What We Heard: First Survey on the Draft Public Service Accessibility Strategy

Vision statement

Most of you approved of the vision and guiding principles. Many of you expressed your support of the initiative.

“You’re definitely on the right track; this is a long time coming.... I am a person with Asperger’s and would have liked to see such things implemented a while ago. I have long service approaching 30 years! Better late than never!”

However, many of you did not like that the vision was framed as comparative to other jurisdictions.

“I feel the vision sounds too competitive and not about Canadians. We don’t want to be accessible to outdo other countries, we want to be accessible to make life better for all Canadians.”

A few of you noted that the vision was vague and could be more specific. For example, a few of you suggested that it should explicitly mention persons with disabilities or that it should focus specifically on accessibility rather than accessibility and inclusion.

A few of you also challenged us to define in concrete terms what accessibility and inclusion are.

Guiding principles

Almost everyone who commented on the guiding principles agreed with them in spirit. However, there were numerous suggestions on how to improve the language.

Several of you asked us to ensure that they were written in plain and concrete language.

Some of you requested that we be explicit about the variety of disabilities.

A few of you suggested new principles, such as communication, openness, transparency, understanding, inclusivity and accountability.

“While those are amazing principles I would add one more: communication and transparency. One thing I find that, despite all of our best efforts, we still manage to drop the ball on communicating results, success stories, and most importantly, our failures (and how we’ve learned from them). Let’s be open and honest about what we do, take pride in our successes, and be open about those moments where we dropped the ball. Please. Please. Please.”

Collaboration principle

Many of you expressed approval for the collaboration principle. Several of you were unsure about what collaboration meant in the context of the strategy, especially since some of the proposed collaborations did not appear in later actions (for example, provinces).

Some of you suggested that the focus of collaboration should be different. There were several suggestions that unions as well as organizations that represent persons with disabilities be explicitly noted.

A few of you noted the importance of collaboration within the Government of Canada.

Culture change principle

Many of you commented on the important components of culture change.

You noted that we should engage behavioural scientists, that we should focus on increasing self-identification, and that a true measure of culture change would be when all employees felt a sense of belonging in their workspace.

A few of you questioned whether culture change was a principle in itself.

Some of you approved of the idea of reframing the issue from accommodating after the fact to designing for accessibility from the start and focusing on the need to be accessible to ensure that all can fully contribute.

However, many of you cautioned that the duty to accommodate was an important human rights principle that should be maintained.

“Nothing about us” principle

Your comments on the “nothing about us” principle were mostly focused on how it was phrased.

Sustainability principle

Few of you provided comments specific to the sustainability principle.

A few of you suggested that the language of the principle include the recruitment process.

A few comments expressed skepticism about the ability to sustain change.

Need for greater support to get accommodations

Many of you expressed frustration with the current state of accommodations.

You told us that the process was complex, slow, involved multiple levels of approval and was inconsistent in requirements.

You suggested that there should be more help in identifying how to receive accommodations.

You suggested that the process should be simpler and require less documentation.

“Create a streamlined process so as to reduce barriers and not have to repeat processes. An example would be having multiple managers and team leaders [that] can cause hardship when having to explain your disability or provide documentation over and over again.”

You suggested that there should be more resources available to persons with disabilities, such as:

• how to receive accommodations
• what type of accommodations and accessibility resources are available

You noted that such resources should be tailored for different circumstances, such as following recruitment as well as following sick leave.

“More info sessions on accommodation, possibly one that is mandatory for all public servants upon appointment to the public service to inform employees of their rights and of what consists accommodation (as most people do not know what it is until they have encountered the term in their employment).”

Centralized support for accommodations

Many of you were supportive of the idea of a centralized approach to managing accommodations.

“There should be a central accommodation file with the public service that contains the medical information with the public service providing the recommendations for accommodation. This file contains private medicals that can be kept separate. Usually departments demand info that is very invasive.”

However, some of you also cautioned about the dangers of centralization.

“Have more duty to accommodate staff in the regions. It does not help to have someone in Ottawa trying to help someone in Saskatoon.”

Accountability to follow the duty to accommodate

Several of you suggested that there should be greater accountability related to the duty to accommodate, such as including it in the performance management process and having an ombudsman to investigate the failure of the duty to accommodate.

You also suggested that managers who met or exceeded quotas for the representation and inclusion of persons with disabilities should be rewarded.

“Just as it is mandatory for each department to develop an Occupational Health and Safety Committee, it should be mandatory for each department to develop an Accessibility committee who reports to a governing authority.”

Attitudinal barriers

Many of you noted the challenges related to ignorance or prejudices associated with persons with disabilities.

You noted that stigma regarding disabilities, especially invisible disabilities, was a serious problem.

You encouraged the Government of Canada to raise awareness of the importance of speaking out and self-identifying.

