• Skip to main content
  • Skip to "About government"

Language switcher

  • Françaisfr
Government of Canada / Government of Canada

Search Accessbility Standards Canada


Use the Left and Right arrow keys to navigate between the top level menu items. Press the ENTER key or double tap the SPACEBAR to select a menu item. To navigate through a sub menu, Press the SPACEBAR or the Down arrow key. Use the Up and Down arrow keys to navigate through submenu items. Press the Enter or SPACEBAR to select a submenu item. Press the ESCAPE key to close the submenu and return to the top level.

Main navigation

  • Home
    • About us
    • Accessibility Plan 2025
    • Get involved
    • Reports and publications
    • Transparency
    • Consultations
    • Organizational structure
  • Standards and technical guides
    • Standards and technical guides database
    • Standards under public review
    • Technical committees
    • Work program
  • Research and funding
    • Funded research project database
    • Advancing Accessibility Standards Research
  • Centre of Expertise
  • Contact us
  • Login

Mobile Menu

  • Home
    • About us
    • Accessibility Plan 2025
    • Get involved
    • Reports and publications
    • Transparency
    • Consultations
    • Organizational structure
  • Standards and technical guides
    • Standards and technical guides database
    • Standards under public review
    • Technical committees
    • Work program
  • Research and funding
    • Funded research project database
    • Advancing Accessibility Standards Research
  • Centre of Expertise
  • Contact us
  • Login

You are here

  1. Canada.ca
  2. Accessibility Standards Canada
  3. Search results

Search results


Displaying 561 - 570 of 808

Individual 64465's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1767987352015_175
Heading id
s13.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Section 13.2.1 discusses the effectiveness of visible signal devices for waking sleeping people. However, the standard limits visible signal requirements to fire alarm systems, which are typically not installed inside sleeping rooms where they would be needed. This leaves a gap for residential suites that rely on standalone smoke alarms.
What should we change it to?
Expand Section 13.2.1 to include a requirement that smoke alarms installed in sleeping rooms or within residential suites must incorporate a visual signaling device conforming to CAN/ULC‑S526, not just building fire alarm systems. Proposed concept wording: “Where sleeping accommodations are provided, smoke alarms installed in these rooms or suites shall include a visual signaling component conforming to CAN/ULC‑S526, in addition to audible signaling.” refer to attached file
Why should we change it?
Fire alarm systems are usually located in corridors or common areas, not inside bedrooms. Therefore, their visual signals cannot reliably wake sleeping people, including those with hearing impairments. Residential suites rely on standalone smoke alarms—this is where visual signaling is actually needed. Ontario addressed this gap in its 2015 Building Code by requiring visible signaling on smoke alarms inside sleeping rooms, demonstrating precedent and feasibility. Adding this requirement improves accessibility and safety for hearing‑impaired residents and better aligns the standard with its stated intent to ensure effective waking from sleep.
Heading text
13.2.1 Alerting or signaling devices
Heading number portion
13.2.1
Item id
1767987610669_580
Heading id
s13.1.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Section 13.1.4 states that when a fire alarm system is not provided, the visible signaling system must consist of strobes conforming to CAN/ULC‑S526. This excludes the option of using smoke alarms that already incorporate visual signaling technology.
What should we change it to?
Allow or require smoke alarms with integrated visual signaling devices as an acceptable method of compliance when no fire alarm system exists. Proposed concept wording: “Where a fire alarm system is not provided, compliance may be achieved through the installation of smoke alarms incorporating visual signaling devices conforming to CAN/ULC‑S526.” (refer to attached file
Why should we change it?
Standalone strobe systems can add cost and complexity without providing an audible signal at the point of hazard detection. Smoke alarms with integrated strobes provide both audible and visible alerts directly in the room, offering improved accessibility and cost‑effective compliance. This approach is already in use in Ontario’s Building Code and would ensure consistent accessibility across provinces and territories.
Heading text
13.1.4 Where a fire alarm system is not provided
Heading number portion
13.1.4
Item id
1767988002488_721
Heading id
s7.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
The current scope in Section 7.1(a) applies to “all new buildings,” but does not clearly address new single‑family homes, which typically lack fire alarm systems and rely solely on smoke alarms.
What should we change it to?
Clarify that the accessibility intent of the standard applies to dwellings without fire alarm systems by referencing smoke alarms with visual signaling in these smaller residential buildings. Proposed concept wording: “For new dwelling units not equipped with a fire alarm system, smoke alarms installed in required locations shall incorporate visual signaling conforming to CAN/ULC‑S526 to ensure accessible alerting.” (refer to attached file)
Why should we change it?
Most new Canadian homes are single‑family dwellings whose only fire detection devices are smoke alarms. Without explicit language, these homes fall outside the standard’s accessibility improvements. Adding this clarification ensures that Canadians in all types of residences, not just large multi‑unit buildings, benefit from accessible alerting. This also aligns with Ontario’s existing requirement and supports national consistency in accessible fire safety.
Heading text
7.1 Inclusions
Heading number portion
7.1
Submission ID
64465
Submitted by
CBambi
Submitted on
Fri, 01/09/2026 - 15:19
Consent to contact
No

