Where We Are Today

Where We Are Today Manitobans with disabilities continue to:• Experience significant educational challenges with substantially lower

levels of educational attainment

• Experience barriers related to the labour force with much higher unemployment rates and much lower employment and participation rates

• Have much lower income levels than the general population

• Face barriers on a daily basis that limit participation, as well as access to opportunities and resources that most others still take for granted

• Be reliant on a wide range of public and non-profit sector services and supports that still are substantially under-resourced

The current federal government has shown limited leadership interests/capacities in areas related to disabilities or other areas of social policy

It is said that the health of federal-provincial relations is at an all time low

Disability issues have a very limited public and political profile The disability community in Manitoba is fragmented and has a

wide range of different and likely competing priorities

As of 2006, there were 170,000 persons with at least one

disability living in Manitoba

And the Numbers are Growing!

5.7%8.5%

11.7%

15.1%

18.3%

21.1%

6.9%

12.5%

19.0%

27.2%

37.5%

47.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

to 2006 to 2011 to 2016 to 2021 to 2026 to 2031

General Population

Persons With Disabilities

Projected Manitoba Population Growth Rates 2001 to 2031

Sources: Based on 2001 PALS disability rates and Statistics Canada Population Projections for Manitoba (medium growth

scenario)

Major Provincial Change InitiativeDiscussion Presentation and Plan for Moving Ahead

Barrier-Free ManitobaJanuary 13, 2009

It’s been almost 10 years since the current NDP government was elected in 1999

While the government may be ‘supportive’, very limited progress has been made and the profile of disability issues has decreased considerably

What options exist to move the disability agenda forward in a substantial way within the coming three years?

The Starting PointThe Three-Year Challenge

Looking Back• Where We Have Been

Looking Ahead• Criteria and Approaches• Proposed Path Forward

Overview of the Presentation

Where We’ve Been

In the late 90’s, Manitobans with disabilities:•Experienced significant educational challenges and had substantially lower levels of educational attainment

•Experienced barriers related to the labour force that had contributed to much higher unemployment rates and much lower employment and participation rates

•Had much lower incomes than the general population while having had significant out-of-pocket costs related to their disability

•Faced barriers that limited their access to a wide variety of opportunities and resources that the general public could take for granted

•Were reliant on range of public and non-profit sector services and supports that were substantially under-resourced

A Review of ProgressPublic Policy•The Federal and F/P/T Levels•The Province

Human Rights•Litigation•Complaints•Employment

Equity

The F/P/T and Federal Levels

Vision StatementPersons with disabilities participate as full citizens in all aspectsof Canadian society. The full participation of persons withdisabilities requires the commitment of all segments of society.The realization of the vision will allow persons with disabilities tomaximize their independence and enhance their well-being throughaccess to required supports and the elimination of barriers thatprevent their full participation.

October 1998 release of In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability IssuesThe Press ReleaseIn Unison breaks new ground for governments in this country," said Minister Pettigrew. "For the first time, we have a common vision on disability issues. This document will be the focus of our ongoing work promoting greater equality and inclusion for Canadians with disabilities.”

Public Policy

At some time in the fall of 2005 Minister Dryden appeared ready and willing to seek Cabinet support for new initiatives in the area of disability. All of this was overtaken with a federal election and a change in government. It feels in some ways as if we are starting over, however, having raised the bar in 2005 I trust that the impetus for transformative change will continue and ultimately we will see governments make disability issues a priority and commit resources to address the exclusion faced by Canadians with disabilities.

CCD 2005-06 Annual Report

While new opportunities exist, at this point in time CCD has had no contact with Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Monte Solberg. When Diane Finley was Minister of HRSD nothing moved forward on the disability file and since the change this past January we still see no coordinated action.

CCD 2007 Annual Report

Public PolicyF/P/T and Federal Levels

The F/P/T Level The Federal Level

The Province

Selected QuotesGovernments are responsible to citizens. When some citizens are not able to claim and exercise the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship, that government has, in some measure, failed.

[W]e are committed to designing and redesigning our social, economic and physical infrastructures so as to meet the needs of the full array and range of abilities in our population to as great an extent as possible.

We must move from vision to action.

The 2001 release of Full Citizenship: A Manitoba Provincial Strategy on Disability

Public Policy

Meaningful but Limited Other Progress• The Ramp

• Introduction of Access and Inclusion Lens

• Introduction of Manitoba Shelter Benefit Program

• Reforms to the Employment Income Assistance Program

• Establishment of Persons with Disabilities Career Assistance Program by Civil Service Commission

• Adoption of Universal Design Institute’s ACCESS: A Guide to Accessible Design for provincial buildings

• The "See What I Can Do, Not what I can’t” employment campaign

• The Disability Issues Office

One Major Setback• The 2004 decision to invest approximately $40 million to redevelop

the Manitoba Developmental Centre

Public PolicyThe Province

The Overall Record

The Proposed Round Table Process



The Round Tables

Limited Follow Through•Round tables held in 2002-03, 2004, 2006 and 2007

•DIO Annual Reports only for 2005/06 and 2006/07.

•No annual public document that considers issues and presents a draft action plan for implementation the following fiscal year

•No annual reports evaluating actions taken.

Lots of Recommendations from Community Spanning Almost Every Issue Area•Round tables generated a total of 154 recommendations with nothing approaching a workable set of priorities

1. Have cabinet approve a disability lens to review all legislation, policies and programs to ensure they uphold the rights of persons with disabilities, and that services, programs and benefits are co-ordinated.

2. Ensure policies, legislation and regulations are clearly defined, holistic in nature, and consistently applied across the province. Introduce enforcement mechanisms to promote compliance with legislation.

