Enabling Science: Accessible Infrastructure Through Knowledge Mobilization
Recommendations for Federal Laboratories
Executive Summary
Submitted to Accessibility Standards Canada
October 31, 2025
Principal Investigator: Dr. Irena Creed, University of Toronto at Scarborough
Research Team: IDEA-STEM Consulting, Inc.
Table of Contents
Key findings from the literature
Key findings from consultations
A) Policy and planning
B) Infrastructure and environment
C) People, training and culture
D) Coordination, measurement and scale
Executive Summary
Canada’s commitment to a barrier‑free society by 2040 under the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) sets a clear expectation that federal workplaces, including laboratories, must proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers across the built environment, employment, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), communications, service design, procurement and transportation. The law also established governance (including oversight bodies and personnel such as Accessibility Standards Canada, the Chief Accessibility Officer and Accessibility Commissioner) and measurement frameworks to move beyond compliance into sustained delivery. This national direction frames accessibility not as a “nice to have” but as a mandated outcome for federally regulated organizations, federal departments included.
Within the federal public service, the Accessibility Strategy for the Public Service of Canada roadmap highlights material gaps in the built environment, including a previously identified $70 million shortfall to meet even outdated standards, and commits to modern evaluations, Universal Design and direct engagement with persons with disabilities in retrofits and emergency planning. This pushes departments to exceed minimum code requirements and mainstream accessibility throughout facilities lifecycle management.
The business case is equally compelling. Persons with disabilities face a 16‑point employment gap (62per cent versus 78 per cent employed, ages 25 to 64), and Statistics Canada estimates >741,000 Canadians with disabilities not currently employed could work in an inclusive labour market with appropriate accommodations, this is an untapped talent pipeline for science duties. In the federal science workforce specifically, >31,000 scientists comprise 11.4 per cent of all federal employees, yet persons with disabilities are underrepresented (3.5 per cent), indicating systemic barriers in recruitment, retention and advancement.
Large modernization programs amplify both the opportunity and the risk. Laboratories Canada is delivering a multi‑year, multi‑department renewal strategy built on modern facilities, advanced information management and information technology, coordinated equipment and barrier mitigation, explicitly promising modern, accessible and sustainable laboratories. Reported benefits include 20,000 new jobs and a minimum five per cent Indigenous participation requirement in projects, with repeatable design frameworks now in use across five science hubs (e.g., TerraCanada Science and Innovation, Regulatory and Security Science, Atlantic Science Enterprise Centre). Ensuring accessibility is “baked in” during planning prevents future retrofits and positions Canada’s science assets for long‑term inclusivity and performance.
As well, the Inclusive Science and Accessible Laboratories (ISAL) pilot project, led by Natural Resources Canada, demonstrated genuine efforts to address accessibility in laboratory environments. By selecting and upgrading specific sites through an accessibility lens, ISAL demonstrates how intentional design and collaboration can advance equitable participation in science. The pilot offers a valuable opportunity to reflect on what was learned, what was shared, and what could be done differently in future phases. While initially small in scale, ISAL highlights the importance of targeted, evidence-based efforts to identify and address accessibility barriers within scientific infrastructure. Capturing the project’s insights, its design wins, challenges, and outcomes, and sharing them across departments and agencies will strengthen Canada’s collective capacity to plan and build accessible laboratories. Central to this progress is the meaningful inclusion of persons with disabilities in shaping, testing, and evaluating solutions, ensuring that lived experience informs both design and implementation.
Finally, the Treasury Board’s public service accessibility update tracks progress toward a target of 5,000 net new hires with disabilities by 2025 (with 1,085 achieved at the time of the report) and highlights enabling tools like the Centralized Enabling Workplace Fund (CEWF) and the Government of Canada Workplace Accessibility Passport, reinforcing that both culture and infrastructure must move together to reach the 2040 goal.
These structures and tools all have implication for decision‑makers: Accessibility in federal labs is now a legislative requirement, a workforce imperative and an infrastructure modernization risk. Integrating accessibility into planning, procurement, and culture is essential to attract and retain diverse scientific talent, ensure life‑safety, and deliver on government commitments.
Evidence Base and Approach
This summary draws on a literature review (Canadian and international guidance, standards, and case studies) and 11 semi‑structured interviews with federal lab employees and leaders. Interviews were coded thematically across built environment, accommodation practices, policy/procurement, collaboration, culture and practical solutions already in use.
Key Findings from the Literature
Universal Design (UD) outperforms reactive accommodation: Proactive, UD‑aligned lab design, adjustable‑height workstations and sinks, lever controls, clearances under benches, uncluttered aisles, high‑contrast/tactile labelling, and visual alarms paired with audible alerts, reduces future accommodation needs and improves safety, usability and throughput for all users. Guidance emphasizes implementing UD across space, equipment, safety, communications and IT, not just architecture.
