Implementing Accessibility Standards Canada's employment standard

IDEA|4DY Podcast � Episode 4
The ASC Standard on Employment and Inclusive Workplaces
**Bridgette** (00:05)
Welcome to the IDEA 4DY podcast series. I'm your host, Bridgette Sterling.

**Peter** (00:14)
The standard from an ideological approach or philosophical approach evolves from thinking that's been around a long time in the area of universal design, that is building things to be accessible or inclusive of everyone from the outset.

**Bridgette** (00:31)
You just heard from Peter Field, who reminds us that accessibility and inclusion shouldn't be treated as an afterthought or an add-on to existing workplace practices.

**Bridgette** (00:43)
Across industries, organizations are making commitments to accessibility and inclusion. They develop policies, deliver training, and invest in workplace initiatives designed to support a more diverse workforce.

**Bridgette** (00:57)
But good intentions alone...

**Bridgette** (00:58)
don't create inclusive workplaces. Without clear guidance, inclusion can look different from one workplace, or even one manager, to the next. Progress becomes inconsistent, and accessibility often depends on individual champions rather than the way organizations are designed to operate. That's where standards can really make a difference: not by replacing leadership or workplace culture, but by providing a shared framework that helps organizations to translate inclusion into consistent policies, processes, and everyday practices. So the question becomes: How do employment standards move organizations beyond good intentions and compliance�toward workplaces where inclusion is intentionally designed into the way that work gets done? This podcast is a part of the 4DY for Diverse Youth Initiative, developed by IDEA, Inclusive Design for Employment Access, a Knowledge-to-Practice initiative focused on strengthening workforce outcomes for youth with disabilities, particularly neurodivergent youth, youth with intellectual disabilities, and youth navigating mental health challenges. Throughout this series, we've explored how workplace systems, management practices, and apprenticeship pathways influence long-term workforce participation. In this episode, we shift our focus to employment standards and examine how they provide practical guidance for organizations seeking to build more inclusive workplaces. We'll explore how standards are developed, how they support implementation, and how they can help organizations to embed accessibility and inclusion throughout the employment life cycle. Okay, before we begin, I'd love to invite each of you to briefly introduce yourselves and share your connection to employment standards, to workplace accessibility and inclusive workplace design. So Peter, let's start off with you.

**Peter** (02:59)
Thanks, Bridgette. My name is Peter Field. I live in British Columbia, a little town called Ashcroft. My connection to workplace standards is a couple of places. I worked for the federal government for 28 years, where I did some of this work in areas like duty to accommodate. When I worked for the Public Service Commission, I helped develop the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities in the federal public service policy, for example. Then moved on to other things. I retired, it's already coming up to seven years ago. And I now do some consulting. And some of the work that I've done in the last year or so has been with the IDEA team developing an implementation guide for the standard.

**Bridgette** (03:41)
Thank you so much for sharing that insight, Peter. It's so great to have you as a part of this conversation today.

**Peter** (03:47)
It's great to be here.

**Bridgette** (03:48)
Andy, we'd love to hear from you next.

**Andy** (03:51)
Thanks, Bridgette. My background is fairly interesting. I began my work as an investigator or facilitator in the Human Rights Commission in the province of Saskatchewan where I'm based for about ten years and then I began a consulting firm which does a whole gamut of things. My main connection with standards is that I'm the vice chair of the employment standard that we are going to discuss today. I'm also, as Peter mentioned, honored to work with him as part of the team with IDEA to produce an implementation guide,

**Bridgette** (04:24)
Incredible. Appreciate you being here as well and sharing all of your expertise.

**Andy** (04:30)
Thank you so much.

**Bridgette** (04:31)
So now let's explore why employment standards matter. Many organizations are committed to creating more inclusive workplaces.

**Bridgette** (04:39)
To start, could you briefly explain what the Accessibility Standards Canada Employment Standard is and why employment standards like this are needed?