3. Provide stronger enforcement of The Manitoba Human Rights Code in cases of discrimination of persons with disabilities.

4. Broaden the definition of disabilities to encompass all forms of mental and physical impairments, including hearing, chronic disease disorders, mental illness and fetal alcohol spectrum related impairments.

5. Review and consider expanding the eligibility criteria of programs for youth with disabilities within Manitoba Health and Manitoba Family Services and Housing.

6. Increase the number of recreational, social and educational programs available to persons with disabilities.

7. Ensure an appropriate level of respect for all persons with disabilities seeking support and services, including increased staff training and cultural sensitivity.

8. Educate the public about what services are available through government and in the community, and how to access them.

9. Design government websites to be universally accessible.

Recommendations

Public PolicyThe ProvinceSummarized

RecommendationsThe 2002 - 2003 Round Table

The 2006 Round Table – Supports• Personal Supports (7)• Assistive Devices (8)• Disability Supports During

Periods of Transition (18)

The 2006 Round Table – The Pas• General (9)

The 2007 Round Table - South• Transportation (3)• Education / Recreation (5)• Physical Access (6)• Access to Services (3)

• Governmental Disability Policies and Programs (9)

• Disability Supports (10)

• Education (6)• Employment (8)

• Housing (10)• Aboriginal

Manitobans with Disabilities (5)

• Health Care (6)• Transportation

(5)• Other Issues (6)

The 2004 Housing Forum• Financial Access to Housing (7)• Availability/ Usability of Overall

Housing Stock (9)• Supportive Housing (14)

10. Support community living for persons with disabilities, rather than institutionalization.

11. Consult with the community about definitions, eligibility and models for disability supports.

12. Ensure that disability supports are controlled by the consumers, which includes self-management of services.

13. Create a seamless lifelong continuum of support services for persons with disabilities.

14. Create a comprehensive program for the purchase, maintenance and upgrade of assistive devices for persons with disabilities.

15. Ensure that those caring for persons with disabilities are provided respite through well-trained caregivers.

16. Improve home care services through staff continuity and training in technical supports and by providing 24-hour emergency service.

17. Provide stable equitable funding for disability supports throughout the province.

18. Have providers of income programs for persons with disabilities consider all the unique costs of having a disability, prescription drugs, nutritional needs and equipment.

19. Ensure service providers are well trained and have a good understanding of disability issues.

The Running Tally

19Public Policy

The Province

The 2002 - 2003 Round Table














20. Ensure consultation with the community takes place on a regular basis.

21. Provide training to teachers, support staff and other service providers about disability issues, particularly those related to people with developmental disabilities.

22. Develop a strategy to support persons with disabilities in gaining the education and training of their choice, including post-secondary.

23. Provide support to persons with disabilities and their families for the move from education to adult life, including life skills training.

24. Review policies and programs to ensure funding for students with special needs is adequate and the delivery of therapy services in the school setting is effective.

25. Ensure services and training standards are consistent throughout the province.

The Running Tally

25Public Policy

The Province















26. Introduce legislation to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities in the private sector and include mechanisms for enforcement.

27. Ensure the provincial government meets its employment target (seven per cent) for people with disabilities.

28. Require all companies, with more than 50 employees, with which the province has service contracts to have an effective employment equity policy.

29. Report on employment equity achievements by government and the private sector on a regular basis as an accountability mechanism.

30. Promote self-employment and co-operative employment initiatives among persons with disabilities.

31. Deliver a high profile public relations campaign promoting the abilities of persons with disabilities and their positive contributions to the workplace.

32. Provide accommodation costs so employers do not see the added cost of hiring people with disabilities as a hiring barrier.

33. Focus the efforts of employment training agencies on holistic success measurements that are not only based on the number of jobs found.

The Running Tally

33Public Policy

The Province















34. Host a daylong meeting devoted to housing issues for persons with disabilities within the province.

35. Increase the availability of accessible housing throughout Manitoba.

36. Work co-operatively with the various stakeholders to develop more flexible housing models, such as multi-tenant public housing.

37. Adopt accessibility and universal design practices in all new and renovated public housing developments and create incentives for private developers to adopt similar practices.

38. Support individual rent subsidies that reflect accommodation costs to allow for more independent choices in living situations.

39. Raise Employment and Income Assistance shelter allowances for persons with disabilities to increase their housing options.

40. Identify housing options for youth currently living in nursing homes.

41. Improve communication and co-ordination among the various agencies delivering housing program services to improve public knowledge and access to resources.

42. Educate landlords, builders and service providers about disability issues.

43. Support home ownership for persons with disabilities.

The Running Tally

43Public Policy

The Province















44. Initiate discussions on service delivery and jurisdictional issues with the federal government, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Manitoba Métis Federation and Aboriginal and First Nations service delivery agents, such as the First Nations Disability Association of Manitoba.

45. Hold an Aboriginal disability issues round table with Métis, First Nations and Inuit representatives, as recommended in Full Citizenship: A Manitoba Provincial Strategy on Disability.

46. Develop service models that address the needs of First Nations persons with disabilities.

47. Ensure there is First Nations representation in any future community consultations on disability supports.

48. Allow First Nations people to benefit from the Labour Market Agreement for Persons with Disabilities.

The Running Tally

48Public Policy

The Province















49. Increase efficiencies in health care delivery throughout the province by reducing waiting periods and increasing access to services related to disabilities.

50. Direct the Minister of Health to appoint members of the self representative disability organizations to the boards of the regional health authorities.