Accessible equipment and multi-modal tools expand participation: Practical catalogues and checklists point to affordable, universally designed lab tools (e.g., tactile/Braille-marked sensors, talking timers, large‑print balances, easy‑grip glassware), and multi-modal interfaces that combine visual, auditory and tactile feedback, improving independence and data fidelity.
Standards and anti‑ableism frameworks are increasing: Federal and sectoral actions (e.g., Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Anti‑Ableism Action Plan) embed inclusion in who and what is funded and how processes run, mandating barrier‑free application experiences, data transparency and organization‑wide training. This aligns with the ACA’s emphasis on prevention and measurement.
Beyond compliance: practical dimensions matter: The literature consistently argues for exceeding minimum code (e.g., aisle width, workstation heights, adjustable hoods; contrast and multi-sensory cues; quiet rooms and acoustic treatment for sensory access). Where full physical access is constrained (e.g., a high‑containment area), equitable participation can be achieved through remote instrumentation, robotics and hybrid work models.
Culture and training change outcomes: Evidence from lab‑based education and workplace studies shows scenario‑based, participatory training raises confidence and changes behaviour. Additionally, plain‑language procedures and early consultation ease disclosure and uptake of supports, and governance and data are necessary to scale and sustain progress.
Key Findings from Consultations
Knowledge and training gaps slow action: Many leaders are unsure where to find lab‑specific guidance, whether it exists, and how to apply it. Confidence in planning accessible layouts is uneven (“I don’t feel comfortable planning accessible lab layouts”). This uncertainty leaves accessibility to local interpretation.
Policy/practice need better alignment: There is late consultation and weak translation to labs. Staff report the absence of clear federal lab‑specific accessibility guidance and describe late or token consultation, e.g., committees without lab‑user representation and limited involvement of scientists with disabilities in planning. Outcomes are predictable: costly retrofits and preventable barriers.
Procurement embeds barriers if accessibility is not required: “Off‑the‑shelf” purchasing that ignores adjustability or compatibility with assistive technology hard‑codes inaccessibility into new spaces; the Workplace Accessibility Passport is perceived as misaligned to lab contexts unless integrated into assignments, procurement and safety planning.
Physical and environmental barriers are common and consequential: Examples include inaccessible washroom doors and secure doors without actuators, narrow paths, and single accessible stalls; one approved washroom took nine months to deliver. People compensate for lighting, temperature and scent triggers by going home or bringing personal items; signage lacks tactile/high‑contrast cues; fixed‑height furniture and non‑adjustable hoods restrict independence; and emergency evacuation plans often leave people to “wait in stairwells.”
Accommodation processes are slow, uneven, and burdensome: Respondents cited 6 to12‑month waits just to enter assessment queues and requests that remained unresolved for two years, forcing ad‑hoc workarounds. Temporary and student workers receive weaker support, creating a two‑tier system. Funding, legacy buildings (e.g., those with asbestos), and capital timelines compound delays.
Culture is the pivot: Participants reported stigma, disbelief, and exclusion from decisions e.g., consulting an external organization “without calling her into that discussion,” which led to a colleague’s departure. Mixed managerial reactions (“makes sense” versus “I don’t think you should be working in the office”) deter disclosure; some staff lower their own expectations (“I don’t expect promotions”), reducing engagement and retention.
Harassment/discrimination often surface during accommodation processes: A federal study underscores that incidents commonly arise during the accommodation process and are often manager‑perpetrated, pointing to gaps in training and accountability and linking directly to mental health, productivity and retention risks.
Bottom‑up solutions exist: Interviewees proposed accessibility audits, an accessibility scorecard, quick‑win kits, and tiered retrofit approaches, plus co‑design and centralized resources, ideas that directly align with federal strategies and can be operationalized quickly.
All of these findings have implications for decision‑makers. Today’s gaps are solvable with better standards, governance and resourcing. Departments that integrate co‑design, procurement criteria and continuous improvement will close the gap fastest, whereas those dependent on reactive, manager‑by‑manager fixes will see uneven outcomes and higher long‑run costs.
High‑Impact Recommendations
A) Policy and planning
Adopt a government‑wide Universal Design policy for labs: Require UD across new builds and major retrofits (space, equipment, safety, digital systems). This reduces downstream accommodation load and aligns with ACA prevention. Provide templates, acceptance criteria and repeatable details to standardize delivery across departments.
Develop lab‑specific accessibility standards that exceed code requirements: Co‑develop with Accessibility Standards Canada, CSA Group, and Laboratories Canada. Include participatory co‑design, multi‑environment applicability (wet labs, field, heritage, containment), and tri‑annual reviews to capture innovation.
