Workplace accessibility for public servants with disabilities is progressing, with more to be done
Accessibility in the Public Service
Report metadata
- Tabling date:
- Audited entities:
- Canada Revenue Agency
- Canada School of Public Service
- Employment and Social Development Canada
- Public Service Commission of Canada
- Public Services and Procurement Canada
- Shared Services Canada
- Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
- Topics:
- Employment
- Public service
- Report type
- Auditor General reports
At a glance
Overall, the 7 government organizations that we audited fostered an accessible workplace for public service employees with disabilities. Important work remains to increase engagement with persons with disabilities and to improve processes for workplace accommodations.
At the level of individual employees, challenges were most evident in how the 7 organizations handled accommodation requests. While the organizations generally provided measures that addressed the barriers identified by employees with disabilities, they did not have effective processes to handle the volume of requests. The organizations did not consistently collect data about the requests, which limited their ability to identify recurring issues or systemic barriers. In cases where organizations did not track resolution times, addressing requests took, on average, hundreds of days.
At the organizational level, all 7 organizations made progress in the representation and advancement of persons with disabilities. However, in 3 organizations—Shared Services Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, and Public Services and Procurement Canada—the proportion of employees with disabilities was nearly 5 percentage points lower than their representation in the Canadian workforce.
All 7 organizations had a senior executive champion for accessibility and employee networking groups for persons with disabilities. Greater engagement with these networks during the development and implementation of initiatives like analyzing Public Service Employee Survey results or implementing hybrid work policies would strengthen relationships and improve decision making. Strong leadership and governance practices can help reduce barriers, attract and retain diverse talent, boost morale, and foster the creation of an inclusive work environment.
Key facts and findings
- We audited 7 organizations: Canada Revenue Agency, Canada School of Public Service, Employment and Social Development Canada, Public Service Commission of Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Shared Services Canada, and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
- Within executive ranks, all 7 organizations met or exceeded representation goals for persons with disabilities.
- In all 7 organizations, promotion rates for persons with disabilities in the 2023–24 and 2024–25 fiscal years were aligned with or were better than those of persons without disabilities.
- According to our survey of supervisors across all 7 organizations, only 51% were aware of the Workplace Accessibility Passport, a voluntary tool that supports a dialogue between employees and their managers about accessibility needs.
Why we did this audit
- Persons with disabilities remain underemployed in Canada, despite strong labour‑force interest and talent.
- Establishing strong accessibility practices is vital for fostering a productive work culture and equitable workplace. When accessibility leadership and governance practices are not developed or inconsistently applied, employees with disabilities may encounter barriers to full participation.
- An ineffective or delayed accommodation process can leave employees with disabilities unable to perform their duties, creating stress and potentially leading to declines in productivity and morale.
Highlights of our recommendations
- The organizations should work with their networks of persons with disabilities to establish organizational frameworks for meaningful consultation, identifying the type, topics, frequency, and approach of engagement. This work should align with the “nothing without us” principle so that decisions that affect persons with disabilities can be implemented with proactive accessibility considerations.
- The 7 organizations should review their accommodation processes in consultation with their networks of persons with disabilities to address the root causes of delays. This review should aim to implement a data‑driven approach for identifying trends in accommodation requests to enable the development of timely and efficient solutions, such as fast‑tracking responses for frequently requested accommodations.
Please see the full report to read our complete findings, analysis, recommendations and the audited organizations’ responses.
Exhibit Highlights
Exhibit 1—Between 2019 and 2025, the overall representation of persons with disabilities increased in all 7 organizations, with 3 of them exceeding the workforce availability estimates or showing little to no gap
Text version
Exhibit 1—Between 2019 and 2025, the overall representation of persons with disabilities increased in all 7 organizations, with 3 of them exceeding the workforce availability estimates or showing little to no gap
This bar chart compares workforce availability estimates in percentages with the representation of persons with disabilities in 7 federal organizations. The representation data is from the 2019–20 and 2024–25 fiscal years, while workforce availability estimates are shown for 2019–20 and 2023–24, as estimates for 2024–25 were not publicly available.
In the Canada Revenue Agency, the representation of persons with disabilities was 7.0% in the 2019–20 fiscal year, while the workforce availability estimate was 9.8%. In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the representation of persons with disabilities increased to 14.4%, while the workforce availability estimate for the 2023–24 fiscal year was 14.0%.
In the Canada School of Public Service, the representation of persons with disabilities was 4.5% in the 2019–20 fiscal year, while the workforce availability estimate was 9.1%. In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the representation of persons with disabilities increased to 10.0%, while the workforce availability estimate for the 2023–24 fiscal year was 11.6%.
In Employment and Social Development Canada, the representation of persons with disabilities was 6.2% in the 2019–20 fiscal year, while the workforce availability estimate was 9.6%. In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the representation of persons with disabilities increased to 7.5%, while the workforce availability estimate for the 2023–24 fiscal year was 12.2%.