51. Ensure doctors and service providers have mandatory sensitivity training to improve how people are treated, particularly those with mental disabilities and/or requiring palliative care.

52. Form an interdisciplinary committee (hospital personnel, community members, etc.) to develop consistent policies and programs for withholding/ withdrawing life sustaining treatments. Support this initiative with an education plan.

53. Differentiate between mental illness and mental disability in rehabilitation and treatment programs, avoiding reference to the consumer as a “patient.”

54. Conduct a critical review of electroconvulsive therapy to evaluate effectiveness and ensure its appropriate administration.

The Running Tally

54Public Policy

The Province















55. Review and improve transportation services, like Handi-Transit, across the province.

56. Develop a standard disability training and safety program, which is mandatory for all modes of transportation providers.

57. Review the City of Winnipeg’s Handi-Transit system to ensure it receives the provincial funding necessary to serve the growing number of people who depend on it.

58. Extend Handi-Transit in Brandon to seven days a week, with 24-hour telephone booking or cancellation of appointments.

59. Consider additional public transit options like school buses, lower-cost passenger vans and city cabs for people with disabilities in Brandon and Thompson.

The Running Tally

59Public Policy

The Province















60. Provide non-governmental service providers with adequate, long-term funding to pay for core operational costs, and continue the staffing stabilization initiative, expanding it beyond service providers of persons with developmental disabilities.

61. Establish a competitive wage base for support workers throughout Manitoba.

62. Review existing tax laws to ensure lower income individuals with disabilities and their caregivers benefit.

63. Develop and implement a universal “disability insurance” program available to all citizens regardless of their employment situation or pre-existing other disability.

64. Provide more disability training for foster parents and review policies and increase funding for foster care programs.

65. Create a liaison between the Disabilities Issues Office and Brandon and Thompson.

The Running Tally

65Public Policy

The Province















66. Create a new shelter allowance program geared to income, with allowances paid directly to renters with disabilities instead of to the housing units.

67. Work with the federal government to exempt from federal income tax the amount of any future shelter allowance program that is created.

68. Increase the supply of accessible housing within two years by • financing new housing developments like Ten Ten Sinclair

Housing, Inc.;• developing culturally sensitive housing that includes

groups such as First Nations persons with disabilities;• seeking the participation of landlords in creating a central

registry which would match available housing units with a waiting list of potential tenants with disabilities;

• ensuring that maintenance standards of provincial buildings are met;

• by creating incentives that promote rent-to-own situations;

• developing alliances with financial institutions to enable home ownership by people with disabilities;

• requiring visitable design for all publicly funded housing.

69. Work with the private sector to create a central housing resource centre that will provide housing program information, a public housing registry and a housing ombudsperson.

70. Work with the disability community to extend the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) to social housing not owned and operated by government.

71. Work with local and federal governments to create a new program to promote the construction of housing units for rent or ownership by Manitobans with disabilities.

72. Introduce income or property tax concessions for middle income earners who have significant housing costs because of their disabilities.

The Running Tally

72Public Policy

The Province















73. Create an institute or foundation for universal design

74. Make a policy requiring visitable design of all new housing developments in which the province has a financial or land investment, including in the form of tax concessions to the developers.

75. Add visitable design housing requirements to the Manitoba Building Code.

76. Support visitable design through home owner tax incentives for the renovation or construction of visitable housing.

77. Clarify provincially funded renovation programs by providing more complete information on funding application forms; publishing a guidebook to provincial funding programs; and changing the names Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) and Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program–Disability (RRAP–D) to avoid confusion between them.

78. Have the DIO develop a communications and education strategy to promote visitable design to all three levels of government, educational and financial institutions, realtors, landlords, contractors, developers, insurers, Manitoba Homebuilders Association and the public.

79. Work with municipal governments to implement policies requiring visitable design through zoning bylaws.

80. Consult with municipal and federal government associations on visitable housing policy changes and enforcement.

81. Ensure access upgrade programs such as Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program–Disability (RRAP–D), Homeowner Emergency Loan Program (HELP) and Home Adaptations for Seniors’ Independence (HASI) also fund the costs of project management, administration and technical assistance associated with upgrades.

The Running Tally

81Public Policy

The Province















82. Enable persons with disabilities to obtain appropriate, adequate, safe housing in the areas of their choice by: increasing EIA shelter allowance beyond $285 per month; adjusting funding levels to meet the specific needs of the individual; separating income supports and personal disability supports.

83. Develop a strategy for de-institutionalizing persons with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities and younger adults with disabilities who are currently being inappropriately placed in personal care homes.

84. Increase the provincial financial commitment in the next budget year to expand the number of housing units available to persons with disabilities. Money should go towards building new units, renovating units and providing more funding for support workers.

85. Ensure accessible units are reserved for persons with disabilities who need them.

86. Ensure that housing information is available to people with disabilities and service providers in the format of their choice. Simple information tools should be developed collaboratively by a working group that includes the provincial government, cross-disability service providers, medical services and third party funders.

87. Work with various government departments, families and service providers and organizations to develop a central system that will prepare, educate and guide individuals with disabilities and their families through the young adult transition process.

88. Work with various government departments, regional health authorities, Aboriginal leaders, allied health groups and advocacy agencies to launch a public education campaign about supportive housing issues.

89. Implement different service models and options consistently across the province.

The Running Tally

89Public Policy

The Province















90. Support de-institutionalization by developing two parallel, support-staff training systems — one to train staff to provide physical support, and the other to train staff in guiding individuals to meet decision-making and personal goals.