You spoke of the importance of holding more activities to inform, raise awareness and develop empathy.

“Disempower the egomaniacs, bullies and narcissists from commanding others. Make every single employee be a moral law enforcement officer who is not to fear commenting on a behaviour of another who does not follow the code of conduct with regard to respect and inclusion.”

Consulting and strengthening persons with disabilities networks

You suggested that there be networks for persons with disabilities to share experiences and that their feedback should be sought as processes are developed and implemented.

You suggested that these networks of employees with disabilities should report to deputy ministers on their experience.

“Set up meetings for people with disabilities to develop a network and discover how colleagues succeed in working effectively despite a disability (exchange of best practices). There could be an annual meeting for each type of disability mentioned in the self-identification form: blind, mobility, mental health, etc. Develop a network of mentors for managers. Pair a manager who has an employee with a disability with a manager who has a new employee with a disability. Support and exchange.” (translation)

Resources for managers

Many of you suggested that there should be training and resources for managers to know how to recruit and help employees with disabilities achieve their full potential.

You also suggested that there should be general training for all to know how to hold accessible and inclusive meetings and develop accessible documents.

“Some sort of intake questionnaire. As a manager, I am not an expert in the needs of a person with disabilities and would love an onboarding tool to help identify where accommodations can be made right from the start rather than have the person have to point them out. For example, I have a staff member in an electric wheelchair and not all doors in our building are accessible with his clicker. The freight elevator and elevator from the first floor of our building to the ground level was out of service for months and months and no real accommodation was made. Facilities needs to do more to make all our buildings as accessible as possible rather than waiting for a person to bring the issue up.”

Recruitment of persons with disabilities

You provided numerous ideas on how to improve the recruitment and promotion of persons with disabilities, such as having quotas, holding competitions uniquely for persons with disabilities, and partnering with advocacy groups to seek out candidates with disabilities.

You asked whether some positions could be better targeted to certain disabilities.

You noted that there should be partnerships with unions.

You also suggested that recruitment processes should be reviewed for accessibility and that accommodations for competitive processes should be requested only once rather than having to be repeated over and over again.

“When participating in selection processes, I have needed to apply for accommodations for each process. This delays my ability to write exams, which is stressful. The need for accommodation for each of the processes has been the same. It would be great to have a blanket approval and to request changes only where the circumstances are different.”

Development and promotion of persons with disabilities

You noted the importance of including accessibility considerations in all aspects of people management, such as the performance management process and learning and development.

A few of you noted barriers to learning a second language because of a learning disability.

You suggested that management should be encouraged to provide more acting opportunities to persons with disabilities, as well as develop mentorship programs.

Greater flexibility

Some of you noted the importance for greater flexible work arrangements, such as telework and part-time work.

“Need to provide a clearer understanding of the telework policy as it was defined when 2.0 was encouraged and where employees are now crammed in small spaces, the work anywhere, smarter not harder tag line is not being implemented in many departments.”

Human resources functional community

• 209 of you identified as being part of the human resources functional community

Most of you reiterated the same points as others did. However, you made some points that are unique to your position.

You highlighted the need for greater guidance on how to manage accommodations.

Some of you noted the importance of ensuring that there is a realistic plan to address all the barriers to inclusion that accompanies the plan to increase the proportion of persons with disabilities within the workforce, for example, the slow accommodation process, office space barriers, and prejudicial attitudes to persons with disabilities.

“It must set realistic hiring targets and be measured on achieving such targets. My agency continues to struggle with hiring persons with disabilities and managers are mis- and uninformed about what having a disability means, how that can be accommodated, and how to not be fearful of persons with disabilities.”

You noted the need to see the inclusion of persons with disabilities as a strategic human resources issue and as an opportunity to increase the pool of talent to draw from. You suggested that we partner with advocacy organizations to further recruitment.

Involving persons with disabilities in the design and upgrade of buildings

Many of you commented on the need to seek universal solutions that would best address all types of disabilities, including physical, sensory and cognitive barriers.

Many of you found current standards insufficient in addressing accessibility. Several of you highlighted examples of recent renovations of owned or leased buildings that poorly addressed accessibility.

Many of you noted that the only way to ensure accessibility is to involve persons with disabilities in the design and upgrade of leased and owned buildings.

“Broader consultation when designing new buildings and during renovations and fit-ups of existing facilities. Accessible design is often good design (for everyone), and simple code compliance is usually not enough.”

Health, safety and security concerns

Some of you expressed concerns about the state of health, safety and security of your buildings, such as:

• poor air quality
• the lack of visual emergency cues for the deaf and hard of hearing
• a lack of planning on how to evacuate those with mobility impairments

Open concept workplaces

Many of you highlighted challenges with open concept workplaces, from the lack of space for those with walkers and wheelchairs to navigate through to the effect of constant noise on those who:

• are neuro-diverse
• have learning disabilities
• have mental health issues

Other suggestions

You also suggested that employers should make more of an effort to promote existing accessibility features and functions.