Individual 64492's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1768321567022_213
Heading id
s6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(whole section 7)
What should we change it to?
Please provide clarity on the scope for which situations this Standard can be applied to, and provide situations that are included/excluded (currently only built environment spaces are listed under Inclusions/Exclusions). E.g., is this Standard only created for buildings that require all visitors to go through a security check-in? Is this Standard only created for organizations that provide advanced emergency training to its emergency wardens?
Why should we change it?
ASC is encouraging all sectors to consider using this Standard, while it is currently only required to be used by the federally regulated sector. However, details such as section 11.3.6, requiring visitors to create a PEEP, only seems practical in buildings that require all visitors to go through security, or have appointments to visit. Also, section 11.2.1.1 places unrealistic expectations on wardens, unless the federal sector trains wardens differently then other sectors. Details like this are difficult to apply widely to other sectors and could create confusion. Please provide clarity about the application of this Standard, or provide additional guidance to sections such as 11.2.1 and 11.3.6 so it would be easier for this Standard to be used more widely.
Heading text
7. Scope
Heading number portion
7.
Item id
1768322553982_988
Heading id
s9.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(addition to the section)
What should we change it to?
Please add the definition of Emergency Warden.
Why should we change it?
It would be helpful to understand how ASC defines an Emergency Warden, especially since section 11.2.1 assigns certain responsibilities that some organizations may not assign to their own wardens. A clear definition, with clarity if there is an expectation for this role to have specialized training or be paid for their warden duties would help create consistency across organizations.
Heading text
9.1 Definitions
Heading number portion
9.1
Item id
1768322723236_630
Heading id
heading-31
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
Sub-clause title "10.1.1.4 Types of emergencies requiring horizontal evacuation"
What should we change it to?
"10.1.1.4 Emergencies requiring horizontal evacuation"
Why should we change it?
Remove "Types of" for consistency with the titles for 10.1.1.3, 10.1.1.5, and 10.1.1.6, and because "types of emergencies" implies that examples would be provided, rather than a description.
Heading text
10.1.1.4 Types of emergencies requiring horizontal evacuation
Heading number portion
10.1.1.4
Item id
1768323127135_903
Heading id
s10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Consider revising sections to put less burden on the person with the disability, their buddy, and the wardens. Place accountability on the building team to have proactive procedures and systems in place.
Why should we change it?
Unrealistic expectations are being put on people with disabilities, or on building staff who are not specially trained in emergency planning. This is not part of their paid job duties, but rather something they volunteer to do. Yet, accountabilities are not being assigned to building/facilities/security staff whose primary job function is safety and security. The draft Standard also reads as if there are only a handful of people with disabilities who may need support. Instead, the Standard should consider how to prepare the building and personnel for situations where there are lots of people with different types of disabilities, and not all have PEEPs. The Standard needs to be able to address those situations to welcome more people with disabilities into the spaces without fear that they will excluded in emergency planning.
Heading text
11. Practices and procedures
Heading number portion
11.
Item id
1768323254176_942
Heading id
s10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
(addition to the section)
What should we change it to?
Consider adding a section focused on training requirements.
Why should we change it?
To make this Standard successful, staff need appropriate safety training, especially training to support people with disabilities. This should be provided to all staff so they know how to get themselves out safely, and have the knowledge to guide others if needed. The section could outline the different training requirements for different roles (e.g., warden, buddy, other staff, etc.), as well as the regular schedule for updating knowledge and practice drills. Better preparation of all building staff can lead to better/positive outcomes when an emergency occurs.
Heading text
11. Practices and procedures
Heading number portion
11.
Item id
1768323922287_607
Heading id
s11.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The role of the building owner/manager needs to be added as a subsection.
What should we change it to?
11.2.1.5 The role of the building owner/manager The building owner/manager shall: a) recruit/assign adequate number of emergency wardens as appropriate for their building and number of occupants; b) provide specialized training to the emergency wardens (who do not have formal training in emergency planning, evaluation processes, disability awareness, accessible communication, etc.) so they can undertake their responsibilities and provide support to people with disabilities; c) ensure there are adequate number of emergency wardens stations throughout the building at any given time, based on work schedules and locations; d) develop a fire safety plan with emergency wardens, local first responders, and in consultation with building occupants and visitors, especially individuals with disabilities or others who may need assistance; e) provide the necessary resources or equipment to wardens to successfully carry out their responsibilities (e.g., high-vis vest, two-way radios, flashlights, etc.); f) plan and execute training and drills with occupants on a regular schedule; and g) be accountable for the success or failure of emergency planning procedures for the building.
Why should we change it?
The current wording implies that the wardens are responsible and accountable for the safety of occupants. In reality, most wardens are building employees who are volunteering in theses roles, and are not adequately trained to handle these situations. Supporting people with disabilities is not always discussed in training. So accountability needs to be assigned at the building owner/manager level so they can arrange for the provision of knowledge and resources for wardens/buddies to successfully carry out their tasks. Without this, there is a risk of putting unrealistic expectations on wardens, which could lead to unsafe outcomes. If preferred, the building manager can hire a Health and Safety Officer role who could take on these responsibilities.
Heading text
11.2.1 Roles and responsibilities of the various interested parties
Heading number portion
11.2.1
Item id
1768324224313_435
Heading id
heading-39
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"Emergency wardens are individuals who are responsible for the safety of the people in their building or on their designated floors."
What should we change it to?
"Emergency wardens are individuals who are trained to assist occupants during an emergency."
Why should we change it?
Remove the responsibility of safety, as that is not realistic, unless wardens are professionally trained and resourced as first responders. Even if the Standard wants wardens to have this responsibility, the Standard then needs to place accountability at a senior level to ensure the wardens have the correct training, equipment, and are scheduled/located to provide adequate coverage throughout a building and throughout a day. Some wardens are trained to not assist occupants but rather to note the location of someone who needs support, and to leave the building themselves - so it is inconsistent. As an example, even on the Province of BC website, wardens are not given the responsibility of safety, instead they are "trained to assist in the event of an emergency": https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/careers-myhr/all-employees/health-safety-and-sick-leave-resources/workplace/planning/emergency-wardens
Heading text
11.2.1.1 The role of the emergency wardens
Heading number portion
11.2.1.1
Item id
1768325207049_362
Heading id
heading-39
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
11.2.1.1 c) "Be responsible to ensure the safe evacuation of people with disabilities."
What should we change it to?
"c) Assist in the safe evacuation of people with disabilities."
Why should we change it?
Similar to previous comment, it is unrealistic to assign wardens with the responsibility of safety, until training is adequate and consistent. The role of wardens it simply to assist. Again, as an example, even on the Province of BC website, wardens are not given the responsibility of safety, instead they are "trained to assist in the event of an emergency": https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/careers-myhr/all-employees/health-safety-and-sick-leave-resources/workplace/planning/emergency-wardens
Heading text
11.2.1.1 The role of the emergency wardens
Heading number portion
11.2.1.1
Item id
1768325297493_153
Heading id
heading-39
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add note about warden's knowledge of how to use evacuation devices.
What should we change it to?
Add another point: "Know how to use all evacuation devices in the building."
Why should we change it?
There is no mention of wardens requiring to know how to use evacuation devices, which contradicts with the statement that wardens are responsible for people safety. Meanwhile a buddy is required to know how to use evacuation devices. Please review and update.
Heading text
11.2.1.1 The role of the emergency wardens
Heading number portion
11.2.1.1
Item id
1768325421805_128
Heading id
heading-41
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"A person with a disability shall: a) develop a PEEP in conjunction with the emergency warden and buddies"
What should we change it to?
"A person with a disability shall: a) provide their information and preferences to help the emergency warden and buddies develop a PEEP for them"
Why should we change it?
Current text implies that the responsibility to initiate and complete the PEEP is on the person with the disability. Instead, this should be the responsibility of the warden/buddy/building team, while the person with disability should only be responsible for providing their sections. This is because not all people with disabilities are fully aware or experienced in PEEPs or emergency plans, or even their own human rights as a person with a disability. So the emergency team should be the one looking out for and informing the disability community to ensure everyone is prepared with a PEEP.
Heading text
11.2.1.3 The role of the person with a disability
Heading number portion
11.2.1.3
Item id
1768325655413_118
Heading id
heading-41
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"A person with a disability shall: ..... f) know how to use an evacuation device, if applicable"
What should we change it to?
"A person with a disability shall: ..... f) participate in opportunities and drills to learn and practice how to use an evacuation device, if applicable for their PEEP"
Why should we change it?
Current text is putting responsibility on the person with the disability to have this knowledge, however, not everyone is aware of what evacuation devices are available and how to use them - these are not items that people have in their homes or that they can easily get access to and learn how to use. The emergency team needs to first provide that training and drills, as appropriate for the PEEP and the building.
Heading text
11.2.1.3 The role of the person with a disability
Heading number portion
11.2.1.3
Item id
1768325825709_159
Heading id
heading-42
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add another item to the list.
What should we change it to?
Add another item on the list that says: "Participate in relevant safety and disability awareness training to be qualified to act as a buddy for a person with a disability for that building."
Why should we change it?
The buddy needs to have a certain level of knowledge and understanding in order to safely assist a person with a disability during an emergency. Supporting the PEEP development and participating in drills is not adequate, and they should complete the appropriate building safety training, as well as an appropriate disability awareness training.
Heading text
11.2.1.4 The role of the buddy
Heading number portion
11.2.1.4
Item id
1768420306394_575
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"The NFC and the Provincial Fire Codes that require that all buildings have a fire safety plan state that information on emergency egress for all occupants, including people with disabilities be developed."
What should we change it to?
Please clarify this statement.
Why should we change it?
This statement creates an assumption that all relevant fire safety plans follow the requirements of those Codes. Even if the details are in the Codes, we know from practical experience that there is a general lack of understanding and awareness on how to safely evacuate people with disabilities. Consider mentioning that despite the fact that these requirements may exist, there are still gaps in understanding and implementation, and therefore the need to be more proactive and prepared in emergency planning.
Heading text
11.3.1 Introduction to Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1768420893270_203
Heading id
s11.3.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"A person with a disability together with their manager, and those responsible for the safe evacuation procedures for the building shall: a) develop an employee PEEP for an employee with a disability who identify as needing assistance in an emergency."
What should we change it to?
Add this suggested text before the quoted text, at the beginning of 11.3.2: "Managers and those responsible for the safe evacuation procedures for the building shall: a) provide adequate employee safety training which includes the importance of PEEPs for people who need assistance; b) clearly communicate and collect information from all employees regarding whether or not they need assistance in an emergency; and c) have a mechanism to regularly (e.g., annually) check and update an employee's need for assistance and therefore their need for a PEEP."
Why should we change it?
There is no mention of how an employer/manager will learn that a person identifies as needing assistance in an emergency. This Standard should include guidance on how to collect that information, as a person may not disclose their (invisible) disability in other conversations or even consider themselves as a person with a disability. But when specifically asked if they would need assistance during an emergency, the employee may share information that would indicate that a PEEP is required. Also need to ensure that the information is updated as a person's disability status could change depending on their situation (e.g., pregnancy, temporary disability, new disability, etc.).
Heading text
11.3.2 Employee Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans
Heading number portion
11.3.2
Item id
1768421277704_300
Heading id
s11.3.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"The employee PEEP or at least the name of the individual that requires assistance needs to be included in the overall Registry List for the emergency warden that has a direct link to the Fire/Police/Paramedics in an emergency."
What should we change it to?
"The employee PEEP or at least the name and primary location of the individual that requires assistance needs to be included in the overall Registry List for the emergency warden that has a direct link to the Fire/Police/Paramedics in an emergency."
Why should we change it?
Consider adding location information (e.g., floor, wing, room number, etc.) in addition to the name for situations where a PEEP is not available. The location information would help narrow down where in the building this person is expected to be.
Heading text
11.3.2 Employee Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans
Heading number portion
11.3.2
Item id
1768421466371_7
Heading id
s11.3.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"Privacy concerns shall be discussed to ensure that information in the PEEP is not shared inappropriately."
What should we change it to?
Please provide some guidance or requirements on how this information should be handled, stored and used.
Why should we change it?
The current text provides no action or requirement aside from a discussion. There is no requirement to store this information securely. Especially with privacy violations and data breaches occurring regularly, some guidance would help ensure all organizations/sectors are following consistent processes for PEEPs.
Heading text
11.3.5 Personal information
Heading number portion
11.3.5
Item id
1768421620797_527
Heading id
s11.3.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"At the check-in or security desk: ... b) a sign requesting visitors who need assistance in an emergency to complete the visitors PEEP shall be posted..."
What should we change it to?
Add other communication formats in addition to a sign.
Why should we change it?
Relying on a sign is not an adequate form of communication as it is not accessible for everyone. If a PEEP is required for all visitors, then staff should be approaching each visitor as they enter to collect this info, or be proactive and prepare this information in advance of their arrival. Depending on the type of building and nature of services, this may not be appropriate, so perhaps there needs to be a plan for how to support visitors without a PEEP.
Heading text
11.3.6 Visitors
Heading number portion
11.3.6
Item id
1768422275731_459
Heading id