91. Initiate a 200-person cross-disability demonstration project by:• providing a transportable rent subsidy of $200 to $500

per month, payable directly to the individual according to housing needs and choice of apartments;

• working in co-operation with at least four community organizations;

• funding the subsidy through the Affordable Housing Initiative.

92. Ensure housing that is usable by persons with disabilities is dispersed throughout the community, with disability supports and services delivered according to individual need.

93. Work with Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the Manitoba Government & General Employees’ Union (MGEU) and other community stakeholders to ensure wage parity among disability support workers.

94. Have the DIO work with community groups and stakeholders to develop a funding program to meet individual needs for assistive devices, based on existing programs and models in other provinces.

95. Ensure regional health authorities provide the services Manitobans with disabilities are entitled to: a) by educating health care providers about eligibility guidelines of home care services; and b) by monitoring access to home care service according to these program standards.

The Running Tally

95Public Policy

The Province















96. Centralize disability support services under one roof — for instance in fully accessible community access centres.

97. Move away from program-centred disability support services toward flexible, individual services.

98. Increase consumer control by allowing people to participate in program design and by allowing individuals to choose self-managed services.

99. Equalize access to disability supports for persons with mental illness, including counselling and psychiatric services.

100. Improve access to disability supports for Manitobans living in rural and remote areas, including on reserves.

101. Recognize that the communication supports needed by deaf-blind people are as vital to them as mobility supports are to persons with physical disabilities.

102. Support a national disability supports program and/or Act.

The Running Tally

102Public Policy

The Province















103. Create a universal disability supports program with the following features:

• a comprehensive, portable package of supports tailored to the user’s needs at each stage of life;

• eligibility criteria based on a functional assessment of individual need;

• consumer control, with personal choice in buying assistive devices and the flexibility to choose from among a wide variety of approved devices offered by profit, non-profit and public sector vendors.

104. Separate an assistive devices program from income assistance programs.

105. Regulate distribution of assistive devices ensuring all products come with warranties, training and a method of providing consumer feedback.

106. Enter into federal/provincial cost-sharing agreements to implement a comprehensive, universal disability support program that would increase eligibility and access to assistive devices.

107. Create a sub-committee of the Assistant Deputy Minister’s Committee on Disabilities Issues, coordinated by the DIO, to review current disability support programs and develop strategies for improvement.

108. Reduce the five-year waiting period to upgrade disability supports provided through the Hearing-Aid and Telecommunications Program, in order to allow people with communication disabilities quicker access to advanced technology.

109. Increase cooperation between Manitoba Health, Manitoba Family Services and Housing, Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth and Manitoba Advanced Education and Training to improve delivery of their disability support programs.

110. Introduce a provincial assistive devices program as a demonstration project.

The Running Tally

110Public Policy

The Province















111. Increase communication about disability support programs to medical offices and schools using fact sheets with an overview of programs and contact numbers.

112. Support parental roles and funding parent-child coalitions to provide peer support, information services and advocacy.

113. Ensure continuity, equal standards and seamless delivery of services provided by government departments.

114. Create a disability advocacy body similar to the Child Advocate.

115. Ensure that the existing school transition processes are known and implemented province-wide.

116. Introduce new programming that allows persons with intellectual disabilities, who have graduated prior to the age of 21,to receive an equivalent range of disability supports and services as their peers who have remained in school for this period.

117. Relax eligibility criteria for government-funded employment programs.

118. Improve education, training and internships for employment, especially in rural areas and for First Nations Manitobans.

119. Increase timelines for financial and training support when someone is looking for a job.

120. Include more improvement for seniors with disabilities.

121. Aggressively pursue the development of a lifelong, flexible disability support program that responds to individual need regardless of income or assets.

122. Provide information technologies to reduce isolation of seniors.

The Running Tally

122Public Policy

The Province















123. Support aging within the community.

124. Develop a disability lens designed to ensure that policies and programs are accessible to all, with special reference to age, culture, ethnicity.

125. Develop provincial disability legislation.

126. Work with different levels of government service providers and First Nations to explore how services can be provided on reserve through existing programs.

127. Consult with First Nations persons with disabilities on the development of a First Nations consumer-led disability strategy.

128. Organize a province-wide gathering or forum to look specifically at issues of First Nations persons with disabilities. This forum should, among other things, review all earlier recommendations made.

The Running Tally

128Public Policy

The Province

129. Ensure that senior government representatives take part in all round table discussions to reassure participants that their voices are being heard.

130. Develop a provincial advisory committee with relevant stakeholders to advise government and other agencies on disability issues.

131. Eliminate all provincial/federal barriers that unfairly limit First Nation’s people with disabilities who live on reserves from receiving the services and programs other Manitobans with disabilities receive.

132. Improve access to medical specialists and disability support programs in the north so more people with disabilities can remain in their home communities.

133. Increase financial support for disability transportation programs in rural and northern communities.

134. Ensure all public and residential buildings developed with government support are accessible to persons with disabilities.

135. Develop a program to help maintain public and residential buildings and introduce a program to make non-accessible buildings accessible.

136. Make employment programs more accessible to people with disabilities through greater flexibility of existing policies.

137. Develop incentives for public and private employers to create more flexible employment options for persons with disabilities through job shadowing, job sharing and mentoring

The Running Tally

137Public Policy

The Province















138. Treat all handi-transit trips as being equally important by eliminating the priority system which currently gives preference to work, school and health related trips.

139. Increase training for volunteers who provide handi-transit services in smaller communities.

140. Create greater public awareness of handi-transit services and the benefits it provides to mobility disadvantaged individuals.

The Running Tally

140Public Policy

The Province















141. Strengthen the inclusion of people with disabilities in education and recreation programs in southern Manitoba.

142. Establish a professional obligation among service providers to promote inclusion through early training, hands-on professional development and financial reward for expertise.