**Bridgette** (04:48)
Andy, we can start with you here.

**Andy** (04:50)
Sure. It's a national standard for the country that was created under the leadership of Accessibility Standards Canada. There are two versions. The first edition was created in December 2024. The current edition was published in May 2025. I first want to say that it's free, which I think is important for reach and audience. It's also available in both official languages and various accessible document types. We've also created a plain language summary, and it's also available in ASL and LSQ. What we were thinking when we created it, we didn't set out to make a compliance document. The purpose was to identify, prevent, and remove barriers within the employment life cycle. We were really focused on encouraging employers to have a continuous improvement loop and be proactive rather than reactive to issues that arose within the employment life cycle.

**Andy** (05:46)
The standard has four substantive parts. One of them walks through the seven phases of the employment life cycle, and the other three are what make it work. Policy and leadership above it, culture and training around it, and the accessible support system underneath it. So the standard is written from a perspective of accessibility support rather than accommodation, a a proactive approach rather than a reactive one. We wrote what to achieve, not how. Two organizations can meet the same requirement completely differently, and that was deliberate by the committee. It applies to all federally regulated employees. It's voluntary today. The committee's hope is that one day, parts of it are adopted into regulation. In the meantime, any organization in Canada can pick it up and use it and I would encourage them to do so.

**Bridgette** (06:41)
That's super helpful. Thank you for providing that background and context to how that standard came to be, why it's important, and I'm curious how the standard differs from legislation, regulation, or an organization's internal policies. Peter, I'm curious if you have any perspectives to share on this.

**Peter** (07:04)
Sure, I can chime in on that. I also want to add though, that it's important to recognize that the standard sits below the Accessible Canada Act. So when we're talking about, or the federal government passed the legislation and talked about accessible Canada by 2040, standards are very important to bringing that about. So that actually leads into your question about what's the difference between policies, standards, legislation, regulations. It kind of sits in the middle of those, and Andy highlighted it already that most standards require some sort of compliance. There's usually an enforcement mechanism behind them. There's usually consequences for not following a standard. This standard is different in that it's a voluntary standard. And I think that's important because of where organizations are at right now. Implementing this standard is going to be a challenge, I think, for some organizations. To make them immediately compliant and establish penalties against that standard is probably not where we want to go right now. We want people to get familiar with how to implement this because the sort of long range plan or view is that their cultures change.

**Bridgette** (08:14)
That's really helpful to understand. Thank you for laying that out. I'm curious, with that said, and either Andy or Peter, you can let me know: why was it important for the standard to be national? Why create a national employment standard?

**Andy** (08:31)
I think it was important because a commitment on a website is not the same as implementing a national exercise. It provides continuity. Prior to the standard, everyone did their own thing. Inclusion looked different from one employer to the next, often from one manager to the next. A national standard gives a shared floor and a shared vocabulary. And it gives employers something to work towards. And they also can have their own journey in using the standard. You know, they can take pieces of it and attempt to implement pillars of the standard differently and mold it to their own needs. So they're able to individualize it to their needs and their journey in making an inclusive employment environment.

**Peter** (09:15)
Yeah, the standard uses shall statements, that if organizations are looking to be fully compliant, this is what you need to do. But Andy is correct. The how is kind of left up to them. But coming back to your question, Bridgette, the standard is national in that it applies to federal workplaces. So the expectation is that federal workplaces certainly do implement the standard the way it is written. They may have their own consequences for not doing that. But at the same time just recognize that across the country organizations may want to do this as well, especially in the context of provincial legislation. So a number of provinces have been and are enacting their own provincial legislation. So this could be helpful for them or organizations and provinces as well to point to this standard. It saves them actually from developing their own standard, if there's one national standard that they can point to.

**Andy** (10:07)
Excellent point.

**Bridgette** (10:08)
Thank you so much both. So Andy, given your proximity to the standard, I'm really curious to understand, is there anything that surprised you most during the development? And were there any areas where consensus maybe came more easily or proved to be a little bit more challenging than you may have expected?

