Ep. 32: The Global State of Disability Inclusion in 2025

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dean Askin (00:02):
This is You Can't Spell Inclusion Without a D. The
podcast that explores the powerof inclusion in business, in
employment, in education and inour communities, and why
disability is an important partof the diversity, equity,
inclusion and accessibility.Conversation with your hosts,
Amy Widdows and Dean Askin.

(00:28):
Hi there, and welcome to theshow. This is episode 32 of you
can't spell inclusion without aD part two in our season six
kickoff series on the state ofdisability inclusion these days.
I'm Dean Askin, wherever andwhenever you're listening from
right now. Hey, thanks forjoining us. Hello there. Amy,
well, I have to ask you, how areyou and are you getting used to

(00:50):
being a podcast co host yet? Imean, for me, this is season 30,
Episode 32 and I've been doingthe show for five years, and I'm
in my element. But for you, thisis only episode two in the co
host chair.

Amy Widdows (01:03):
Hi Dean. Amy widows here at the other mic, and I'm
very nervous. This is my firstpodcast ever, supporting Odin in
this initiative. So thank youfor having me, and thank you to
our guests for being here. Lastepisode, part one in this
series, we had a grippingconversation about the state of
diversity, equity and inclusionin North America. It's a

(01:24):
turbulent time, and there's beena lot of controversy and
destructive talk about dei Besure to take in Episode 31 if
you haven't I think it's fair tosay that what's happening in
North America in 2025 isaffecting the rest of the world.

Dean Askin (01:38):
So this episode, we're zooming out for a look at
the global state of disabilityinclusion these days. And Amy, a
couple of examples of the shapeof things right now here in
Ontario, Canada, the 20thanniversary of legislation that
was intended to make ourprovince fully accessible by
2025 Well, that's come and gonein January, with Ontario being

(01:59):
nowhere near fully accessiblefor people who have a
disability.

And in over in France Dean a similar thing,
with disability groupsprotesting in Paris on the eve
of the 20th anniversary,anniversary of France's
disability law. Of 2005 peoplewere chanting. Ran to change or
nothing has changed.

Dean Askin (02:18):
And then, of course, there's the United States,
where, as one of our guestswrote in the February 26 edition
of his disability debriefnewsletter, in just a few short
weeks, there has been a shockand awe on several not fronts
that's already directlyimpacting people who have a
disability, and there's feardisability rights and inclusion
could be set back 50 years,turbulent

times for disability inclusion everywhere
it seems. Well, Susan ScottParker, OBE and Peter Torres
fremlin are here to give ustheir insights and help us make
some sense of this global stateof things with disability
inclusion in these turbulenttimes. Susan is the founder and
chief executive of BusinessDisability International. She
also the host of her owndisability inclusion focus

(03:03):
podcast. Scott Parker goes live.Susan

Dean Askin (03:06):
is a renowned global expert and thought leader on
disability inclusion as itaffects global business and by
the way, if you're familiar withthe term disability confidence,
well, Susan is the person whooriginally coined the term way
back in the 1990s

and Peter Torres friendly is a freelance
consultant who has livedexperience with disability. He
spent many years advising ondisability rights.

Dean Askin (03:31):
Peter works with international organizations,
including United Nationsagencies, to try making the
world a better place for peoplewho have a disability. Peter
runs the disability debriefemail newsletter that curates
news about what's happening withdisability around the world.

There is a five hour time difference between us
and our two guests in the UK aswe record this episode. It's
near the end of the afternoonfor Susan and Peter. Susan Scott
Parker and Peter Torres fremlin,thank you for taking the time
out of your afternoon and beinghere on you can't spell
inclusion without a D to shareyour perspectives with us.
Welcome to the show.

Susan Scott-Parker (04:08):
Thank you very much, Amy, I hope it's not
us that's making you nervous.

No, thank you. It's just simply never done it
before. So Susan, I'd like tostart with you first. If I could
overall, how would you describethe global state of disability
inclusion right now, in 2025 ordoes it depend somewhat on what
part of the world we're talkingabout?

Well, I think I want to start by saying
I would never describe myself asan expert on disability
inclusion. I have never used thephrase in more than 30 years,
because you can't define it. Iam focused on disability
equality. And so for me, thequestion is, what is the genuine
risk to people with disabilitiesby the American attack on

(04:55):
disability equality? What arethey calling it? Equity?
Diversity? And inclusion, yousaid North America, but I'm
hoping it's not under attack inthe same way in Canada. There
may be disappointments inCanada, but that's rather
different than deciding that youshould erase everyone who's ever
put the word gay on an airplanethat happened to launch the bomb
on Hiroshima, which apparentlyis the latest anti gay thing

(05:19):
that's happened in America thatperhaps we can come back to that
story. For me, the question isalways whether or not the
diversity and inclusion industryactually was delivering the
goods for people withdisabilities anyway, or whether
or not it wasn't always aseparate activity as people with
disabilities trying to, ineffect, teach the societies in

(05:43):
which they live that disabilityis an equality issue. So recent
research, relatively recent fromvaluable 500 found when they
looked at the diversity liststhat companies would put out,
you know, we care about peopleregardless of race, gender,
nationality, faith, etc,disability was only there 7% of
the time. So actually, withluck, what we might be seeing

(06:07):
here, and I'll be reallyinterested in Peter's thoughts,
is an opportunity to start tomove away from the vague
aspirational language ofinclusion and start to talk more
about disability equality andhow corporates that do that
right also enhance productivityand engagement and and and the
kind of mutual win. Because, ofcourse, the concept of

(06:32):
disability equality is differentfrom what they hear in America,
which is, in effect,compensation for the oppression,
historical oppression on groundsof race and then a bit on
gender. You can't arguesuccessfully that the diversity
industry, a multi billion dollarindustry in America, has
actually moved the needle, asGartner says, on race and

(06:54):
gender. So maybe this is aliberating moment when we say,
let's leave them to that. Let'swatch America from afar talk
with business leaders whounderstand what an enlightened
and responsible business leaderneeds to do if they're going to
navigate the complex world inwhich we live and craft a new

(07:15):
set of messages that takes usout of that negativity that
we're seeing there, which hasbeen building, you know, for
2030, years. Would you agree?Peter, do you agree with me?