s11.3.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Please add some guidance that considers situations/buildings where visitors enter without necessarily interacting with a reception, check-in or security desk, and how the visitor would be expected to know about PEEPs. Provide guidance so that the burden isn't put on the person with the disability to have to arrive early, wait in a queue to provide this information, before carrying on with their plans.
Why should we change it?
A lot of assumptions are being made in regards to visitors, but the user experiences aren't being considered. To make visitor PEEPs an efficient process, the visitor should not have to do this every time they enter a new building. Perhaps there should be a card they carry with their emergency assistance needs that could be quickly shared. Perhaps all this info could be prepared ahead of time online or when scheduling their appointment in the building. The current wording would only work in specific situations (buildings where you must pass security and screening before entering) and would be difficult to efficiently and respectfully implement in buildings with a different user journey (e.g., customers in a retail building, patients in a medical building, visitors in a multi-building university campus, etc.). ASC is encouraging all sectors to adopt this Standard (even if it isn't formally required), but it will be difficult to do so unless the language of the Standard considers to these differences in user journey. Providing clarity on this will encourage more sectors to adapt the Standard, helping to support the goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040.
Heading text
11.3.6 Visitors
Heading number portion
11.3.6
Item id
1768422344513_667
Heading id
s11.3.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Distinguish frequent visitors from infrequent visitors.
Why should we change it?
We're missing a key user group by assuming that there will be PEEPs and buddies for all individuals with disabilities who are in a building. 11.3.6 should also consider infrequent visitors who may not have a PEEP or buddy, be familiar with emergency procedures of that building. For this user group, the responsibility should be on the building safety team to have processes in place to best support this visitor type during an emergency.
Heading text
11.3.6 Visitors
Heading number portion
11.3.6
Item id
1768423024957_581
Heading id
heading-61
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"Other considerations: a) the building use; and b) the anticipated number of visitors."
What should we change it to?
Add another item to this list: "Other considerations: a) the building use; and b) the anticipated number of visitors; and c) who the users are."
Why should we change it?
Need to consider who the users and if there is the expectation for there to be more people who may need evacuation assistance in the building, that will help inform the egress needs.
Heading text
12.1.1.1 Number of areas of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.1.1
Item id
1768423126647_122
Heading id
s12.1.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"A door serving an immediate area of refuge shall: ..."
What should we change it to?
"A door serving an immediate area of refuge shall comply with CSA/ASC B651 and..."
Why should we change it?
Please revise to mention that the door itself also complies with CSA/ASC B651. There are other aspects to the door design in CSA/ASC B651 that need to be considered aside from clear width (mentioned in bullet point B). This includes door handles, the force to push/pull a door, and even colour contrast between doors and walls. CSA/ASC B651 provides these technical specifications; at the minimum, ASC2.2 could reference these or provide updated specifications. In case a user can't use the power door operator, the door handle and door weight should be easy to manually operate (for those who have some arm/upper body strength). And for someone with low vision (or during smokey/low visibility conditions of an emergency), colour contrast can help identify where the door is located. Reference: CSA/ASC B651:23 Clause 5.2
Heading text
12.1.4 Doors serving an area of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.4
Item id
1768423213781_325
Heading id
s12.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"b) be served by a 2100 mm turning radius;"
What should we change it to?
"b) be served by a 2100 mm turning diameter;"
Why should we change it?
Please check as there appears to be a typo. This should say diameter instead of radius, otherwise the Standard will be requiring twice the space. Reference: CSA/ASC B651:23 Clause 4.1 and Figure 2
Heading text
12.1.5 Interior of areas of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.5
Item id
1768423347071_238
Heading id
s12.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"be free of protrusions"
What should we change it to?
"be free of obstacles and protrusions"
Why should we change it?
To reinforce that these areas should not be used for storage, and should always be clear. Relying on "12.1.6 Clear waiting spaces" is not enough and could be implied that there could be items placed around the waiting space.
Heading text
12.1.5 Interior of areas of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.5
Item id
1768424149938_560
Heading id
s12.1.8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"An area of refuge shall have an identification sign on the door stating AREA OF REFUGE with the International Pictogram of Access. An additional sign shall be posted on the side of the door, complying with CSA/ASC B651."
What should we change it to?
"An area of refuge shall have an identification sign on the door stating AREA OF REFUGE with the International Pictogram of Access. An additional sign shall be posted on the latch side of the door. Both signs shall comply with CSA/ASC B651."
Why should we change it?
Two changes requested. 1) Please specify that the signage on the wall be on the latch side of the door. Signage on the hinge side could be blocked if the door is open, or it could create collisions with someone who needs to use the Braille or raised characters on this sign. 2) Please also clarify that both signs (on door and on latch side of door) shall comply with CSA/ASC B651 to ensure they meet those accessibility requirements. B651 outlines text font, size and colour contrast details that are also important to consider for the good visual communication of the signs. Reference: CSA/ASC B651 Clause 4.6
Heading text
12.1.8 Signage
Heading number portion
12.1.8
Item id
1768424379557_891
Heading id
s12.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"In addition, the interior egress path of travel shall: ... d) be free of overly patterned carpeting."
What should we change it to?
"In addition, the interior egress path of travel shall: ... d) be free of overly patterned flooring."
Why should we change it?
Instead of specifying "carpeting" please write "flooring" as any flooring material that is overly patterned could create barriers and disorient someone. In addition, please consider adding walls to this sentence, as overly patterned walls could create the same issues as overly patterned flooring. Reference for walls - City of Richmond Enhanced Accessibility Design Guidelines, Section 4.5 includes walls in their guidelines: "Avoid heavy, overly distinct patterns, or reflective materials on walking paths, floors, walls and ceilings as these can be disorienting." https://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Enhanced_Accessibility_Design_Guidelines54959.pdf
Heading text
12.3.1 Interior egress path of travel
Heading number portion
12.3.1
Item id
1768425463230_553
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add note about shelter.
What should we change it to?
Consider requiring the muster point (or specifically the rest area portion) to be partially sheltered/covered to provide some weather protection from direct sun, rain and snow.
Why should we change it?
People with certain health conditions could be at a greater risk of heat stroke, hypothermia, or autonomic dysreflexia, therefore sheltering from the weather could be a life-saving feature. For people using wheelchairs, being exposed to rain/snow while waiting outside could put them at risk of getting sick or pressures sores if their seat gets soaked from the rain/snow. Electrical components of powerchairs/scooters could also get damaged if in the rain. Wheelchairs/scooters are expensive. There are standards recommending sheltered accessible parking for this same reason, but people will likely be waiting in the muster point longer than at a parking space, so please consider requiring some shelter at muster points. Note: while there is limited information/research on this specific topic, ASC should just think about this practically: when a crowd is gathered outdoors in an emergency, many evacuate without even getting their jackets, umbrellas, etc. In situations like this, people with disabilities could be at a higher risk of getting sick from exposure to the weather because they had to evacuate without all their gear, and some of them may have good health indoors, but be very vulnerable outdoors. Some shelter can go a long way.
Heading text
12.4 Muster points
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1768432994444_205
Heading id
s12.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(Applicable to all of 12.5, 12.6, and 12.7)
What should we change it to?
Please check for consistency with ASC 2.3 Model Standard for the Built Environment, and move this section there instead. Here in ASC 2.2, put a reference to ASC 2.3.
Why should we change it?
There should be consistency between ASC 2.2 and other ASC Standards, so all relevant committees should cross-review overlapping sections and only put the requirements in one Standard, and cross-reference as appropriate in other Standards. Otherwise we risk creating confusion and potential conflicts between Standards. Reference: ASC 2.3 Model Standard for the Built Environment: https://accessible.canada.ca/creating-accessibility-standards/can-asc-23-model-standard-built-environment-accessibility-federally-regulated-entities-defined-accessible-canada-act
Heading text
12.5 Stairs
Heading number portion
12.5
Item id
1768433094598_991
Heading id
s12.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(Applicable to all of 12.5, 12.6, and 12.7)
What should we change it to?
Please check for consistency with ASC 2.3 Model Standard for the Built Environment, and move this section there instead. Here in ASC 2.2, put a reference to ASC 2.3.
Why should we change it?
There should be consistency between ASC 2.2 and other ASC Standards, so all relevant committees should cross-review overlapping sections and only put the requirements in one Standard, and cross-reference as appropriate in other Standards. Otherwise we risk creating confusion and potential conflicts between Standards. Reference: ASC 2.3 Model Standard for the Built Environment: https://accessible.canada.ca/creating-accessibility-standards/can-asc-23-model-standard-built-environment-accessibility-federally-regulated-entities-defined-accessible-canada-act
Heading text
12.6 Handrails
Heading number portion
12.6
Item id
1768433255653_844
Heading id
s12.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(Applicable to all of 12.5, 12.6, and 12.7)
What should we change it to?
Please check for consistency with ASC 2.3 Model Standard for the Built Environment, and move this section there instead. Here in ASC 2.2, put a reference to ASC 2.3.
Why should we change it?
There should be consistency between ASC 2.2 and other ASC Standards, so all relevant committees should cross-review overlapping sections and only put the requirements in one Standard, and cross-reference as appropriate in other Standards. Otherwise we risk creating confusion and potential conflicts between Standards. Reference: ASC 2.3 Model Standard for the Built Environment: https://accessible.canada.ca/creating-accessibility-standards/can-asc-23-model-standard-built-environment-accessibility-federally-regulated-entities-defined-accessible-canada-act
Heading text
12.7 Ramps
Heading number portion
12.7
Item id
1768433569028_789
Heading id
s12.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"All stairs shall comply with CSA/ASC B651, the NBC, and relevant provincial codes and standards."
What should we change it to?
"All stairs shall comply with CSA/ASC B651 (including the presence of a tactile warning surface indicator at the top of the stairs), the NBC, and relevant provincial codes and standards."
Why should we change it?
While tactile warning surface indicators are required in the CSA/ASC B651 standard that is referenced, it might be good to reinforce their requirement by also mentioning them in this clause here. ASC 2.2 currently only uses the term "tactile warning surface indicator" once, and that is 12.7 Ramps - at first glance, a reader only reviewing the ASC 2.2 Standard (and not the references) could be mistaken that TWSIs are only necessary for ramps and not stairs.
Heading text
12.5 Stairs
Heading number portion
12.5
Item id
1768433796274_376
Heading id
s12.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Please require a parallel lower handrail, to support people of different heights, including children.
Why should we change it?
The standard height handrail cannot be reached by everyone, and the lower handrail provides another option. Also, for consistency with ASC 2.3. Reference: ASC2.3 Model Standard for the Built Environment Clause 5.1.6.2 Location of Handrails says "A stair, ramp and intermediate landing shall have upper and lower handrails on each side." https://accessible.canada.ca/creating-accessibility-standards/can-asc-23-draft-version-model-standard-built-environment-accessibility-federally-regulated-entities-defined-accessible-canada-act/5-paths-travel#s5.1.6
Heading text
12.6 Handrails
Heading number portion
12.6
Item id
1768433904004_331
Heading id
s12.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"b) include a tactile warning surface indicator at the top of the ramp;"
What should we change it to?
Please clarify where on top of the ramp - how far from the slope?
Why should we change it?
Please clarify where the TWSI should be located on the top - how far away from the start of the ramp? Clarity is needed around this, and hopefully ASC can provide guidance or initiate a project on this. While TWSIs are critical for alerting hazards for people with vision disabilities, the exact placement is unclear, leading to inconsistent application in the community. This is leading to challenges from people who use manual wheelchairs or other mobility aids that may get stuck between the truncated domes. People who use manual wheelchairs have reported how the small caster wheels can get stuck, causing people to fall out of the wheelchair especially on a sloped surface. TWSIs can also be difficult to navigate over by people with other mobility aids, or even a stroller. To avoid tripping hazards, clarity is needed on where and how to place the TWSIs on ramps and curb ramps so that the TWSIs can support all users.
Heading text
12.7 Ramps
Heading number portion
12.7
Item id
1768433997676_402
Heading id
s12.7.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Please require a parallel lower handrail, to support people of different heights, including children and people seated in a wheelchair who may not be able to reach the standard height handrail.
Why should we change it?
The standard height handrail cannot be reached by everyone, and the lower handrail provides another option. Also, for consistency with ASC 2.3. Reference: ASC2.3 Model Standard for the Built Environment Clause 5.1.6.2 Location of Handrails says "A stair, ramp and intermediate landing shall have upper and lower handrails on each side." https://accessible.canada.ca/creating-accessibility-standards/can-asc-23-draft-version-model-standard-built-environment-accessibility-federally-regulated-entities-defined-accessible-canada-act/5-paths-travel#s5.1.6
Heading text
12.7.2 Ramp handrails
Heading number portion
12.7.2
Item id
1768434092808_281
Heading id
s13.1.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"Alarm signals to evacuate occupants do not sound. Notification is via a voice announcement."
What should we change it to?
Please add a requirement for text-based notification as well.
Why should we change it?
Relying only on an audible announcement puts the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community at risk, as well as anyone who may have headphones on (e.g., during a phone or video call meeting).
Heading text
13.1.2 Two-stage system
Heading number portion
13.1.2
Item id
1768434816322_589
Heading id
s13.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
The emergency phones shall comply with CSA/ASC B651, especially in terms of knee clearance, reach height, and the presence of teletypewriter (TTY) or text telephone (TT).
Why should we change it?
There is no consideration for a person using a wheelchair (knee clearance) or a person who may have a hearing or speaking impairment that prevents them from using a standard telephone. The emergency telephone should have features to make it accessible for all users. Reference: CSA/ASC B651:23 Clause 6.6.2 Public Telephones
Heading text
13.3 Emergency telephones
Heading number portion
13.3
Item id
1768435258029_960
Heading id
s14
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Consider adding details for what is required from an accessibility perspective, and reference CSA/ASC B651. For example, adequate clear space for a wheeled mobility device, handrails for support, no highly reflective surfaces that can cause glare or disorientation, no dark flooring, operating controls within reach and with tactile markings, communication systems for people who are hard of hearing or Deaf, visual and audible notifications of the direction of travel (e.g., audio saying "Going Up") and floor number, etc.
Why should we change it?
This clause is missing critical accessibility details.
Heading text
15. Elevators
Heading number portion
15.
Item id
1768435413410_325
Heading id
