NS Family Fights for Future of Son with Disabilities

This video is making its way around FB with good reason.

It is heartbreaking and a true rendition of what is happening in Nova Scotia right now, particularly to those with more severe challenges, such as Brendon.

Human Rights & Housing in Nova Scotia

You might recall that in 2015, a Human Rights Complaint was brought against the Disability Support program on behalf of three long-term residents of Emerald Hall. Three years later, this complaint is finally being heard by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission.

If successful, this complaint has the potential to shake up the Disability Support program for all of us, in a very positive way. Why do we need a shake up?

For me, this headline says it all.

Adult Guardianship Representation in Nova Scotia [Part I]

Adult guardianship has been a very popular topic since this blawg first came into being. But the lay of the land has completely changed as of 12:01 a.m. on December 28, 2017.

Why is that, you ask?

Quite simply, at that time,  a new piece of legislation, the Adult Capacity and Decision-Making Act, came into force. This new legislation has significantly changed the scope, extent and meaning of guardianship in Nova Scotia.

How's that, you ask?

First off,  not only does the word "guardian" not appear in the legislation's title, but you won't find it or the tern "incompetent person" anywhere in the text of the legislation, either. Meaning that those of us who were guardians a mere few days ago were magically transformed into "representatives" on the morning of December 29th.

Although I believe that change in terminology is important (will anyone even know what you're talking about when you say you are someone's representative?), it is only the most inconsequential of the changes this legislation brings.

Although the  government engaged in a consultation process (both prior to and after drafting the new legislation), many felt the process was lacking and should have been more extensive, so as to reach all stakeholders (meaning all  the individuals working with and, more importantly, affected by the legislation).

I believe some of these concerns are legitimate. Personally, although heavily involved in the second round of consultation process (and that, really, only by accident), it troubles me to say that I saw very few positive changes come from that process.

I am only one of many who have publicly expressed their concerns with the new legislation; however, I must admit that I find it somewhat ironic that my concerns tend to be close to the polar opposite of those expressed by many others.

But before we go on to examine the new legislation (and my concerns) in more detail, I would like to take a look back.

NEWS RELEASE: DISABILITY RIGHTS COALITION

UPCOMING PROVINCIAL ELECTION

We are asking you to take action in your home communities to support and address issues relating to individuals with disabilities and their families.  We share with you our latest News Release and ask you to also share/post it on your websites/facebook & tweet away...

Contact your local candidate and ask them what their position is on the "Transformation Process"...or attend a candidates meeting...

Contact local media in your area to see whether a story could be done on these issues pertaining to the Transformation and how it relates in your community.

DRC have asked for meetings with Premier McNeil & Opposition party leaders to highlight our concerns & the issues facing our community.  This is a chance to have your voices heard.

Ask other family & community members to support you in your efforts!

NEWS RELEASE DISABILITY RIGHTS COALITION

Since 2014 the Liberal government stalls Human Rights Complaint that was filed jointly with three individual complainants, the Disability Rights Coalition(DRC) and the Canadian Elizabeth Fry Society.

My Favourite Time of the Year ... Election Time!

Long time, no speak. My apologies for that.

But look at what I found today ...

Shaping the future of NOVA SCOTIA’S DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM Choice and Inclusion: Implementation Plan

Reading through it, it occurred to me that they design these things so that anyone outside the disability community who happens to stumble across it will flip through it and think, "Good job, guys. Look at us go".

Unfortunately, if you happen to be someone who has actually walked (or wheeled) their way through this world, you might want to take a Valium (or some other nervous system calming agent) before trying to read it.

If I may ... a few examples, perhaps?

Oh look, they are going to take a new approach in providing services. How special.

A New Approach
Nova Scotians with disabilities have the same rights as everyone. We all deserve to live our lives as independently as possible. Each of us has a right to be full participants in society.

That means full social and economic inclusion, and the opportunity to live with dignity and choice. A person-directed, accessible and flexible support system for persons with disabilities will focus on key areas of action: • Increasing community-based living with social and economic inclusion; • Modernizing services and programs based on choice, flexibility and person-directed planning; and, • Reducing reliance on long term larger facilities. 

Too bad that promise was first made four year ago, when this government came to power. You might remember that - it was when the Liberals first adopted the NDP plan in the middle of our last election campaign.

Update the legislation? You mean the Homes for Special Care Act, first passed in the 1970s? That would be awesome, wouldn't it?

Updated Legislation
New legislation to replace the Homes for Special Care Act will ensure a person-directed approach to service delivery and emphasize helping people live in their own homes and communities. The legislation will help establish a range of services, supports and funding, while protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities so they can access government services and programs. 