Peter Torres-Fremlin (07:31):
Um, thanks, thanks. Susan, thanks.
Thanks. Dean Amy, for for havingus on. It's already vital moment
to talk through these things,because these are really seismic
shifts in in many dimensions.And Susan, I think you're
getting into this, this shiftabout this attack on Dei, and

(07:51):
was dei serving us anyway? Andkind of, is there a, is there a
good way forward for that? I Iwant to sort of take a step back
and sort of putting that incontext. I think the attack on
dei is one of the things that isgoing on, but Disability Rights
already on a on a precipice atthe moment, as the changes that

(08:13):
that Trump is doing in Americaand broader trends in similar
directions are sort of attackinglike the basis of federal
government in itself, disabledpeople really rely on government
services. We can be quite sortof anti establishment, but the
end of the day, we're sort ofvery key constituents of

(08:36):
benefits or supports orassistance to to live at home,
or programs to support disabledpeople in health and health and
education. There's the other.The other dimension as well is
the attack on just the therhetorical shifts that have
brought back ableism into thepublic sphere and taken words

(08:58):
like the like the R word thatwe'd remove from public life and
polite society, and they are nowback and being used by the most
powerful people on the planet.And something that I've written
about in particular differentdimension is the attack on
foreign aid and the dismantlingof aid infrastructure, and how

(09:18):
that is affecting disabledpeople as well, that we were a
network that relied a lot oninternational, international
cooperation. So I think I don'tknow, it's quite a tough it's
quite a tough moment. And youcan kind of see, just say, in
the UK, the way the governmenthas reacted to it is by saying,

(09:39):
well, let's spend more on armiesand less on overseas aid. It's
it's also sort of fairly clearto see how cuts or caps on
social spending will willaccompany will accompany that.
So I think it's a really, it's areally key moment. And I. I

(10:00):
think, Susan, you're called toreally look at like, look, what
are our values underneath? Whatare we trying to do? Which of
these things that are beingthrown out we want to hang on to
and we need to fight for, andwhich of them were kind of lip
service that weren't serving usanyway? I think that is really

(10:20):
essential, a centralconversation to be having.

And can I Amy, can I just come in quickly
on that? Because it's sointeresting to me that the focus
and the kind of fear that we'reseeing across so many in the
disability community has been onthe attack on diversity. I think
Peter is quite rightly pointingto a kind of shift which sees it

(10:49):
as fully acceptable to be cruel.I think the cruelty doesn't
matter to who really cruelty togay is cruelty to anybody,
cruelty that's now kind ofaccepted as just fine. So when
you fire 1000s of human beingsand their lives are suddenly at
risk, in the sense of, they losetheir homes, they become
homeless, they're desperate, thepain, they can't access health.

(11:12):
This is cruelty that we'reseeing now starting to become
acceptable. De establishing thestate, weakening the state,
which is needed in the the eyethe Canadian concept. Remember,
we used to say, we we put ourtaxes art so that we all
benefit. You know, we pool ourmoney and then we take care of
each other. This is we're evensmiling as I look at our videos.

(11:35):
This is now almost naive inextremis, but I would also say
that the shift towards, how dowe justify, how do we balance
taking care of each other on anindividual basis, in terms of
state benefits and so on, withprotecting each other from, from
Russia, from from the kind ofscale of existential threat that

(12:00):
Europe's now looking at, I'mglad you're not expecting us to
have the answers to this. Am Iright? Dean, you're

Dean Askin (12:09):
exactly right. We just want your insights. We
don't expect you to have thedefinitive answers.

But that does take me to our next question in that
in either one of you if youwanted to pipe in, but what's
your personal biggest concernabout the state of things?

Peter, can I listen to you first? What's your
biggest personal concern?

Look, it's really hard to unpack the number
one, the number one concern,because obviously there are some
really macro level risks ofimpact on the global economy, of
increased global conflict andthe the the ongoing challenge of

(12:58):
climate change, where the sortof world's leading, leading
economy has abdicated itsresponsibility to act on, while
at the same time the verypersonal risks of like, ah, is
the funding that we use, that werely on To do this work going to

(13:20):
continue or not. How do we howdo we react to these rhetorical
assaults? How do we react to thetide turning? I sort of have
those concerns on on everylevel, and at the base level,
there is a sort of like thesepsychological challenge of it,

(13:42):
the burnout of following thenews, the distress of seeing my
friends that worked ininternational aid all over the
world lose their jobs, thedistress of knowing that the
program serving disabled peopleand the initiatives they were
involved in are not going to beimmediately replaced. And and

(14:02):
being in the middle of that isis kind of exhausting and
threatening. And I've heard,I've heard from Canadian,
Canadian colleagues, how youguys are really also feeling
that just day to day to day,that that that uncertainty and
pressure of this new, newvolatility the world has, so I

(14:27):
can't, I can't really pick outone if you sort of want a sort
of highlight on the disabilityfront. I think that, like the
main concern is we are going tolose rights that we had
established right, like we wedidn't get as far as we want
with establishing disabilityrights. We have the UN

(14:47):
Convention. It sets out a veryaspirational set of targets. I
think that we were, overall,around the world, getting closer
to it. I now really like,really. Sort of terrified at how
quickly those can be eroded orthrown out or or undermined, the

(15:08):
impact that that will have onpeople immediately we were
bequeathed by the generations,but before us a better world for
disabled people, that a betterworld where disabled people
growing up had moreopportunities. I had that
growing up as a disabled person.I don't know if we're going to
be passing on at this rate, tothe next generation, but a world

(15:32):
for disabled people to grow upin.

Well, I can only sigh, and obviously I have
to agree with everything thatPeter said. What can I possibly
add to that? I think my mytolerance for, and I'm thinking
now of the disability sector, mytolerance for the infighting and
the refusal to collaborate isdiminishing by the minute, the

(16:00):
tolerance for the the moneymaking machine in America, the
dizz in what do they callthemselves, the outfit that has
$15 million a year going throughit while producing an index that
allows companies to score 100%and then walk away the

(16:20):
competition, when people shouldbe sitting down and addressing
everything that Peter's justsaid in terms of, where do we
find the leadership? Where do wefind the fresh messaging, while
also taking a look, I think, atthe yes, the assumptions that
were made. As you know, Peter'stalking about the rights agenda,

(16:40):
making progress on it, the CRPD,putting the frame in. I think
there's a real challenge to theequality bodies, the Human
Rights Commissions around theworld, for why they have failed
dismally to teach the societiesin which they live that
disability equality is afundamental measure of
everyone's equality, the ideathat we're all just temporarily