Mandate co‑design and early consultation, by following the “Nothing Without Us” principle: Require lived‑experience input at concept, design milestones, commissioning, and post‑occupancy; compensate participants and ensure their advice is binding on key decisions.
Integrate accessibility into procurement: Embed accessibility as a weighted criterion in Request for Proposals (RFPs) for lab furniture, equipment and software; require vendor evidence of adjustability and assistive technology compatibility; build a cross‑department inventory of accessible scientific tools to speed sharing and reduce duplication.
Create a centralized Accessibility Capital Fund: Complement CEWF with a capital stream for laboratory retrofits (automatic doors, adjustable benches, visual alarms), use transparent prioritization (life‑safety, essential job functions, multi‑user impact) and micro‑grants for small, high‑return purchases.
Redefine “essential” job requirements: Shift to outcome‑based task definitions; require written justification for physical requirements; explore alternative methods (team‑based work, remote instrumentation) before declaring non‑feasibility. Update templates and review cycles accordingly.
Publish plain‑language policies and embed accessibility in safety: Ensure easy‑to‑find, plain‑language procedures for requesting supports; embed accessibility checks into hazard assessments, job safety analyses and emergency planning templates.
B) Infrastructure and environment
Technical Standards for Accessible Laboratory Design: There is a critical need for a detailed technical standard to guide the design of accessible laboratories. Such a standard should integrate considerations of safety, the use of assistive devices, and adaptive equipment, and define how these elements can be effectively managed within complex laboratory environments, including high-containment and contamination-controlled settings.
Audit labs and act on quick wins: Conduct participatory accessibility audits to surface real‑world barriers; create a central repository of audit findings; implement “quick‑win” kits (portable ramps, adjustable furniture, signage, ergonomic tools) while larger fixes are programmed.
Retrofit systematically using a tiered approach: Tiers may include immediate (low‑cost/no‑regrets), medium-term (phased upgrades: lighting, acoustics, IT for remote access), and long‑term (capital renewal). Link upgrades to recapitalization cycles and track progress.
Resolve life‑safety and emergency gaps: Deploy visual and audible alarms, accessible eyewash/shower stations, evacuation chairs, and inclusive egress routes; ensure emergency procedures assign roles and are exercised with and by employees who need assistance.
Address sensory environment as a design requirement: Provide quiet zones, manage noise and glare, add task lighting, enforce scent‑reduction practices, and maintain temperature stability, this is particularly important for neurodivergent staff and those with sensory sensitivities.
Plan for high‑containment/controlled environments: Integrate accessibility in entry/egress transitions, gowning areas, mobility device decontamination spaces. Develop inclusive emergency protocols to reconcile biosafety with independence.
Leverage technology to extend participation: Pilot remote‑control interfaces, robotics, 3D digital twins for planning/training, and hybrid participation models so staff can contribute when full physical access is constrained.
C) People, training and culture
Deliver targeted, applied training (not box‑ticking): Require a simple gap analysis; use micro‑learning with practice and competence checks for supervisors and lab leads; include case‑based learning across disability types and lab settings. Training should also build a deeper understanding of why accessibility matters, exploring ableism, internalised ableism, and the many ways discrimination can appear in everyday behaviours, statements, and decisions. Many leaders, colleagues, and teams may not recognise how subtle forms of ableism erode a culture of welcome and inclusion. This training should focus on developing awareness, accountability, and confidence to embed accessibility as a shared responsibility across all levels of scientific practice.
Operationalize a respectful, consistent accommodation experience: Create a centralized intake with service standards; make the Accessibility Passport a portable, standard record reviewed at onboarding/assignment changes; create a lending library of adaptive tools; normalize 15‑minute accessibility check‑ins in one‑on‑ones between workers and their managers.
Strengthen culture and accountability: Set inclusion objectives in performance agreements; support peer networks and mentorship; address harassment/discrimination with required manager training and consequences; ensure early, iterative co‑design to build trust and close feedback loops.
D) Coordination, measurement and scale
Empower the interdepartmental Community of Practice: Formalize and support the mandate of the Community of Practice (CoP) on Accessibility in Federal Science Laboratories, led by Natural Resources Canada and Laboratories Canada. Provide dedicated resources and a knowledge platform to share audits, fixes, design details, procurement language and vendor performance; align with Laboratories Canada and the Canadian Standards Association’s Accessible Design for the Built Environment (CAN/ASC B651:23), co-branded by CSA Group and Accessibility Standards Canada.