Too bad that promise was made four year ago, too. And still not a hint of the legislation, let alone the regulations that would have to follow (often where the "meat" of the law lives).*

Should I go on? Just a few more thoughts, I promise.

What exactly are we to "reimagine" these "facilities" as?

Reimagine Residential Facilities
Under a new delivery system, facilities will no longer be used as long term residences. Instead, they may be adapted and reinvented in keeping with the principles of the transformation. The province will no longer fund the expansion of the old model of support which includes Regional Rehabilitation Centres (RRC) and Adult Residential Centres (ARC). This will not happen overnight. As we move away from the old model, there will be a focus on community-based residential living options. 

And when, exactly, will referrals actually stop? Just how long can a "temporary" placement in one of these institutions last?

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that ... how many years was that?

All right, all right. I hear you.

I will leave it to you to peruse the rest at your leisure.

But before you go, anyone interested in a little history on the Roadmap?

Round and Round We Go

Here we go again, inclusion is back in the news. Or did it ever leave?

Frankly, I don't know about you, but I am beginning to have been finding it a little old for quite a while now.

Here's the thing folks, what we all (parent, teachers, everyone) need to remember.

Talking about "inclusion" as if the option of getting rid of it is even .. a possibility ... is ridiculous. You can't just sweep it out the door like yesterday's dirt and say "I know, let's try something new".

Remember this quote from Karen Casey back in December?

I don’t think we want to talk about caps for special needs students,” said Casey. “What we need to make sure is that we have the appropriate programming in the right environment for all students.“

As I said on the website, it amazes me how successive Ministers of Education always seem to be able to find the right words and yet, just as consistently, seem unable to implement any meaningful changes to support inclusion. Be that as it may, any whisper of inclusion being an issue for anyone is enough to SCARE many parents. In all honesty and even though I know better  - myself included, at least in my initial from the gut reaction.

So, here it is - what you and I need to remember and preach to others. Sing it from the rooftops.

It goes something like this.

INCLUSION IS NOT A PROGRAM

BUT MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, INCLUSION IS NOT AN OPTION.

We definitely need more resources to have inclusion work properly for everyone - our children, their classmates and their teachers. No one is going to argue with that. And yet, it's not always a question of resources, is it? Sometimes what is needed is as simple as a good solid dose of common sense.

Between my two children with special needs, I have dealt with the public school system for 17 years, seen a bit during that time.

The balancing of what’s best for every individual student with special needs will, of course, vary (and I think this is where the rub will often lie), but the entire concept of inclusion is legally protected by (from highest to lowest):

1. the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [sec. 15]
2. the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act [ss. 4 & 5]; and
3. the Nova Scotia Education Act*

You can read more about the interplay between those documents on a practical level here.

For the average parent, however, outside the IPP appeal process, the best bang for your buck can probably found at the provincial human rights level. While notoriously slow, human rights complaints are far from useless - in fact, we have seen some most excellent results from such complaints in the past.

So let them say what they will: Inclusion it not a program.

Inclusion is not a choice.

Inclusion is the law - from the highest levels of the land.

In my mind, the ONLY issue we should be dealing with is exactly how we will define the term "inclusion" for each child - I doubt there will ever any one-size-fits-all solution for students with special needs or that we could ever agree on one.

Let's Talk Landon Webb Guardianship, Part V

You might recall a post from back in February of this year, where I questioned whether or not that was a good time for a family to pursue legal guardianship, given what was on the horizon with the Landon Webb case. I know many of you are now well aware as to exactly how Landon's case ended.

For several years, in the presentations I have given around the Province, I have repeatedly called for a reform of the Incompetent Persons Act, noting that it is an "all or nothing, one size most definitely does not fit all" sort of deal. Apparently the court agreed.

[22] The Incompetent Persons Act takes an all or nothing approach. It allows for no nuance. It does not allow a court to tailor a guardianship order so that a person subject to that order can retain the ability to make decisions in respect of those areas in which they are capable.

Just to be clear, there were absolutely no surprises here with respect to the court's finding that the legislation, as written, is unconstitutional. Not only did Landon's parents acknowledge and agree that the Act was unconstitutional, but, from almost the beginning of this court challenge, the Department of Justice had taken the position that it would not oppose the constitutional challenge and was committed to reviewing the current Act with a view to improving it. As noted in the Webb decision, that was a "remarkable thing", as governments rarely concede that legislation is unconstitutional. In the words of the court, "It happens only where there is a clear and compelling case, such as this".