(17:04):
able bodied. Remember when Ileft Canada, we used to talk
about tabs and Crips,temporarily able bodied? Well, I
talk about the not yet disablednow. But the point is, we
haven't yet reached the pointwhere with an aging population,
all the discussion about agingpopulations, omits any reference
to the fact that they also willacquire the disabilities, which

(17:25):
they would never take on as alabel, but which means that they
are as excluded, if you like,from so many aspects of life, as
though they were officiallydeclared to have a disability.
So it feels to me like we'rereaching a point where we need
to challenge the assumption thatthe structures we've got now are

(17:48):
adequate. Really seriouslychallenge them. And Peter, I
would include the organizationsthat profess to lead the
disability rights movement, theones that where are the young
people with disabilities? I meetthem in fashion, I meet them in
design, I meet them incommunications. But are they
volunteering to take over themovement in the sense of

(18:10):
providing the real leadershipthat decides what really
matters? Is it the R word thatreally matters? Is it trying to
encourage the sense of communitythat says we all need a state
that functions and is structuredin such a way that we can take
care of our vulnerablecolleagues, including us, when
we reach that state of ourlives, where is the where is the

(18:31):
battleground that we should befocused on now? And I, for 1am,
determined that it's not topromote the diversity, equity,
inclusion stuff that that is aframing of challenge that hasn't
worked, and so I'm prepared tojust say, Fine, we we need to
look at it completelydifferently. Now it's much more
about survival, in a funny way,in the kind of life that we want

(18:54):
to have.

Dean Askin (18:55):
I mean, you know, you've both sort of really
touched on what I wanted to jumpin with, but I still want to
jump in and and see if we canunpack it a little bit more. I
mean, how much do you thinkwhat's happening politically in
the States right now is notgoing to affect only America but

(19:17):
the rest of the world? How muchcould you know? How much more or
worse, could disability equalityand inclusion be even half a
year from now, or a year fromnow, with what's going on?
Whoever wants to jump in?

Good Dean, I'm happy now. I'm happy to sort
of trace out the the mechanismsfor that. The most immediate
shock has been felt by programsthat the US was funding
overseas, so the US was theleading development humanitarian
funder in the world, and theybasically cut it all from one

(19:54):
day to the other, leaving sortof program stranded and not even
paying for work that. They'vedone the US had a important role
in disability rights around theworld. I don't want to overstate
it. They weren't the largestfunder, but they had a sort of
incredible position in thatbecause of the situation of

(20:15):
disability rights in the UnitedStates and the leadership that
they've they've shown, becauseof the cultural and the social
influence and because of thedirect funding. So for instance,
among my friends that have losttheir jobs are people supporting
programs for disabled refugeesin Cox bazaar in Bangladesh,

(20:36):
from from Myanmar, or disabledrefugees in Egypt, from from
Sudan, so that that is being hitstraight away, I think more
broadly, that infrastructure ofinternational cooperation, which
was one of the key drivers topromote disability around the
world, disability around theworld has been like undermined

(20:57):
by this, directly andindirectly, right? That's the
kind of first order effects. ButI think these broader like these
broader shifts. So the the likeattack, not just like attack on
Dei, as in both the DI industry,which is, I think, is what Susan

(21:17):
is talking about, but and on thelike wider groups that that
industry was claiming to serveare incredibly damaging, and
that damage will go beyond theUS. Other countries are already
imitating these, these grotesquepseudo attacks, and this kind
of, I think Susan really sums itup well, this kind of display,

(21:37):
this display of cruelty, and itwill really encourage those
impulses of authoritarianleaders, the this kind of style
of despotic, authoritarian,authoritarian leadership that
disregards democratic norms anddemocratic structures,
undermines efforts on ondisability in in different
countries, there's already sortof places, I think, Just in my

(22:00):
inbox, today was people fromfrom Argentina or people from
Eastern Europe sharing how theirtrends in similar directions.
Some more advanced than that,that in the United States are
impacting our impact. Haveimpacted disabled people. Have
made it harder for disabilityorganizations to operate. Have
made it harder to keep thegovernment account. Have taken

(22:22):
back, taken us back into medicalmodel approaches and sort of
very traditional, verytraditional ways of dealing with
disability. I think then, if youlook like at these macro, macro
level things, at the worldeconomy, would we now be
incredibly, incredibly volatile.No one is going to be wanting to

(22:43):
spend more money on socialprograms, even if they, even if
they believe in it, like, Imean, sorry that I'm so positive
today. Yeah, I hope we, I hopewe can. We can, we can get out
of the gloom. But the the thescale and range of challenges is
really, is really stark. Itwould be hard enough, even if

(23:06):
the US was nominally on site,like the world is, in a very
challenging place, with with theeffects of climate change, with
this kind of extraordinarydevelopment of technology that
is going to do who knows what tothe labor market in the coming
years. Even if we were, were ledby sort of responsible, careful,
sensible people trying to do agood job, it would not be easy.

(23:30):
Yeah? So, yeah, I really don'twant to understate those
impacts. There is kind of just,just not to be entirely one
sided about it. I'm reallyinterested to see like, what is
the backlash to the backlash?Yet? How are European countries
going to going to respond?You've seen the Europeans taking

(23:51):
extraordinary measures on themilitary front than the incoming
chance of Germany says it's timeto be independent from the US
was. So how do we on socialissues on making the world that
we want. How do we becomeindependent of the US and stop
relying on their implicitleadership or explicit or
explicit leadership, and makeour own, make our new models? So

(24:14):
there is that is the potentiallykind of exciting thing about
this. Like, how much of ourcommunities, our societies in
the world will say, like, No, wedon't want to do it like this.
And I think, like, I mean, Ithink in in Canada, you can
speak to this more than I have,but from what I've heard, it's
kind of United Canadians andbeing like, like, what the hell

(24:37):
not like this, yeah. So like,what maybe there is that that is
a positive aspect to come. Ithink it's still quite early
days. But how do we, how do weunite to reject this new, new
dominance of civilian worldaffairs? Well,

as I'm listening, I'm hoping, as a
Canadian, and I must say, I havejust been. Three days in a
conference with 91 countriesthere, and with my accent, I
said I'm a Canadian every 30seconds, maybe Canada is in a
better place than many countrieswith a long tradition of the

(25:14):
expectation that Canadians treateach other properly. It was just
a deep rooted expectation, andyes, I quite understand the
frustration Canadians withdisabilities have experienced
and expressed over the years.But nonetheless, as a society,
you know, wherever I go, I'm inKenya, and someone says, Where
are you from? I say, Canada.They say, I can't wait to go.