s15.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Reference CSA/ASC B651 as well for accessibility technical specifications. Also add details such as adequate clear space for a wheeled mobility device, handrails for support, no highly reflective surfaces that can cause glare or disorientation, no dark flooring, operating controls within reach and with tactile markings, communication systems for people who are hard of hearing or Deaf, visual and audible notifications of the direction of travel (e.g., audio saying "Going Up") and floor number, etc.
Why should we change it?
In order for OEEs to be effective for people with limited mobility to independently evacuate, the OEE needs to be accessible. However, Clause 15.3 doesn't mention any accessibility considerations or reference CSA/ASC B651. Please double check and update.
Heading text
15.3 Occupant evacuation elevators
Heading number portion
15.3
Item id
1768435582941_147
Heading id
s15.4.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"All elevators shall provide a clear floor area of 2,010 mm minimum in length and 610 mm minimum in width to accommodate a stretcher in the prone position and additional space for two persons."
What should we change it to?
Please review and update the dimensions to allow a wheelchair to fit.
Why should we change it?
CSA/ASC B651 requires clear floor dimensions of at least 820 by 1390 mm for a stationary wheeled mobility device. This is the same dimensions CSA/ASC B651 requires for a platform lift. Currently, ASC 2.2 section 15.4.1 is not considering adequate space for a wheeled mobility device; the elevator described is not accessible and will not serve its purpose of supporting people with limited mobility. Furthermore, these dimensions don't provide enough room for turning, so a larger space or a flow-through design can increase accessibility of the elevator. References: CSA/ASC B651 Clause 4.1 Area allowances, and CSA/ASC B651 Clause 5.6 Elevating devices.
Heading text
15.4.1 Space
Heading number portion
15.4.1
Item id
1768437361091_359
Heading id
s16.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"Emergency egress directional signage shall be: a) posted at all decision points throughout the building; b) mounted with its centre between 1200 mm and 1500 mm from the finished floor; c) provided with legible, clear font not less than 16 pt; and d) available in alternative accessible formats, upon request."
What should we change it to?
Modification/addition of points c-g: "Emergency egress directional signage shall be: a) posted at all decision points throughout the building; b) mounted with its centre between 1200 mm and 1500 mm from the finished floor; c) provided in high colour contrast, with legible, clear font not less than 16 pt, that is readable from seated and standing positions; d) provided with adequate lighting and minimal glare; e) provided with raised characters and Braille; f) free of any obstacles in front of the sign (e.g., furniture, trash bins, etc.) that prevent a person from approaching and reading or using the tactile signage; and g) available in alternative accessible formats, upon request."
Why should we change it?
There is no mention of tactile signage, colour contrast, or clear space in front of the sign, which are all examples of how to remove barriers in wayfinding and signage. These should be provided by default and not require special request. Reference: CSA/ASC B651 Clause 4.6
Heading text
16.2 Directional signage
Heading number portion
16.2
Item id
1768437957079_906
Heading id
s16.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"Tactile maps of the posted emergency evacuation map should be provided at the building entrance."
What should we change it to?
"Tactile maps of the posted emergency evacuation map shall be provided at the building entrance and shall be posted in a consistent location throughout the building."
Why should we change it?
Clause 16.3 required evacuation maps to be posted throughout the building, however the tactile map is only required to be at the building entrance. This isn't inclusive and discriminates between occupants. If evacuation maps are provided throughout the building, then they should be accessible and include tactile maps. CNIB recommends having tactile evacuation procedures on each floor. References: https://clearingourpath.ca/index.php/emergency-exits-and-safety/life-safety-plan/ and https://clearingourpath.ca/index.php/emergency-exits-and-safety/emergency-exits/emergency-exit-signage/
Heading text
16.4 Tactile maps
Heading number portion
16.4
Item id
1768438548071_85
Heading id
s16.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"The map shall be posted in a consistent location throughout the building. It shall: ..."
What should we change it to?
Add another item to the list: "not be blocked by obstacles such as furniture and trash bins, that prevents approach and use of the map."
Why should we change it?
This is a common barrier that prevents people from accessing the signage (e.g., from seated position in a wheelchair, or to get closer to read clearly, etc.), yet it is easy to solve.
Heading text
16.3 Emergency evacuation map
Heading number portion
16.3
Item id
1768438844822_876
Heading id
s16.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Consider another section related to tactile wayfinding, such as using handrails with tactile markings or tactile walking surface indicators to support with tactile wayfinding aside from a tactile map. Its appropriateness would depending on the building type and egress routes, but these could provide other tactile wayfinding options to consider.
Why should we change it?
There are other opportunities to integrate solutions to support with wayfinding (especially during emergencies) which are not being discussed in this Standard.
Heading text
16.4 Tactile maps
Heading number portion
16.4
Item id
1768438913762_139
Heading id
s16.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Add note about pre-recorded instructions.
What should we change it to?
Consider adding a suggestion to have pre-recorded instructions to support the tactile maps or evacuation instructions. (And ensure it is regularly updated as needed)
Why should we change it?
Not all people who are blind know how to read Braille or tactile signage. Pre-recorded instructions provide another way to support wayfinding, especially to help with understanding egress routes. CNIB provides this recommendation in their guidelines. Reference: https://clearingourpath.ca/index.php/design-needs/exteriors-and-interiors/information-and-communications-systems/tactile-maps-and-pre-recorded-instructions/
Heading text
16.4 Tactile maps
Heading number portion
16.4
Item id
1768505266949_42
Heading id
s17.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"An evacuation device shall be provided outside but nearby Areas of Refuge on each floor of a building but not at ground level."
What should we change it to?
"An evacuation device shall be provided either inside or outside but nearby the Areas of Refuge on each floor of a building but not at ground level. The device should not block the path of travel, block signage, or block any clear space being considered for waiting in the Area of Refuge."
Why should we change it?
Since this is a "shall" statement, it implies that the device cannot be stored anywhere else. Consider rephrasing to allow the option to store the device inside the Area of Refuge if suitable for a specific building (e.g., if the Area or Refuge is in an emergency exit stairwell and has extra space for device storage). Specifically requiring it to be located outside the Area of Refuge could pose challenges in getting the device past a door, or requiring someone to leave the Area of Refuge to find and bring the device. Storing the device in the Area of Refuge also keeps it protected from any fire damage. Also please include a note to ensure the device doesn't block paths of travel, etc., otherwise it would create another barrier.
Heading text
17.1 Evacuation devices
Heading number portion
17.1
Item id
1768505400675_995
Heading id
s17.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"Evacuation devices shall: a) not be locked; and b) have a sign indicating its location."
What should we change it to?
"Evacuation devices shall: a) not be locked; b) be supported with signs indicating its location; and c) display clear and easy to understand instructions."
Why should we change it?
Consider clarifying point b as it currently implies that the signage should be on the device itself. Also, add another point, c, that requires the device to have clear instructions - in emergencies, instructions can be helpful if someone forgets, or if an untrained person needs to provide assistance.
Heading text
17.1 Evacuation devices
Heading number portion
17.1
Item id
1768505509318_188
Heading id
s19.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"This form is PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. Information will be retained by the Emergency Warden."
What should we change it to?
Please provide some requirements in this Standard on how this confidential information should be handled, stored, and when/how it should be destroyed. Please also clarify if only one Emergency Warden retains this information or if this information is to be shared with multiple people, and who those people are.
Why should we change it?
Disability status and accommodation needs are confidential details, and so are PEEPs. Each organization and sector handles private and personal data differently, so guidance from ASC on how PEEPs shall be handled can not only create consistency in the process, but also instill confidence so more people can feel comfortable sharing their personal information to create PEEPs. Also, the current language implies that only one Emergency Warden will retain the information; however, in reality, the information would need to be shared with other relevant staff (e.g., backup warden, other emergency team members, the Buddy, and the individual whose PEEP this is). Clarity is needed on who should have this information and how it should be stored. In a rapidly advancing digital world, it is important to be specific about methods for secure collection and handling of personal data.
Heading text
19.2 Employee PEEP
Heading number portion
19.2
Item id
1768505600369_51
Heading id
s19.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole Employee PEEP)
What should we change it to?
Consider adding a field to collect the employee's emergency contact information as well as the buddy's contact information.
Why should we change it?
In cases where the person's buddy or emergency contact needs to be reached, having this information on the PEEP could be helpful.
Heading text
19.2 Employee PEEP
Heading number portion
19.2
Item id
1768505701793_242
Heading id
s19.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
"This form is PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. Information will be maintained only during the duration of the visit."
What should we change it to?
Please provide some requirements in this Standard on how this confidential information should be handled, stored, and when/how it should be destroyed. Please also clarify who should access this information. Finally, please consider if regular visitors/hybrid employees should have their information retained (current wording implies that all Visitor PEEPs are destroyed after a visit, and a new one is required each visit).
Why should we change it?
Guidance from ASC on how PEEPs shall be handled can not only create consistency in the process, but also instill confidence so more people can feel comfortable sharing their personal information to create PEEPs. . Clarity is needed on who should have this information and how it should be stored. In a rapidly advancing digital world, it is important to be specific about methods for secure collection and handling of personal data. Also, in Section 11.3.6 it says that visitor PEEPs would also be created for "employees in a hybrid or co-working workplace who work in an office space on an irregular basis." For these employees, it would not make sense to destroy the Visitor PEEP after each visit and require a new one, as this will create more work. Consider if and how this information could be stored differently that a one-time visitor's information.
Heading text
19.3 Visitor PEEP
Heading number portion
19.3
Item id
1768505828087_579
Heading id
s19.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole Visitor PEEP)
What should we change it to?
Consider adding a field to collect the visitor's emergency contact information.
Why should we change it?
In cases where the visitor's emergency contact needs to be reached, having this information on the PEEP could be helpful.
Heading text
19.3 Visitor PEEP
Heading number portion
19.3
Item id
1768505887499_331
Heading id
s19.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole Visitor PEEP)
What should we change it to?
Create a different PEEP for visitors that visit only once or rarely. Distinguish between a regular visitor/hybrid employee and a one-time/infrequent visitor.
Why should we change it?
It is unrealistic to expect that a visitor would have a conversation about safety, fire exits, evacuation procedures, etc. upon entering every new building, and remember all of the info. For infrequent visitors, the burden should be on the safety and evacuation team to have a system in place that acknowledges that there are visitors in the building without knowledge of all the procedures, and the team is prepared to provide realistic assistance.
Heading text
19.3 Visitor PEEP
Heading number portion
19.3
Item id
1768506168938_8
Heading id
s19.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
12th question where it says "Is the person you are visiting willing to assist you in an emergency? If not, notify security."
What should we change it to?
Please consider the assumptions and consequences of this decision, and rephrase this question so it better supports the visitor needing assistance.
Why should we change it?
The current phrasing of this question puts burden on both the visitor and the person they are visiting to be prepared for an emergency and for having discussed a PEEP. The words "...willing to..." implies that a choice is made, rather than the possibility that both of these people may not be able to support each other due to another reason (e.g., have never met each other before, not having training, both needing assistance, etc.). There is an assumption being made that the visitor: a) will disclose that they need assistance upon their first visit to this building without prior knowledge or training of the building's emergency procedures; b) personally knows the person they are visiting and have discussed emergency procedures; c) the person who is being visited is adequately trained to support the visitor, and d) that the person being visited doesn't also need assistance themselves. Instead, building emergency staff need to be trained and prepared to support all individuals during an emergency as part of their paid job responsibilities, rather than offloading these responsibilities to an untrained staff who may be pressured to volunteer to provide support.
Heading text
19.3 Visitor PEEP
Heading number portion
19.3
Item id
1768506516547_959
Heading id
s19.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
20th question where it says "Has this PEEP been developed in conjunction with you, the person you’re visiting, and the person responsible for emergency evacuation (receptionist)? If not, inform your manager."
What should we change it to?
Please review and update this question. Is the receptionist the correct person to assign responsibility for evacuation? And change "If not, inform your manager" to indicate the correct person to inform instead of the manager, as the visitor may not be an employee. Also, please consider the other assumptions being made in this statement and revise accordingly.
Why should we change it?
It doesn't seem practical that a receptionist would be responsible for emergency evacuation - this should be someone on the building health and safety/security team. "Manager" also appears to be a possible typo, as a visitor would not have a manager, so the person they would be informing is different. Who would that be -security? Also, there is an assumption here that the visitor and the person they are visiting have met before and have talked about emergency plans. Realistically, if someone is visiting for a one hour meeting, is the expectation that they should arrange to discuss PEEP development before they arrive, or for them to come earlier to discuss this? Practically this is going to be difficult to roll out, which is going to create gaps in emergency support for people who need assistance.
Heading text
19.3 Visitor PEEP
Heading number portion
19.3
Item id
1768506835777_869
Heading id
s20
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
(applicable to whole section)
What should we change it to?
Consider providing some commentary or guidance on evacuation devices or practices to support evacuation of people using powerchairs or mobility scooters, when they are not able to transfer to an evacuation device without the support of an overhead lift.
Why should we change it?
People who are unable to independently transfer out of their wheeled mobility device are regularly excluded in conversations about evacuation devices, and information or new innovation is needed to address this. Having some commentary about this in this section could shed light on this critical gap in emergency devices. Hopefully ASC can also initiate a project in this area.
Heading text
21. Annex D: Emergency evacuation devices for people with disabilities
Heading number portion
21.
Submission ID
64492
Submitted by
saulakh@rickhansen.com
Submitted on
Fri, 01/16/2026 - 14:31
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64494's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1768336131746_349
Heading id
heading-31
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
The title makes it seem like several “types” of these emergencies will be introduced.
What should we change it to?
Perhaps keep the title the same at the ones below (remove “types of”).
