the commercial class – would eventually adapt to the needs of a larger aging population, a quick stroll down the downtown core reveals that accessibility, for the wheelchair-bound or the walker-assisted, cannot be taken for granted.
They’re no guarantees that the free market would improve this situation when there is no incentive to do so.
Enter the state. (Or Big Brother, if you’re a libertarian.)
Elected officials have three options to change a situation. They can legislate, regulate or coerce.
Through legislation, a government can introduce a bill, such as the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which, according to the Ministry of Citizenship, “would have mandated every ministry to systematically prevent and remove barriers to access in each ministry’s legislation, programs, policies, practices and services.” (The proposed law died on the order paper and has not yet been re-introduced in the current session of the Harris government).
The cabinet can also act unilaterally, when it regulates. These orders-in-council are simple decisions which can have a great impact. While legislative action paints the broad strokes of the state’s plan, regulations are meant to fine-tune. They allow quick action from the corridors of power.
The government can also coerce people. It is only when fines for parking illegally in a space reserved for the disabled were increased to $100 that drivers started to respect the law, thus allowing better access for the disabled.
Now that we know that not acting will not solve the question of accessibility, what should the state do to ensure that the elderly and the disabled can fully take part in the commercial life of Ontario’s cities?
The first step is to finally adopt the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This would show that a pro-active government means business. Elected officials could then impose changes to the building code to make all commercial spaces accessible.
While there may be a cost for business owners, it is one that all merchants would face, putting no one at a disadvantage.
Lastly, fines for non-compliance to the new building regulations should be set high enough to entice compliance from all.
The benefits of such an active plan are obvious.
In the short term, the disabled going around on their Saturday errands on Bank Street would not have as many challenges.
In the long term, baby boomers – and this includes many parliamentarians – could fully take part in the community in the later years of their retirement.