(25:37):
I've been trying to get on thelist everybody wants to go to
Canada, because deep down thecountry is not nearly, nearly,
nearly as broken as America.Deep, deep down stuff is still
all there. So maybe there'sCanada can bring together in
that kind of thought leadershipmode, some people to start to

(25:58):
think through how somehow, inthe midst of everything that
Peter has quite rightlydescribed, we don't lose some
basics. And this theunderstanding that disability
rights are everyone's right,that it's a human right. It's
not a some people right, yeah,and that we pull on some of the
best practice we're seeing fromcompanies, you know, GSK, you

(26:21):
don't have to prove you have adisability before they give you
the adjustment or accommodation.You just have to need it in
order to do your job better, ifwe can just get to a world where
the simple things happen. But Ihave a particular concern, since
I can't think of anything morepositive to say at the moment
about the numbers of youngpeople who have been diagnosed

(26:44):
with neurodiversity, with mentalhealth issues coming through the
system, with governments thataren't able to cope they don't
know what to do, and with adisability sector that doesn't
know how to help people getjobs, and yet gets paid a lot of
money. Canada is particularlyknown for this, pour a lot of
money in, and two or 300 peoplea year get a job. I mean, it's

(27:08):
just maybe it's time to rethinksome assumptions there as well.

Dean Askin (27:13):
You mentioned, you know, talking kind of mentioned
in the other human rightsaspect. I mean, next year 2026,
is the 20th anniversary of theadoption of the United Nations
Convention on the on the Rightsof Persons with Disabilities.
How crucial is the UN CRPD rightnow? Or is it still relevant, or

(27:35):
even more important? Or what?

Oh, well, I'm looking at Peter. This is
one that calls for a bottle ofwine. Peter,

Unknown (27:46):
no good. You put some, 20 some in the cellar 20 years
ago too, to open up, open upnow. Dean, the the CMPD is going
to be an incredibly impactfulinstrument around the world, but
adoption of it has been deeplylimited at the same time, this

(28:09):
is one of the most widelyadopted UN conventions. Nearly
every country has signed it, ofcourse, the United the United
States, who don't likeinternational instruments, even
even before the current evenbefore the current lot. It has

(28:30):
been a model my I've worked inthe field only since the
adoption of the CRPD, but hasbeen a constant reference for
work at every level that setsout. Disabled people have
rights. You can't discriminateon the basis of disability. And
it sets that out without anyexceptions, without any these
people should work, but notthose people. Right? These

(28:51):
people should get education, butnot those people. Which is the
constant negotiation in all ofsort of disability policy, the
adoption of it, like, I say, hasbeen partial. I think what a
common pattern is that then acountry ratifies it, and then
does law, which is kind of like,oh, borrows some CRPD language,
keeps some of the old language,meshes them together. So this is

(29:14):
our implementation of the crbd.No one really asks too many
questions, and then you've gotsort of a slightly confused, a
slightly confused way forwardand and obviously the track, the
transition of of then programsand services and improving the
sort of tangible lives of peopleon the ground dig is longer and

(29:35):
is is a is not A uniform processto some areas, it's getting it's
getting better. In some areas,you're just as stuck. You're
just as stuck as you were. Ithink that what Susan then said
here about like, the the rightsinstitutions that were promoting
it, that were defending it, thethe institutions that were.

(30:00):
Representing disabled people, Ithink have a really profound
challenge at this time the CRPD,one of the things it did was
really establish the idea ofdisability leadership. And we
have organizations saying thatthey are representing disabled
people, but it's it's a bit tooeasy for that to hand fall into

(30:20):
the hands of the elite, and wehaven't yet found the mechanisms
of the disability community forhow to how to make those
representative eliteaccountable, or the elites of
the service providers or otherorganizations speaking on behalf
of our own name accountable. Solike the Nothing about us
without us. Problem now alsoapplies within our community,

(30:46):
not just not just outside of it.And so I think, like Susan said,
like, Why aren't young, youngdisabled people coming into
those coming into thosemechanisms to refresh, to
refresh these approaches, Igenuinely don't know on the
CRPD, I can see like this, oh,that stays the reference. But I

(31:07):
can also see, oh, you sort ofbuild up a sort of arcane set of
institutions ever more sort ofabstract declarations and
reflections and expounding onthe CRPD, and you kind of lose
track of like, what is thetangible way to input
politically? What are the newcoalitions we need to build?

(31:29):
What the new synergies? What arethe new sets of languages and
instruments? I don't know whichthat is. I'm I'm sort of,
obviously very much sort of TeamCRPD, and I would sort of Askin
the the my other colleagues andteammates to see how we can

(31:50):
refresh our approaches. So itwas never, I was never Dean
fanatic about it, right? If itlooked like having a
conversation with someone, ofthe other ways of convincing
them would work, then I wouldn'tmention the CRPD, right? That is
definitely like, let's take theway that works, rather than take

(32:13):
it as the kind of biblical textthat we that we always return to

Team CRPD. I was once described as a covert
human rights campaigner, becauseI was setting standards for
business that while it didn'tsay this is how you deliver,
what you would deliver if theCRPD applied directly to you,
just happened to be what theywould have delivered if the CRPD
direct, but you don't have tosay it in order for disability

(32:39):
equality to be Real. So you youhave four, three or four
deliverables. You will be veryfree for groups, accessibility.
You'll adjust for individualsaccommodations, no blanket
exclusions. Blind people can'twork here. Oh gosh, it's the
CRPD. So for me, the CRPD helpsthe world understand what

(33:03):
disability equality is allabout. Why, why it matters, what
it is. And then the question is,how do you what's your word? How
do you message it? How do youconvey it? How do you make it
happen? And so leaving it theleaving the roll out, if you
like, with the implementation ofthe CRPD solely in the hands of
governments, isn't particularlyhelpful. They have to pay

(33:27):
attention and do their stuff.But what I mean is, unless the
society in which we operateunderstands that disability is a
rights issue, that turning medown because I have a disability
is fundamentally no differentthan turning me down because
Canadian, black or a woman,there's a the way you do that.
It's those three thingsinteracting adjustments for
individuals. It's the very freefor groups and the individual

(33:49):
stuff that comes together,right? And that's what the CRPD
teaches us. And so the failure,from my perspective, has been
the failure to teach Canada whydisability is a rights issue,
the failure to teach, certainlyGermany, which is still vetted
in its legislation, back to 920,19, with the quota for the