**Andy** (10:29)
I think my background as a mediator and arbitrator really helped me in my role as vice chair. I think with everyone that was at the table, consensus was very easily found. We had a huge number of excellent talented professionals who were there with a goal and a shared vision of what they wanted the standard to become. So I think consensus was actually easier to find given all the lenses that we brought to the table and the different backgrounds. I think we created a safe space that allowed individuals to disagree and bring their perspectives. But it also allowed those difficult conversations of shared experience, lived experience to really influence the standard and look at ways that we could evolve the space to make a document that was really innovative

**Bridgette** (11:19)
Thank you so much for sharing that context. That's That's really helpful to understand. And as we kind of move from covering and understanding together, you know, why standards matter, why this standard was created and why that's so important. I'd love to hear from you, Andy, how you think organizations should think about the standard as a checklist, as a roadmap, as something else, any sort of thoughts as we move on shortly from the standard into practice.

**Andy** (11:52)
It's most definitely a roadmap from my perspective. There are shall and should statements, but we never dictate how an organization should implement the stages. Each organization can take it and adapt it to itself. And definitely go on a journey with the standard with a goal of making a more inclusive employment environment. I think we also took some steps to shift some of the language, away from accommodation to support and really try to evolve the language that is used within employment environments and within the life cycle, which I'm sure we'll get to in the discussions later.

**Peter** (12:30)
Just before we shift from what the standard is, I think I'd like to point out that the standard from an ideological approach or philosophical approach evolves from thinking that's been around a long time in the area of universal design, that is building things to be accessible or inclusive of everyone from the outset. So this standard was not developed as an add-on. It was developed: if an employer organization are serious about building an inclusive workplace, here is how you can do it. So that is a big shift from just saying, you know, do all do all these five things you'll be and you'll be accessible, to if you are wanting to build an inclusive workplace, here's how you do it.

**Bridgette** (13:14)
Thank you for sharing that note, Peter. I think that's part of the really helpful way for our listeners today to be understanding why we're talking about standards and the meaning and the history behind how it was developed. As we know, developing a standard is one thing, but putting it into practice is quite another. You've both mentioned your work on implementation guidance for the ASC employment standard.
In general, a standard describes a set of requirements that an organization needs to have in place to meet certain expectations, in this case, being an inclusive employer. Implementation guidance provides advice on the process to achieve the requirements of a standard. From my understanding, the guide that you're developing with IDEA is being designed to support the implementation of the ASC employment standard in different contexts. So let's turn our discussion to the guide now.
How do organizations begin translating standards into meaningful workplace change? Peter, I'm curious to hear if you have anything you'd like to share on this.
**Peter** (13:45)
Sure, I can start and then Andy can jump in as well. So, in terms of our work in developing the implementation guide, from the outset we've been very deliberate in how it should be implemented. And we're using a couple of let's call the management tools to do that. One is the idea of continuous improvement, and the other is a workflow, if you like, called Plan, Do Check, Act. So continuous improvement means you're always improving. So you start with at a certain place with the standard, you do your planning, which is the plan, you do your implementation, you check to see how you're doing, and then you act to fix, modify, improve whatever areas need to be improved. And that continues in a continuous improvement cycle. So in terms of getting your head around that as a management improvement or a management system, that's one element to the implementation of the standard. The other is, we're very keen that organizations choose where they start. So we're not dictating in our implementation guidance start here or start over there. You take a look at your organization, you look where you're at in terms of your people, your representation, where you want to go, even your bottom line, and then decide here's where you want to go. So that's a very high level sort of summary, but Andy, you may have more to add there.

**Andy** (15:08)
I think this is an exercise shift. And Bridgette, you'll recall that I talked about being proactive and the continuous improvement loop that Peter eloquently reviewed, does allow organizations to take that proactive approach that we were talking about and allow them to take the standard, reflect on how it fits them, how can they evolve as an organization as they grow? What things do they need to improve? It allows them to take stock in the planning stages. And really it brings the standard to life for me, right? Everyone thinks about standards as theoretical documents rather than things you can put into practice and that your employees can relate to. But the implementation guide for me brings that to life and allows organizations to see themselves within it. Which, as somebody who helped create it means a lot to me because you want organizations and you want employees to take ownership about how can we make our environment and our life cycle more inclusive and more meaningful for the people that the standard is trying to assist.

**Peter** (16:20)
Andy, I'll jump in again. I'm glad that you talked about it that way, because what that highlights for me is how the continuous improvement cycle and the way that we're implementing gets at the universal design. So this is baking that universal design approach about here's how you develop a workplace culture into your management and business practices as a cycle, as an ongoing way of doing business rather than we'll recruit these thirty people and then we'll be fine.