Measure what matters and report it: Require accessibility impact statements in lab project approvals; publish annual progress; create departmental accessibility scorecards; and align metrics with existing oversight (TBS, Public Service and Procurement Canada, Laboratories Canada) to integrate accessibility into results frameworks.
Prioritize with transparent criteria and pilot innovation: Apply consistent tests, life‑safety, essential‑function enablement, and scope of impact, and use pilots (e.g., adjustable fume hoods, frugal “twin” remote systems) to learn quickly and scale.
Decision‑grade insights and metrics to monitor
Besides taking the actions outlined above, monitoring and measuring efforts will further ensure that these changes produce the expected accessibility improvements and help alert stakeholders when it may be necessary to pivot. Some elements to track include:
Workforce capacity and representation: Track share of scientists with disabilities (baseline 3.5 per cent), hiring/promotion rates, and retention; benchmark against enterprise targets (e.g., 5,000 net new hires by 2025) and ACA progress reporting.
Accessibility supports performance: Service standards met (percentage completed within target), cycle time from request to implementation, use of Passport, and lending‑library throughput.
Built environment readiness: Number of labs meeting new UD standard; number of emergency systems with visual/audible parity; number of quick‑win items installed per quarter; audit closure rates and time‑to‑fix.
Sensory and environmental index: Measured improvements in noise, glare, temperature stability; number of quiet zones; scent‑management compliance.
Co‑design embeddedness: Number of projects with early lived‑experience participation; percent of design milestones with co‑design sign‑off; feedback loop closure rates.
Procurement accessibility: Percentage of RFPs with accessibility criteria; percentage of awards scoring vendors’ accessibility features; inventory growth for accessible equipment.
Outcome measures: Reduction in reported barriers/harassment incidents during accommodation; safety drill performance for inclusive evacuation; lab productivity and error rates where multi-modal tools are adopted.
What this means for leaders
Strategic risks are real (legal non‑compliance; safety liabilities; attrition of scarce STEM talent) and will persist without clearer standards, stronger governance and consistent funding. Strategic returns are larger: departments that deliver accessible labs will unlock a broader talent pool, improve safety and operational resilience, and avoid costly retrofits. Modernization opportunities (e.g., Laboratories Canada) are the lowest‑cost moments to institutionalize UD and co‑design.
Treat accessibility as a core quality attribute of the science system. Build it into capital planning and day‑to‑day management: measure it, and lead visibly on culture. That is how the public service achieves the ACA’s 2040 goal while strengthening Canada’s science capability.
Long-term goals
Create an ADM‑level Task Force on Accessible Labs: Provide whole‑of‑government oversight, set milestones and link to Laboratories Canada governance to ensure accessibility is embedded in all active and planned projects.
Initiate baseline, participatory audits across a representative set of labs: Populate a central repository and publish a prioritized corrective‑action plan per site. Launch quick‑win deployments (door actuators, workstation adjustments, signage, lighting fixes) within the same fiscal cycle.
Issue interim lab-accessibility standards and procurement language: Provide a UD checklist, acceptance criteria and RFP clauses; require accessibility impact statements at project approval and integrate standards into federal real property.
Create a Centralized Accessibility Capital Fund: Include micro‑grant and phased‑retrofit streams; tie to recapitalization cycles and publish award criteria rooted in impact (life‑safety; essential‑function enablement; scope of beneficiaries).
Operationalize a consistent accommodation experience: Centralize intake; standardize Passport use at onboarding/assignment changes; launch a lending library of adaptive tools; set service standards and publish quarterly performance dashboards.
Deliver applied training for managers and lab leads: Require gap analyses to target content; deploy micro‑learning with practice checks; include case‑based modules on inclusive hiring, safety, and lab‑specific accommodations; and reinforce respectful culture expectations.
Strengthen the Community of Practice (CoP) on Accessibility in Federal Science Laboratories and knowledge platform: Resource a cross‑department hub to share audits, solutions, vendor performance and pilots; align with Laboratories Canada to speed diffusion.
Publish metrics and progress: Introduce departmental accessibility scorecards; publicly report actions and outcomes annually; integrate accessibility targets into results frameworks and performance agreements.
We hope that this report reinforces and complements the existing efforts across the federal sector, aligning with the meaningful work already underway and promoting continued knowledge exchange that benefits the broader scientific community. By executing these next steps with discipline and transparency, the Government of Canada and its academic partners will materially advance the ACA’s 2040 ambition, not only meeting legal obligations but unlocking scientific excellence through inclusion. The evidence is clear: when accessibility is incorporated from the design stage, labs are safer, more productive and better able to attract and retain the diverse talent Canada needs.
© 2025 IDEA-STEM Consulting Inc. In collaboration with University of Toronto Scarborough and Accessibility Standards Canada.All rights reserved.