In the Public Service Commission of Canada, the representation of persons with disabilities was 5.3% in the 2019–20 fiscal year, while the workforce availability estimate was 9.2%. In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the representation of persons with disabilities increased to 14.2%, while the workforce availability estimate for the 2023–24 fiscal year was 11.9%.
In Public Services and Procurement Canada, the representation of persons with disabilities was 4.4% in the 2019–20 fiscal year, while the workforce availability estimate was 9.4%. In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the representation of persons with disabilities increased to 7.5%, while the workforce availability estimate for the 2023–24 fiscal year was 12.1%.
In Shared Services Canada, the representation of persons with disabilities was 5.6% in the 2019–20 fiscal year, while the workforce availability estimate was 9.7%. In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the representation of persons with disabilities increased to 7.4%, while the workforce availability estimate for the 2023–24 fiscal year was 12.1%.
In the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the representation of persons with disabilities was 5.7% in the 2019–20 fiscal year, while the workforce availability estimate was 8.8%. In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the representation of persons with disabilities increased to 11.2%, while the workforce availability estimate for the 2023–24 fiscal year was 11.5%.
Source: Based on the 7 organizations’ human resources databases, the 2021 Census, and the 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability
Note: Workforce availability estimates are from 2023–24. Information from 2024–25 was not publicly available.
Source: Based on the 7 organizations’ human resources databases, the 2021 Census, and the 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability.
Exhibit 2—Employee promotion rates for persons with disabilities were higher or very close to those of persons without disabilities across organizations
| Organization | Promotion rate (percentage) for persons with disabilities (average of 2023–24 and 2024–25) | Promotion rate (percentage) for persons without disabilities (average of 2023–24 and 2024–25) | Comparison (difference) |
| Canada Revenue Agency | 6.2% | 6.5% | Very close (–0.3) |
| Canada School of Public Service | 21.2% | 13.8% | Higher (+7.4) |
| Employment and Social Development Canada | 6.9% | 7.4% | Very close (–0.5) |
| Public Service Commission of Canada | 8.1% | 5.2% | Higher (+2.9) |
| Public Services and Procurement Canada | 11.4% | 10.4% | Higher (+1.0) |
| Shared Services Canada | 8.4% | 7.4% | Higher (+1.0) |
| Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | 11.6% | 10.7% | Higher (+0.9) |
Source: Based on information from the organizations’ human resources databases for the 2023–24 and 2024–25 fiscal years
Exhibit 3—Number of accommodation requests in each organization
| Organization | Number of requests active at some point during the audit period | Number of requests closed | Percentage of closed requests |
| Canada Revenue Agency1 | 6,499 | 4,144 | 64% |
| Canada School of Public Service | 207 | 199 | 96% |
| Employment and Social Development Canada | 10,334 | 8,996 | 87% |
| Public Service Commission of Canada2 | 526 | 516 | 98% |
| Public Services and Procurement Canada | 3,639 | 2,265 | 62% |
| Shared Services Canada | 956 | 897 | 94% |
| Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | 421 | 381 | 90% |
1 Information on closed requests is approximate because of an inconsistent approach for registering request closures.
2 Information on closed requests is approximate because of limited information on 90 records.
Note: Closed cases are those that were addressed (reviewed, decisions made, and solutions implemented as applicable). Accommodation requests handled directly and uniquely with supervisors may not be tracked and do not appear here.
Source: Based on the organizations’ databases of accommodation requests
Exhibit 4—The organizations that had informal goals or tracked timeliness to address accommodation requests had faster resolutions
Text version
Exhibit 4—The organizations that had informal goals or tracked timeliness to address accommodation requests had faster resolutions
This bar chart compares the average number of calendar days in 7 organizations from when an accommodation request was submitted to when it was closed according to whether the organizations had tracking or informal goals for timeliness.
The accommodation requests that were handled directly and uniquely with supervisors may not have been tracked and are not shown in the chart.
The following 5 organizations had tracking or informal goals for timeliness:
•Canada School of Public Service: average of 24 calendar days from when an accommodation request was submitted to when it was closed.
•Public Service Commission of Canada: average of 31 calendar days from when an accommodation request was submitted to when it was closed. Information on closed requests is approximate because of limited information.
•Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: average of 35 calendar days from when an accommodation request was submitted to when it was closed.
•Shared Services Canada: average of 77 calendar days from when an accommodation request was submitted to when it was closed.
•Employment and Social Development Canada: average of 81 calendar days from when an accommodation request was submitted to when it was closed.
The following 2 organizations were without tracking and without informal goals for timeliness:
•Public Services and Procurement Canada: average of 169 calendar days from when an accommodation request was submitted to when it was closed.
•Canada Revenue Agency: average of 310 calendar days from when an accommodation request was submitted to when it was closed. Information on closed requests is approximate because of an inconsistent approach for registering request closures.
Source: Based on information in the organizations’ databases of accommodation requests
Note: Accommodation requests handled directly and uniquely with supervisors may not be tracked and do not appear here.
Source: Based on information in the organizations’ databases of accommodation requests