What We Heard: Second Survey on the Draft Public Service Accessibility Strategy
On this page
Overview
Based on the feedback received during the first survey and through other engagement events, a first draft of the strategy was developed. A second survey on the strategy was open between March 14 and March 31. The second survey was distributed through a process that was similar to the first one.
- 1,245 responses were received from 64 departments and from all provinces and territories
- 39% of you identified as persons with disabilities
- respondents were representative of all age groups, functional groups and other demographics
This report follows the structure of the survey.
Because this survey built on the previous one, the analysis of the comments has focused primarily on ideas that were not expressed in the first survey.
Rating proposed actions
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review human resources policies and processes, in consultation with employees with disabilities, to identify how they could be more accessible and inclusive | 68% | 23% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| Identify targets for recruitment and promotion of persons with disabilities | 47% | 33% | 11% | 3% | 5% | 2% |
| Examine accommodation processes in the aim of increasing the timeliness, quality of service, and to move to a yes-by-default approach | 65% | 23% | 5% | 1% | 2% | 4% |
| Develop resources available to all employees informing them of the processes to receive accommodations | 73% | 21% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implement an employee passport, which would allow employees to carry their accommodations to new positions within the public service | 70% | 22% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 2% |
| Review representation of persons with disabilities within occupational groups to identify gaps | 42% | 33% | 13% | 5% | 5% | 3% |
| Hold targeted recruitment processes to fill the gaps | 33% | 35% | 16% | 5% | 7% | 4% |
| Review existing development programs to ensure that persons with disabilities are properly represented | 50% | 30% | 10% | 4% | 3% | 2% |
| Replace the concept of workforce availability in setting employment targets for persons with disabilities with a concept that accounts for work potential as defined in the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability | 37% | 27% | 10% | 2% | 3% | 21% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Develop data on client satisfaction from the perspective of persons with disabilities | 54% | 31% | 9% | 2% | 2% | 3% |
| Monitor proportion of grants and contributions recipients who self-identify as persons with disabilities | 29% | 35% | 18% | 4% | 5% | 9% |
| Audit programs in consultation with persons with disabilities to identify and remove barriers for persons with disabilities | 69% | 24% | 3% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| Build accessibility into all new policies and programs | 72% | 20% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Create an accessibility design lab for departments to be able to design for accessibility from the start | 46% | 30% | 11% | 3% | 3% | 7% |
| Pilot consultation and feedback processes from clients with disabilities | 61% | 29% | 5% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| Publish accessibility-related data as part of the TBS service inventory | 38% | 35% | 13% | 4% | 3% | 7% |
| Develop an accessible platform for consulting Canadians | 50% | 31% | 9% | 3% | 2% | 4% |
| Provide guidance to departments on how to review their services for accessibility | 66% | 27% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Provide guidance on how to apply an accessibility lens to the design and delivery of programs and services | 64% | 26% | 6% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review built environment (for example, buildings) in consultation with persons with disabilities (that is, employees, clients, and other persons regularly conducting business in the building), to identify how they could be more accessible and inclusive | 76% | 19% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Ensure that any new builds or retrofits within their organization are accessible in accordance with accessibility best practices and standards as defined by the criteria set for federal buildings | 86% | 10% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 1% |
| Actively promote the accessibility features and services offered in their workspace and public-facing spaces | 57% | 29% | 8% | 3% | 2% | 1% |
| Ensure that events such as training and meetings are accessible to all employees and the public, where applicable | 81% | 15% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 0% |
| Consult with persons with disabilities on emergency evacuation plans and prepare/revise the plan according to the specific needs expressed for emergency evacuation to suit employees with disabilities | 88% | 9% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Update policies and directives relative to the built environment in conjunction with the National Building Code of Canada (to be fully harmonized by 2020) | 65% | 25% | 4% | 0% | 1% | 5% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review information and communications technology, in consultation with employees with disabilities, to identify how they could be more accessible and inclusive | 68% | 25% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Ensure that all systems, services (purchasing software service), software, websites and office boardroom equipment are accessible | 72% | 20% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 2% |
| Review systems, software, websites and equipment to ensure that they are accessible; where they are not accessible, departments will develop a plan to address the accessibility shortfalls of legacy systems | 68% | 23% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 2% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enable accessibility features on all devices used by employees with accessibility needs | 79% | 15% | 3% | 0% | 1% | 2% |
| Establish a streamlined and efficient process to procure assistive technology and ensure users have access to ongoing technical support | 74% | 20% | 3% | 0% | 1% | 2% |
| Develop a way to measure how accessible IT systems are | 49% | 35% | 9% | 2% | 2% | 3% |
| Provide resources for employees to generate accessible content with common tools (for example, Microsoft Office) | 64% | 26% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 3% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identify an executive lead to coordinate the department’s overall accessibility strategy | 42% | 31% | 12% | 5% | 6% | 4% |
| Enhance managers’ ability to address accessibility requirements with confidence | 67% | 24% | 5% | 1% | 1% | 2% |