**Andy** (16:51)
For sure. It's more than a box-ticking exercise. Yeah. It allows organizations to build a culture, as you suggest, to grow and to evolve as an organization and allow their employees to feel included within that organization. And to me it builds and evolves principles of universal design. So it allows organizations to put them into practice in their own way and build upon them.

**Peter** (17:17)
Yeah, and it builds on that notion of sort of non compliance or non regulatory in that we're asking organizations to decide how they wanna do this, where they wanna start and where they wanna go next as part of that continuous improvement cycle.

**Bridgette** (17:33)
Both of you have said this: how it's a choose your own adventure, how organizations are right-sizing it to their needs, they're having this place to start from. But also that employees and the folks that these are created for are also getting to own part of that translation into practice and recognizing themselves within these standards and within the impact, and looking at this as something to your point, Peter, move us beyond sort of the beginning stage of the hiring cycle, where often a lot of the inclusion and universal design work can be indexed of how do we bring people into our system. But then if we're not looking at the rest of our ecosystem from onboarding to retention to advancement, then we have a lot of people coming in and not a lot of people growing and advancing over time. And so a lot of this podcast has been looking at, okay, how do we look at workplace culture and look at the systems change that we're talking about from that ecosystem level with all the different components. So what I'm hearing is that the standard is providing more of that framework and that context that employers can still adapt to their own needs, Andy, I'm curious to hear from you, what role do leaders, supervisors, HR professionals, and employees each play within that?

**Andy** (18:56)
I think the buy-in at leadership is important. If you don't have the belief in the systems from the leaders, nothing trickles down. But it's important that all parties within the employment lifecycle play a role: individuals with lived experience being consulted, training becoming critical. You know, the standard highlights ongoing leadership training built in and delivered in consultation with people with disabilities working towards eliminating ableism, those type of things. Of course, in unionized workplaces, having union representation to make sure that the workers are protected within the systems that are created is important. Also, I did want to mention how it is important that the contribution of individuals with lived experience is valued at a high level. Because one thing we were cognizant of in designing the standard was something that is highlighted in the community of lived experience fatigue, you know, so that there can be a few people that are consulted for input. You know if you have a smaller firm Not everybody in a workplace discloses and that's their right. So you know, sometimes the self-advocacy part becomes a second role for some employees and we want to make sure that that lived experience input is valued, but not to the point that those individuals become fatigued of advocating for themselves and that the systems that are created within the organization provide appropriate supports for those people and that time that they put in giving feedback is valued at an appropriate rate. So building channels that don't require disclosure is as important as that, particularly in small firms.

**Peter** (20:45)
I'm glad you mentioned that, Andy, because you don't want to give people a job on top of a job, right? So if depending on how many times you're going to people and tapping on their shoulder, looking for advice and guidance, which is critical, it can't be a second job for people without that being recognized, without that being included in their performance management, for example, their compensation on those things that you discussed. But certainly the standard was developed with the nothing about us without us principle. So that is really key. So you've got, sort of two ends of the spectrum happening. You've got the leaders at the top who know their organization and have the vision to push this forward, but you've got people all the way down the chain who know exactly what's happening and how this should be implemented and including them along that spectrum is important. I have a bias for HR professionals because that's the area that I worked in pretty much all of my career. And a big part of the standard is the development of inclusive policies. So organizations including HR professionals looking at their policies around recruitment, retention, compensation, even job exit and making sure that they're removing barriers and making those policies as inclusive as possible is an important part as well.

**Andy** (21:59)
Just something to add to Peter's points, Bridgette. We also do mention briefly, you know, removal of bias and using AI tools to ensure that if they're used, they don't create barriers for individuals within the employment life cycle. And also to build on Peter's point, it does require a holistic organizational approach where everybody knows their role and is able to use aspects of the standards to be malleable to finding their role within the standard and playing a part in its implementation.