(34:09):
soldiers coming back from WorldWar One. And so I'd like to see
some new energy here in terms ofhow we convey that everyone wins
when disability rights are real,and that the question of who
holds the regulators to accounthas to be very seriously

(34:30):
addressed. How do you measurethe performance of a regulator
that is supposed to enable everydisabled person in Canada to
understand their rights andexercise their rights when they
need them? Have you ever seenany equality body, a Human
Rights Commission, whatever,launch a big campaign and all
the press and social media toexplain to people with
disabilities in work what theirrights are in the event they

(34:53):
need adjustments, or to explainto people who are going to
become disabled tomorrow becauseof a health condition, what
their. Rights are. I had aninteresting conversation Peter
with Kate Nash, who set uppurple space that empowers
people with disabilities inwork, and we agreed we have
never heard a disabled person inwork say they're entitled to a
reasonable accommodation. Andyet, if they were pregnant, this

(35:18):
disabled woman would say she wasentitled to maternity leave.
She's been taught she's entitledto maternity leave. No one's
taught her that she's entitledto a new mouse that costs 15
quid or 100 quid. Maternityleaves cost 1000s of pounds. So
there's, there's, there's thestrengthening of the
understanding about theintention of the CRPD and what

(35:41):
it really stands for, and somenew energy that says the only
way we're going to get theprotection that Peter is talking
about for the rights we have nowis if new coalitions emerge that
drive the equality bodies tobehave differently And that
empower a new generation ofpeople with disabilities into

(36:04):
the leadership space, inpartnership with the private
sector. And I think there's ahuge potential for that kind of
partnership with particularindividuals in business who just
get it that treating peopleproperly is good for business.
You know, not terriblycomplicated. Teach me how to
treat people properly. Well,there are a few out there that
are real and there's some thataren't way it goes. We have to

(36:26):
start with the ones that mean it

well with the ongoing and sometimes toxic
debate post pandemic aboutworking remotely versus hybrid
in an office, especiallyforcibly Return to Work mandates
or return to Office mandates.Peter, how do you think this is
affecting the state ofdisability inclusion in business

(36:49):
and employment these days?

Thanks. Amy. I think that Susan will be
able to put more detail on thisbook and sort of say, sort of
some overall trend, the pandemicsaw overnight, employers,
theaters, social venues,adopting remote provision. Many

(37:14):
of these provisions, they hadsaid for years were not
possible, right? But it becameso that nearly, sort of, I mean,
big, I think it was sort ofmaybe 50% of the workforce. I
don't know, just making thatnumber up, but a huge, a huge
proportion of the workforcecould work from home. You could
access sort of cutting edgecultural events from wherever

(37:37):
you were. You just needed, youjust need an internet connection
that's reverted, and thenthere's been a sort of pushback
on this, but it showed the gamethat was possible. Disabled
people had been asking for itfor years. It was a traditional
barrier for some disabled peopleto access work. Obviously,
remote work isn't for everyone,and many workplaces, it doesn't,

(38:00):
it doesn't cover and it doesestablish new, new barriers,
right? And as also, it needs therequirement of different
accessibility provisions, as forexceed like, how this, this
dynamic is kind of coming out inthe push and pull of today's
business world. I mean, Susan,you're closer to that than than

(38:22):
I am about the well, the

research is very divided. Depends on who
you're reading as to whether ornot there are legitimate reasons
for a business to require you towork in the same space together,
from the guys that processpassports pointing out that when
they were all in the sameoffice, it took them three weeks

(38:43):
to process a new passport,because you just walked into the
next room, handed it over. Thereit is, and now it had to go into
the center and back out and intothe center and back out to
everyone. It took six months. Sothere are concerns about
creativity. I know that myorganization, when I set up the
Business Disability Network inthe UK, it could not have
happened if I had been workingremotely with people in 45 or 60

(39:05):
minutes slots on a computer. Youdidn't it wasn't possible to be
creative, to spontaneously spotan opportunity to go down a segu
Oh, you've got a disabledgrandson and go down that road.
On the other hand, many peopleare saying that there's no
impact on productivity and thatit works brilliantly and so on.

(39:27):
I'm serious, though the researchis really divided. Depends when
you know, you look at Deloitte,you look at Gartner, and you
look at whoever, I think,though, from my particular
concern I have is that, if thatwe're now seeing pushback that
lovely phrase for managers whoare arguing that people are
claiming to have disabilities sothat they can work from home.

(39:48):
How's this for another spin onit? And so now they're having to
prove they're really disabled,which means you go back to that
medical model, we have to see adoctor who proves you're
disabled enough to qualify inlaw. Yeah, legally, to have your
considerate, you know, goesdrives me crazy. Very
complicated. And it's, it pointsus, I think, to the general

(40:11):
observation that HR is poorlytrained and not equipped for the
world in which we now work. Sothey're, they're really
struggling. HR doesn'tunderstand their training
doesn't equip them to understanddisability discrimination, to be
able to handle the nuances whendisability related adjustments
are described as specialtreatment. So why does he get to

(40:33):
stay work from home? And I don'tand so you combine that with
line managers assuming thatanything to do with this is an
HR responsibility. They don'twant to get involved in the
conflict areas. Well, there's athere's a systemic issue here.
I've been calling for a seriousreview of HR training in any

(40:54):
country I've ever seen for along time. It's an issue for all
of us on every front. But Idon't know how quickly this
one's going to go away. I justthink there's going to be
ongoing debate on this. Even thelanguage you used forcibly
returning them to work makes itsound like they sent the cops
out and dragged them, haulingthem down the road by the hair,
right? Oh, my God, forcibly.Wow. I mean it when I say my

(41:20):
organization would never havegot off the ground if we'd had
to do it remotely. And that, Ican't tell you how many people I
met last week in Vienna walkingup say, Oh, thank God I'm not
looking at you on screen, rightwhen you're trying to change the
world. Doing it through pixels,it worries me, but many jobs can

(41:43):
be so let's be clear, many jobscan be done remotely, and it
doesn't matter, because you'llleave whether you're being
creative or not. Oh,

Dean Askin (41:50):
let's talk about whether people are being seen or
not being seen. I mean, Susan,you asked this question, and I'm
kind of gonna gonna roll twoquestions ahead in mind into one
here. I mean, you asked thisquestion in a LinkedIn post you
wrote recently. You know, why in2025 are people with visible
disabilities still being madeinvisible? And then I got to
wondering, and for that matter,what about people with invisible