Why should we change it?
Consistency and comprehension.
Heading text
10.1.1.4 Types of emergencies requiring horizontal evacuation
Heading number portion
10.1.1.4
Item id
1768336250421_234
Heading id
s11.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
The first bullet "sounding the fire alarm". Given that not all fire alarms make sounds now, should this be changed to “activating the fire alarm”?
What should we change it to?
“activating the fire alarm”
Why should we change it?
Updating term based on evolution of fire alarms.
Heading text
11.1.1 Information in the fire safety plan
Heading number portion
11.1.1
Item id
1768336367415_896
Heading id
heading-42
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
How does point f) work? How can someone know the location of someone in a building at all times?
What should we change it to?
There seems to be a lot of reliance on the buddy system and not a lot of thought into its actual feasibility given the variety of workplaces, how they're organized, etc.
Why should we change it?
Buddy system needs to be re-thought, there should be other systems in place so that there is not so much reliance on it.
Heading text
11.2.1.4 The role of the buddy
Heading number portion
11.2.1.4
Item id
1768336442767_422
Heading id
s11.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
The statement: "PEEPs shall be developed for each person who self-identifies as having a disability or who requires assistance that impacts emergency egress. "
What should we change it to?
Some people who self-identify as having a disability may not require some assistance in evacuation in the event of an emergency, this should be considered. In section 11.3.2 "an employee with a disability who identify as needing assistance in an emergency " is used instead and is better.
Why should we change it?
Applicability.
Heading text
11.3.1 Introduction to Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan
Heading number portion
11.3.1
Item id
1768336481814_114
Heading id
s11.3.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
This is a big consideration. Privacy is very important.
What should we change it to?
There should be more thought going into how all necessary information can be in the PEEP while also striving to maintain privacy for the PwD.
Why should we change it?
Maintaining privacy and confidentiality.
Heading text
11.3.5 Personal information
Heading number portion
11.3.5
Item id
1768336536038_340
Heading id
s11.3.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
On point b: What if a person cannot read the sign? How can there be assurance that PwD visiting know how to get a PEEP.
What should we change it to?
Perhaps recommend adding information online, having check-in or security desk staff ask every visitor if they need a PEEP, etc.
Why should we change it?
To ensure all visitors can be safe.
Heading text
11.3.6 Visitors
Heading number portion
11.3.6
Item id
1768336622071_527
Heading id
heading-52
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
The responsibilities of the building manager should be added to the list of “responsibilities” above. Also, what does it mean for a building manager to “provide that service” if no one volunteers? What if more than one person needs a buddy, how does the building manager provide that? Also, what if there are more than one tenant in a large building, a “building manager” is a very loose definition.
What should we change it to?
Re-think the buddy system as there seems to be a lot of reliance on it and it's not be flushed out given the variety of workplaces and buildings.
Why should we change it?
Safety.
Heading text
11.4.1.1 Emergency evacuation drills
Heading number portion
11.4.1.1
Item id
1768336674091_842
Heading id
heading-52
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Section indicates that drills shall be practiced every 12 months. What about in hybrid workplaces? How do you make sure that everyone can participate in a drill?
What should we change it to?
Add statement about what to do for a hybrid workplace.
Why should we change it?
Safety.
Heading text
11.4.1.1 Emergency evacuation drills
Heading number portion
11.4.1.1
Item id
1768336696432_875
Heading id
heading-54
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
It is putting a lost of trust in another individual to expect that they will fully assist in evacuating another person. How there be certainty that the buddy will not panic in the event of an emergency and evacuate the building without their PwD?
What should we change it to?
It feels like a more reliable system should be put into place.
Why should we change it?
Safety
Heading text
11.4.1.3 Requirements and guidelines for persons (buddies) assisting a person with a disability
Heading number portion
11.4.1.3
Item id
1768336743015_329
Heading id
s12.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
We have heard from wheelchair users that TAIs at the top of ramps can be destabilizing. Are they truly necessary as ramps don’t necessarily pose a hazard? Also, is contrast necessary on the full ramp or only to indicate the changes in slope (at the landings)?
What should we change it to?
Remove the requirement for TAIs at the top of a ramp. Clarify requirement for contrast.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
12.7 Ramps
Heading number portion
12.7
Item id
1768336810275_412
Heading id
heading-61
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
When you say "number of areas of refuge", is it referring to the number of spaces of the number of clusters (spaces that are considered AoRs)?
What should we change it to?
Clarify statement.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
12.1.1.1 Number of areas of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.1.1
Item id
1768336898887_118
Heading id
s16.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
There are a lot of fire alarms in some buildings, adding each of them to an emergency evacuation map might clutter the map. Is it necessary to have them, do they provide any useful information?
What should we change it to?
Remove the requirement to have fire alarms on the evacuation maps.
Why should we change it?
Clarity.
Heading text
16.3 Emergency evacuation map
Heading number portion
16.3
Submission ID
64494
Submitted by
Isa-Bella.Leclair@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
Submitted on
Tue, 01/13/2026 - 15:41
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64516's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1768525967309_791
Heading id
s11.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
I. assisting in assigning a buddy J. ensuring all people who requested a buddy and a back-up buddy have one assigned. S. ensuring that the personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEP) for occupants with a disability are included in the fire safety plan
What should we change it to?
I. Require a searcher to do a sweep of the workplace to identify if a person cannot evacuate. J. See above. S. Such information should not be included in the fire safety plan, which will be handed over to the Fire Department in an emergency situation.
Why should we change it?
I. Such requirement is unrealistic in a hybrid/activity based work environments. J. See above. S. Privacy reasons as well as challenges to manage the number of changes with personal emergency evacuation plans.
Heading text
11.1.1 Information in the fire safety plan
Heading number portion
11.1.1
Submission ID
64516
Submitted by
cpetitfrere@cba.ca
Submitted on
Thu, 01/15/2026 - 20:13
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64527's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1768572555385_181
Heading id
s6.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
see document for all comments
What should we change it to?
see document for all comments
Why should we change it?
see document for all comments
Heading text
6.2 Overview
Heading number portion
6.2
Submission ID
64527
Submitted by
jewelles.smith@elections.ca
Submitted on
Fri, 01/16/2026 - 09:09
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64528's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1768577834474_676
Heading id
s5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Does not clearly distinguish policy goals from the technical purpose of the Standard.
What should we change it to?
I recommend that the committee rewrite this section to clearly distinguish the policy goals from the technical goals of the standard.
Why should we change it?
Standards should focus on the technical goals.
Heading text
6. Introduction
Heading number portion
6.
Item id
1768577963155_507
Heading id
s6.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The tone and structure established in Clause 6 set expectations that the Standard functions both as an advocacy document and as a technical standard.
What should we change it to?
Change the tone and structure to set expectations that this document is a technical standard.
Why should we change it?
To improve standard quality and ensure it is not treated as an advocacy document.
Heading text
6.1 Background
Heading number portion
6.1
Item id
1768578063481_599
Heading id
s6.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The Introduction reads largely as explanatory and justificatory, rather than establishing a clear framework for enforceable technical requirements.
What should we change it to?
Rewrite the introduction to establish a clear framework for enforceable technical requirements.
Why should we change it?
Standards should establish clear frameworks for enforceable technical requirements in all fields. This is particularly true in heavily enforced areas such as the built environment.
Heading text
6.2 Overview
Heading number portion
6.2
Item id
1768578340809_275
Heading id
s6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Throughout the standard, the scope is incompatible with the regulatory framework of the built environment.
What should we change it to?
I recommend changing (removing and/or rewriting) any and all instances that lead to these conflicts. They are scattered throughout the standard.
Why should we change it?
The scope extends beyond the built environment to include procedures, processes, and personal evacuation planning, which are typically addressed through fire codes, occupational health and safety requirements, or organizational policy rather than design standards. • The statement that the Standard’s requirements “reflect best practices that may differ from approaches prescribed in an adopted building code” creates immediate uncertainty regarding regulatory hierarchy and applicability. • The provision stating that, in the event of conflict, “the more stringent provisions shall apply” is problematic, as it presumes legal authority to override adopted building and fire codes. • The scope does not clearly identify the intended users of the Standard (e.g., designers, building owners, employers, facility managers), so who is responsible for compliance with specific requirements? • Clause 7.4 appropriately defines “shall,” “should,” and “may”; however, these distinctions are not applied consistently throughout the Standard. • Mandatory language (“shall”) is frequently used in later clauses to describe actions, behaviours, or decisions that are voluntary, situational, or outside the control of regulation.
Heading text
7. Scope
Heading number portion
7.
Item id
1768581264656_446
Heading id
s8
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
• Accessible: The definition provided differs from the broader and more inclusive definition commonly used in other ASC standards. • Area of refuge: The definition limits areas of refuge to locations with direct access to an exit, which may unintentionally exclude accepted configurations such as designated areas near elevators. This narrower definition conflicts with common AHJ interpretations and could restrict design flexibility without a clear technical rationale. • Barrier-free: The definition largely duplicates concepts already captured by commonly accepted definitions of accessible. This overlap is inconsistent with NBC terminology and introduces redundancy that may cause confusion when applying requirements. • Emergency: The definition differs from that used by other ASC standards. • Evacuation: The definition restricts evacuation to movement toward an exit and muster point, whereas other ASC definitions describe evacuation as movement to a safe place. • Exit: The NBC clearly defines an exit as one component of a means of egress. This inconsistency may lead to misinterpretation when applying requirements related to egress design. • Major renovation: The definition is vague and lacks alignment with how alterations and renovations are typically defined and applied by AHJs. The definition creates potential for inconsistent interpretation and application. • Occupant evacuation elevator: The definition does not sufficiently acknowledge that occupant evacuation elevators are regulated through CSA B44 and are not intended for use in all buildings for all persons. Without clear alignment to B44, the definition risks implying broader applicability than is supported by existing elevator safety standards. • Definitions form the foundation for interpretation and enforcement. Where definitions diverge from established codes, AHJ usage, or referenced standards without clear justification, they introduce ambiguity and risk inconsistent application. Greater alignment with NBC terminology, AHJ practice, and referenced standards—particularly CSA B44—would improve clarity, reduce conflict, and strengthen the Standard’s credibility and enforceability.
What should we change it to?
Change definitions to align with NBC and NFC or clarify reason for differences and define how conflicts need to be resolved.
Why should we change it?
• Several definitions diverge from established terminology used in the National Building Code (NBC) and National Fire Code (NFC) without clearly stating whether these differences are intentional or how conflicts are to be resolved. • Definitions duplicate or partially overlap concepts already defined elsewhere (e.g., accessible and barrier-free), creating unnecessary ambiguity.
Heading text
9. Definitions and abbreviations
Heading number portion
9.
Item id
1768581435224_304
Heading id
s9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Rewrite
What should we change it to?
Address all items described in why should we change it section.
Why should we change it?
Much of Clause 10 is unenforceable because it relies on descriptive narratives of emergency conditions and occupant behaviour rather than establishing clear, design-based requirements that can be objectively applied or verified. The clause introduces concepts such as active emergencies, silent emergencies, shelter-in-place, horizontal evacuation, and advisory communications without defining key terms, identifying responsible authorities, or linking these scenarios to measurable built-environment criteria. Many provisions describe how occupants will or may act during an emergency, which constitutes emergency management guidance rather than enforceable standards language. As a result, it is unclear how compliance with Clause 10 would be demonstrated, inspected, or enforced by authorities having jurisdiction, significantly limiting its suitability for regulatory adoption. • The clause implicitly assigns responsibility for emergency outcomes without clearly identifying the regulated party (designer, owner, employer, or operator). • Not all buildings are required to have a fire safety plan. • Clause 10.1: This should be covered by a definition: Emergency – an incident or set of incidents, natural or human-caused, that requires responsive actions to protect life, property, the environment, and/or critical systems. A note could be used to describe some typical emergencies; however, it could lead to misinterpretation.
Heading text
10. Emergency egress for people with disabilities
Heading number portion
10.
Item id
1768588263159_784
Heading id
s10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Clause 11 assumes that a fire safety plan is universally required for all buildings and occupancies, which is not the case under applicable fire codes.
What should we change it to?
Rewrite and remove those sections, or provide clarification.
Why should we change it?
• As written, the clause risks being interpreted as creating new mandatory fire safety plan requirements through this Standard, rather than identifying accessibility-related considerations that may be added where a fire safety plan is already required.
Heading text
11. Practices and procedures
Heading number portion
11.
Item id
1768588326574_876
Heading id
s10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Clause 11 assigns responsibilities to various individuals, including building occupants, support persons, emergency wardens, and first responders, using mandatory language. Assigning mandatory duties to individuals who are not parties to the Standard, and who may not be under the control of the building owner or designer, exceeds the reasonable scope of a technical standard.
What should we change it to?
Remove those sections
Why should we change it?
Assigning mandatory duties to individuals who are not parties to the Standard, and who may not be under the control of the building owner or designer, exceeds the reasonable scope of a technical standard.
Heading text
11. Practices and procedures
Heading number portion
11.
Item id
1768588426982_601
Heading id
s10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Clause 11 blends fire code compliance, organizational policy, and emergency response practices into a single set of mandatory requirements without clearly establishing jurisdiction, authority, or enforceability.
What should we change it to?
Clearly establish jurisdiction, authority, and enforceability making sure it does not conflict with other regs.
Why should we change it?
This needs to be done to ensure applicability and usability of the standard.
Heading text
11. Practices and procedures
Heading number portion
11.
Item id
1768588512070_187
