Architectural barriers in new dwellings versus human rights in housing

Here's a brief explanation of the basis for my advocacy/activism in removing architectural barriers in new dwellings.

Municipal:

-The City of Ottawa Older Adult Plan had a 2016 mandate to promote adaptable, age-friendly homes, which has yet to be fulfilled. There's a clear correlation between aging and an increase in disabilities (or decreased physical abilities) which should actually encourage a clear action plan in housing.
-The World Health Organization certified Ottawa as an Age-Friendly City so architectural barriers in new dwellings seem to put this certification in question.
-The City of Ottawa Accessibility Design Standards (2015 update) encourage VisitAbility for the residential sector on page 194 but how is this actually happening in private dwellings? The one section of the Ontario Building Code that actually requires VisitAbility [OBC 3.8.2.1 (5)] in one type of dwelling is facing exemptions in some Ottawa projects. I've alerted Mayor Watson to this fact by making reference to building permits issued since January 1, 2015, when this became law. I have yet to receive a satisfactory response on the evidence that I've provided (see #OBC38215 on Twitter for some of the information if you're curious).

Provincial:

-The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids disability discrimination and also speaks of the Occupancy of Accommodation. Seeing as the Ontario Human Rights Code has primacy over the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code (and their limitations and failures), why are architectural barriers in new dwellings allowed to continue? The Ontario Human Rights Commission has also published information regarding disability discrimination in housing yet fails to enforce its mandate against discriminatory policy like Ontario Building Code section 3.8.1.1, which exempts houses from barrier-free design requirements.

Federal:

-The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids disability discrimination in section 15 since 1985. 2017 being Canada's 150th anniversary, it would be an opportune time to end 32 years of discriminatory federal policy, like our National Building Code section 3.8.1.1.
-My Code Change Request #964 with the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes has hundreds of documents attached that substantiate my request to abolish NBC 3.8.1.1 in houses and offer VisitAbility in new dwellings (submission on June 30, 2015 and ongoing).

United Nations:

-Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010 (yet continues to omit the Optional Protocol, the real power behind this convention). Architectural barriers in new dwellings violate Articles 9 (which speaks of accessibility of housing) and 19 as two examples from this convention, among others. A recent review of Canada by the UN wasn't very flattering, here's their report if you'd like proof:
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2FC%2FCAN%2FCO%2F1&Lang=en

-Canada adopted the New Urban Agenda 2030 on October 20, 2016. Within the NUA 2030 is the Sustainable Development Goal #11 (Inclusive Cities and Communities) and their emphasis on disability-inclusive development and Universal Design of the built environment (which includes housing). Canada's commitments at the UN should compel us to act promptly but delay tactics reinforce status quo.

Conclusion:

All countries are struggling with aging populations, and the impact that this will have across many sectors, which includes housing. To continue building new dwellings with architectural barriers brings forward the following concerns:

-There are the obvious human rights violations against persons with disabilities (also persons with activity limitations). Excluding Canadians with disabilities or activity limitations from the majority of our new housing stock is inexcusable The need is growing for dwellings that adapt to our changing abilities and needs so current policy that ignores this fact seems contrary to logic.
-The strain that is added to our public health system by injuries sustained in our unsafe dwellings: falls in Canada cost 2 billion dollars per year, roughly 50% of those exorbitant costs are for seniors falling in their homes. Our Canadian Standards Association B651-12 has wonderful standards for accessibility, which includes residential in section 7, so why wouldn't we improve section 3.8 in our provincial and territorial building codes and ensure that the residential sector uses CSA B651-12?
-Domestic and international research has clearly stated that Universal Design features in new construction are low to negligible in cost (VisitAbility being the cheapest and easiest to accomplish). I have personally seen beautiful design that dispels the ongoing myths and biases.
-Continuing with architectural barriers in new dwellings exposes our housing industry to the risk of litigation on the basis of discrimination and injuries and deaths. Why would they risk this when there are best practices within our own borders that they could easily implement? And why does our insurance industry not realize that removing architectural barriers in new dwellings would actually decrease their liability to claims and their clients' risk of litigation.

We need strong leadership to correct all of the above, I have yet to see any level of government act promptly on abolishing human rights violations in new dwellings. It's shameful, we must to better.