open Secondary menu

Survey of Electors Following the 42nd General Election

9. Accessibility

Overall, voters with disabilities were satisfied with the level of support they received from Elections Canada staff. Most electors with disabilities also had no issue with the accessibility of polling stations, advance polls, or Elections Canada offices themselves. Those who did encounter problems generally had issues with locating the polling station (either the address or the station itself within the building). However, there were a number of issues with the knowledge and awareness that electors with disabilities had of assistance and tools available from Elections Canada. This lack of awareness may partially account for how infrequently voters with disabilities took advantage of these tools and services.

9.1 Knowledge of Services and Tools Available

Of those respondents who indicated that they had a disability, less than half (43%) were aware of the services and tools offered by Elections Canada to voters with a disability. Young adults with disabilities were the least aware of services and tools offered to voters with a disability among the subgroups, while the Aboriginal electors with disabilities were the most aware (Figure 9.1). More precisely, nineteen percent (19%) were very aware and less than one-quarter (24%) were very aware of the services and tools that were offered to them. A similar proportion (24%) stated that they were not very aware. Finally, twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents with a disability indicated that they were not at all aware of these services and tools.

Figure 9.1: Awareness of Elections Canada's Services and Tools for Voters with a Disability

Figure 9.1: Awareness of Elections Canada's Services and Tools for Voters with a Disability
Text description of "Awareness of Elections Canada's Services and Tools for Voters with a Disability"

Base: Electors with a disability.

  • Aboriginal Electors: Overall, Aboriginal electors with a disability were more likely to be aware of the services and tools offered to voters with a disability (63%) than non-Aboriginal electors with a disability (42%). Thirty-four percent (34%) of Aboriginal electors with a disability reported being very aware, compared with twenty percent (21%) of non-Aboriginal electors.
  • Age: Overall, young adults with a disability were less likely to be aware of the services and tools offered (31%) than those 35 years old and more (46%). Young adults (aged 18 to 34) with a disability were also significantly less aware, with over one-third (37%) reporting not being at all aware of these services, compared with twenty-four percent (24%) of adults with a disability aged 35 or older.
  • Income: The level of awareness of services and tools offered to voters with disabilities varied significantly according to household income. The overall level of awareness was higher for electors from medium-income households ($40k–$80k, 55%) than for lower-income households (<$40K, 42%) and higher-income households (>$80k, 30%). Respondents from higher-income (>$80k) households were more likely to say that they were not aware at all of service to voters with a disability (43%) than respondents from medium-income households ($40k–$80k, 20%) or lower-income households (<$40K, 26%).
  • Voting Behaviour: Electors with a disability who also voted were more likely to be aware of the services offered to voters with disabilities than electors with a disability who did not vote (47%, versus 24%).

Respondents with a disability and who were at least marginally familiar with the services offered by Elections Canada were unsure about the sources of information from which they learned about the services and tools available to them. Indeed, twenty-six percent (26%) of these respondents said they did not know how they knew about these services and tools (Table 9.1). Fifteen percent (15%) indicated that they knew about them due to traditional media, while word to mouth was cited by eleven percent (11%), and past experience was also cited by eleven percent (11%).

Table 9.1: Sources of Information on Services and Tools for Voters with a Disability
Q71A: How did you know about [the services and tools offered to voters with a disability]? Total
(n=322)
Traditional media (i.e., television, radio, newspaper) 15%
Word of mouth (family, friend or acquaintance) 11%
From past experience 11%
When I voted 10%
Voter information card (addressed to the elector) 6%
Familiar with the accessibility of the building 6%
Elections Canada's website 4%
I have worked for Elections Canada 3%
Other internet website (other than Elections Canada website) 3%
Elections Canada householder-brochure / leaflet (received in the mail) 2%
Social media (including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) 2%
Learned from association 1%
Called the phone number indicated on the voter information card <1%
My Voter's Guide <1%
Revising agent who was at my home <1%
Other 9%
Don't know/ Refusal 26%

Base: Electors with a disability who were aware of services and tools for voters with a disability.