| Develop and maintain a network of employees with disabilities | 41% | 30% | 14% | 4% | 5% | 6% |
| Establish a confidential mechanism for employees with disabilities to address their accessibility and inclusion concerns | 69% | 21% | 5% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Develop and maintain an external advisory committee, where appropriate | 25% | 34% | 19% | 7% | 7% | 8% |
| Develop an accessibility roadmap (diagnostic of barriers in all seven areas covered by Bill C-81) in preparation of Bill C-81’s requirement to have accessibility plans | 49% | 31% | 8% | 2% | 2% | 9% |
| Very important | Somewhat important | Neither important nor unimportant | Somewhat unimportant | Unimportant | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Share best practices with the Office of Public Service Accessibility and other organizations | 49% | 36% | 9% | 2% | 2% | 3% |
| Embed accessibility into the curriculum of the Canada School of Public Service as well as in all training and tools for all functional communities | 61% | 25% | 8% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Embed accessibility into guidance provided by TBS policy centres | 56% | 27% | 7% | 2% | 2% | 5% |
| Awareness raising events through the Canada School of Public Service and the Federal Speakers’ Bureau on Healthy Workplaces, among other venues | 40% | 34% | 14% | 4% | 4% | 3% |
| Promote self-declaration of employees with disabilities | 44% | 28% | 14% | 4% | 4% | 5% |
| Aid small departments and agencies to establish a common advisory committee of persons with disabilities | 38% | 33% | 12% | 4% | 5% | 8% |
| Strengthen interdepartmental networks of employees with disabilities | 38% | 31% | 16% | 4% | 4% | 6% |
| Develop resources and guides to equip managers and employees to be inclusive of employees with disabilities | 66% | 25% | 5% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
Other actions
We asked you whether there were other actions that should be included in the strategy. Many of your comments were aligned with the actions in the strategy.
Some of you suggested that existing laws and policies, such as Treasury Board policies on telework and the duty to accommodate, needed to be properly enforced. Some of the other themes that appeared are summarized below.
Concerns about inclusion of all disabilities
Some of you commented on the need to make sure that accessibility covers all types of disabilities.
“Learning disabilities are more prevalent in today’s world, and many of our youth are being accommodated at school and universities across the country. Once in the workplace, these tools are not always available and impacts their ability to perform.”
“Ensure to consider that disability is a very broad definition and includes mild to severe disabilities and persons who’ve had these disabilities from an early age versus later onset. It is critical that the program is targeting those who truly need this access to the workplace and not just hiring ‘token’ persons with disabilities to inflate statistics. There should be a measure to capture this in the new accessibility framework.”
Dealing with stigma
You noted the importance of dealing with stigma and prejudice. Furthermore, some of you raised concerns related to privacy.
You commented that initiatives and programs that focus on persons with disabilities may have the unintended effect of compromising the privacy of these individuals.
“The draft strategy does well to consider the tangible barriers to participation for persons with disabilities; however, it seems to leave the issue of stigma unaddressed. I think that the goal of creating a more accessibility-confident public service transcends all others because the issue of attitudes towards the relative value of abled employees versus disabled employees is still skewed. The strategy should address more concretely how stigma and discrimination will be addressed as a precursor to reviewing existing policies, practices and systems.”
Accessible training
You suggested that particular care should be placed on ensuring that training is accessible. In the case of second-language acquisition, you also noted the importance of ensuring that accessibility is factored into testing as well.
“Accessible training is extremely important. Too many times I have encountered training that does not have external dial-in audio or live transcripts, or the training isn’t available at all remotely, nor the evaluations. It has meant that I have not been able to upgrade my work skills when my colleagues have those opportunities.”
“Consider how second language requirements can be relaxed or removed for persons with learning and/or hearing disabilities. This consistently creates barriers for promotion or other positions of interest.”
Concerns regarding accessible transportation
You commented on the need for clearer policies on accessible parking and suggested that more efforts should be made to ensure that telework was permitted.
“The location of federal buildings is paramount. Not everyone, especially persons with a disability, is able to acquire a driver’s licence. Hence, workplaces should be … easily accessible by several modes of transportation (transit, car, cycling, walking). If the cost of locating workplaces as such is too high, the employer [should] provide an acceptable alternative such as allowing the employee telework from home.”
“Provide parking for persons with disabilities at all government buildings.” (translation)
Resources
You stressed the importance of resources for implementing the strategy.
“The departments, executives, managers and employees should be trained/informed appropriately to implement the Public Service Accessibility Strategy. The required financial resources and necessary infrastructure and training [are] allocated to ensure the improved results.”
“In addition to hiring an executive lead to coordinate the department’s overall accessibility strategy, each department should hire a small team of people to help support delivering on the goals and actions of the strategy.”
Family members with disabilities
Some of you noted that you had dependents with severe disabilities and that you have experienced difficulties in seeking accommodations to take care of your family.
Performance indicators
- 81% of you indicated that these were the right performance indicators to measure the strategy.
There was no clear consensus among the other comments on what else should be included. A summary of key themes follows.
Measures of accommodation
Some of you noted that there should be more measures related to accommodations, such as the timeliness and satisfaction of employees with the accommodation measures, as well as the satisfaction of managers with the tools at their disposal to accommodate employees.