(42:13):
disabilities? Because a lot oftimes, the majority of
disability is invisibledisabilities. Are they being
made even more invisible thanpeople with visible
disabilities, and is AI kind ofplaying a role in all of us?
Well,

these are two very different things you're
raising here. Dean, thatparticular campaign by the very,
very interesting face equalityinternational organization is
focused on the fact that in manycountries, they have not
interpreted the CRPD, theConvention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities ascovering people with facial
disfigurement, because if yousent many people with facial

(42:47):
disfigurements to a doctor,well, they can run and jump over
fences, you know, they have nofunctional limitations. It's
just they can't get a job. Theyget bullied and discriminated
against. They're not allowedaccess to schools. They can't
get health care because nobodywants to go near them, right? So
it was, it's a campaign that'ssaying these are people with

(43:07):
highly visible conditions, nonnon standard faces, facial
difference, whatever you want tocall that, who are being denied
protection as people withdisabilities and and that
actually, that's, that's thecall to action there. The good
news is, I think we're, they'rehaving a real effect. I think
we're going to see some realchanges there. But if you're

(43:30):
asking about people with nonvisible disabilities and their
situation at the moment, well,the Canadian governments on
research showed that 86% oftheir staff with non visible
disabilities had to prove theywere disabled enough to trigger
an obligation to consider theirrequest for an accommodation.
77% of people with visibledisabilities also had to prove

(43:51):
it, so you know. Butnonetheless, it's substantially
more for people with non visibleand I think we keep coming back
to the messaging arounddisability, which says that
somehow you have to prove you'redisabled before we treat you
properly, as opposed to would Iif you had a finance officer who

(44:15):
was left handed, you'd probablyjust give her a left handed
mouse, but if she lost her righthand In a car accident, they'd
send her to a doctor, and youknow, the doctor would probably
say, Well, I don't know, you'reone handed and then somebody
else would say, maybe you shouldgive her a left handed mouse.
Let's just give her a lefthanded mouse, because the whole
game here is treating everyoneon an equal basis by making sure

(44:41):
they can get in access andadjusting for the individual so
they can contribute. It takes usright back to all this messaging
around disability, and thedisability community in Canada
needs to step up on its how itapproaches that, as well as in
the UK and France, never. Else.

Dean Askin (45:02):
I know that Amy got a question. She wants to ask
about that language and thewhole business case and making
the argument.

Thanks, Dean, yeah, a few questions ago, Susan, you
referred to the business case oralluded to the business case. So
does talking about the businesscase for disability inclusive
hiring and for creating thatinclusive culture still work. Or
do you think the advocacyconversation with business needs
to change?

What is inclusive hiring? Do you mean
hiring pieces on people on thebasis of their capabilities and
potential to do the job? Do youmean hiring people with
disabilities fairly, in whichcase that means all your
processes are accessible, andyou're adjusting for
individuals, and then you don'tmake assumptions around what
they can do on the basis of somemedical label. I talk about the

(45:51):
business and ethical case forthe corporate best practice
called Disability confidence,and I can define that corporate
best practice. Okay, so it's thebusiness and ethical case. I
mean, I can still this guy, seethis young guy in a wheelchair
listening to some conference,rather than he turned to me and
muttered, why do you need abusiness case for treating me
properly? That's a very goodquestion. This is a business and

(46:15):
ethical case which says that ifyou learn how to treat how to
employ people with disabilitieson the basis of capability and
potential, then you're a betteremployer of everyone we talk
about delivering the businessimprovements that also benefit
disabled people. Because if Iask for my left handed mouse
because I've just lost my righthand, and it takes no a better

(46:38):
example, if I ask you to changea light bulb that gives me
migraines, and it takes you 18months to do that. The business
suffers because I'm off sick allthe time. I get cross. I get
really I start blaming my boss.I start, perhaps, in some
countries, threatening to sueyou. So the business improvement
is you change the light bulbwithin 20 days because it's

(46:59):
giving me headaches. You don'tsend me to a doctor to prove
those headaches technicallyqualify me as a disabled person
under the jurisdiction calledCanada. You just change the
light bulb. And so it's thebusiness and ethical case, and
it's for driving the businessimprovements that enhance
productivity, employeeengagement, customer
satisfaction, reduces health andsafety risks and, and, and, and

(47:22):
it's really important that thetwo go together, because the
Canadians have been arguing thisbusiness case when I talked
about Dupont. That DuPont surveywhich showed that disabled
employees were as likely to beas productive, or more than
anybody else. It's from the mid1970s all that data has been
around, and it doesn't changebehavior. You need a completely

(47:46):
different strategy if you'regoing to overcome stereotyped
assumptions. And so thedisability sector has
stereotyped assumptions aboutbusiness. They don't understand
how they really work. They don'trealize they're talking to
people in business, just aswe're talking about people with
disabilities, they don't connectthe two in a meaningful dialog
or exchange, and so they'restill spouting the same stuff.

(48:10):
They haven't addressed that yuckfactor. Was that deep,
irrational assumption that, ooh,I don't want to have lunch with
a blind guy. Am I supposed tocut up his food? What am I
supposed to do that distaste andstuff that's under there? And
you only overcome that bybringing people with
disabilities and people inbusiness together to learn from
each other, celebrate with eachother, drink with each other,

(48:33):
breakfast with each other in awhole variety of ways.

Well, I love that. Thank you, Susan, and thanks so
much for clarifying that point,and that brings us to another
question in that you're right,there is a still a huge lack of
disability data, old data aswell. How much is that affecting
the global state of disabilityinclusion in 2025

data doesn't change behavior. Instead, it
provides an excuse for notacting because you haven't got
the data. Peter, your turn,yeah,

I think that's what Susan has said is
really important. We we havemore data than we ever had
before. There's now disabilitymeasurement through something
called the Washington groupquestions in a really extensive
number of national censuses andnational surveys around the

(49:28):
world. We have a lot of data oninitiatives, initiatives that
have been tried. I don't thinkthat we're using the data we do
have, right? I think that is,that is kind of our biggest,
like our our biggest challenge.I think there is also kind of

(49:48):
the challenge that Susan'spointed to, that some people
searching for data and not doingso in good faith, right? They're
like, Look, I'll do this. Whenyou give me the data and then
you give them the data. To themthat like they're still not
doing it. So it wasn't actuallythe data that was that was the
issue. And I think Susan, Susanreally summed that up. It was

(50:11):
interesting. It's interesting.Listen to Susan talk about the
the sort of the changes thatneed to happen in business, and
really drilling it down to theseparticular examples, because
it's something that struck mevery much when I first started
working with employers, and Ifound an employer that had made
some adjustments for disabledstaff, let disabled staff could