**Bridgette** (22:33)
I'm glad that you mentioned that. There's all these different components that are also adapting as the environments and the landscapes that we're in are evolving as well. So again, coming back to that point of this is a continuous cycle of improvement that folks are engaging in, not a checklist, not a document that you look at at the beginning of the employee life cycle and know maybe don't think about again after the policies have been developed, but an ongoing practice that does also need to be responsive to all the different factors that are evolving in the world around us, AI being one of them, which it will continue to adapt and evolve and employers may in response change how they're hiring or how they're including technology within their hiring flow. And we have to be mindful and intentional as those shifts come. So I'm glad that you included that. We need to be looking at all the ways that we're supporting and interacting with employees as they work with us. Peter, can you share examples of organizations that have maybe been successfully embedding accessibility into their everyday operations?

**Peter** (23:45)
Yeah, it's a challenge for me to highlight a couple of organizations since the standard is so new. So I have to say there hasn't been any organizations that have come to my attention. That doesn't mean people haven't done that or are doing that. So That's work for us who are putting together in implementation guidance to sort of look at and sort start to gather those best practices, I can only make a parallel when we talk about inclusive design. But Apple did it really well with the iPhone. So instead of putting out a product, I think they did it by their third generation, but instead of putting out a product where accessibility was an add-on, they built it right into the operating system. So I don't know what type of phone you have, Bridgette, but anybody who has an iPhone, that iPhone is accessible in terms of Apple's operating system right out of the box. All you have to do is turn on voiceover and the accessibility is there in terms of Apple's operating system. So that's a parallel, if you like, in terms of where we want to get to. That inclusive design is built right in.

**Bridgette** (24:49)
Absolutely. That makes a lot of sense, Peter. It reminds me of when I was working at a previous nonprofit role where we had a startup that hadn't been around very long that had decided to engage in our disability inclusion and universal design training. And even though they were still so early on into their days of operating a business and having employees, their founder decided, 'We want to prioritize this now as we're figuring out what our culture is, what our procedures are, how we're going to do things, rather than figuring that out down the line after we've already been doing things a certain way.' And it ended up having a lot of positive benefits for them that they weren't even expecting when it came to their retention. And they became a huge advocate for prioritizing this work at the beginning rather than waiting until you have enough money, you have enough time, whatever the reason may be.

**Peter** (25:45)
that's a great example, Bridgette, of the type of leadership that we're talking about earlier. So that particular leader having the forethought and the vision to say, as we're building, we're gonna do this. And I really like your point around some of the rationale that that can happen around not doing things while we're in difficult economic time or gosh, we can't possibly do this while we're fighting with the US around tariffs. That's the whole point about the standard is that that can happen independently of those economic difficulties that people might be experiencing. So I'm glad you raised that.

**Bridgette** (26:17)
Absolutely. It's our businesses, our organizations, they're not isolated. They are affected by all of the different social, environmental, economic factors that are changing in the worlds around us. And especially for small business owners, medium-sized business owners, you're sometimes having to be constantly reacting and responding And depending on how impacted your business is by these different shifts in our environment, it can bring about those different sorts of thought waves and conversations. So really understanding the imperative of this work, how it's not only a matter of good intentions, but it's good for business and what the impact of not doing it is. Peter, I wonder if there's any advice that you might give to organizations of all different sizes that are maybe just beginning this type of work.

**Peter** (27:12)
Sure. And I really like the fact that you just highlighted small, medium, and large organizations. So the piece of advice would be the same that I would give to each of those is that you want to choose your starting place. So You engage people in terms of where to begin and then decide as an organization. Once you've got that engagement, here's where we begin. So the standard doesn't say you have to begin here and go here. It's you as an organization get to decide in terms of where you're at and with that engagement with everybody in the organization about where to start. So My advice would be it's not that daunting. Pick a point which meets your needs as an organization, will serve you in moving forward and start there and then carry on. No one's gonna hold you accountable in some kind of horrible bad way if you don't make that outcome that you're aiming for. But start and do your best engaging people along the way.

**Andy** (28:09)
just to add to Peter's point, I think it's important for organizations to start somewhere, as Peter suggested, rather than being reactive to issues that may arise. Begin somewhere and try to use aspects Of the standard in your strategic planning and in your vision, mission, and goals, and in your financial forecasts. And I think it's important that while the goal is for organizations to follow the standard, there's many aspects of your business development, your organizational development, where aspects of the standard can be helpful for not only just individuals within the employment life cycle, but your organization as a whole.