For electors with a disability, the VIC was more commonly used than websites as a source of information on services and tools available to them. Just under two-thirds (63%) of voters with a disability indicated that their VIC was useful in checking the level of accessibility at their designated polling station, while fourteen percent (14%) of voters with a disability indicated that the VIC was not useful in that respect. Only a handful (5%) of electors with a disability indicated that they visited the Accessible Voting page on Elections Canada's website during the election, and even fewer (2%) indicated that they had used the Voter Information Service on the Elections Canada website to check the accessibility of their designated polling station.

9.2 Accessibility of Polling Place

Almost all voters (99%) who went to a polling station, advance polling station, or local Elections Canada office indicated that they did not have difficulty reaching the poll. This proportion remains high even for voters with a disability (96%). Of those thirty-two voters who reported that they had difficulty reaching the poll, the most common issues were finding the polling station itself, the physical accessibility of the polling station, and its imprecise signage.Footnote 29

Of electors with a disability, nearly one-third (32%)Footnote 30 stated that the signs with a wheelchair symbol were not at all visible; furthermore, a significant portion (20%) did not know how to rate the visibility of these signs. For electors with a disability who took a private vehicle to travel to their voting location, one-third (32%)Footnote 31 indicated that they were not able to find a parking space with a wheelchair symbol, while only seven percent (7%)Footnote 32 indicated that they needed the level access for a wheelchair. Of those twenty respondents who needed level access for a wheelchair, only two said they encountered difficulties with the access available.

9.3 Use of Assistance and Voting Tools

Nearly all (96%) voters who reported that they had a disability also indicated that they did not need any assistance or voting tools to cast their ballot. There are no significant differences among subgroups (Figure 9.2). Of those few who required assistance, the top two types of assistance that they required included assistance by poll staff and assistance in marking a ballot.Footnote 33

Figure 9.2: Proportion of Electors with a Disability Who did not Need Assistance to Cast Their Ballot

Figure 9.2: Proportion of Electors with a Disability Who did not Need Assistance to Cast Their Ballot
Text description of "Proportion of Electors with a Disability Who did not Need Assistance to Cast Their Ballot"

Base: Electors with a disability.

The fourteen voters who required assistance from Elections Canada staff when voting were generally satisfied with the assistance they received.Footnote 34

9.4 Satisfaction with Staff

Overall, the large majority (84%) of electors with a disability reported that Elections Canada staff were sensitive to their need when voting. There are no significant differences among subgroups. However, foreign-born electors with a disability appear to be more likely to think Elections Canada staff were sensitive to their needs when they voted (Figure 9.3). Two-thirds (67%) of electors indicated that they felt that Elections Canada staff were very sensitive regarding their needs when voting, with an additional seventeen percent (17%) indicating that they were somewhat sensitive to their needs. A small proportion of voters indicated that they felt that Elections Canada staff were not very sensitive (2%) or not at all sensitive (3%) regarding their needs when voting.

Figure 9.3: Electors with a Disability's Perception of Elections Canada Staff's Sensitivity to their Voting Needs

Figure 9.3: Electors with a Disability's Perception of Elections Canada Staff's Sensitivity to their Voting Needs
Text description of "Electors with a Disability's Perception of Elections Canada Staff's Sensitivity to their Voting Needs"

Base: Electors with a disability.

  • Region: Electors from Québec were less likely to say that Elections Canada staff were sensitive regarding their needs when voting (48%) than electors from the rest of Canada (70%). Overall, a smaller proportion of electors from Québec said that Election Canada staff were sensitive (75%) in comparison with the electors from other provinces (86%).

Footnote 29 Due to small sample size (n=32), percentages have been omitted.

Footnote 30 This question was asked only of electors with a disability that was not related to blindness or visual impairment.

Footnote 31 This question was asked only of electors with a disability who indicated that their disability was related to blindness or visual impairment, impaired co-ordination or dexterity, deaf or hard of hearing, impaired mobility, chronic pain, or any other condition they would consider a disability (aside from speech impairment, a developmental or intellectual disability, or an emotional/psychological/mental health condition).

Footnote 32 This question was asked only of electors with a disability who indicated that their disability was related to blindness or visual impairment, impaired mobility, chronic pain, or any other condition they would consider a disability (aside from impaired co-ordination or dexterity, deaf or hard of hearing, speech impairment, a developmental or intellectual disability, or an emotional/psychological/mental health condition).

Footnote 33 Due to small sample size (n=14), percentages have been omitted.

Footnote 34 Due to small sample size (n=14), percentages have been omitted.