(50:33):
use, like the goods lift to getin, or that the working hours
were slightly adjusted, orworking place or equipment was
that you just, why are you, whyare you doing this in the local
Of course, we're doing it. Isn'tit obvious? And that really gets
to the conundrum, because forlots of employers, it isn't
obvious. So employers, this wasworking in the garment sector in

(50:54):
Bangladesh, other garmentsbusinesses exactly the same
conditions, would say, well, oh,you can't get in the way other
people are going in so well, youcan't work here then, or you
have to work these hours,because if we give someone
different hours, then that isjust allowing in sort of chaos.
And who knows what people willask for next. If you're even

(51:14):
having these conversations, youjust sort of shut it down. Why
are you listening to a worker'sopinion anyway? Right? So that's
like, how do you make like, theobvious, obvious to more people?
So that's what I think, isreally important, Susan, you
were really using those, those,those drill down examples as
that really is, what it is. Andsometimes that as I think Susan

(51:39):
was also saying that that thatdata question is, in fact, just
that personal, personal exposureand lived experience, right,
which is a question that oftengets left out of the data the
data discussion like, do youknow disabled people doing
different things? Right? Haveyou interacted with disabled

(52:01):
people when you go to a socialevent. Like, do you know
disabled people socially andlike, how you kind of interact
and learn and process andrespond? Like so, so much of our
community successes has comefrom so do I mean people
directly with experience ofpeople with family member with

(52:22):
disability or etc, and thenthey've used those experiences
think about, oh, how can wechange the world? And

a good example of the Data Challenge is
25% of any large workforce willhave a disability or a health
condition. So does that meanthere's no problem? I mean,
we've got 25% already. How manydo you want see? The data just
doesn't tell you what to do. So,

Dean Askin (52:46):
so, so if the data doesn't tell you what to do,
what I'm wondering is, what'sthe best way for businesses to
measure the the success ofdisability and inclusion
internally?

You mean of delivering disability equality
and equal rights? Well, you dothings like you ask your people,
and so you've got employeeengagement surveys, and so large
corporates will have send out asurvey that says, Do you love
your chief executive? Are youconfident in where we're going,

(53:23):
etc, etc? And then you askpeople to say, you know, gender,
race, etc, and do you have adisability? And they explain
what they mean, which wouldinclude people with health
conditions that perhaps wouldnot self identify, usually. And
then you you look, youdisaggregate that, and you see
that actually. And this is avery interesting piece of bridge
of work that Mercer anddisability international do,

(53:45):
where you just compare what yousee when you look at 15
percentile point less happy onquestion number two, compared to
2% less happy on the rest of thenon the workforce that has not
said they have a Disability.You've got the monitoring of
what happens when people ask foradjustments. So you know that if

(54:06):
people are waiting more than 20days, you've probably got a
problem. Most companies have aproblem, and that research that
the Government of Canada put outin the public domain back in
what 2020 still remains anexemplary sharing of transparent
mode of being saying, This iswhat we learned when we asked
our people, what happens whenyou ask, you've got employee

(54:27):
disability employee networkscoming together to have direct
conversations with their seniorplayers, to say, this is, this
is what's happening here. NowI'm, I'm not going to go for
promotion because the E Learningpackage you've got up as
mandatory is inaccessible. Howdo I get promoted? This is when
you get that, that face to faceconversation going, that things

(54:48):
start to really change. And ofcourse, there's the ILO self
assessment tool. And so we'verecently launched with the ILO
is global business andDisability Network, a tool that
any kind. Company in Canada canuse to monitor their
performance, on equality, onculture change, on a bit, on
customers and on theirperformance as allies of people

(55:10):
with disabilities. If everycompany in Manitoba said to
every digital training program,we won't work with you unless
you demonstrate you're bringingpeople with disabilities into
this digital training so theyget the qualifications I'm
looking for. That's allyship.That would make a huge
difference, because thedisability sector doesn't
require it. When was the lasttime you saw the disability

(55:31):
sector put pressure onmainstream, Cisco, Microsoft
training programs to also bringpeople with disabilities in?
Would be huge. I can't evenremember the question we're
answering now.

Dean Askin (55:47):
That was I love, a brilliant insight. Thank you.
Well, I can guess too,

yes. So, so how optimistic are both of you that
will get to a point of businessas usual globally with
disability, please

define disability. How do you define
it? So

disability inclusion to to us right now, as
per definition is, isincorporating people into
workforce. So equitable way doCanadians

with disabilities have a protection
on grounds of being equitable? Ithought the Canadian Human
Rights Commission is aboutequality. Does it have equitable
in there you can take them tocourt for not being equitable.

As far as we define we we encourage and support and
advocate for

equal opportunities, opportunities for
people, right? Well, one of mydreams would be that we all have
the same definition and thatit's about equality because
equity. I asked a Canadian, awoman advising the Canadian
government on standards for AI,how she defined equity. Her
definition was compensation forhistorical oppression had

(57:08):
nothing to do with equality, andso it's it's dicey language. My
reason for being obsessed withdicey language is fuzzy.
Language makes it more difficultto drive change because people
don't know what you want them todo. It just feels like you're
kind of waving a flag. I mean,if I waved the flag for for the
UK, I can't tell you what allthose little lines and the blues

(57:28):
and everything mean. Can'tuntangle it. I just know what it
sort of symbolizes. You can'tdrive change on the strength of
the symbol. It has to be veryconcrete and very specific with
a demand for each particularaudience that we're trying to to
reach. Am I optimistic? Peter,are you optimistic?

Like say, so not in the short term,
absolutely not. But there's beena huge change on disability
rights in my lifetime, a lot ofit for the positive. You can see
it wherever you are in theworld. Built environments look
different, right? Wherever youare in the world, countries have

(58:11):
made more commitments on ondisability rights. Big
businesses have made morecommitments on disability
rights. Disabled people publiclyidentifying as disabled people
now in sort of all areas ofpublic life, not not necessarily
in every country, but in many,in many countries. And we have a

(58:32):
really growing awareness ofthis. I think that everything we
spoke about is more than, morethan sort of just a road bump.
It's, it's a potential sort ofcatastrophic, catastrophic loss.
But I really hope that we willbe able to pass on a better
situation for disabled people inthe future, a society where we

(58:57):
are, we've found ways to supporteach other, to provide
assistance, to reduce reducebarriers in all areas, in all
areas of life, and to really,yeah, sort of unlock the freedom
to pursue, to pursue yourdreams, whatever your whatever
your disability or healthcondition. I think I did. We're

(59:22):
not going to be perfect. We'llnever be perfect, but I really
hope that in in our lifetimes

and and I think it's better to come. I
think that's a really importantpoint when I talk to friends. So
a friend of mine polio, age offour, he's saying the years he
spent in institutions, no onewill ever spend those years in
the same institutions thatactually what we're trying to
protect now is a big stepforward in the last 6070, years.