Leaving us with the question ... What now?

First, let's take a look at what did not happen; what the decision in the Webb case does not mean. To put it simply, all current guardianship orders under the Incompetent Persons Act remain valid and the decision regarding the constitutionality of the Incompetent Persons Act will not affect my current Guardianship Orders.

Now that we know what didn't happen, let's take a look at what did.

Yes, Landon successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Incompetent Persons Act. To put it simply, on June 28, 2016 (as expected) the court found certain provisions of the legislation unconstitutional, but granted one year for the Act to be updated.As noted above, all orders remain valid during this period.

The government tells us that it is currently researching and consulting, with a view to crafting a new law on substituted decision making. Which shouldn't be too difficult to do, considering the help they previously ignored were given. In fact, you might recall that the Law Reform Commission was kind enough to draft an entirely new piece of legislation for the government in 1995.

Be that as it may,this means that applications can still be brought under the current legislation until either a new law is brought in or the one-year time period has expired (which would be June 27, 2017).In addition, the process of review that always existed under the Incompetent Persons Act (contrary to what some would have you think) is still available.

Now for the really important part for your family:

Let's Talk Landon Webb Guardianship ~ Part I

Oh, the irony.

Those who know me at all (or have been to any of my presentations) know how I feel about Nova Scotia's guardianship legislation, the Incompetent Persons Act. To call it old or out-of-date would be more than flattering and undeserved. In fact, antiquated would be a much better word.  I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that nearly every other province in Canada does a better job than Nova Scotia with their guardianship legislation.

You see, although most other provinces provide for the appointment of a guardian of the person (to make personal care
decisions for the adult) and a guardian of the estate (to make financial decisions for the adult), in Nova Scotia full powers for both personal and financial decisions are given to the guardian, even if the adult is only in need of one type of decision-making assistance. It’s an all or nothing, one size most definitely does not fit all, take it or leave it kind of deal.

There's nothing new here; in fact, this is very old news. As far back as 1993, the Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia publicly recognized that the Incompetent Persons Act was no longer appropriate and suggested that a new law be passed that would reflect certain fundamental principles, like

• not imposing guardianship simply because a person makes a decision that others do not understand or agree with;
• presuming everyone to be competent to make their own decisions unless it is proven they are not; 
• inquiring whether other less restrictive alternatives have been exhausted;
• focusing on the adult’s abilities, allowing them to participate in decision-making as fully as possible in as many areas as possible; and
• taking into account the wishes of the adult (with the court deciding how much weight, in the circumstances, should be given to those wishes).

Two years later the Law Reform Commission actually drafted a new proposed Adult Guardianship Act. The heavy lifting was done for the government of the day. The legislation had been drafted. Cue the applause.

However, instead of a new Act, in 2007 the legislation was amended to remove terms like “lunatics” and “insane persons” and replace them with the somewhat more politically correct “incompetent person”, which some might find, in and of itself,to be rather ironic.

And yet, that is not the irony I am referring to.

'My Life ... My Death' Controversy

Big news out of the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday - relevant for all of us, whether or not we currently have a disability.

I am speaking, of course, of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision striking down the law against assisted suicide in Canada. Or, at least, that's what the media would tell you happened.

Prior to yesterday, there were two sections of the Criminal Code, which, when combined together, banned assisted suicide.

Sec. 241 prohibited counseling, aiding or abetting anyone to commit suicide

Suicide

Counselling or aiding suicide
241.Every one who aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years

and sec. 14 provided that no one can consent to having someone else end their life.

Consent to death
14. No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.

What the Court did was to strike down these two sections of the Criminal Code only to the extent that they prohibited physician-assisted suicide "for a competent adult person who

1. clearly consents to the termination of life and 
2. has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition". 

So, just to clarify, the law against assisted suicide still stands when it comes to you or I or Joe Blow down the street counseling, aiding or abetting someone (anyone) in committing suicide - this decision only applies to physician-assisted suicide, which fact was implied in some media coverage, but perhaps not clearly stated in all of it.

And, for just a bit more clarity (in case you missed this little tidbit in the ongoing roar), this declaration of invalidity was suspended for 12 months - what that means is all will continue as it was for the next year, giving the government the opportunity to attempt to craft a new law. Of course, the federal government could also decide to do nothing at all (after all, not deciding is a decision in and of itself, isn't it?) in which case, come February 5, 2015, physician-assisted suicide (but only under the circumstances set out above) will be legal in Canada.