“There should be a system for tracking how many [accommodations] are requested and in place. There should also be a system for tracking how many are denied and why, as well as how long it takes to approve an [accommodation] and to fully implement [it]. Also track the type of [accommodation] request, for example, software, office equipment, office relocation, telework, schedule changes, etc., as well astrackingthe cost of purchasing software, hardware and office relocation, noting that some changes do not generate a tangible cost, like schedule changes.”
Measures of inclusion
You suggested that there could be more measures that relate to the sense of inclusion of employees that would complement those that measure diversity.
Measures of implementation
Some of you noted that there should be measures that track how individual departments are implementing the strategy.
“[Number and percentage] of senior management committee meetings that included [a] presentation on public service accessibility progress at branch, department and division level. (It is not a one-time fix-it; it needs to be monitored and improved over time. Evidence would be [records of decision] and actual presentation materials with follow-ups marked to help make progress.) [Number and percentage] of program evaluations that include public service accessibility measures or evidence of assessing such accessibility in individual program evaluations. (Note: this should include programs internal to the public service that access Vote 1/5 money; not just Vote 10.) [Number and percentage] of [Treasury Board] submissions for new authority/money that include statement on how [an] initiative supports public service accessibility.”
Concerns about measures of promotion
Some of you expressed concern regarding measures that relate to promotions. You noted that not all persons with disabilities want to be promoted.
Some of you also thought that measures of retention could be more appropriate.
“Percentage of persons with disabilities promoted assumes that persons with disabilities are seeking promotion. This cannot be controlled and is not necessarily a measure of whether or not there are barriers.”
Data on employees with disabilities
You expressed concerns around the definition of disability. Notably, you noted that numbers and percentages of public servants with disabilities were dependent on self-identification, which can vary depending on employees and their desire to self-identify.
You also suggested that the data on persons with disabilities should involve other intersecting identities, such as gender.
You also noted that there could be value in having data by type and severity of disability.
“Indicators should take into account intersectionality, that is, the multiple identities of a person with disabilities (disability and member of the LGBTQ+ community, disability and person of colour, etc.). In addition, indicators should consider not only those who self-identify as disabled, but also those who are already using accommodation and who do not self-identify as disabled. Otherwise, there is a risk of underestimating the population with a disability. All surveys and evaluations used to collect comments from people with disabilities should be barrier-free in order for them to participate.” (translation)
“These indicators seem good, but should there be any distinguishing between disabilities? Type and/or severity? If the number of people with a disability being promoted increases, it would be difficult to know whether different groups of people with disabilities were not benefiting compared to others. It’s a diverse group of people, and efforts may greatly support some while not positively affecting others.”
Qualitative measures
Some of you suggested that more qualitative measures should be considered, such as case studies.
“Targeted, qualitative consultations should be held with employees with disabilities in a specified, safe environment (conducted by researchers or organization development practitioners) to assess their experiences in the federal public service. Survey-based methods, even when anonymity is assured, are inadequate due to the systemic nature of (1) discrimination (conscious or otherwise) in the wider population and (2) [cultivation of] rich descriptions of those experiences from employees who may be intimidated by said discrimination (under-reporting).”
Accessible services
Of those of you who identified as persons with disabilities, 45% of you indicated that you encountered barriers in accessing services.
You accessed services through all channels:
- online (69%)
- in person (52%)
- by phone (50%)
- by mail (17%)
- through other means (9%)
You noted barriers related to the built environment and information and communications technology.
You suggested that more effort should be put into providing services in various formats and in ensuring those who serve the public directly be better trained.
“National events are not accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. Shows and speeches are not subtitled in French and in English on giant screens on Canada Day. National and international ceremonial events in which Canada participates are not accessible, for example, in the field of major sports, Olympic and Paralympic medal ceremonies are not subtitled on screens (official Canadian languages are official at the Olympics and Paralympics, so no excuses! Canada must get involved nationally and diplomatically!), and annual presentations of the Governor General’s Cups of Canada (the Clarkson, Stanley and Grey Cups) and Lady Byng Memorial Trophy are not subtitled on screens in French and in English. It’s not acceptable! Canadian Heritage has no good reason to leave things this way.” (translation)
“I have had many issues on various occasions trying to obtain my disability grants and tax credits from [the Canada Revenue Agency]. No one seems to care if a disabled person gets the service or information they are seeking, even though it is a right of a person with disability [such] as myself to get these funds or information in order to help me survive. I believe training (tier 1, 2 and 3 customer service employees) internally would help the situation, but I also think that if you hire persons with disabilities to do the jobs that other persons with disabilities rely on, then it would be a tremendous assistance to everyone and things get done in a timely manner.”
“Border service agents don’t always allow me to lip-read them or allow enough time to respond to questions because I haven’t heard them properly the first time they’ve asked me a question. The wind at the border gates is also often problematic and decreases my ability to hear still further.”
“[In my experience as] someone with a hearing disability, not all videos from the Canadian School of Public Service had closed captioning or the ability to read the content being presented.”
Page details
- Date modified: