Accessible Service Delivery and Employment Accessibility standards engagement What We Learned Report summary

From May to July 2024, we gathered feedback on draft standards recommendations. Recommendations were developed by:

• The Provincial Accessibility Committee (PAC)
• The PAC’s supporting technical committees

The Directorate did this through province-wide public consultation. There were several opportunities for people to participate. These included:

• An online survey
• Virtual regional town halls
• Workshops for sector partners
• Community-led sessions
• Written or video submissions

Accessible participation opportunities were prioritized for the groups most affected by the standards. This includes:

• People with disabilities and advocacy organizations
• Public sector agencies and private businesses
• First Nations, Métis and other Indigenous organizations

Feedback included a mix of positive sentiments and concerns about enhancing accessibility in B.C. Key takeaways include:

• Optimism that these standards will potentially:
  • Promote greater inclusion
  • Dismantle systemic barriers people with disabilities face at work and accessing services
• A strong call to include clearer and specific requirements to ensure effective implementation
• The need for a comprehensive approach that:
  • Actively challenges societal attitudes
  • Promotes understanding of the many types of disabilities and accessibility needs

Key themes

The top themes mentioned in standards feedback included:

• Implementation
• Compliance and Enforcement
• Accommodations
• Communication and Awareness
• Built Environment
• Inclusion

Feedback was also given on the PAC's recommended themes. Those themes were developed with support from its technical committees.

Accessible Service Delivery

Participants generally supported the draft Accessible Service Delivery standard recommendations. At a high level, feedback themes included:

Too general/lenient

Some participants recommended the standards be a “floor, not a ceiling” for requirements.

Clear guidelines

Participants felt that clear, enforceable guidelines would help avoid challenges with implementation. This would also support smaller organizations, who have fewer resources.

Training

Participants emphasized the importance of ongoing training. This included a focus on cultural sensitivity and lived experience.

Built environment

Participants wanted more specific “built environment” requirements, like ramps and audible cues. They also stressed the need for clear building accessibility information online.

Accommodations

Participants made various recommendations about accommodations for assistive devices and service animals. They called to expand definitions and align standards with provincial regulations.

Documentation

Participants shared concerns about having to provide documentation and evidence of disability. This is because obtaining this can be burdensome for people with disabilities.

Communication

Participants advocated that disability awareness information be available:

• In plain language
• With multiple access points
• In early public education

Employment Accessibility

Feedback on the draft Employment Accessibility standard recommendations was generally supportive. However, participants did share suggestions for improvement in several areas, including:

Terminology

Some participants felt there was a lack of clarity in the wording. Specific concerns surrounded “undue hardship.” It was noted that this could lead to minimal employer compliance.

Recruitment practices

Participants identified this as a significant barrier. They called for accessible processes and training to combat biases.

Communication

Participants emphasized the need for ongoing communication about:

• Accommodations
• Flexible workplace policies
• Remote work options

Enforcement

Participants stressed the need for clear monitoring and enforcement to ensure compliance.

Inclusion

Participants offered several suggestions to ensure greater inclusion. For example:

• Addressing intersectional discrimination
• Providing accessible training
• Recognizing the needs of individuals with invisible disabilities
• Including multilingual solutions

Implementation

Participants generally found the draft accessibility standard recommendations feasible to implement. Key feedback themes on implementation include:

Immediate need

Individuals with disabilities stressed the urgency to implement the standards. They called for immediate action and pointed out that some of these changes are overdue.

Small versus large organizations

Participants from smaller organizations stressed the need for flexible implementation timelines. This need was due to resource constraints. Most large organizations felt two years would be insufficient to implement the standards.

Supports for implementation

Participants identified key supports that could assist with implementation. These include funding, expert guidance and training resources.

Phased approach

Participants widely recommended a phased approach to implementation. This would allow larger organizations to implement changes first, followed by smaller entities.

Involve people with lived experience

Participants highlighted the importance of involving advocacy groups and individuals with lived experiences. These community members were essential in the implementation and training process. This would ensure the standards consider diverse needs across workplaces and services.