In case anyone is wondering why the SCC would approve of physician-assisted suicide today when it didn't, ten years ago, when the case involving Sue Rodriguez was decided (which is a very good question, by the way), the Court explained this inconvenient little inconsistency away by stating that law relating to sec. 7 of the Charter (which protects an individual's right to "life, liberty and security of the person" and is the section of the Charter that the Court used to strike down the relevant Criminal Code sections) has "materially advanced" since the Rodriguez case was decided.

But back to the Carter decision; the Court found that, insofar as the Criminal Code prohibited physician‑assisted dying for competent adults who were suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition that caused enduring and intolerable suffering, it deprived these adults of their right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter. How you ask?

Well, the Court reasoned that the prohibition had the effect of forcing some of these people to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable. The rights to liberty and security of the person (which deal with concerns about autonomy and quality of life), were also engaged as a person’s response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy. The prohibition denied people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinged on their security of the person.

Further, this infringement was done in a manner that was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The object of the prohibition was not to preserve life whatever the circumstances, but to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness. Since a total ban on assisted suicide clearly helps achieve this object, individuals’ rights were not deprived arbitrarily. However, the prohibition caught people outside the class of protected persons and the limitation on their rights was in at least some cases not connected to the objective, making the prohibition overbroad.

Looking at the question of whether the government was justified in violating these individuals' right under sec. 7, the Court went on to hold that although an absolute prohibition on physician‑assisted dying was rationally connected to the goal of protecting the vulnerable from taking their life in times of weakness, the evidence did not support the contention that a blanket prohibition was necessary in order to substantially meet that objective. The evidence from scientists, medical practitioners and others who are familiar with end‑of‑life decision‑making showed that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards would be capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error. Vulnerability could be assessed on an individual basis, using the procedures that physicians apply in their assessment of informed consent and decision capacity in the context of medical decision‑making more generally.

As an interesting aside, because the Court found that the prohibition on physician‑assisted dying violated s.7 of the Charter, it did not go on to consider whether it also deprived adults with physical disabilities of their right to equal treatment under s. 15 of the Charter. Any equality arguments around sec.15 of the Charter concerning this issue remain to be dealt with on another day.

And given that the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the land, that, as they say, is that. Or is it?

When Words Fail Me ...

This video speaks for itself.

But the saddest scariest thing is this woman is not alone. She may be the only one brave enough to actually type and deliver such a letter, but I can guarantee you she's not the only one who thinks such thoughts.




Perhaps most of those who do would never suggest that a child, any child, should be euthanized or his "non-retarded body parts" donated to science. But they wouldn't hesitate to express their belief that such children should not be going to their neighbourhood schools, should not be participating in the same extracuricular activities as their "normal" children do; perhaps, even should not be taking up scarce dollars in our healthcare system.

We would like to believe that human beings are inherently good. That, most of the time, if we just give them the chance, they will do the "right thing".  Maybe we're right - maybe most are.

But something like this has to make a parent wonder how many more monsters are hiding in the darkness or behind the annonimity of their keyboards. And shudder at the thought.

H/T to Krista Lettues for the video

Cross-posted at Free Falling

She Shoots ...

UPDATE II: If you belong to a disability group, please consider endorsing this letter to Premier Dexter.

UPDATE: Apparently I am not the only one who feels this way.

A second potential op-ed piece for your consideration:

It was with some surprise that I read about the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ report concerning the effect of the Department of Community Services’ tightened rules for “special need” allowances (“Minister Defends Welfare Rules”, Thursday, July 18).  But my surprise stemmed, not from the fact that the cuts were detrimental, but that it took this long for anyone to start talking about it.

I have a good memory; sometimes even a long one. And I clearly remember, shortly after the Canada Day weekend in 2011, hearing how DCS had backed off a “clandestine plan” to cut coverage for a wide range of medical benefits (including dental care, drugs, and medical supplies) for disabled Nova Scotians living in special care homes, hours before it was to take effect and shortly after the press had sought comment from the Minister on the issue.  I tried to take the news with a grain of salt, as politics being what it is, I tend to be a mite bit cynical, not just of the party in power, but equally of those associated with the opposition.

And yet I wasn’t entirely surprised a mere two months later to learn that the government had, indeed, changed  the regulations  with respect to what was covered under “special needs” allowances.  Couched as making it easier for “clients” to understand what special needs funding they could receive and to ensure funding decisions were consistent and fair province-wide, the Minister insisted that the Department was committed to meeting the needs of those with special needs. Still many were very unhappy.

Good News

Shannon Appointed New CEO Human Rights Commission January 12, 2012 1:25 PM

-----------------------------------------------------

A Dartmouth native and the first quadriplegic to reach the North Pole is the new director and CEO of the Human Rights Commission.

David Shannon, Dalhousie University graduate, lawyer, author and human rights advocate, will take over the role effective immediately. Mr. Shannon has received the Order of Canada and Order of Ontario in recognition of his contribution to human rights.

"I'm very pleased that someone of Mr. Shannon's impressive background, experience and dedication will be leading Nova Scotia's Human Rights Commission," said Ross Landry, Minister responsible for the Human Rights Commission. "He will be a strong asset for the commission, and a strong advocate for human rights in this province."

Mr. Shannon is the author of Six Degrees of Dignity: Disability in an Age of Freedom. He was a member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, special advisor to the Canadian Paraplegic Association of Ontario, and has a private law practice. Before Mr. Shannon's historic North Pole excursion in 2009, he made a 9,000-kilometre, 197-day trek in 1997, to promote social inclusion for all Canadians.

"Nova Scotia has a deep and rich history of diversity," said Mr. Shannon. "I look forward to joining the many people across this province who, on a daily basis, contribute to creating a discrimination-free community."

Other recent appointments to the Human Rights Commission include Eunice Harker (Sydney), chair, and Donald Fraser (Kentville), Duncan Gould (Sydney), Colleen Prentice (Chezzetcook) and Joseph Tharamangalam (Halifax) as commissioners. The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission is an independent government commission that administers the province's Human Rights Act.

I went to Law School with Dave Shannon. Yeah, we must be getting old ...

I didn't know Dave real well but certainly knew him to see him and have been following his adventures with interest over the years. Actually there were several times that I came across things concerning Dave that I meant to post about but, unfortunately, it never happened. Alas, 'tis the story of my life ...

At any rate, I do hold out some hope that things might take a turn for the better at the Human Rights Commission with Dave at the helm. Hope does spring eternal, doesn't it?

UN Gives Nod To World Down Syndrome Day

UPDATE: Down Syndrome International is delighted to announce that a resolution to designate 21 March as “World Down Syndrome Day”, to be observed every year beginning in 2012, was adopted by consensus during the plenary meeting of the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday 10 November 2011.

The United Nations is on track to officially recognize an annual World Down Syndrome Day starting in 2012.

A resolution to establish the awareness day on March 21 of each year cleared a U.N. committee by consensus last week. Officials say it will be adopted by the international body’s General Assembly in December.

The United States is one of 78 countries supporting the effort, which is spearheaded by Brazil.

Supporters said the date — March 21, or 3/21 — is significant because Down syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of the 21st chromosome.

Advocates from around the world have honored Down syndrome awareness on March 21 for the last six years. Earlier this fall, more than 12,000 people signed a petition to request U.N. recognition in an effort to bring extra meaning to the day. Per the resolution, member nations and private groups would be asked to promote Down syndrome awareness on the special day.

A similar U.N.-sanctioned day already exists to honor autism. In 2007, the international body named April 2 World Autism Awareness Day. Correction: This article has been modified to reflect that 78 countries sponsored the U.N. resolution to establish World Down Syndrome Day.

Visit www.worlddownsyndromeday.org for more information

By Shaun Heasley

A Very Unmerry Christmas

UPDATE: Perhaps Kentucky could take a look at what Wisconsin (and many other US states) are up to in this area. Not that Wisconsin is a light shining in the wilderness - it's previous "incidents" include a teenager with PTSD who died when his teacher sat on him and a 4 year old with CP and autism being strapped to a pretend (look alike) electric chair.

Sifting through my email this morning, I came across this story.

This story that almost defines words.

A 9-year-old autistic boy who misbehaved at school was stuffed into a duffel bag and the drawstring pulled tight, according to his mother, who said she found him wiggling inside as a teacher's aide stood by.

The mother of fourth-grader Christopher Baker said her son called out to her when she walked up to him in the bag Dec. 14. The case has spurred an online petition calling for the firing of school employees responsible.

"He was treated like trash and thrown in the hallway," Chris' mother, Sandra Baker, said Thursday. She did not know how exactly how long he had been in the bag, but probably not more than 20 minutes.

And just what did this young boy do to ... deserve ... such treatment, you may ask?

Baker said when school officials called the family to pick him up, they were told he was "jumping off the walls." Days later, at a meeting with school officials, Baker said she was told the boy had smirked at the teacher when he was told to put down a basketball, then threw it across the room.

But don't fret, gentle reader. All will be fine. After all, the matter is being ... investigated.

Mercer County schools Interim Superintendent Dennis Davis said confidentiality laws forbid him from commenting.

"The employees of the Mercer County Public Schools are qualified professionals who treat students with respect and dignity while providing a safe and nurturing learning environment," Davis said in a statement.  

And there is, of course, legitimate reason for using a duffel bag in such a manner.

At a meeting with school district officials, the bag was described as a "therapy bag," Baker said, though she wasn't clear exactly what that meant. She said her son would sometimes be asked to roll over a bag filled with balls as a form of therapy, but she didn't know her son was being placed in the bag. She said school officials told her it was not the first time they had put him in the bag.

After all, it's not like this sort of thing occurs on a regular basis.

A July letter from the state agency to special education directors said the state had investigated two informal complaints this year.

In one, "a student (was) nearly asphyxiated while being restrained," and in the other, a student vomited from panic attacks after spending most of an academic year "confined to a closet, with no ventilation or outside source of light," according to the letter.

So. What are we to make of this?

In Kentucky, there are no laws on using restraint or seclusion in public schools.

I'm not aware of any "time out" bags being used in Nova Scotia, but we're all very aware what can happen time out rooms aren't regulated. Or, sometimes, even when they supposedly are.

It boggles the mind to think that such a thing could happen in the US, of all places, with their plethora of safeguards against just such abuse.

The woman who started a petition in this matter, herself autistic, stated "That would not be wrong just for an autistic student. That would be wrong to do to anyone".

Might I suggest that the only statement that need be made (if any) is that such a thing should not be done to any student. Ever. Period.

This is not just a lawsuit waiting to be filed. It's a lawsuit begging to be filed.

Who Knew?

Apparently we have our own day.

Persons with disabilities make up an estimated 15 per cent of the world’s population. Almost one-fifth of the estimated global total of persons living with disabilities, or between 110-190 million, encounter significant difficulties. Furthermore, a quarter of the global population is directly affected by disability, as care-givers or family members. Persons with disabilities encounter many disadvantages in their societies and are often subjected to stigma and discrimination. They remain largely marginalized, disproportionately poorer, frequently unemployed and have higher rates of mortality.

.  .  .  .

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is both a human rights treaty and a development tool, provides an opportunity to strengthen developmental policies related to the implementation of internationally agreed development goals, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), thereby contributing to the realization of a “society for all” in the twenty-first century.

.  .  .  .

Sub-themes for commemorating the International Day of persons with disabilities in 2011 This year, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs requested the input of its partners and the general public for suggestions on a theme for the International Day of Persons with Disabilities 2011. Many responses were received from both, the UN system and civil society.

Now, for the first time, the Day will be commemorated under a general theme with supporting sub-themes to draw attention to keyout own day.

I'm glad to see not everyone missed it anyway.


I AM... I Love from L'Arche Canada-Communications on Vimeo.


Yes, it's not much, I know.
But I thought the least I could do was acknowledge it.

Note to Self ** ... And Small Kudo to Gov't

** Please try to remember to post relevant happenings when they actually happen.

Province Expands Program for Families Supporting a Child with a Disability

More Nova Scotia families caring for a child with a disability will soon have help thanks to a $1.3‐million provincial investment.

The Department of Community Services is expanding the income eligibility guidelines for the Direct Family Support for Children Program to support more children with disabilities who live at home with their families.

"Families want their children to stay at home and in their communities," said Community Services Minister Denise Peterson‐Rafuse."This investment is making life better for families, and shows our commitment to improve services for persons with disabilities and their families."

Effective Dec. 1, the amount a family can make and be eligible for the Direct Family Support for Children Program jumps from $47,000 to $72,000, after taxes. More than 80 additional families will now have access to this funding, which helps with costs for things like transportation, medication and respite when a break is needed. The amount of assistance a family receives varies depending on their income, assessed need for respite and family size.

. . . .

Government has increased investments in programs for persons with disabilities by $19 million since 2009, bringing the annual budget to nearly $255 million.

My apologies, I fully intended to post this the day it was announced, meaning it is now over a week old.

Still, better late than never, right?

Posted Without Comment

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Good News From Metro Transit

You might recall some previous posts I've written, one about my own efforts to have our local bus company institute a policy to which would allow the accompanying support person of a person with a disability to ride the bus free of charge. Because, as I noted at the time, although they had a policy in conjunction with the CNIB, providing that a blind person could travel with a support person without paying or a second fare, no such policy existed for individuals with any other type of disability. Which efforts, I was pleased to note, were ultimately successful.

A year later, I wrote about the issue Metro Transit, the Halifax Regional Municipality's transit system, was facing when some complained about their long-time policy of offering free bus passes to people who were blind.  But not to anyone else.

At any rate, I am pleased to advise that Metro Transit will be launching major policy and operational changes to improve accessibility on all of its routes later this year. This was apparently motivated by a Human Rifghts Commission complaint by passengers Tammy Robertson and Michael Craig.

Both Ms. Robertson and Mr. Craig are wheelchair-users and were unable to use most of the routes on the transit system despite most of the bus fleet being accessible. We are told that "Their experience reflected widespread frustration among people in the disabled community". I imagine so.

At any rate, upcoming changes are to include:

• passengers using wheelchairs being able to use low-floor buses serving any route, providing the ramp can be lowered so they can board the bus. At the moment, low-floor buses only pick up passengers if the route is designated fully accessible.
• passengers, with proper identification, who require attendants having their attendant's fare included in their own. [ED. Thank you very much]
• snow clearing at the Mumford and Dartmouth terminals being improved and increased to a 24-hour priority.
• the Request a Stop program, which provides for disembarking between stops for safety at night, being extend to disabled passengers at any time of day if it becomes reasonably necessary to accommodate them, such as situations of adverse weather or for safety reasons.

Gerald Hashey, the Human Rights Commission's manager of dispute resolution, is quoted as stating that "this initiative has allowed the largest transit system in the Maritimes to provide leadership on our commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities". He notes, quite rightly, that public transit is key to independence and participating fully in life for people with disabilities.

I can't find the press release (which I received in an email) anywhere online so I am going to reproduce it in its entirety here.

But before I do that, there's one other thing I would like to mention.  And that is how pleased I am to see the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities* being used in such a manner.

One of the (many) things I never got back to discussing after posting about the Values, Vision and Action Workshop I attended this past March was the discussion around the use of the Convention in our advocacy work.

I've written before about some of my hesitation reservations around the practical usefulness of the Convention from a legal point of view.  But one of the things discussed at the CACL workshop was taking a copy of the Convention along with us when we visit our MLAs or MPs on various issues and pointing out the relevant sections to them.

Now that I like because although I am hesitant as to how much teeth the Convention might actually have in a court of law, it's primary usefulness may well be to quote from it in our advocacy work with politicans and the media.  Which, apparently, is exactly how Ms. Robertson and Mr. Craig used the Convention when they filed their Human Rights complaint. Now that's what my mother would call "using your noggin".

Following is the text of the press release.

Public transit improvements will soon benefit riders with disabilities in Halifax Regional Municipality.

Late this fall, Metro Transit will launch major policy and operational changes to improve accessibility on all of its routes.

Metro Transit worked with the Human Rights Commission and passengers Tammy Robertson and Michael Craig to help create many of these changes.

Ms. Robertson and Mr. Craig, who both use wheelchairs, could not use most of the routes. Their experience reflected widespread frustration among people in the disabled community.

When the changes are introduced passengers using wheelchairs will be able to use low floor buses serving any route, passengers who require attendants will have the attendant's fare included in their own and snow clearing at the Mumford and Dartmouth terminals will be improved and increased to a 24 hour priority.

Media Contacts: Gerald Hashey
Human Rights Commission
902-424-3132
E-mail: hasheygj@gov.ns.ca

Lori Patterson
Metro Transit
902-490-6609

Michael Craig
902-454-6859 or 902-476-8288

Tammy Robertson
902-789-1530

Release Date: 07/31/11

Subject to Change Without Notice??

The Nova Scotia Department of Community Services (DCS) backed off a clandestine plan to cut medical services for disabled Nova Scotians living in special care homes late Friday Thursday afternoon, hours before it was to take effect.

The province had planned to implement the unannounced cuts over the Canada Day long weekend, but shelved the plan hours after the Canadian Press News Agency sought comment from DCS Minister Denise Peterson-Rafuse. Operators of special care homes were told the policy was “on hold” in late afternoon emails from frontline care coordinators.

The policy would have curtailed coverage for a wide range of medical benefits including dental care, drugs, and medical supplies.

In one case, workers caring for an elderly diabetic who receives a living allowance of just $125 per month were told his daily insulin injections would no longer be covered, because the type of insulin prescribed for his hard-to-control blood-sugar levels is not on a list of approved drugs. The man, who has a developmental handicap, leads an active life and is beloved by his community.

Another agency was told the province would no longer pay for an anti-seizure medication required by one of its residents.

The above is from Parker Barss Donham's blog, Contrarian.

And, if true, it's extremely disturbing. 

Parker's name should be well-known to most Nova Scotians, or at least to those with any interest in politics. Which leads me to the one caveat I offer here; namely that, politics being what it is, I tend to be a mite bit cynical, not just of the party in power, but equally of those associated with the opposition.  Because even those not holding the reins of power have a certain power, colloquially known as the power of "spin".  Meaning that, fair or not, I tend to take anything I come across originating from anyone with a strong connection to any political party with at least a few grains of salt.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this - although on its face deeply disturbing, I have to at least allow for the possibility that there may be a more innocent explanation at play here, one that some would rather not be made public. 

Then again, that being said, my true cynicism, based on years of hard fought experience, lies with government departments, particularly those of Education and Community Services, meaning I have trying real hard not to jump to the conclusion that I would be oh so happy to reach and at least allow for the possibility that all might not be exactly as it seems. I'm trying - it's just not that easy.

On another note, I see that Mr. Dunham has posted various DCS policy documents, which tend to be extremely difficult to access.  The links will be up shortly in the sidebar under the heading "Services for Persons with Disabilities ... Policy Documents".

Just remember, though, that as so aptly pointed out by Mr. Dunham's post, government policies are often subject to change. Without. Any. Notice.

* When researching yesteray's post, I noted that the Department of Health and Wellness' (the new name for the Department of Health) Home Care Policy Manual is dated June 1, 2011.  In a similar vein, I see that both the Services for Persons With Disabilities - Special Needs Policy and the Financial Eligibilty Policy are dated July 1, 2011 (yes, that's two days ago aka Canada Day). It would appear that, perhaps, our NDP government is on some sort of policy revision roll, to an extent that might not quite be accounted for by the various departmental changes made in the recent Government Administration Amendment (2011) Act(ch. 11 of the 2011 Statutes).

Press Release - 2011 Federal Budget Recognizes More Needed for People with Disabilities and Families

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 6, 2011, Toronto – ON. The Federal Budget tabled today before the House of Commons recognizes that more needs to be done to support people with disabilities and their families. CACL’s President Bendina Miller welcomed the budget measures and expressed: “Today’s budget takes modest steps to address the needs of people with disabilities and their families. It recognizes that: families and caregivers are at the core of supports to persons with disabilities and that more needs to be done to support them in this role; improvements are needed to the RDSP to ensure people with intellectual disabilities are able to enjoy equal benefit of the savings mechanism without jeopardizing their legal capacity; and, that new investments are needed to address the long-standing exclusion of people with intellectual disabilities from the labour market.”

CACL is encouraged by the inclusion of disability issues in this Federal Budget and is hopeful these new investments are first steps in developing a more comprehensive national disability strategy. In particular, the Federal Budget commits to:

• Enhanced support for families and caregivers through:

o a new Family Caregiver Tax Credit, a 15-per-cent non-refundable credit on  an amount of $2,000
o removing the limit on the amount of eligible expenses that caregivers can claim under the MedicalExpense Tax Credit
o a Children’s Arts Tax credit – with an enhanced component for children eligible for the Disability Tax Credit.

• Improving Labour Market Outcomes

o A $3billion investment over 6 years for new Labour Market Agreements to address gaps and improve labour market outcomes for under-represented groups.

• Improving the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) by:

o Increasing withdrawal flexibility for those with shortened life expectancies.
o Conducting a 3-year review to address issues raised by Canadians with disabilities and their families including a specific recognition of contract/legal capacity issues some adults with disabilities have encountered in trying to open and manage a RDSP.

“Employment is a major issue for people with intellectual disabilities. Something isn’t right when employment rates for working-age adults with intellectual disabilities are one-third of the employment rate of people without disabilities and when the average income for working age adults with intellectual disabilities who are working is less than half of that of Canadians without a disability. Canada needs to take a serious look at how to improve inclusive labour market outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities. This Budget is one step in that direction.” said CACL Executive Vice President, Michael Bach. “CACL looks forward to working in partnership with the Government of Canada in realizing these new investments and identifying the next steps to build strategically on these investments.”

About the Canadian Association for Community Living

The Canadian Association for Community Living is a Canada-wide association of family members and others working to advance the human rights and inclusion of persons of all ages who have an intellectual disability. CACL’s federation is comprised of 10 provincial and three territorial associations, 420 local associations and over 40,000 members.

For more information, please contact:
Michael Bach, Executive Vice-President, 416.209.7942, mbach@cacl.ca

Anna MacQuarrie
Director, Policy and Programs
Canadian Association for Community Living
Kinsmen Building, York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3

Tel: 416-661-9611 ext 204
Fax: 416-661-5701
amacquarrie@cacl.ca
www.cacl.ca