You suggested that the Government of Canada should increase the use of technology in the workplace to improve accessibility, such as using digital way-finding for the visually impaired.

Some of you also noted the importance of providing accessible parking.

“Consider the digital communication needs of blind persons for outdoor and indoor way-finding. Establish a digital way-finding standard for navigational smart phone applications.”

Real property community

• 31 of you identified as being part of the real property functional community

Several of you noted the need for additional funding earmarked for improving the built environment.

You suggested that all built environments be reviewed (leased and owned) and that departments have additional staff with technical expertise to review the state of the buildings and recommend upgrades.

“Determine where the capital funding for these fit-ups will come from. Is it through Real Property of each department? Also, as this may take a lot of resources, will there be additional human resource(s) for that function?”

Need to receive information and communications technology tools within reasonable deadlines

Many of you complained of lengthy, complex and centralized processes to receive the tools that you need to do your job.

Some of you complained that there were too many layers of approval (for example, managers, medical notes) and too much focus on security and other risks at the detriment of functionality.

“The security review process for new technology requested by persons with disabilities is excessive, there is zero trust in the employees, and the final arrangements rarely consider the user experience of the person that needs the accommodation.”

Many of you requested greater flexibility in the types of tools available to employees.

Many of you also asked that tools follow you to new jobs.

You also suggested that employees could have an accommodation plan that would be reviewed annually and follow you throughout your career.

Need for a centre of expertise on accommodations

Many of you recognized the need for a centre of expertise with sufficient funding to provide support for technological accommodations.

You recognized the important work of accessibility, accommodation and adaptive computer technology (AAACT).

You suggested that such a centre of expertise should manage the requests, rather than managers, and could offer resources to new employees to inform them of what tools are available for them and how to use them.

“Make it mandatory (or at least highly recommended) for employees with disabilities to meet with the AAACT [unit] to determine the types of tools, software, etc. available to help them in their work, and define an appropriate time frame for implementing those solutions.”

Accessibility by default

Many of you noted the importance of considering accessibility at the start and reduce the need for accommodations after the fact.

You suggested that accessibility should be a condition for purchasing information and communications technology and that persons with disabilities should test the products prior to purchase.

You also commented on challenges related to security restrictions on technology.

“There needs to be an additional layer added to procurement policy so that procurement knows that an accessibility review of a product/system, or service about to be purchased, meets the needs of employees with disabilities. Much like they have a ‘security’ check box today.”

Consulting with persons with disabilities

Many of you noted the importance of involving and consulting with persons with disabilities, both clients and employees, to ensure that the tools and systems met the needs of users.

“Consult with employees and Canadians with disabilities to find out why some [information and communications technology] is not accessible for them. Learn what is broken first before we try to fix it.”

Telework

A few of you noted the importance of telework for persons with disabilities and requested that technology for telework be functional and widely available.

Tools for the IT functional community

• 153 respondents identified as being part of the IT functional community

While most of your comments were similar to other respondents, a few noted the need for additional tools and training for information and communications technology staff to be able to improve accessibility, such as employee networks, resources, courses and tools.

“One thing that comes to mind is to ensure these accessibility tools are available to all. As a software developer, I have to develop functionality to ensure accessibility for end users but don’t have the tools to actually test this process, nor can I truly understand the context of certain accessibility situations.”

Several of you noted that additional resources would be required to remove technology barriers for employees with disabilities.

You suggested that the ambition of the strategy be commensurate with the amount of resources that could be invested.

You suggested that there should be a targeted budget to improve technology.

Responses from those who serve the public

• 34% of respondents reported that they are in a position that provides services directly to the public

Most of the responses on designing and delivering programs and services were given by those of you who serve the public.

Training and tools

Many of you noted the importance of training. Some of you suggested that training on accessibility should be mandatory for all employees.

However, you also noted the importance of targeting the training to different audiences, such as managers, functional communities and those who serve the public.

You suggested that the training should be:

• available in different formats (in person and online)
• complemented by resources that can accessed at any time

You suggested that persons with disabilities should be involved in the development and delivery of training.

In terms of the content, you suggested that there should be training on specific areas, such as American Sign Language, braille and how to make documents accessible for all.

Finally, some of you noted that updated tools and technology should be available to complement training.

“It is not all about ‘training.’ Training on something and then not using it for years is useless. Having information and expertise easily available is key! There are too many variables for a cookie-cutter training methodology.”

Involving persons with disabilities from start to finish

Several of you highlighted the importance of including persons with disabilities in the design of programs and services from the start.

You suggested that persons with disabilities should be involved in testing products prior to accepting them.

You also suggested that there should be a sign-off process prior to launch that indicates that the program or service is accessible.

