The Accessible Canada Act and First Nations: Promises and Limits

Introduction

The Accessible Canada Act (ACA) came into force in 2019, with the goal of realizing “a barrier-free Canada by 2040.” The Act applies to all federally regulated entities – including First Nations band councils – but will not apply to First Nations until 2026. This delay is intended to provide time for Indigenous organizations to consult with their citizens on how the ACA may affect their communities.

For many Canadians with disabilities, the ACA represents an important – though imperfect – step forward. For First Nations, however, the implications are more complex. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN), in its draft report on A Distinct First Nations Accessibility Law, has raised concerns about how the ACA may infringe on rights to self-government, impose underfunded obligations, and fail to reflect Indigenous worldviews of disability.

This blog examines the ACA through multiple models of disability – medical, social, and political – drawing on the framework advanced by Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe scholar Dr. Lynn Gehl. It also highlights Indigenous perspectives that call for accessibility regimes rooted in collective rights and culturally grounded understandings of disability.

*Language Note: The language used to describe disability is constantly evolving and shaped by culture, context, and personal preference. This post uses the terms chosen by the people and groups it discusses. Following the Native Women’s Association of Canada’s report on federal accessibility legislation, it also uses “disability” as an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations, or participation restrictions, whether psychological or physiological.

What is the Accessible Canada Act?

The ACA builds on Canada’s existing human rights commitments, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Unlike previous frameworks, it is proactive: requiring organizations to identify, remove, and prevent accessibility barriers in seven priority areas:

1. Employment.
2. The built environment.
3. Information and communication technologies (ICT).
4. Communication beyond ICT (including American Sign Language, Quebec Sign Language/ Langue des signes québécoise, and Indigenous sign languages).
5. Design and delivery of programs and services.
6. Procurement of goods, services, and facilities.
7. Transportation.

Through the ACA, federally regulated entities must publish accessibility plans, establish feedback mechanisms, and report progress. The Act also grants enforcement powers to the Accessibility Commissioner.

Models of Disability

Dr. Lynn Gehl’s Gehl Report: Indigenous Women and Girls with Disabilities and Gender-Based Violence outlines three disability frameworks. She emphasizes they should not compete but be used together to deepen understanding.

1. The Medical Model: Views disability as an individual problem or limitation to be cured or managed.
2. The Social Model: Views disability as arising from systemic barriers that exclude people; the focus shifts from “fixing” individuals to transforming society to accommodate differences between individuals.
3. The Political Model (Dr. Gehl’s contribution): Views disability as also produced by colonial power relations. Barriers emerge not just from inaccessible infrastructure but from the political relationship between Canada and Indigenous nations.

The “political model” provides a way to understand the experiences of Indigenous people with disabilities and how colonialism impacts and shapes that experience. Examples of disabling conditions in the political model include:

1. Land dispossession through the modern treaty process.
2. Gender/sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act.
3. Canada’s failure to uphold human rights rulings on First Nations child and family services and Jordan’s Principle.

The ACA in a First Nations Context

When analyzed through the medical or social models, the ACA appears to be a step forward. But under the political model, it raises serious concerns.

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) warns that the ACA:

• Grants broad inspection and penalty powers to the Accessibility Commissioner, which could infringe on First Nations’ self-government.
• Emphasizes individual human rights without ensuring resources to uphold collective rights.
• Risks layering penalties onto underfunded First Nations governments already facing systemic inequities in education, housing, and healthcare.

In effect, legislation meant to reduce barriers could deepen them for First Nations citizens with disabilities if it imposes obligations without proper consultation or sufficient funding.

A path forward, the AFN suggests, is to reconceptualize accessibility as a collective human right and to support the development of a distinct First Nations accessibility law.

Indigenous Perspectives on Disability

It is essential to highlight that First Nations governments and communities do not reject accessibility – on the contrary, many Indigenous perspectives already centre inclusion.

• Sandra Yellowhorse, a Critical Indigenous Disability Studies scholar, describes Diné (Navajo) teachings of disability as a relational concept grounded in a collective system of care, rather than an individual medical condition.
• The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) survey participants critiqued Western definitions of impairment as overly tied to economic productivity – arguing this is another form of assimilation.
• Indigenous sign languages, such as Plains Indian Sign Language, have historically been used across nations for communication, showing long-standing cultural practices of inclusion.

Conclusion and the Path Forward

The ACA may be a positive step in many respects, but for First Nations it risks repeating colonial patterns if applied without consultation, flexibility, and proper funding. Indigenous scholars and leaders remind us that accessibility cannot be separated from self-determination.

Accessibility in First Nations communities must be grounded in collective rights, cultural values, and the lived experiences of Indigenous people with disabilities. As the AFN’s work shows, a Distinct First Nations Accessibility Law could provide a framework for accessibility that does not simply fit Indigenous peoples into Canadian norms but instead recognizes their own laws, perspectives, and governance systems.

As Canada moves toward its goal of a “barrier-free 2040,” it is critical that First Nations are not left behind or further burdened. Accessibility cannot come at the expense of self-determination, nor can it be achieved without addressing the systemic inequities that already limit many First Nations peoples’ participation in society.

Accessibility is not only a legal obligation – it is a collective responsibility. The path to a truly barrier-free Canada must be one that respects Indigenous sovereignty, values Indigenous knowledge, and ensures no one is left behind.