143. Improve access to information for foster parents of children with disabilities.

144. Increase financial support to adoptive parents of children with disabilities.

145. Provide access to peer support programs and wellness centres for people with disabilities who live in southern Manitoba.

The Running Tally

145Public Policy

The Province















146. Maintain the condition of sidewalks to improve ease of travel for people who use wheelchairs and people with visual impairments.

147. Stop using paving stone for sidewalks and roadways. Instead, build them with smooth surfaces.

148. Reduce obstacles like benches and bicycle racks on sidewalks.

149. Strengthen and enforce provincial and municipal regulations dealing with accessibility in public places.

150. Provide government assistance to make buildings more accessible.

151. Support the development of visitable housing through financial incentives or legislation.

The Running Tally

151Public Policy

The Province















152. Improve access to information about government programs.

153. Create a program to reimburse people from remote communities who incur expenses to travel to urban settings to receive services.

154. Provide disability awareness training to service providers whether or not people with disabilities are specifically targeted by the program.

The Total

154Public Policy

The Province















A Final Provincial CommitmentPublic Policy

A Pro-Active Approach to AccommodationRecent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada have emphasized the need for a more pro-active approach to the issue of accommodation, to ensure that procedures are in place to assess accommodation issues that may arise in the delivery of government services. . .

We propose the use of institutions and mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Commission and the Manitoba Human Rights Code, to enhance the accommodation process in the context of government services. This may entail the creation of a regulatory process, or a system of enhanced guidelines, coupled with a monitoring function. It should be noted that this would not replace the existing complaint-driven structure under human rights legislation.

Full Citizenship: A Manitoba Provincial Strategy on Disability (2001)

No Clear Follow Through

Human Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination.

9(2) The applicable characteristics for the purposes of clauses (1)(b) to (d) are . . .

(l) physical or mental disability or related characteristics or circumstances, including reliance on a dog guide or other animal assistant, a wheelchair, or any other remedial appliance or device.

The Canadian Human Rights Act

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Manitoba Human Rights Code

Litigation

EmploymentEquity Act

Complaints

The Protections The Tools

Litigation

Human Rights

Highlights Lowlights

• 2006 federal decision to eliminate Court Challenges Program and Law Reform Commission

• 2004 Supreme Court ruling on Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

• 1997 Supreme Court ruling on Eaton v. Brant Country Board of Education

• 2008 Canadian Transportation Agency ruling on “One Person”, One Fare” case

• 2007 Supreme Court ruling on CCD v. VIA Rail

• 2001 Supreme Court ruling on R. v. Latimer

• 1999 Supreme Court ruling on Grismer v. B.C. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney-General of B.C

• 1999 Supreme Court ruling on British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU

• 1997 Supreme court decision on Eldridge et al v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Employment EquityHuman Rights

The Fair The PoorThe Federal Public Service The Private Sector

3.6% 3.

9%

5.7%

2.8%

2001 CPSA Availability 1997-98 Representation

2006-07 Representation 2006 Hires

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

2.4%

2.4%

1.8%

2.8%

3.4%

2.5%

2.3%

2.3%

Banks Communications Transportation Other

2001 Availability 1997 Representation 2006 Representation


Source: 2005 Annual Report Employment Equity Act

Legend

Real Progress for Three of the Four Designated Groups


Source: 2005 Annual Report Employment Equity Act

The Flat Liner for Persons with Disabilities

Employment Equity

Comments from the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Human Rights

In the private sector, the situation for persons with disabilities remains bleak: stronger action is required by employers.

2002 Annual Report

Persons with disabilities have benefited least from employment equity in the private sector.

2004 Annual Report

[T]he representation of persons with disabilities was unchanged from the previous year. Persons with disabilities have consistently received less than their share of hires in all sectors.

2007 Annual Report

According to the Public Service-wide Employee Survey released in the fall of 2002, nearly 36% of federal employees with disabilities have been harassed in the past two years, while 37% have been subject to discrimination at least once.

2002 Annual Report

Employment Equity

The Manitoba Sidebar

Human Rights

As a major employer, the Manitoba government is committed to an Employment Equity Policy intended to create a civil service that is representative, at all levels, of various groups in the population, including persons with disabilities.

When the policy was established in 1983, the goal was to achieve 7 per cent representation of persons with physical disability in the civil service by 2003. At the last count in 2000, there were 368 persons with disabilities, representing only 2.88 per cent of the Manitoba civil service.

Instead of demonstrating and facilitating the economic integration of Manitobans with disabilities in our workforce, these small numbers indicate that persons with disabilities remain excluded. Unfortunately, the virtual lack of experience with persons with disabilities as fellow workers leaves the civil service ill prepared to recruit and see applicants with disabilities as the productive employees they wish to become.

As an employer, the Manitoba government has the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee’s needs when the needs are associated with any characteristic that is protected from discrimination by the Manitoba Human Rights Code.

From the 2001 Full Citizenship Document

Source: Full Citizenship: A Manitoba Provincial Strategy on Disability


Progress

Sources: Manitoba Civil Service Commission 2006-07 Annual Report

and Province of Manitoba Press Release, December 3, 2008

7.0%

2.0%

2.88% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%3.1%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

1983 Target March 1987 Sometime in 2000

March 2004 March 2005 March 2007 November 2008

ComplaintsManitoba Human Rights Commission

Human Rights

Over 560 formal complaints on the grounds of disability discrimination were lodged over the last 6 years.