**Bridgette** (28:57)
Absolutely. I really appreciate that sentiment from the both of you. I think often when folks sometimes hear about this work, or it comes on their radar about the imperative that we're speaking about of inclusive design and being a disability organization from your foundation, from your ethos, from your operating system, if you will, calling back to Peter's example with Apple there. I think many times, and this is something that I've heard from when I was out, On the field with businesses as well, sometimes folks can say, I don't have any employees who have a disability. Or as I grow down the line, then that's something that we'll think about. Many organizations and small business owners don't realize that they've already hired employees who have disabilities and that these barriers are already existing and impacting your business. Right now, regardless of whether folks have disclosed to you. So this isn't a matter of, is this podcast relevant to me? Is this relevant to my business? It is. There are folks who have disabilities that are working in the skilled trades, that are working in manufacturing. You've likely already hired neurodivergent youth or youth with mental health related disabilities just because they haven't disclosed doesn't mean that you don't need to prioritize the discussion that we're having today and the standards that are there to support you through incorporating this in that meaningful embedded way. There are so many reasons why folks may not disclose to you in the workplace. For one, it is a decision, of The individual. It's not something that can be forced. And for two, there are many factors, like culture and the safe handling of that disclosure data, of what's going to happen with it. If you're working on a small team, it can be very easy to identify who said what. So if that psychological safety isn't there, that can impact whether your current staff feel comfortable to have these conversations with you. So For anyone that's listening and thinking, well, this doesn't apply to my business or this doesn't apply to me, it does. You just might not realize it does yet.

**Peter** (31:12)
And I'd like to pick up on that, Bridgette, because that's an excellent point, when you build an inclusive workplace, it has implications in a good way for everybody, right? So whether we're talking about people's need to balance work and family or balancing with religious observances or whatever that is. So far we've been talking about inclusion in terms of persons with disabilities, which is what the standard is kind of aimed at. But at a higher level, talking about building an inclusive workplace culture that benefits everybody. So, to your point, yes, there may be people in your organization who have a disability and have not disclosed this would apply to them, but this would equally apply to many, many other people in your organization as well.

**Bridgette** (31:55)
Thank you for including that, Peter. So a lot of the different components of the standard and the practices that we're speaking to, it's true it'll support your organization and all of your staff, including staff who have a disability, but not only staff who have a disability.

**Peter** (32:13)
And if you build that workplace culture, the reticence to disclose can get a lot better. People may feel more comfortable disclosing once they realize, hey, this is a great place to work, I feel safe in disclosing right now.

**Andy** (32:26)
As you mentioned, creating that psychological safety is so important in evolving and in that continuous improvement of building an inclusive workplace. And as you say, it benefits everyone. It's not just for one particular group. Also, just something I wanted to briefly mention, disability can affect anyone at any time, right? Individuals who may experience chronic illness or episodic disabilities, their disability and what they experience in their journey may alter with age, with circumstance, with environment. So as Peter has said, creating a holistic, inclusive environment benefits everyone. Personally I feel it assists organizations in having longer retention and having a wider, potentially a wider customer base and all those other things, those financial benefits that all organizations strive to experience.

**Bridgette** (33:20)
Absolutely, right? Like when we have diversity, in all aspects, including our lived experiences, diversity in the way that our minds work, cognitive ability, etc., we're able to access innovation and ask questions that if we strive for uniformity and sameness, we might not have access to. As we look ahead into the future, I'm curious to hear from you both, what role do you see employment standards playing in shaping the future of work? Andy, perhaps we can start with you here.