You provided ideas on how persons with disabilities could be involved, such as in a design lab and in partnerships with advocacy groups.

“Make a lab available to GC departments to test accessibility of our various programs and services.”

A few of you noted that persons with disabilities should be more involved in the delivery of services.

“Many management personnel still think deaf employees should not be in positions to deal with public such as collections through the message relay operators, yet many deaf taxpayers need to contact agents or collectors through message relay operators. Also, there are still some biases among management on persons with disabilities [PWD], which slows down or prevents PWD’s career achievements.”

Auditing programs and services

Several of you also noted the importance of developing feedback mechanisms to identify barriers.

You also suggested that there be audits of accessibility done by persons with disabilities or advocates for them or experts in accessibility.

Some of you suggested that government programs and services should be reviewed to identify where immediate improvements should be made.

“A specific review of the most important / most used government services would help to inform and provide more specificity to the strategy. While these strategies tend to be very high level and thus fairly meaningless, there is an opportunity here to provide some concrete goals, which will help to actually achieve improvements and progress.”

Importance of providing services through a variety of channels

A few of you noted that aiming to improve client satisfaction generally would lead to better service for persons with disabilities.

Many of you indicated that the quality of service declined as in-person service was reduced.

Many of you noted the importance of offering services through a variety of channels, such as in person, by phone or digitally.

Many of you noted challenges with communication barriers that would require additional training, tools and resources.

You noted the importance of including American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language options.

“Upgrades need to be made to Government of Canada websites, telephone options (for example, for hearing impaired), etc. to make it easier for Canadians to interact with us. Those investments are needed (not just for tech to support employees) to ensure all Canadians have equal access to government services.”

Resources for clients with disabilities

You suggested that specific resources be developed for clients with disabilities.

You also suggested that there could be a point of contact for persons with disabilities trying to access programs and services.

You indicated that there should be a central point to access information on programs and services that target persons with disabilities.

You suggested that partnerships be developed with advocacy organizations to provide more individualized service.

“The Liaison Officer program from CRA would be a fantastic way to offers services across the country where we can visit them in certain cases.”

Improving policy design

A few of you noted that there was a need to strengthen accessibility within other policy processes, such as GBA+, memoranda to Cabinet and Treasury Board submissions.

“Build accessibility into the policy and program development process. Make it mandatory to have an accessibility section in MCs and TB Subs describing how differently abled persons were engaged, how costing was considered and how each of the options will ensure accessible user centric services for all.”

Defining accessibility in procurement

Some of you expressed concerns about the scope of making all goods and services accessible.

You noted that the range of goods and services procured by the Government of Canada was wide and some did not easily lend themselves to being accessible, for example, fighter jets and parachutes.

However, those of you who told us stories of the need for accessible goods and services referred largely to adaptive and assistive technologies and ergonomic furniture.

Many of you expressed caution with procuring accessible goods and services, as individuals have unique needs and it may not be cost-efficient to make everything accessible.

Testing of products by persons with disabilities

Many of you stressed the importance of listening to persons with disabilities and liked the idea of having persons with disabilities test products.

“Tested by users in general does not go far enough. [A] person with [an] accessibility [challenge] or disability should test the items that they need to work. Example: one of my employees has a metal leg. If she sits in certain chairs, it cases great pain and discomfort. Procurement will not let her try different chairs that might meet her need and she has [had] an ergo assessment. Procurement wants to move to order a chair based on the specification and that’s it. Risk to Canadian taxpayers is that money may be spent needlessly as the end product may not meet the employee’s needs.”

However, some of you questioned whether it was feasible to have persons with disabilities test all products and suggested that more work be done with companies to establish standards.

Need for more efficient procurement practices

Many of you expressed the need to have efficient accessibility procurement practices in place and complained about how complex and slow procurement is in general.

“Improve the overall procurement process, not only for employees with disabilities but for all employees. It is a hardship to deal with extensive wait times for procured goods that are required to achieve success at one’s job.”

You suggested that there should be a government-wide strategy on the procurement of adaptive tools to ensure consistency and efficiency.

You suggested that there should be standing offers in place to expedite the process.

While some suggested a centralized approach, others wanted a decentralized process.

Firms owned or led by persons with disabilities

A few of you expressed support for purchasing goods from companies owned or led by persons with disabilities.

You suggested that this could be expanded to companies that hire persons with disabilities.

However, most of your comments suggested that you did not approve of the idea.

Procurement functional community

• 18 of you work in procurement

You told us that we need to develop training and resources for those who work in procurement.

You suggested that PSPC prepare a catalogue of accessible goods and services.

You also challenged us to set a feasible scope.

“Training should be provided to employees engaged in procurement that address[es] accessible goods and services and how to procure them. Establishing a training portal that has links to national efforts for procurement of adaptive tools should be on the intranet sites of all government departments.”