Formal complaints related to disability discrimination accounted for more than one-third of all complaints over the 6 years – a far greater share than for any other ground.Sources of data: Annual reports from the Manitoba Human Rights Commission

Note: Gender Determined Characteristics and Ethnic Origin were only added in reporting in 2004

8475

111

93

82

123

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

37.0%

23.7%

16.2%

8.0%

5.8%

2.3%

1.8%

1.6%

1.2%

1.1%

0.9%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

Disability

Sex (including Pregnancy)

Ancestry

Age

Marital/Family Status

Religion

National Origin

Other

Sexual Orientation

Source of Income

Political Belief

Ethnic Origin*

Gender Determined …

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Over 2,370 signed complaints related to disability discrimination were made in the last 6 years.

Complaints related to disability discrimination accounted for almost 40% of all signed complaints over the 6 years – a share twice as high as the next most frequent ground.

Sources of data: Annual reports from the Canadian Human Rights Commission

ComplaintsHuman Rights

237

438495

389

448

372

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

38.3%

16.4%

11.3%

10.0%

7.3%

4.9%

4.3%

3.3%

2.4%

1.5%

0.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Disability

Sex

Age

National or Ethnic Origin

Race

Colour

Family Status

Religion

Sexual Orientation

Marital Status

Pardoned Conviction

Complaints

Conclusions from the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Human Rights

“The belief that accommodating the needs of persons with disabilities is to be done out of goodwill, akin to an act of charity, is still prevalent. In fact, accommodation is a basic right, entrenched in law and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

For those who are discriminated against because of their disability, the human rights complaints system is not necessarily the answer.

Complaints generally deal with a limited situation — one office that is not accessible to people using crutches or one employer that has not provided the proper accommodation for a person with a learning disability.

Eliminating obstacles one at a time, step by step, or ramp by ramp, so to speak, is not the best way to achieve a barrier-free and inclusive world.”

2002 Annual Report

Where We Are Today Manitobans with disabilities continue to:• Experience significant educational challenges with substantially lower

levels of educational attainment

• Experience barriers related to the labour force with much higher unemployment rates and much lower employment and participation rates

• Have much lower income levels than the general population

• Face barriers on a daily basis that limit participation, as well as access to opportunities and resources that most others still take for granted

• Be reliant on a wide range of public and non-profit sector services and supports that still are substantially under-resourced

The current federal government has shown limited leadership interests/capacities in areas related to disabilities or other areas of social policy

It is said that the health of federal-provincial relations is at an all time low

Disability issues have a very limited public and political profile The disability community in Manitoba is fragmented and has a

wide range of different and likely competing priorities

27% 56% 17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Moving in the right directionDoing littleOn the wrong track

Recent Evidence of Public Attitudes in Winnipeg

Do Winnipeggers think progress is being made on disability issues?

Source of data: Urban Reflections, United Way of Winnipeg, 2008

What percentage of Winnipeggers rate disability as one of their top three issues?

Source of data: Urban Reflections, United Way of Winnipeg, 2008

Public Attitudes

3%

17%

19%

19%

19%

28%

39%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

No. 19: Opportunities & assistance for those with disabilities

Homelessness

Access to affordable housing

Neighbourhood decline

Personal & neighbourhood safety

Poverty

Crime

Youth crime & gang activity Also ranked below:•Alcohol and drug abuse•Opportunities for Aboriginal people•Affordable after-school programs•Lack of opportunities for youth•Supply and quality of affordable daycare•Access to help for immigrants•Adult education / training for employment•Family and domestic violence•Isolated and vulnerable seniors•Access to parenting programs•Racial intolerance

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and

expecting different results. Albert Einstein

What options exist to move the disability agenda

forward in a substantial way in the next three

years?

The Three-Year Challenge

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a

new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by

the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would

profit by the new order. Niccolo Machiavelli

1.UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

Upcoming Developments

• All state parties that ratify the CRDP agree and are bound to:

• Prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds

• Take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided

• Development ProcessAd Hoc Committee established to draft December 19, 2001 with the CRDP adopted at December 13, 2006 Plenary of the UN General Assembly

• Canada signed CRPD (but not the Protocol) on March 30, 2007

• May 2, 2008 motion that government should ratify the CRPD passed unanimously in Parliament

• Ratification is pending and will bind both the federal and provincial levels of government (30 days after ratification)

Status as of July 2008129 signatories to the Convention / 71 signatories to the Optional Protocol

29 ratifications of the Convention / 18 ratifications of the Optional Protocol

Convention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesUpcoming Developments

“The mere existence of the Convention gives persons with disabilities and their organizations the ability to say to their governments, ‘You have accepted these obligations’, and insist that they be met;”

Don MacKay, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee

• The theme for last year’s (December 3, 2008) International Day of Persons with Disabilities is "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Dignity and justice for all of us”

Article 9Accessibility

1.To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. . .

The UN Convention

2. Canadian Human Rights Museum

From the “Friends” Web siteThe Canadian Museum for Human Rights is envisioned to be a national and international destination -- a centre of learning and history where Canadians and people from other countries can engage in dialogue and commit to taking action . . .

It is envisioned to be an iconic symbol of Canada - something as dramatic and inspiring as the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao - a magnificent structure, encasing a world-class experience that will be a true testament to the importance Canada, as a nation, places on human rights.

MissionTo advance understanding and

support for human rights in Canada and throughout the world.

• The Canadian Museum for Human Rights has been established as the first national museum to be built outside the National Capital Region

• First national museum to be created in 41 years

• $94.5 million now reached in $105 private sector campaign

• Construction set to start as early as winter of 2008

Upcoming Developments

A Way Ahead Criteria and Approaches•What would be ‘success’?•Alternative paths

Proposed Path Forward•Existing models•The pros and cons•Key issues

Starting Set of Criteria

A major provincial change initiative should:1.Provide meaningful and long term benefits for Manitobans with a disability.