**Andy** (33:54)
Well I think there's wonderful opportunity. I think there's malleability for organizations. I also think standards are a road to regulation, right? You need standards to set the environment. And it also drives a greater internal thought leadership and discussion and growth within organizations that will hopefully lead to greater representation within meaningful employment,

**Peter** (34:19)
Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned regulation, Andy. And I'm just speculating here because the ultimate goal here is to have an accessible Canada and again the time frame for that is 2040. So we want to see organizations proceed along that timeline in the way the standard invites them to do. I don't know if we get down the line and it looks like workplaces are not accessible or the very high unemployment rate for persons with disabilities has not changed, that we go the regulatory route, right? And we push a little harder. Again, I'm only speculating. But for now the federal government, has taken this approach, which is here's a roadmap. You choose where to start, you do your evaluation of where you're at, you change if you find there are areas where you're not developing as fast as you could and keep doing that.

**Andy** (35:11)
I also think it's important that as we move down the road we try and eliminate misconceptions, about individuals who may need supports within the employment environment, that it costs a lot to provide supports to someone. You know, the vast majority of supports cost under $500. The literature shows that the retention rate of of those with disabilities is very high if they are supported within the environment. They tend to stay within employment. Employee loyalty is a huge piece, right? If you create an environment that someone, feels psychologically safe to be themselves they enjoy their work. They feel supported they're able to receive a fair wage and fair compensation for the work they do, they tend to be very loyal and stay within the environment and be champions for your workplace. So hopefully we'll see the standard bring about evolution of how organizations take journeys within the employment lifecycle and we'll see growth of organizations and a real movement towards an inclusive roadmap of employment rather than the unemployment numbers we see today.

**Peter** (36:17)
And I'll just add, Andy, that there's lots of tools and resources around. Yes, we're working on the implementation guide with respect to this particular standard, but simple Google searches about how to make a workplace more inclusive will yield employers lots of results. We've already talked about what resources employers have within their own organization in terms of their own talent pools, who can advise. There's organizations externally that can help. So there are lots of tools and resources for employers to draw on once they choose to start this.

**Andy** (36:48)
One last thing hopefully it'll promote discussion and education within workplaces, learning more about each other, how organizations can evolve and support their employees better, make more inclusive policies. As I said earlier, increase their internal thought leadership, and hopefully create better leaders that will lead organizations into their next phase of development. From that, hopefully the standard will evolve

**Bridgette** (37:14)
It's so fantastic that the standard is there. I know that IDEA also has many resources and many different connections to different folks in this space. The good news is that there is so much support available and there are so many resources. So you don't have to create them all yourself or start from zero. So I think that it's an important reminder that you're not on your own. That's part of how the standard is there to support. And there are so many different experts to support you, If you are feeling like you don't want to make a mistake, but you do want to get started. Speaking of which, what misconceptions do organizations still have about accessibility and inclusion? I know that we've kind of spoken about some different ones today. I'm curious to hear from you, Peter, if there's any that you're hearing

**Peter** (38:06)
I think there are still some misconceptions about capabilities that people with disabilities may have. And I don't wanna harp on that, but that's still there. Those sorts of unconscious biases. I can imagine when we're talking about manufacturing and the construction sector where I'm gonna suggest that this hasn't been a big focus within that sector in terms of employment of persons with disabilities that there are some misconceptions there about capabilities and abilities that people have. So I think those are still there. The standard tries to get at that in terms of surveying policies and practices to make sure there aren't barriers there. There is, as Andy mentioned, part of the standard which talks about ableism and trying to eliminate ableism. So unfortunately I think those are still there.

**Andy** (38:53)
Just to add to what Peter was saying, that's why I think education is such an important piece. And as much as I don't want to harp on it either, why representation matters, right? I know for me personally, I work in the dispute resolution space. As part of my consulting firm. I know I've done a lot of work to make the dispute resolution space more inclusive for clients and working towards best practices within that field, I've had colleagues come to me and say how valuable that is because of my presence within the space. And I'm promoting discussion and education about how we can be better as an industry to make our processes more inclusive for our clients.

**Bridgette** (39:35)
Thank you so much for sharing that. We can't have inclusion without diversity. And we can't have diversity and inclusion without equity. All of those come together for a reason, which is why you often hear them together. Because we do need to have examples of folks also in leadership positions that have moved up within a company. For some folks, I understand they've never met someone that's disclosed that they have non-visible disabilities like neurodiversity or a mental health related disability. Sometimes they're defaulting to unconscious biases from TV shows or representation from a very long time ago. So having that diversity, and also folks within positions of leadership and different access to power and influence and leadership. It really is important and it needs to be a component as well. One thing that I really appreciate about this podcast is the goal of IDEA and 4DY to have a practical action associated with it, that there's something tangible that our listeners can take away and start to think about. Peter, coming back to you, if every organization, every business owner listening today took one meaningful action tomorrow, what would you encourage them to do?