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Clause 11.3 imposes administrative, behavioural, and privacy-related obligations that cannot be reliably implemented, audited, or enforced through a technical accessibility standard.
What should we change it to?
Remove the sections and remove requirements outside the scope of a technical accessibility standard.
Why should we change it?
While the intent to improve emergency outcomes is understood, PEEPs are more appropriately addressed through occupational health and safety programs, emergency management policies, or guidance documents rather than as mandatory requirements in this Standard.
Heading text
11.3 Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP)
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1768588569093_925
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The clause assumes the existence of organizational structures (e.g., wardens, coordinators) that may not exist in many building types or occupancies.
What should we change it to?
Remove this assumption.
Why should we change it?
For applicability and usability of the standard.
Heading text
11.3 Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP)
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1768588621928_824
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Assigning mandatory duties to emergency personnel or first responders, whether explicit or implied, exceeds the authority of a standard and conflicts with how emergency services operate in practice.
What should we change it to?
Remove
Why should we change it?
For applicability and usability of the standard.
Heading text
11.3 Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP)
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1768588679189_58
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Change this section
What should we change it to?
Remove elements outside the scope of this technical standard.
Why should we change it?
Training, drills, and emergency preparedness are typically regulated through occupational health and safety legislation, fire codes, or organizational emergency management programs.
Heading text
11.3 Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP)
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1768588792222_839
Heading id
s11
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Change the way this section is written as applicable.
What should we change it to?
I will detail some of the changes on an article by article basis.
Why should we change it?
Clause 12 relies heavily on long, composite statements that combine multiple concepts without discrete numbering, uses qualitative and conditional language without measurable thresholds, and embeds explanatory or procedural narrative within normative text. As a result, it is often unclear which provisions are mandatory, under what conditions they apply, and how compliance is to be assessed. These drafting issues make consistent interpretation difficult and prevent authorities having jurisdiction from applying, enforcing, or defending the requirements in a predictable and transparent manner, significantly limiting the clause’s adoptability. Some examples are given in my comments.
Heading text
12. Built environment
Heading number portion
12.
Item id
1768588833110_43
Heading id
s12.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Rewrite
What should we change it to?
Clearer language
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.1.1 contains vague language for “other considerations” that is confusing and could lead to misinterpretation.
Heading text
12.1.1 Application
Heading number portion
12.1.1
Item id
1768588886205_934
Heading id
s12.1.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Rewrite
What should we change it to?
Rewrite
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.1.5 suggests that the interior of a area of refuge be connected to backup power and be free from protrusions. This is vague. How much emergency power? What services need to be connected and for how long should the power last? 30 mins, 2 h? Exit stairs contain protrusions for standpipes, handrails, and even a door handle could be considered a protrusion that would not be permitted under this clause.
Heading text
12.1.5 Interior of areas of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.5
Item id
1768588933557_349
Heading id
s12.1.6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Reword
What should we change it to?
Reword
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.1.6 is confusing. Is this applicable to an elevator lobby refuge? Almost all areas of refuge in an exit stair would face a stair, and depending on which way a person faces, it could be interpreted that they are behind or in front of another person. This makes it hard to regulate and subject to a high degree of interpretation. Further, many buildings don’t require exit stair ventilation and many buildings don’t require a generator. This clause would restrict the use of battery back up and require a fuel -fired generator.
Heading text
12.1.6 Clear waiting space
Heading number portion
12.1.6
Item id
1768589001781_485
Heading id
s12.1.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Confusing requiremenets
What should we change it to?
Confusing requirements
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.1.7: What if there is no security or call centre associated with a building? Does this require security 24 hrs or a staffed call centre? What is an emergency response system? How long does the backup power need to last?
Heading text
12.1.7 Areas of refuge communication
Heading number portion
12.1.7
Item id
1768589095741_71
Heading id
s12.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Rewrite
What should we change it to?
Rewrite
Why should we change it?
Clause has two a) clauses and sentences that should be clauses. Some doors to exit stairs are not permitted to have vision panels due to temperature rise limits and glazing limits in the NBC for fire separations. Where this is not an issue, what is the minimum size of a vision panel? This clause could be interpreted that a entrance or exit door can never be locked. All buildings require the ability to lock doors. This type of ambiguity can lead to misinterpretation and confusion.
Heading text
12.2 Exit doors
Heading number portion
12.2
Item id
1768589135341_456
Heading id
s12.2.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Confusing reword
What should we change it to?
Confusing reword
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.2.1 this is confusing. If there is no power, how can it be released? What triggers the release? How long does the emergency power need to last?
Heading text
12.2.1 Power door operators on horizontal exit doors
Heading number portion
12.2.1
Item id
1768589172397_896
Heading id
s12.3.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Rewrite
What should we change it to?
Rewrite
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.3.1 there are repeated clause items within the clause. The way this is written, it could be interpreted that escalators, stair lifts and moving walks are never permitted in buildings. Does clause d) mean that carpet is required? Or that overly patterned ceramic tile is permitted? Why is are clauses written “in addition”? Should it not be shall, may, or should?
Heading text
12.3.1 Interior egress path of travel
Heading number portion
12.3.1
Item id
1768589231765_510
Heading id
s12.3.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Fix and clarify, or remove
What should we change it to?
Fix and clarify, or remove
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.3.2 is confusing: ..shall be a maximum distance between 45 - 60 m to travel. Is that the whole travel distance. If it is a maximum, could someone not interpret this to be 45 m maximum? This type of language very difficult to regulate. It is not clear if the exterior egress path from the exterior exit door to the muster point, to the public way is between 45 and 60m, or if the max from the door to the muster point is 45 – 60 m, and the distance from the muster point to the public way is 45 – 60 m. This could be very challenging on a large lot where the public way is very far away from the building.
Heading text
12.3.2 Exterior egress path of travel
Heading number portion
12.3.2
Item id
1768589263586_796
Heading id
s12.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Rewrite and reformat
What should we change it to?
Rewrite and reformat
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.4 is not written in clause and item format.
Heading text
12.4 Muster points
Heading number portion
12.4
Item id
1768589314045_876
Heading id
s12.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Fix
What should we change it to?
Fix
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.5 is really confusing. All the listed standards have different requirements for stairs. Does the designer or AHJ need to consult all provincial codes and standards? The note is written with a shall statement.
Heading text
12.5 Stairs
Heading number portion
12.5
Item id
1768589360647_804
Heading id
s12.5.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Needs fixing
What should we change it to?
Needs fixing
Why should we change it?
Clause 12.5.2 does not describe where the measurement is taken from. Is it tangent to the stair edge? From the point where the rise meets the run? 2400 mm seems high, and 3700 for landings would not allow for the installation of standpipes, not to mention that most buildings would not have that much floor to floor height to accommodate this.
Heading text
12.5.2 Interior stairs
Heading number portion
12.5.2
Item id
1768589440149_799
Heading id
s12
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The requirements/responsibilities for parties outside the scope of this standard.
What should we change it to?
Remove
Why should we change it?
Much of Clause 13 establishes requirements that are procedural, administrative, and behavioural in nature rather than technical. Clause 13 assigns mandatory obligations to parties who are not regulated by, or accountable under, this Standard (such as building managers).
Heading text
13. Emergency communication
Heading number portion
13.
Item id
1768589481453_90
Heading id
s13.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
13.1.1 and 13.1.2
What should we change it to?
False and confusing
Why should we change it?
Clause 13.1.1 and 13.1.2 it is not clear why this is in the standard. It suggests that technical requirements for fire alarms are located in the NFC. This is false and confusing. The descriptions are over simplifications of fire alarms and could lead to misinterpretation. Not all fire alarms are connected to fire alarm receiving centres.
Heading text
13.1.1 Single-stage system
Heading number portion
13.1.1
Item id
1768589511597_758
Heading id
s13.1.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
13.1.1 and 13.1.2
What should we change it to?
False and confusing
Why should we change it?
Clause 13.1.1 and 13.1.2 it is not clear why this is in the standard. It suggests that technical requirements for fire alarms are located in the NFC. This is false and confusing. The descriptions are over simplifications of fire alarms and could lead to misinterpretation. Not all fire alarms are connected to fire alarm receiving centres.
Heading text
13.1.2 Two-stage system
Heading number portion
13.1.2
Item id
1768589563757_130
Heading id
heading-90
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The requirement for building managers
What should we change it to?
Remove
Why should we change it?
Clause 13.1.4.1 puts responsibility on building managers. This is vague and implies that building managers are present in all buildings. The clause items repeated (two a) and b) clauses).
Heading text
13.1.4.1 Emergency communication formats
Heading number portion
13.1.4.1
Item id
1768589630958_948
Heading id
s13.2.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
This clause
What should we change it to?
Remove or specify what these visible devices should be connected to or what sets them off.
Why should we change it?
Clause 13.2.2 does not specify what these visible devices should be connected to or what sets them off.
Heading text
13.2.2 Visible device location
Heading number portion
13.2.2
Item id
1768589662581_515
Heading id
s13.2.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Remove this clause
What should we change it to?
Remove this clause
Why should we change it?
13.2.3 is a statement about smartphones and it is unclear why it is included here.
Heading text
13.2.3 Smart phones
Heading number portion
13.2.3
Item id
1768589708437_319
Heading id
s13
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
Clause 14
What should we change it to?
Remove or rewrite
Why should we change it?
Clause 14 is difficult to adopt because it prescribes emergency power and lighting requirements without regard to established code triggers, system hierarchy, or performance criteria. The clause implicitly assumes the provision of a backup generator, despite the fact that not all buildings are required to have generators and that emergency lighting is commonly and acceptably supported by battery systems under applicable building and fire codes. No duration for emergency power is specified, leaving it unclear whether compliance is intended to be 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or several hours, and making objective enforcement impossible. The inclusion of ventilation requirements within an emergency lighting clause further blurs scope and intent. As drafted, the clause risks imposing overly restrictive and potentially unjustified infrastructure requirements that cannot be applied or enforced consistently by authorities having jurisdiction, undermining its practicality and adoptability.
Heading text
14. Illumination and emergency power
Heading number portion
14.
Submission ID
64528
Submitted by
elieboutros@gmail.com
Submitted on
Fri, 01/16/2026 - 13:57
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64532's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1768591689103_585
Heading id
heading-39
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Since some wardens are responsible for a designated floor and not an entire building, paragraph d) should refer to “in their building or on their designated floor …”.
What should we change it to?
d) should refer to “in their building or on their designated floor …”.
Why should we change it?
Since some wardens are responsible for a designated floor and not an entire building.
Heading text
11.2.1.1 The role of the emergency wardens
Heading number portion
11.2.1.1
Item id
1768591749419_422
Heading id
heading-39
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Operationalizing the parts of paragraph e) that refer to sign language interpreters and translators would essentially require organizations to have these capabilities on-site or standby. This could impose a significant financial burden on small organizations. Could these requirements instead be tied to the requirements of PEEPs that are in place for occupants of or visitors to the warden’s building or designated floors?
What should we change it to?
Could these requirements instead be tied to the requirements of PEEPs that are in place for occupants of or visitors to the warden’s building or designated floors?
Why should we change it?
This could impose a significant financial burden on small organizations.
Heading text
11.2.1.1 The role of the emergency wardens
Heading number portion
11.2.1.1
Item id
1768591817716_579
Heading id
s11.4.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Is this intended to refer to “every person with responsibilities in the emergency evacuation or drill” such as wardens, buddies and those with PEEPs? If not, organizations can’t force all building occupants to participate in a post-emergency or post-drill discussion. Should this instead refer to the discussion being “open for participation by every person involved in the emergency or drill”?
What should we change it to?
Should this instead refer to the discussion being “open for participation by every person involved in the emergency or drill”?
Why should we change it?
Organizations can’t force all building occupants to participate in a post-emergency or post-drill discussion.
Heading text
11.4.3 Post-emergency: Evaluation and improvement
Heading number portion
11.4.3
Item id
1768591886945_497
Heading id
heading-61
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
The number of areas of refuge on each storey shall be provided based on half the number of exits required by the applicable building code serving that storey.
What should we change it to?
A building must include areas of refuge on each storey in a number equal to half the number of exits required by the building code applicable to that storey.
Why should we change it?
This is drafted in a confusing manner.
Heading text
12.1.1.1 Number of areas of refuge
Heading number portion
12.1.1.1
Item id
1768591940980_737
Heading id
s12.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Referring to section D. This is not provided in the National Building Code of Canada (NBC). Considerations should be made to include the same requirements in NBC as outlined in this draft standard.
What should we change it to?
Considerations should be made to include the same requirements in NBC as outlined in this draft standard.
Why should we change it?
Considerations should be made to include the same requirements in NBC as outlined in this draft standard.
Heading text
12.2 Exit doors
Heading number portion
12.2
Item id
1768592090492_426
Heading id
s13.1.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Alarm sequences and messaging are not standardized. At the Senate, the first notification is sent only to a certain team, who assesses whether the situation is an emergency. If it is confirmed as an emergency, the second-stage notification is then sent to all employees. Because of this, the wording that refers to a “second notification” advising occupants on how to proceed is misleading and should be revised. In addition, the standard indicates that evacuation alarm signals do not sound and that communication is provided only by voice announcement, which conflicts with references to alarm signals prompting occupant response.