2.Support a significantly higher profile for disability issues within broad public discourse

3.Have a focus that can be supported broadly within the disability community

4.Be possible to achieve within the next three years

5.Bring about positive changes that cannot be easily rolled back

Criteria and Approaches

Approach 1

Approach 2

Approach 3

Approach 4

A Broad Issue Which Affects Persons with

Disabilities Among Many Others

A Broad Disability-Specific Issue Affecting All

Persons with a Disability

A Specific Disability Issue

Affecting Some/Many

Persons with Disabilities

Strengthening Use of Existing Human

Rights Tools

Criteria and Approaches

The Scan of Approaches

Approach 1



Possible Examples

•Prevention and Palliation Related to Chronic Disease

•Quebec 2002 Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion

Criteria and ApproachesA Scan of Approaches

Approach 1

Approach 2





Possible Examples



Possible Examples

Accessibility legislation based on models such as:

•The American with Disabilities Act

•The Australian Disability Discrimination Act

•The UK Disability Discrimination Act

•The Ontario Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act


Approach 1

Approach 2

Approach 3






Affecting Some/Many


Possible Examples



Possible Examples






Possible Examples

Specific program and policy reforms in areas such as:

•Access to Assistive Devices

•Employment and Income Assistance

•Education

•Employment

•Housing

•Health Care

•Disability Supports


Approach 1

Approach 2

Approach 3

Approach 4






Affecting Some/Many


Strengthening Use of Existing Human

Rights Tools

Possible Examples



Possible Examples






Possible Examples

Specific program and policy reforms in areas such as:

•Access to Assistive Devices

•Employment and Income Assistance

•Education

•Employment

•Housing

•Health Care

•Disability Supports

Possible Examples

Initiatives such as:

•A major “know your rights” campaign

•Increased public activism based on a model like Waterwatchers


Approach

1Approach

2Approach

3Approach

4

A Broad Issue Which Affects Persons with Disabilities

Among Many Others




Affecting Some/Many


Strengthening Use of Existing Human Rights

Tools

CriteriaNo. 1: Provide meaningful and long term benefits for Manitobans with a disability

High High High Medium

No. 2: Provide much higher profile for disability issues

Low to Medium

HighLow to

MediumMedium

No. 3: Can be supported broadly within the disability community

Medium Medium to HighLow to

MediumMedium

No. 4: Can be achieved within the next three years

Low Medium to High Variable Medium

No. 5: Cannot be easily rolled back

Medium to High

Medium to High Low High

Overall Ranking 3 1 3 2

Tentative Ratings and RankingsCriteria and Approaches

Nor is it Unproven!International experience demonstrates that all jurisdictions in Europe and the United States have arrived at the conclusion that mandatory regulations, based on the American model, are the only way to resolutely, equitably and efficiently introduce full accessibility over a reasonable period of time.

David BakerMoving Backwards: Canada’s State of

Transportation Accessibility in an International ContextFinal Report to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (2005)

It’s Not a New Notion!Disability rights advocates in Canada have long argued for legislation similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Such legislation, they suggest, would move beyond a complaints-driven system and address, in a more comprehensive way, the obstacles confronted by people with disabilities. . .

In Canada, the report of the 1996 Federal Task Force on Disability Issues, Equal Citizenship for Canadians with Disabilities: The Will to Act, recommended that the government introduce a Canadians with Disabilities Act with enforcement and monitoring mechanisms. To date, the federal government has not taken this approach.

Canadian Human Rights Commission 1998 Annual Report

A Standards-Based Approach to Accessibility

Proposed Path Forward

Precedents and Models

The Big Four

•The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

•The Disability Discrimination Act (1992) – Australia

•The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) – United Kingdom

•The Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act (2005)


Precedents and ModelsProposed Path Forward

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)The Thumbnail• Signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush.

Polling suggest that Bush’s support for the ADA was the second most important factor in securing his election

• Wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability

• Affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal

• Covers governments, non-profit and private sectors

• Establishes standards in:• Employment• State and Local Government Activities• Public Transportation (1988 Air Carrier Act covers airlines and

airports)• Public Accommodations• Telecommunications

• Compliance is based on complaint system with various federal government departments responsible for handling and taking action


Positive Impacts•Americans with disabilities have greater access to goods and services from businesses, state and local governments, and their local communities

•Service animals for people with vision and other impairments are more accepted than ever before

•Greater availability of relatively inexpensive assistive technology has helped people with vision and hearing impairments overcome information and communication barriers to all forms of community participation

•People with mobility impairments have experienced substantial improvements in physical access to transportation, businesses and government agencies

•As workers, people with disabilities are more likely to receive accommodations and less likely to be terminated due to their disabilities

Based in findings from The Impact of the American with Disabilities Act: Assessing the Progress Toward the Goal of the ADA

National Council on DisabilityJuly 26, 2007


Major Limitations•Reliance on complaint process is seen to have placed most of the burden of enforcement on individual persons with disabilities with responsible government bodies lacking resources required for investigation and enforcement

•A number of Supreme Court rulings have denied ADA protection to many people with ‘lesser’ disabilities who have experienced discrimination

•Suggestion that ADA employment standards have had unintended consequences by creating additional legal risks for employers who then quietly avoid hiring people with disabilities to avoid these risks


The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) – AustraliaThe Thumbnail• Passed by the Parliament of Australia in 1992

• Provides for protection from discrimination in:• Employment • Education• Access to premises used by the public. • Provision of goods, services and facilities. • Accommodation. • Buying land. • Activities of clubs and associations. • Sport • Government laws and programs

• Specific standards in only place for transportation and education

• Complaints made under the DDA are made to the HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission), which also handles complaints relating to the racial, sex and age discrimination


A Report CardOverall, the DDA has been reasonably effective in reducing discrimination. But its report card is mixed and there is some way to go before its objectives are achieved.