**Peter** (40:53)
Yeah, I would say be open. Which is an action, right? It's an attitude, but it's also an action in terms of being open to moving in this direction, from the leader's perspective, understanding their workplace and working with everybody in that organization to move it forward. So the standard creates an opening for people. So I would say, yeah, be open to moving forward in this direction and then see where it goes.

**Andy** (41:16)
I would agree with Peter's assertion and I would also encourage people to be open and listen. To me, that's important. Be open to thought leadership, be open to asking questions, be open to evolving yourself. And I would also encourage them to not reinvent the wheel. While we want you to individualize your journey within the standard, there's lots of resources and supports available to move things forward. You're not alone so be curious and search out those resources that relate to your situation and begin with small steps and then they'll become larger strides and then they'll become monumental change.

**Bridgette** (41:54)
Really well said, Andy. To bring us toward the end. I would love to hear: what is one change that you hope to see in Canadian workplaces over the next five years as twenty forty becomes a little closer every day.

**Peter** (42:09)
I think I'd like to see whatever progress people make that is measured. So a big part of the standard is being able to evaluate where organizations are at. So if organizations start now in five years, let's see what measurable results they have. And that's not a gotcha thing. That's not to say, you haven't made any progress at all. What are you doing? It's to say, okay, let's see where you're at. Let's see where you want to go. Let's see what some of the roadblocks are. Because 2040 isn't very far away. And if we're measuring every five years, well, that's only about three benchmarks between now and then. That kind of sounds daunting in a way, but I'd like to see that. I'd like to see in five years who has been implementing the standard, what results they have, have they made measurable progress? And if they haven't made measurable progress, what roadblocks? And let's learn from that and move on.

**Bridgette** (43:07)
Absolutely, Peter. We have to be documenting and there needs to be benchmarks created and criteria and goals that are documented and held accountable for and progress so that we can see that over time. Andy, same question over to you.

**Andy** (43:25)
I hope that the question I hear a lot of, �What is it gonna cost me to implement X?� changes from that to, �What opportunities am I missing out on by not implementing or executing X?� So shifting that question from what can I gain and how can my organization evolve by making this change. So rather than looking at the cost, look at the impact if it doesn't happen.

**Bridgette** (43:51)
Today's conversation reminds us that creating inclusive workplaces isn't simply about having the right intentions. It's about designing workplace systems that consistently support people throughout their employment journey. Employment standards provide more than technical guidance. They establish a common language and a practical framework that organizations can use to embed accessibility and inclusion into the way work is organized, managed, and experienced. When we think about workplace accessibility, it's easier to focus on accommodations or individual supports. But lasting inclusion begins much earlier with the systems that shape how people are recruited, onboarded, supported, developed, retained, and advanced. Employment standards help organizations move from reacting to barriers toward proactively designing workplaces where a broader range of people can participate and succeed. For youth with disabilities, including neurodivergent youth, youth with intellectual disabilities, and youth navigating mental health challenges, that shift has the potential to expand career opportunities and strengthen long-term workforce participation. Because ultimately, standards aren't just about defining expectations. They're about helping organizations build workplaces that work better for everyone. I'd like to thank our guests, Peter Field and Andy Livingston, for sharing their time, expertise, and insights. I'd also like to thank our funders. This podcast is a part of the 4DY for Diverse Youth Initiative, developed by IDEA, Inclusive Design for Employment Access, and funded by the New Frontiers in Research Fund, Transformation Stream, and the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy Program at Employment and Social Development Canada. In our next episode, we'll explore the role of labour unions and collective bargaining in supporting inclusive workplaces. Together with leaders from organized labour, we'll examine how worker voice, representation, and collaboration can contribute to stronger, more inclusive, and more sustainable workplace systems. Stay tuned.