What should we change it to?
re-phrase what two-stage system can mean for different organizations.
Why should we change it?
Because of this, the wording that refers to a “second notification” advising occupants on how to proceed is misleading and should be revised. In addition, the standard indicates that evacuation alarm signals do not sound and that communication is provided only by voice announcement, which conflicts with references to alarm signals prompting occupant response.
Heading text
13.1.2 Two-stage system
Heading number portion
13.1.2
Item id
1768592191603_396
Heading id
s13.2.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
The standard says alerts must be sent through the National Public Alert System to people’s phones. Our Emergency Notification System is only used inside the Senate and by its partners, not the public. If we are required to use the national system, this could be a problem and would be very hard to put in place. We need to better understand what this requirement means and whether it applies to internal systems like ours. Having two systems could also be an issue for other organizations that use their own security alert systems, since multiple alerts could confuse people during an emergency.
What should we change it to?
Consider organizations that use their own system and that by adding a national one, it could confuse people to have to decide which one to respond to first.
Why should we change it?
If we are required to use the national system, this could be a problem and would be very hard to put in place. We need to better understand what this requirement means and whether it applies to internal systems like ours. Having two systems could also be an issue for other organizations that use their own security alert systems, since multiple alerts could confuse people during an emergency.
Heading text
13.2.3 Smart phones
Heading number portion
13.2.3
Item id
1768592279954_195
Heading id
s14
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
In the standard is says that “Elevators are now permitted and available that are specifically designed for independent use by people evacuating a building.” Currently NBC does not address this requirement of independent use of elevators for evacuation purposes. This is suggesting that this standard is going beyond existing Canadian codes. There is no baseline requirement in the NBC to design and install or maintain such elevators. Compliance obligations are unclear without corresponding changes to the NBC and the Canadian Safety Standard for elevators (CSA B44).
What should we change it to?
Need to consider existing Canadian codes. (see below)
Why should we change it?
Currently NBC does not address this requirement of independent use of elevators for evacuation purposes. This is suggesting that this standard is going beyond existing Canadian codes. There is no baseline requirement in the NBC to design and install or maintain such elevators. Compliance obligations are unclear without corresponding changes to the NBC and the Canadian Safety Standard for elevators (CSA B44).
Heading text
15. Elevators
Heading number portion
15.
Submission ID
64532
Submitted by
accessible@sen.parl.gc.ca
Submitted on
Fri, 01/16/2026 - 14:38
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64535's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1768598067164_194
Heading id
s6
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: Defines appropriate procedures and processes
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
It is difficult to imagine how these regulations will apply in practice. It may be helpful to clarify the scope of the “appropriate procedures and processes” to be defined.
Heading text
7. Scope
Heading number portion
7.
Item id
1768598166217_198
Heading id
s9
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: The ability of a person with a disability to safely evacuate a building is dependent upon the appropriate design of the building and the development and implementation of emergency procedures and practices that accommodate all building occupants.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
It seems like the draft regulations are seeking to address the design of the built environment, AND the emergency procedures and practices that accommodate building occupants. In this draft, the built environment provisions tend to invoke universal design, while the emergency procedures and practices do not. Instead, these are highly personalized and seemingly most relevant to a workplace environment. It is difficult to imagine that people with disabilities will fill out a visitor PEEP form and be assigned a “buddy” each time they enter an airport, for example. People without disabilities can assume their safe evacuation without having to brief the wardens of each building they enter. How can principles of universal design ensure that this is possible for people with disabilities as well?
Heading text
10. Emergency egress for people with disabilities
Heading number portion
10.
Item id
1768598514198_800
Heading id
heading-30
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: Emergencies requiring shelter-in-place
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Shelter in place emergencies are raised here, but the regulations seemingly do not relate to shelter in place emergencies. This is one example of why it is important to clarify scope. People with an intellectual disability can be particularly at risk during armed intrusions, for example. Could best practices be included here? Further, would it be within scope to encourage staff to build “go kits” including time sensitive medications, and medical equipment to carry with a person in case of a shelter in place emergency? Some people might also include noise diffusing earplugs, a weighted vest, or other support items.
Heading text
10.1.1.3 Emergencies requiring shelter-in-place
Heading number portion
10.1.1.3
Item id
1768598647102_221
Heading id
s10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: Practices and procedures: During an emergency that requires occupants to exit the building, the general population will follow the evacuation routes that are clearly naked, or they will exit the building the same way they entered.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
People with disabilities are members of the general population. This should be rephrased.
Heading text
11. Practices and procedures
Heading number portion
11.
Item id
1768598718446_77
Heading id
s10
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: People with disabilities will need to follow their PEEP procedures and have more information about the options to exit quickly and safely.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Why is this? Please explain the barriers that arise during an emergency. As written, it seems like people can’t exit quickly and safely without personalized procedures and added information due to their disability alone.
Heading text
11. Practices and procedures
Heading number portion
11.
Item id
1768598762473_123
Heading id
s11.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: appointing an organizing of designated supervisory staff to carry out emergency safety duties.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Are "supervisory staff" relevant to all buildings requiring fire safety plans under the draft guidelines?
Heading text
11.1.1 Information in the fire safety plan
Heading number portion
11.1.1
Item id
1768598805769_600
Heading id
s11.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: (i) assisting in assigning a buddy and (j) ensuring all people who requested a buddy and a back-up buddy have one assigned.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
The concept of a buddy is problematic as currently invoked. The word "buddy" feels childish. Further, unless all occupants of federally regulated buildings are "assigned a buddy," this likely shouldn't be prescribed for a person with a disability. And are we assuming that the buddy will follow the person around? Bullet (d) “evacuating occupants, including special provisions for people requiring assistance” is likely adequate.
Heading text
11.1.1 Information in the fire safety plan
Heading number portion
11.1.1
Item id
1768598885182_25
Heading id
s11.1.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: a copy of that plan is required to be provided to the arriving emergency services - typically through a fire safety box plan.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Are we expecting that people will fill out a PEEP in every federally regulated building they enter? And that the plan in the fire safety box will be updated regularly throughout the day as people with disabilities come and go? Is this realistic? Or should this be narrowed?
Heading text
11.1.1 Information in the fire safety plan
Heading number portion
11.1.1
Item id
1768598929208_632
Heading id
heading-39
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: The role of emergency wardens:
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
An emergency warden is an occupational health and safety requirement. This relates to scope issues.
Heading text
11.2.1.1 The role of the emergency wardens
Heading number portion
11.2.1.1
Item id
1768598960994_802
Heading id
heading-40
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: The role of first responders:
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Is it possible to reference that first responders should be trained to support people with disabilities (including specifically intellectual disabilities). A PEEP can only go so far in a fast moving emergency.
Heading text
11.2.1.2 The role of the first responder(s)
Heading number portion
11.2.1.2
Item id
1768599010996_477
Heading id
heading-41
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: The role of the person with a disability:
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
When are these expectations relevant? Are we raising the bar higher for people with disabilities than we are for others? Again, would an average person know of the location of muster points, egress routes, and areas of refuge in an airport? Rather than putting this on persons with disabilities, could the regulations require standards for the location and signage related to these key spots. Please include reference to supported decision-making / planning.
Heading text
11.2.1.3 The role of the person with a disability
Heading number portion
11.2.1.3
Item id
1768599044072_346
Heading id
heading-42
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: The role of the buddy:
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
See above. This section also conflates personal support (which should be directed by the person) with awareness of evacuation procedures. It should be reworked and clarified.
Heading text
11.2.1.4 The role of the buddy
Heading number portion
11.2.1.4
Item id
1768599797139_628
Heading id
s11.3.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: (d) the procedures for alerting others of the work location.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Is this an expectation for all occupants?
Heading text
11.3.4 Information to be included in the employee PEEP
Heading number portion
11.3.4
Item id
1768600034552_420
Heading id
s11.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: Personal Emergency Evacuation Plane
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
A PEEP is one process for accommodating evacuation procedures. How can universal design improve overall accessibility of emergency egress?
Heading text
11.3 Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP)
Heading number portion
11.3
Item id
1768600176076_112
Heading id
heading-52
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: Before an emergency occurs, each person having been identified as needing assistance shall be assigned a buddy and a backup buddy who is willing to assist in an emergency. It is the responsibility of the building manager to ensure that buddies are assigned.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Needs reframe. A buddy should not be assigned by anyone other than the person with a disability. “Buddy” implies personal support. There is a lot of focus on “buddies” and lifting in these regulations. People can have a vast array of support needs which should be considered. How can a person access support in the moment, if a disability is acquired due to the emergency?
Heading text
11.4.1.1 Emergency evacuation drills
Heading number portion
11.4.1.1
Item id
1768600570621_392
Heading id
heading-52
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: In these cases, the emergency egress procedure should be executed to the greatest degree possible.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
How else can fire drill be made more inclusive? Example of potential accommodations: Could people be given a heads up, offered the opportunity to review procedure in advance, introduced to recordings of alarm sounds on low volume? etc. It would also be nice if the regs mentioned that people can be emotionally harmed if they are left behind, the last one to exit, etc during a drill.
Heading text
11.4.1.1 Emergency evacuation drills
Heading number portion
11.4.1.1
Item id
1768600880568_453
Heading id
s16.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: There are different types of signage that relate to emergency egress for various purposes. And page 77: Emergency egress directional signage shall be:
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Emergency routes should be clearly marked with signage using bright colors and symbols rather than words. Signage should be standardized and in plain language where relevant.
Heading text
16.1 Application
Heading number portion
16.1
Item id
1768600938716_598
Heading id
s18.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: Non verbal
What should we change it to?
People who don't communicate with words.
Why should we change it?
NA
Heading text
18.1 People with communication disabilities
Heading number portion
18.1
Item id
1768600994337_673
Heading id
s18.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: Assistive communication techniques
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
The techniques listed support listening. Speaking can also be accommodated.
Heading text
18.1 People with communication disabilities
Heading number portion
18.1
Item id
1768601263814_526
Heading id
s18.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: People with cognitive disabilities
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
This section is lacking detail. Having a "buddy" is insufficient. Consult with people and families to add detail. Potential examples of supports include: - more frequent practice. - reviewing social stories. - a gradual introduction to drills. - a go bag with support items. - information in easy to understand language and formats. - consistent signage and routes.
Heading text
18.3 People with cognitive disabilities
Heading number portion
18.3
Item id
1768601338931_361
Heading id
s18.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: for people who suffer from anxiety or some other mental health issues, their behaviour may become unpredictable.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Is it necessary to remark on a person’s “unpredictable behaviour” in this context?
Heading text
18.4 People with mental health issues
Heading number portion
18.4
Item id
1768601378264_543
Heading id
s18.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: it is important to consider that the person with the disability may have a variety of issues.
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Stigmatizing, needs to be reworded.
Heading text
18.7 People with multiple disabilities
Heading number portion
18.7
Item id
1768601533172_988
Heading id
s16.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
Edits to: Other signage
What should we change it to?
NA
Why should we change it?
Signs should warn of any inaccessible pathways and how evacuation is addressed (e.g., narrow corridors, steps, heavy doors)
Heading text
16.5 Other signage
Heading number portion
16.5
Submission ID
64535
Submitted by
tlevandier@inclusioncanada.ca
Submitted on
Fri, 01/16/2026 - 17:18
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64548's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1768701232763_898
Heading id
s18.5
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The statement addressing people with environmental sensitivities in the emergency egress section.
What should we change it to?
People with environmental sensitivities may experience severe health impacts during emergencies; emergency egress routes and procedures shall be designed and managed to minimize exposure to smoke, off-gassing, and odours and shall not rely solely on individual self-evacuation.
Why should we change it?
To ensure the standard assigns clear design and management requirements and does not rely solely on individual self-evacuation, which may not be feasible or safe during emergencies for people with environmental sensitivities.
Heading text
18.5 People with environmental sensitivities
Heading number portion
18.5
Item id
1768702431352_493
Heading id
s18.7
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The treatment/addition of air quality within emergency egress requirements.
What should we change it to?
The emergency egress provisions should be revised to clarify that air quality is a critical factor in emergency egress for people with multiple, interacting disabilities, including environmental sensitivities and disabilities that affect breathing, and to reflect this in the design and management of egress routes and procedures.
Why should we change it?
The emergency egress provisions related to how air quality is addressed for people with multiple, interacting disabilities, including environmental sensitivities and disabilities that affect breathing.
Heading text
18.7 People with multiple disabilities
Heading number portion
18.7
Submission ID
64548
Submitted by
office@aseq-ehaq.ca
Submitted on
Sat, 01/17/2026 - 21:15
Consent to contact
Yes