(59:51):
And then the question in theshort term is, how threatened
are those achievements? But thenactually a. Think your word was
legacy. I think we're protectingfrom a better place than we
would have been 70 years ago,and that I'm convinced that
actually, the fact that we haveso many young people who have

(01:00:13):
got work, because we only everas a system, you know, we focus
on the unemployed, way too manyof those, absolutely. But when
you look at that, the numbers ofyoung people in work, coming
together, working with theirbusiness leaders, helping them
to take a fresh look at all ofthis, I think that we're going
to find influencers on thepositive side coming in, not

(01:00:35):
from the disability sector, butfrom the wider world, which,
with luck, takes us furtherforward. I do

Amy Widdows (01:00:43):
hope so. And that is the I think being optimistic
is critical, and I do hopethat's the way, the way of the
future.

Susan Scott-Parker (01:00:52):
Well, I hope so, but I would also want to
stress that everybody is goingto need to behave differently.
The disability sector in everycountry has to look long and
hard at what it's doing andacknowledge it needs to behave
differently, the same old, sameold. Just as I say to business
leaders every day, you you haveto adapt. You're in a new world

(01:01:13):
now, just as governments need tobehave differently. But you hear
the frustration in my voice. Imeet nonprofits all over the
world, and they're doing thesame stuff. They're putting up
the same negative messages. Ijust had a session with some
business leaders, and a leaderfrom the disability community
said to business leaders, well,you should hire disabled people.
They'll stay longer with youbecause, of course, they have

(01:01:34):
fewer choices and they wouldn'tbe able to leave you as readily.

Dean Askin (01:01:37):
Wow, you delivered some you've got some such
strong, insightful messages thatyou're sending out to both the
disability sector and thebusiness community. And we've
talked about so much, and justbefore we wrap up this
conversation and all of theseinsights, I mean, have we

(01:01:59):
covered all the essentials? Doyou think I always have to ask
this as as the last question youknow, is there anything we
haven't talked about that youthink is important to mention
before we wrap up thisconversation?

Peter Torres-Fremlin (01:02:11):
I really appreciate this opportunity to
sort of have some big picturereflections. I found it quite
cathartic, something that I haveto mention as someone that makes
media on the Internet, please dosign up to my newsletter. It's
called Disability debrief. Getat Disability debrief.org it'll

(01:02:32):
keep you up to date with how theworld is changing for disabled

people, and we will put a link to that in the show
notes. Peter and

then, of course, all sensible
organizations in the disabilitycommunity will pay to support as
subscribers. Peter's reallyimportant work. So looking for
systemic ways to bridge the gapbetween the disability sector
and business has to be thehighest priority now, because
business has infinitely moreinfluence on governments and all

(01:03:01):
the craziness out there than thedisability community in any
country will ever have. And sowe want as many business leaders
as possible to stand up and say,Stop that nonsense. We need
government policies which makeit easier for us to access
talent and get it right for ourpeople and retain and enhance
productivity and all the rest ofit. And so allyship with the
business community now has neverbeen more important.

Well, thank you both again for this
conversation. You know this, forme, this has been so refreshing
and so so real, and I think sucha valuable message and
conversation for our oursubscribers, and I think this is
going to be really well receivedconversation. Well,

thank you very much for inviting us. It's
always good to get to talk toPeter, though it's ironic that
I'm talking to him throughCanada when he's actually
technically in the same countryas I

Peter Torres-Fremlin (01:03:58):
may say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you
Thank you, Amy and Dean forbringing us together. And thanks
always, always Susan for forthese, for these conversations.
Really and really appreciatethis, this chance for all of us
to come again. Thank you.

Well, I have to say thank you from me as well to
Susan and Peter, because, youknow, when I was putting
together the show lineup for theseason and I came up with this
idea for this timely two partseries to kick things off, I'm
sitting here, and I've got myhands at the keyboard, and I
thought, I know we just have tohave on the show to talk about
the global state of things. Andhere we are wrapping up what's

(01:04:33):
been a great conversation. Andhopefully it'll be, you know, as
we Canadians are prone to saythese days, elbows up and there
will be continued progress ondisability inclusion everywhere,
despite the turmoil that'shappening right now. So thanks
again for all your insights. Idon't know maybe I'm being
idealistic here, but hey, I'm anidealistic champion personality

(01:04:57):
type. So what can I say?

You. Okay, I must stay optimistic, too. I think at
least about the state ofdisability inclusive hiring here
in Canada. So that's it for thisepisode of You can't spell
inclusion without a D. Nextepisode, we start another two
part series looking atdisability inclusion initiatives
in a couple of major Canadiansectors, including tourism and
health care. Be sure to join usfor episode 33 a look at the

(01:05:23):
belong initiative in Canada'stourism sector that's coming
next month, May 20. I'm Amywidows

and I'm Dean Askin. Thanks again for listening
wherever, whenever and onwhatever podcast app you're
listening from. Join us eachepisode as we have insightful
conversations like this one withSusan Scott Parker and Peter
Torres fremlin about the globalstate of things in this
tumultuous year 2025 and exploredisability inclusion in business

(01:05:51):
and in our communities from allthe angles you can't spell
inclusion without a D Asproduced in Toronto, Canada by
the Ontario DisabilityEmployment Network. Our podcast
production team, executiveproducer and co host Amy widows.
Our producer is Sue Defoe,associate producer and co host
Dean Askin. Audio editing andproduction is by Dean Askin. Our

(01:06:14):
podcast theme is last summer, byixin. If you have feedback or
comments about an episode, emailus at info@odennetwork.com
that's info at o d, e, n, e, t,w, O, R, k.com, join us each
episode for insights from expertguests as we explore the power
of inclusion, the businessbenefits of inclusive hiring and

(01:06:35):
fostering an inclusive culture,and why disability is an
important part of the diversity,equity, inclusion and
accessibility, conversation.Tune in to you can't spell
inclusion without a dean podbeanor wherever you find your
favorite podcasts you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC