The Canada Disability What??!!

Does anyone remember the Canada Disability Benefit? Apparently, the government doesn't. 

Which is why this is so necssary.

 

It's long past time to bring this back to the public's attention. 

SO IF YOU WANT TO HELP, HERE'S HOW.

In the meantime, keep on singing. Keep on dancing. No matter how you groove.

Disabling Poverty, Enabling Citizenship – Canada's Federal Parties Have Their Say

We all know we should need to vote, but sometimes we wonder why we bother. And yet if the democratic process can be this frustrating to typical Canadians, it is often all the more so when it comes to individuals with disabilities and their family members, particularly since it so often seems that most of the issues that more important to us are not even on any government radar.

Operating on the theory that knowledge is power, I am passing along a Media Release from the Canadian Council on Disabilities that came to my attention today. I realize it's getting a little close to the line to question your Parliamentary Hopefuls, but if you want to know where the different political parties stand on issues of particular relevance to the disability community, read on.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) a national organization working for an inclusive and accessible Canada, sought commitments from Canada's major political parties on initiatives focused on disabling poverty and enabling citizenship.

• Poverty alleviation (CCD identified a refundable Disability Tax Credit as a first step) and increased employment opportunities; 

• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and ratification of its Optional Protocol, and;

•  Accessibility measures (such as a Canadians with Disabilities Act, enforceable access regulations for transportation and other areas in Federal jurisdiction, improved palliative care and other services, support for capacity building for the
  disability community)

READ MORE

Whazzup With That Roadmap, Anyhow?

Everybody needs a hero, right? I think I may have found (one) of mine.

This guy right here. He impresses me.

Why, you ask?

Because, in the midst of all his other work, he has written repeatedly on some very important issues for the disability community. And he's not showing any signs of letting it go. You have to like that.

What's up with the @DCS roadmap for people with disabilities? http://t.co/eEBsrmB7LD #nspoli @MMCLAW
— robert devet (@DevetRobert) April 1, 2014

And that raises a very important question - what is up with the Department of Community Services Transition Roadmap (aka The Roadmap)?

The report, written by a joint group of civil servants and representatives of community organizations, calls for the phasing out of large institutions, a more individualized approach in terms of care and funding, and altogether a new emphasis on changing services to better accommodate people with disabilities.

The short answer ... Hell if I know.

The sad reality is that the best information I have comes from Robert's article. Much like Sgt. Schultz, I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing.

But fear not, for others know much, much more than I. Let's see what Robert has to say:

At the time the department, right in the introduction to the report committed to "implementing these recommendations over a five-year time frame, with major action steps for each of the ten recommendations being plotted over 2013-14 through 2017-18."

.  .  .

That was September of last year.

Now it appears things are moving ahead, but not at the pace that the report suggested.

Of the thirty or so action steps scheduled for the previous fiscal year 2013-14, not one has been completed. But work has started on all of them, Elizabeth MacDonald, departmental spokesperson, tells the Halifax Media Co-op.

Stakeholder provincial advisory groups, which according to the report should have been in place by now, have not yet been announced.

 Guess who else apparently knows something? Wendy Lill.

Wendy Lill, playwright and former Member of Parliament, has been advocating on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities for a very long time. She was co-chair of the team that helped shape the transition roadmap.

Just two weeks ago she attended a roadmap progress update for stakeholders organized by Community Services. That was also the first update provided by the department since the roadmap was launched seven months ago.

"After that meeting I am hopeful that there is some real movement happening and that there is good faith there," Lill tells the Halifax Media Co-op.

Apparently, we are to hear more about a series of pilot projects "in the spring" [wait, isn't that, like, now?] and the membership of advisory groups will be revealed some time after March 31st [so, again, that would be, like, any time now, right?]. But not just that - "a training program" for "care coordinators and service delivery people" is on the way. Thank God for that. Just, please, don't ask me what it means - I'm not entirely sure.

But, hey, know what I do (think I) know? Politics. I can talk politics. Let's try that.

The Roadmap was originally brought forward by the NDP government. The very same NDP government that a lot of people, myself included, were pretty frustrated with. We were frustrated because we expected CHANGE with our first NDP government, real CHANGE. And we didn't get it, or, at least not as fast as we wanted. It was that very frustration that caused played a large part in the NDP's defeat in the last election.

So now we have a new government. A Liberal government. And I have to wonder if people will be as hard on them, expect as much change as quickly from them, as they did our last government. Because, if so, I am pretty sure we will have another epic fail.

In the words of Wendy Lill:

"Things are dreadful now, [the Department is] spending a lot of money and they are getting very poor results," says Lill. "Strong arguments have been made that [the new way] can be sustainable, and they have leadership that is mounting that argument in a very strong way."

Yeah, they are. And how much (and how fast), if at all, that changes will be up me you and me. That's right, you. And you. And you. And me.

And that takes me back to why I am so grateful for Robert Devet's continued writing on these subjects, for his efforts to hold our government accountable for what was promised. But that you and you and you and I can do half as good of a job in that regard.

Case Study on Holding Government Accountable for its Promises?

Below is the text of an email I recently received through the Disability Coalition. Reading through it, it felt a little like I was reading a case study on how to actually hold a government accountable for its promises.

What say you? Would/could this kind of approach work in Nova Scotia with our new provincial government?

If so, perhaps it's time to get moving.

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE UPDATE UNITED FOR A BARRIER-FREE ONTARIO 

New Toronto Star Editorial Backs Our Call for the Ontario Government to Reveal Its Plans for Enforcing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act  

SUMMARY
On October 31, 2013, the Toronto Star ran a hard-hitting editorial, set out below. It calls on the Ontario Government to at last make public its plans for enforcing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It is a real boost to our non-partisan campaign to make Ontario fully accessible for all people with disabilities, when a major newspaper runs an editorial that backs our cause. 

Here, the Star backs the Freedom of Information application that AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky filed on August 15, 2013 to unearth the Government's actions to date and plans for enforcing the disabilities act. This editorial has been widely circulated in cyber-space. It has been re-tweeted many times. 

After we set out this editorial, below, we give you links to several other newspaper editorials over the years that have backed the position of the AODA Alliance, or its pre-2005 predecessor coalition, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. 

There have now been 285 days since the AODA Alliance wrote the Ontario Government for information on the Government's plans to keep its election promise to effectively enforce the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Read the AODA Alliance's unanswered January 22, 2013 letter to the Ontario Government, requesting the Ontario Government's plans for enforcing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

Good News on the 'Special Needs' Policy

Some very good news to share on that "special needs' policy under Income Assistance that the Nova Scotia government quietly changed in August, 2011.  Remember this?

Well, I am pleased to report that as of October 1st, that policy has been changed again. This time in a good way. Check it out.

Changes to Nova Scotia's Special Needs Policy

"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. 

Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

~Margaret Mead

I Get By ... With a Little Help From My Friends

I came across this on FaceBook* the other day - you will see that it purports to tell us how each of Nova Scotia's three mainstream political parties has promised to address the needs of families of children with special needs in the early years:

Perhaps it's not fair to say *purports*; after all it does qualify itself to "the early years".

Having said that, here are my thoughts:

It looks like the NDP column is missing that latest announcement about "closing institutions, a more individualized approach in terms of care and funding, and a new emphasis on changing mainstream services to better accommodate people with disabilities". Just for the record, that announcement also included rewriting the Incompetent Persons Act**, the Adult Protection Act and the Homes for Special Care Act.

Does anyone else get the impression that the PC are looking towards Charter schools? You've got to like that promise to pass a Tuition Support Program Act but I have to wonder what their "ensure all children are ready to learn" promise actually translates into ... specifics, people, specifics.

It would appear that the Liberals are the only ones to even mention the "Lifespan Needs for Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorder" document (good on them), but then again it's only a promise to *review the recommendations*, not actually implement them.

Who? Me?? Cynical?!

So, does anyone else have any other thoughts on these platforms?

* With thanks to Catherine in the Choice Words group.

** Rewriting the Incompetent Persons Act would be huge - currently Nova Scotia has the dubious distinction of having the most archaic guardianship system in the country. And it wouldn't take a lot of work - the Law Reform Commission offered a new draft Act back in 1995.

Remember What Mama Always Said ...

I generally try not to stray too close to the issue of politics on this blawg; after all, you know what Mama always said about polite dinner table conversation.

BUT.

There is an election coming up, isn't there? Why, yes, I thought I heard something about that.  So when this showed up in m inbox today, I decided to pass it on. Just consider me the messenger.

And please remember what else Mama said ....

Don't Shoot the Messenger

Good afternoon,

I am writing to you from the Nova Scotia Association for Community Living -  a province wide association of family members and others working for the benefit of persons of all ages who have an intellectual disability. We work strategically with other disability rights organizations and, in particular, with Nova Scotia People First. 

 We are encouraged by the recent announcement from the Dexter government regarding the proposed transformation of Services for Persons with Disabilities. The Roadmap  is well worth the read - Choice, Equality and Good Lives in Inclusive Communities. You are also invited to read NSACL`s response to the announcement, which can be found on our website 

NSACL believes that we the people need to be champions of this new direction if indeed we want this to be the reality for persons with disabilities in Nova Scotia. It is a shift in the will of  the government and one of the most promising signs that we Nova Scotians have heard in a very long time. I have attached the Executive Summary which neatly summarizes the 55 page document that perhaps... you could use as a reference when politicians come a knocking at your doorJ  I hope you find this helpful.

 All the best

Jean

The Executive Summary of which the lady speaks can be found here *

But whatever your politics may be, no matter how frustrated you may feel with our current government, let me say this  .... NOW is the time to hold ALL our politicians accountable and responsible.

Election promises always often ring hollow, so all we really have to go by is past performance. And when you're considering past performance, please make sure you compare compare the past performance of EVERY party that seeks your vote.

And make sure to have a nice long chat with the next politician who rings your doorbell or attempts to shake your hand at some community event.

* Trust me, it's a lot shorter than the document at that first link.

The Rest of the Story ...

I was very honoured to be asked to appear on the Global Morning News show yesterday (July 30, 2013). Many thanks to fellow advocate, Krista Lettues, and Rhonda Brown, executive producer of the Morning News show and a true friend to the disability community.



BUT.

Now why is there always a BUT??

I really wish we could have had more time to get into more detail on these issues. I really wish I had the chance to share the rest of the story.

You see, as part of my preparation for the interview, I went back and reread the original news article which led to this blawg post, which, of course, led to the interview.

But this time was different. This time, I also read the comments following the article. If you haven't read them, please go do so. It's okay, I will wait for you.

Now, if you're here reading this blawg, I am going to assume that there's a very good chance that you were as upset by some of those comments as I was. But after I calmed down a bit lot, it got me thinking. There will always be idiots out there. I know that and you know that.

But some people aren't *idiots* per se; I would say they are more "ignorant", in the true sense of the word.

ig·no·rant 

/ˈignərənt/

Adjective

Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

Yes, ignorant as in simply not knowing. As one simple example, witness the comment of *myop*:

Animals should not be part of the welfare systems resopnsibility at all no matter what reason people have them other that assistance for the blind. 

Now here's a person who has obviously heard of service dogs for the blind. And only dogs for the blind. He or she remains blissfully unaware of all the other service animals out there - hearing dogs, dogs for persons with physical disabilities, dogs for persons with autism, seizure dogs ... I am sure the list goes on. But *myop* is blissfully unaware.

Here's another comment by *myop*:

IT SHOULD ONLY BE USED FOR THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE

Do you think he/she has any concept that what constitutes the basic necessities of life might vary between a person with no disabilities or chronic health conditions and those who live with these conditions? I guess not.

And you just can't beat the comments of *KannH*:

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Welfare created to help people get through bad times until they get back on their feet? When did Welfare become a career? I was on it once for 2 months between college and my first job starting but I have worked full time ever since. I am greatful it was available back then to help me but I would have never wanted to be on it long term...I had way more self respect.

Yes, dear, you are wrong. So consider yourself corrected.

For far too many people welfare is, indeed, a career. Not their chosen career but the only one our society leaves open to them. I would not choose for my daughter to be a social assistance recipient for the rest of her life. Nor would she choose this for herself. In fact, she desperately wants to have a job, live in her own place, be like everyone else her age. But that, quite simply, is just not in the cards. And yet, as hard as this might be to imagine, *KannH*, this doesn't mean she has any less self respect than you.

I could go on, of course, but snark only gets one so far.

So here's the point I really wanted to make.

After reading those comments, I got to wondering just what percentage of the social assistance caseload in Nova Scotia consisted of persons with disabilities. So I did some research and came up with some very interesting facts. In 1996 (the most recent year with available statistics), fully half of the welfare case load in Canada was made up of persons with disabilities. That's right - half of the case load. And in Nova Scotia, that figure was even higher - 57.5% of the people in receipt of social assistance in Nova Scotia had a disability.

It's funny how many people seem to have that visual of a single mom popping out baby after baby after baby to take advantage of the "generous" welfare funding or only see those in receipt of "welfare" as neglecting their children while watching their large screen TVs, doing and/or selling drugs and spending all their tax money on cigarettes. I suppose there are some people like that - there must be, considering that everybody seems to know at least one such person.

But how ironic, considering that over half of the people in receipt of social assistance in Nova Scotia are disabled. The majority are not, in fact, scamming the system. They aren't there to take advantage of the *generous* benefits, because they're too lazy or don't have enough self respect to get out of the system - they are there because they are simply trying to survive and are pretty much literally trapped.

I am thinking it is high time people got a good education in exactly who is receiving their hard-earned tax dollars and exactly who should be subject to mandatory illegal drug testing. Because the other ironic thing I find is that if you mention persons with disabilities to the majority of the people who make those kind of nasty comments, they immediately respond along the lines of "Oh, I am not talking about those people. Those people are okay. I am talking about the majority ...".

The majority you say?

So now you know the rest of the story. Now you know what I wished I had had the chance to say on the Global Morning News show.

Oh well, hopefully there will be a next time ...

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.

Shameful

shame·ful/ˈSHāmfəl/
Adjective
Worthy of or causing shame or disgrace.
Synonyms
disgraceful - ignominious - scandalous - infamous

The word hardly does justice to my thoughts and feelings when I read this earlier today.

The federal government is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a court ruling that would force it to pay the cost of caring for a severely disabled aboriginal teenager living at home. 

The precedent-setting case involves an 18-year-old on the Pictou Landing reserve in Nova Scotia and his principal caregiver mother — who herself suffered a debilitating stroke in 2010. 

Last month the Federal Court ruled that Ottawa was wrong to cover only a fraction of the cost of care for Jeremy Meawasige, who suffers from cerebral palsy and autism, among other disabilities.

Really? Seriously?? I mean, haven't they done enough already?

The federal government really wants to continue fighting this when they've already lost twice in court?

They really want to continue fighting this when the House of Commons unanimously voted in favour of adopting Jordan's Principle in 2005 and federal departments publicly pledged to respect Jordan's Principle in their policies?

They really want to fight this when the Federal Court has found that Ottawa's unlawful failure to cover only $2,200 of the $8,200 a month cost of Jeremy's care leaves his family with no other option than institutionalization and separation from his mother and his community?

~  ~  ~  ~

By the way, want to hear a funny?

A departmental spokeswoman for Aboriginal Affairs said the government continues to make the health and safety of First Nations a priority. 

“The government of Canada will work with the Pictou Landing First Nation for the reimbursement of home-care costs incurred related to Mr. Meawasige’s need, however following careful consideration we have decided to appeal the decision,” Genevieve Guibert said in an e-mail. 

“Canada is committed to working with the community and the province to ensure appropriate supports are in place for the family moving forward.”

Oh, okay, now I get it.

Run along, it's all taken care of now.

Don't you see - the government is all about working with the First Nations to reimburse Jeremy's home care costs.

Which, of course, would completely explain the how and why behind the Canadian government - your and my federal government - spending over $3 million to date just so they won't have to pay the $8,200 per month required to keep Jeremy at home.

Ever wonder what's really going on?

“We think that after these cases go through, the federal government’s programs for first nations people will need a drastic overhaul in order to deliver services equal to what other Canadians receive,” said Kent Elson, a Toronto lawyer who is involved in the policing and special education challenges. 

But if the government wins, recently won powers for first nations to launch human rights complaints would be severely restricted, the acting head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has said.

“We think this is one of the most important human rights issues this decade,” Mr. Elson added.

And to think that people continue to ask me, with a straight face, nonetheless, why I have never (and could never picture myself) voted Conservative.

Now that's brazen.

He's Baaaaack...

UPDATE: The Assembly of First Nations' Response

I've written on more than one occasion about the discrimination faced by Jeremy Meawasige (and other First Nations' children) like him.

Let's say it altogether, shall we?

J-O-R-D-A-N-'S  P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E

Now that wasn't that so hard, was it?

For once, I am pleased to report good news. For now anyway. *

OTTAWA — The Federal Court has ordered Ottawa to reimburse a First Nations band for the cost of taking care of a severely disabled teenager living at home — a ruling that could have widespread implications for federal social services on reserves. 

“It sets an important precedent to ensure all First Nations children across Canada are given equal access to essential government services,” said Paul Champ, the lawyer for the boy’s mother. 

The case centres around 18-year-old Jeremy Meawasige, who has hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy, spinal curvature and autism, is self-abusive and can only communicate with his mother, Maurina Beadle.

You might recall that federal officials have been arguing (both in and out of court) that they were in complete compliance with Jordan's Principle and providing funding in line with provincial programs. But the court found that what they had refused to hadn't taken into account was "provincial provisions for special circumstances".

Of course, some of us might call that very proposition into question too - since when, exactly, has there been "provincial provisions for special circumstances", you ask?

Good question.

And up until the 2011 decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Boudreau, it appeared that the answer was that there were no "provincial provisions for special circumstances", at least not in Nova Scotia.

["As you know the Direct Family Support program bases its respite amount on $10 per hour. Unfortunately Services for Persons with Disabilities (SPD) staff have not been authorized to increase this hourly amount at this time. In regards to the possibility of increasing your monthly amount, in order that you can use the additional funding to pay extra per hour, SPD has not been authorized to allow any increases which result in payments exceeding $2200 per month. As Brian’s current respite allowance already exceeds $2200 per month no increase may be authorized at this time."]

However, Boudreau, as you will recall, not only settled the question of whether the Services for Persons with Disabilities program is authorized by legislation, it also made it clear that there is nothing voluntary about the SPD program  (once eligibility for services has been shown/accepted, a legal entitlement arises automatically) and, as with any other “assistance” under the Social Assistance Act, eligibility triggers not just a right to that assistance but one that is to be immediately provided.

Even better, the court in Boudreau found that, generally, the SPD Program falls under the ‘special needs assistance’ provisions in the Social Assistance Act and, in situations where the legislation does not stipulate a maximum amount for such assistance, the Department should be paying “reasonable” amounts sufficient to meet the need.

And so it was, with a stroke of Justice Rosinski's pen in the Boudreau decision, that the Province could no longer rely on the November, 2009 directive from the Director of the SPD program limiting the Direct Family Support program approval levels for respite funding to $2200 per month.

And that decision in Boudreau, you see, was exactly what Maurina Beadle and the Pictou Landing Band Council relied on in their successful judicial review application for Jeremy Meawasig.

Back to that good news I mentioned in the beginning of this post - the Federal Court ruling now obligates Ottawa to uphold Jordan’s principle ... in more than just principle, one might say.

“Jordan’s principle is not to be narrowly interpreted", Justice Leonard Mandamin warned.

And although Mr. Justice Mandamin didn't say exactly how much the federal government should be paying to the Pictou Landing band council, after noting that Jeremy's mother is often the only one who is able to understand and communicate with him and Jeremy's only other option would be institutionalization and separation from his mother and community, the court indicated that it should be a lot more than the $2,200 it is already paying. It is expected that this decision will give Jeremy's mother and the band council grounds to demand a full reimbursement.

There's more to this story, of course.

Go read the piece in the Chronicle Herald to see the reaction of Jeremy’s 23-year-old brother, Jonavan Meawasige, who has taken on much of Jeremy's home care over the past two years, while also trying to fish for a living and the expected implications for other First Nations children, including in a separate case on First Nations child welfare in front of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where it is being argued that First Nations children have the right to welfare services on par with what provincial governments offer off-reserve children.

Well, imagine that. Now what do you suppose they will think of next?

* Hoping and praying this decision won't get appealed by the federal government. And that our provincial government will stop trying to do an end run around the Bourdreau decision, telling families that it has no absolutely no application to their particular case, when that is, at a minimum, very debatable.

Not. On. The. Radar.

I just completed a telephone survey about my impressions on how our current provincial government is doing. But before you go off on that tangent, that is not what motivated me to drop what I was doing (yeah, I was most definitely in the middle of something when the phone rang but what can I say ... I do like surveys) and write this post.

What motivated me is this - the survey was lengthy (to the point of annoyance, really) but as we neared the end of the call, it hit me like a lightning bolt - what was missing.

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

It was us.

Me.

You.

Our children.

Our families.

Oh sure, we were there. Of course, we were there. In everything from power rates to emergency health care to the HST to creating more jobs in rural Nova Scotia to class sizes in elementary school  .... on and on it went. All that stuff is important and relevant to varying degrees to all of us.

But what was missing was any reference to any issues relevant to the disability community.

Interestingly (but not surprisingly), seniors were prominently featured. Children were there. Families were there. Small business were there. But there was absolutely NO mention of the disability community or any of our issues.

The closest thing to our issues was, in fact, rather a stretch - one question on how important I felt it was to help those most in need. In my mind, that includes those in the disability community. But for most many of our fellow Nova Scotians,  I would hazard a guess that the disability community most definitely did not jump to the front of their mind when asked that question.

We, my good friends, are not on the radar.

And, if our issues are not on the radar, how in the world can we possibly expect to have them addressed?

If, when the government assesses public opinion on the importance of various issues, people are never even asked their opinion on the issues so important to us and our families, how will government ever assess (let alone grow) the political will to tackle our issues?

How, indeed.

This is a post about questions, not answers. But, should anyone have any answers, I, for one, would love to hear them.

Because, really, people ... I'm thinking we have a serious problem here.

Our American Friends

South of the border the debate continues on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Is it good? Or is it bad?

Despite bipartisan support for a United Nations disability rights treaty, a group of Republican lawmakers is holding up U.S. Senate consideration of the matter.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee planned to consider the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities last week, but was unable to after Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and a number of other Republicans reportedly placed a hold on it.

The move effectively squashed efforts by supporters of the treaty to get the U.S. to ratify it before the 22nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Thursday.

While the U.S. initially signed the U.N. Convention in 2009, Senate approval is needed for ratification of the treaty, which calls for greater community access and a better standard of living for people with disabilities worldwide.

Why, you ask?

Why would any part of the American government be reluctant to ratify an international convention recognizing the rights of person with disabilities? Rights which surely must be recognized and held in high esteem in such a great democracy as the US, a shining city uppon a hill?

For the very same reason that the US is hesitant (or outright refuses) to ratify other international conventions, of course.

The delay comes amid opposition from the Home School Legal Defense Association which is urging its members to tell Congress that the treaty “surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected U.N. bureaucrats, and will threaten parental control over children with disabilities.”

In a statement to the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, a DeMint spokesman said he wanted to delay the treaty over largely similar concerns..

That's right, folks. It just wouldn't do to have anyone else telling them what to do to or [gasp] interfere with their sovereignty.

Although I have to wonder just how well that is working for them.

The failure of the US to join with other nations in taking on international human rights legal obligations has undercut its international leadership on key issues, limiting its influence, its stature, and its credibility in promoting respect for human rights around the world.

And I must admit, I do find this thinking somewhat puzzling.

Sen. DeMint strongly opposes this treaty, as the United States is already the world leader in addressing the needs of the disabled and it’s foolish to think Americans need to sign away our sovereignty to exert our influence around the world.

So let me get this straight ... because the US is the world leader in addressing the needs of the disabled (I wonder what their own people have to say in that regard?) and they can/will continue to exert their influence around the world (now, here is where I get lost ... are they referring to their influence with regard to recognizing the rights of persons with disabilities?) because naturally they will have so much more moral clout around the issue given that they refuse to sign the Convention?

I must say that I find it particularly strange that the HSLDA is such a vocal opponent. Perhaps they are concerned that constitutionally enshrining "the right of persons with disabilities to education" [Art. 24] will somehow interfere with a parent's right to "direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms."

Oh, wait, now I get it.

There is no doubt that the Obama administration is waiting to see how they do on this convention to push through an entire package of UN treaties—chiefly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW (the women’s treaty), and the small arms treaty.

The poor souls are afraid. Afraid, I tell ya.

Uncaring, Unprincipled, Unacceptable

That I wrote about this very issue two years ago is a very sad commentary:

That a funding kerfuffle, that the federal and provincial governments cannot agree on who, exactly, is responsible to provide the funding necessary for aboriginal children with special needs to stay at home, with their families, where they belong is sadly, perhaps, not surprising.

But that this bit of 'government infighting' as it is so colloquially called has resulted in families being told that they may be forced to give up their children because the First Nation can no longer pay for their care and federal and provincial governments can't agree on who should pay is beyond despicable.

And if it was unacceptable then, what is it now?

Two years ago, I questioned where the  Nova Scotia government stood when it comes to Jordan's Principle.  I guess now we have our answer.

Jeremy Meawasige loves music, sunny days at the beach and his mother.

But Jeremy has extensive physical and mental disabilities. And the failure to resolve a dispute between the Pictou Landing First Nation and the federal government over how his care is paid for may result in his institutionalization.

"It’ll be over my dead body," said Maurina Beadle of the possibility her 16-year-old son might be institutionalized.

Jeremy is diagnosed with autism, hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy and spinal curvature.

For 15 years, Beadle provided 24-hour care for her son. She spoon fed him pureed foods, carried him, prevented his self-destructive tendencies and changed his diapers.

That, in itself, by itself, is unacceptable in my mind. That a parent should single-handedly have to provide 24-hour care for their child for all those years anywhere in Canada is quite simply unacceptable. 

Home care? In home support?  Direct Family Support? Hello, is anybody home out there?

But as if that wasn't bad enough, last year Jeremy's mother had a stroke.  Fortunately, the Pictou Landing First Nation stepped up to the plate, providing three hours of home care every day.  Last year that cost the First Nation $82,000.

But now, even as the cost decreases due to his mother being out of a wheelchair and now able to walk with the assistance of a cane, she is being told that her son might have to be institutionalized because no level of government is willing to pick up the cost of a small amount of home care. Home care to which Jeremy would be more than entitled to were he to live off-reserve in this Province.*

Published

I see that the potential op ed piece I wrote last Friday is in today's Chronicle Herald.

Admittedly, the headline wasn't quite what I was going for but we will take what we can get.

Creative Writing - Potential Op Ed Piece

UPDATE: The link to providing feedback on Dr. Levin's report.  But beware, as others have noted, it's more or less set up only to promote the positive.  You might you get more bang for your buck with a letter to the Minister or her Deputy.

UPDATE II: This was published in as an op ed piece in the Chronicle Herald on Thursday, May 19, 2011.

It's a good thing I'm not Ralph from The Honeymooners because I'm seriously tempted to threaten to send the Nova Scotia Department of Education "straight to the moon" at the moment.

First, the Department amends its Teacher Assistant Guidelines to eliminate any reference to supporting the teaching of students with special needs or providing "support for instructional program", leaving the only remaining job responsibilities of a TA as "personal care" and "safety/behaviour management support". If you don't have a child with special needs or aren't otherwise involved in the school system, that may not mean much to you. But if you do, it’s not hard to picture exactly what that bodes for the future.

Now, we learn that a review of the Province's public education system is calling for the Province to "consider reducing the number of teaching assistants in special education". Does anyone else see any connection here? Is this the beginning of the end of a proper education for our children?

The Province's newest Teacher Assistant Guidelines provide that "Teacher assistant support should be considered only when the student cannot perform prescribed outcomes independently, as determined by the program planning process" but I have to wonder how even those students will receive support when 1) supporting students who cannot meet prescribed outcomes (independently or not) is most definitely no longer part of a TA's job description and 2) the current recommendation is to cut back on the number of TAs when many would argue we don’t have enough to do the job now.

I find Mr. Levin’s concern about the number of students receiving special education services due to an increase in the "soft" areas of identification, like “students thought to have learning disabilities or behaviour problems” rather odd. If he had spent any time at all in Nova Scotia's schools he would know how difficult it is to obtain any special education services for such students. Students are not considered to have a learning disability simply because a parent or teacher thinks this may be so; services won’t be offered (if at all) until a student has been diagnosed by a qualified psychologist. And, given the wait times to be seen by a school psychologist, students can literally wait years for that type of assessment.

A Good First Step

How on earth did we ever miss this?

Maybe because we're too busy whining about what he can't get right? Or maybe it just isn't considered newsworthy...

Either way, it's something that should be recognized. And acknowledged.

Yes, I realize it's only a step. But a first step is better than no step, no?

And then we might just ask when a similar move might be made in Canada.

Response to Gov't Throne Speech

Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities

Nova Scotia Speech from the Throne Disappoints Disability Advocates

The NDP Government’s Speech from the Throne last Thursday is disappointing for disability advocates and consumers. Government priorities indicate a commitment to inclusion and to leadership in social change. It promises to protect Nova Scotia’s most vulnerable and to recognize its citizen’s intrinsic value and the richness they bring to caring and compassionate communities. Unfortunately, with all the discussion of inclusion, diversity, and social change, there is not one mention of persons with disabilities in this speech.

“This is gravely disappointing because being left out of discussions that speak to making life better for the citizens of Nova Scotia is what persons with disabilities have become accustomed to in this province. Unfortunately, this speech does not point to the change in approach to disability issues we had hoped for in an NDP Government”, says Cynthia Bruce, Provincial Coordinator of the Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities (NSLEO). When considered in conjunction with the government’s response to the recently reported cases of abuse in Pictou County, it is even more disturbing. It indicates that the rights and well being of Nova Scotia’s 200,000 citizens with disabilities are not a priority for this government.

NSLEO Chair, Joan Levack says, "We strongly urge Darrel Dexter and his Cabinet to listen to the disability community and commit to the swift development and implementation of a disability strategy which will recognize the intrinsic value of persons with disabilities and which will guarantee flexible and individualized supports within a responsive and progressive system". With at least half of Nova Scotia’s families being affected in some way by disability, this is the only way to ensure this government provides a better deal for these Nova Scotia families. NSLEO looks forward to working collaboratively with this new government in a solution focused approach to ensuring this better deal, and we urge this government to engage the considerable leadership potential of the disability community in this process.

For further comment, please contact:
Cynthia Bruce, Provincial Coordinator
Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities
902-679-9147
leocoordinator@eastlink.ca
Joan Levack, Chair
Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities
902-538-0110
jlevack@ns.sympatico.ca

Personally, I would be willing to cut our new NDP government a bit more slack. It's still very early in the game and although I might just be naive (and a tiny bit desperate), I have to believe (at least for now) that the NDP will come through for us. At least, in part.

BUT. And this is a very big BUT, I think it's imperative that the disability community (that's us, by the way) get out there and make sure they hear our concerns. Again. Remind them about why we elected them. And what needs to be done.

Whether it's with regard to education, community services or some other issue. I see this as a prime time (indeed, what may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity) to get our voices heard by someone who may actually listen.

We made history once. Now we need to make it again.

Perhaps It's Time ...

A column in one of our local (read very local) newspapers last week by Kings West MLA Leo Glavine most definitely grabbed my attention. Unfortunately I can't yet find it online. So I will just have to liberally quote and paraphrase.

Entitled, as are all his columns in this paper, "From Province House to Home", it starts with the observation that "This week, 1300,000 Nova Scotian children return to school", continues by noting that despite the US educational document, "No Child Left Behind", students do, indeed, fall through the cracks and advises that Mr. Glavine has been hearing from "a growing number of educators and parents who think the way inclusion is practiced could be an obstacle for a wide range of students, especially those with cognitive impairments or learning disabilities, from achieving success."

Now if that's not enough to get your attention, I don't know what is.

Mr. Glavine considers the NS Dept of Education's definition of "inclusion"

... an attitude and a value system that promotes the basic right of all students to receive appropriate, quality educational programming and services in the company of their peers

as a good statement, reflecting the attitude of a society that values all individuals, and acknowledges each student in the province deserves a quality education.

And athough Mr. Glavine states that this should be practiced in all classrooms in Nova Scotia, it appears that he believes this is not happening.

Without individual instruction, these students would spend most of their time sitting in a class, failing to understand what is being taught and unable to complete daily tasks and assignments. In the five years as an education critic for my party, I have heard disheartening stories of children with developmental delays or a variety of other cognitive impairments who, in early year, were a year behind in normal progress and, by junior high, were performing two years below grade level. The common denominator: they were not behaviour problems they received no EA or individual support in a constant manner.

Some interesting statements follow:

The courts have made several rulings on this issue: inclusion must be practiced from the perspective of the student. [ED. I beleive he might be referring to the Eaton case with this comment which we discussed here.] To state that inclusion can only be age-related (as in Nova Scotia) is short-sighted. Inclusion should be a secondary goal to learning. To apply inclusion in a manner that limits or prevents attaining educational goals is not what the legislature intended, and would suggest we are putting institutional needs ahead of student needs.

Giving credit where credit is due, there be a fair bit of meat in those comments.

Mr. Glavine ends the column by calling upon the new government and the new Minister of Education, Marilyn More, to work to provide the highest level of special needs education.

It's easy, I suppose, to wax poetic on what should be done when you are not, in fact, a member of the governing party. Just ask the NDP ... I've always thought they've been pretty good at that over the years.

Now don't get me wrong, I most definitely am a fan of the party. At least provincially. But my point is that now that we do have a NDP government provincially, perhaps it's time.

Perhaps it's time to expect more than a little more from our educational system.

Perhaps it's time to demand more than a little more.

Perhaps, for once, we will actually be listened to.

Upcoming Upcomings

1) Workshop on the Registered Disability Savings Plan
Monday, June 1, 1:30 to 3:30 p.m.
CNIB auditorium, 6136 Almon Street (at Gladstone Street), Halifax.

The RDSP is a savings plan intended to help persons with severe and prolonged disability save for their long-term financial security. Light refreshments. No charge.

Hosted by ILNS and co-sponsored by Partnership for Access Awareness Nova Scotia and RBC.
____________________________________________
2) Pre-Election Briefing on Issues of Concern for Persons with Disabilities
Wednesday, June 3, 7 – 8:30 p.m.
Bloomfield Centre, Multi-Purpose Room, 2786 Agricola Street, Halifax.

Candidates from Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic Parties in the provincial election. Come to ask the candidates questions about disability issues. Light refreshments.

We have some background information available. Contact Lois Miller at ILNS: Lois.Miller@ilns.ca or by phone: 902-453-0004

Co-hosted by NS LEO, NS Disability Rights Coalition, Canadian Paraplegic Association (NS), MS Society of Canada and ILNS.