Individual 64579's submission

CAN-ASC-2.2 – Emergency Egress (Exit)
Feedback items
Item id
1769006717305_99
Heading id
heading-90
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Editorial such as spelling, grammar, formatting and accessibility
What should we change?
TEST
What should we change it to?
TEST
Why should we change it?
TEST
Heading text
13.1.4.1 Emergency communication formats
Heading number portion
13.1.4.1
Submission ID
64579
Submitted by
VWilliams
Submitted on
Wed, 01/21/2026 - 09:46
Consent to contact
No

Pagination

  • First page first
  • Previous page Prev
  • Page 55
  • Page 56
  • Current page 57
  • Page 58
  • Page 59
  • Next page Next
  • Last page last

Report a problem on this page

Report a problem on this page
Please select all that apply (required)

Share widget block

Date modified:
2026-08-02

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn

Accessibility Standards Canada

  • Login
  • Create an account

About government

Government of Canada

  • All contacts
  • Departments and agencies
  • About government

Themes and topics

  • Jobs
  • Immigration and citizenship
  • Travel and tourism
  • Business
  • Benefits
  • Health
  • Taxes
  • Environment and natural resources
  • National security and defence
  • Culture, history and sport
  • Policing, justice and emergencies
  • Transport and infrastructure
  • Canada and the world
  • Money and finances
  • Science and innovation
  • Indigenous Peoples
  • Veterans and military
  • Youth
  • Manage life events

Brand

  • Social Media
  • Mobile Applications
  • About Canada.ca
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Site map
Top of Page
Symbol of the Government of Canada