•Access to public transport and education has improved more than employment opportunities

•People with physical disabilities have been helped more than those with mental illness or intellectual disabilities—but other factors might be relevant

•People with disabilities in regional areas, from non-English speaking backgrounds and Indigenous Australians still face particular disadvantages—but race discrimination, language, socioeconomic background and remoteness also play a part

The DDA meets the Competition Principles Agreement legislation review requirements.

•Many benefits are intangible but widespread

•Costs of compliance are likely to be quite small for many organisations

•In-built safeguards help ensure a net benefit to the Australian community.

•No satisfactory alternatives for achieving its objectives existExcerpts from Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Productivity Commission Inquiry ReportApril 30, 2004


The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) – UKThe Thumbnail• UK parliamentary Act passed in 1995 which makes it unlawful to

discriminate against people in respect of their disabilities in relation to employment, the provision of goods and services, education and transport

• Significant legislative amendments and refinements through to present

• 2001 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act clarifies and increases requirements of schools, colleges, universities and providers of adult education and youth services

• 2005 Disability Discrimination Act

• Extends coverage

• Requires that service providers make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities

• Creates positive ‘Disability Equality Duty’ for all public sector bodies requiring that they pay ’due regard‘ to the promotion of equality for disabled people in every area of their work (even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons)


Additional Features• Standards set clear requirements for transportation providers and

enforced by the Department of Transportation

• Extensive development and use of ‘Codes of Practice’ to establish clear expectations for others areas covered under the Act. These codes have statutory force and are used by courts and tribunals when considering relevant cases

• General enforcement is based on a complaint process handled by the Equality and Human Rights Commission with has powers across all equality law (race, sex, disability, religion and belief, sexual orientation and age)


The Thumbnail• Provincial legislation passed unanimously by all parties on third

reading in the Ontario Legislative Assembly on May 10, 2005

• Enacted to achieve accessibility for all Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025

• Covers both the public, private and not-for profit sectors

• Supplements but does not diminish other legal obligations. Persons with disabilities continue to have access to all other pre-existing protections, including the human rights code, and avenues of recourse to protect and defend their rights

• Focus of the Act is on the development, implementation and enforcement of accessibility standards. Accessibility standards will be developed, initially, in five areas:

• Customer Service (became effective on January 1, 2008)• Transportation (draft regulation under review)• Built Environment • Information and Communications • Employment

The Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act (AODA)

Other Key Features•Monitoring and enforcement to be based on reporting by obligated organizations and reviews and investigations by government agencies

•Persons with disabilities comprise one-half of members of committees drafting standards. Disability groups with representatives participating in the committees include:


• Adult Learning Disabilities Resource • Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians • AODA Alliance • Association for Persons with Physical

Disabilities of Windsor and Essex County • Audio Tactile Network • Augmentative Communications Partnerships

Canada • Canadian Council of the Blind (Ontario

Division) • Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work • Canadian Hard of Hearing Association • Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario

• Canadian National Institute for the Blind • Canadian Paraplegic Association • Citizens with Disabilities – Ontario • Community Living Ontario• Disabled Persons Community Resources • Goodwill Industries • Independent Living Resource Centre • Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario • MS Society • Ontario March of Dimes• Toronto Rehabilitation Institute

• Requires annual progress reports from Minister with a four-year comprehensive review of the Act followed by reviews every three years thereafter

• Requires five-year reviews and updating of each set of standards

• Includes substantial emphasis on public education and information and other supports to obligated organizations

A Proposed Basis for Manitoba Legislation

Provincial accessibility legislation to be enacted in order to:Remedy the systematic exclusion and discrimination that persons with disabilities have and continue to experience in all aspects of life in Manitoba

The Legislation must:• Cover all disabilities

• Reflect a principled approach to equality

• Move beyond the complaints-driven system to comprehensively address discrimination and barriers

• Establish a definite target date to achieve a barrier-free Manitoba

• Require the development of clear, progressive, mandatory and date-specific standards in all major areas related to accessibility that will apply to public and private sectors

• Incorporate ongoing leadership roles for disability community

• Establish timely and effective process for monitoring and enforcement of standards with significant penalties for non-compliance

• Supersede all other provincial legislation, regulations or policies which provide lesser protections

• Not diminish other legal and human rights protections


Arguments For and AgainstThe Pros

1. Focuses on a universally appealing objective that will build on interest in the CRPD and the CHRM

2. Provides a foundation for reform in several areas of concern shared among all persons with disabilities, as well as range of particular priorities

3. Promises to result in systemic changes that address the social, physical and economic infrastructures

4. Will shift the ‘burden’ away from persons with disabilities and promote broad attitudinal and awareness gains that will buttress public support for progress on other fronts

5. Raises and will sustain high profile on disability issues in the broad public discourse

6. Provides for ongoing collaboration and cooperation in the disability community

7. Legislative base provides durability

8. Clear precedents and working models are available from which to build

9. Addresses a major unfulfilled commitment from Full Citizenship

10. Is consistent with national priorities that emerged as part of End Exclusion and the approaches recommended in Out of the Shadows at Last (The Kirby Report)

11. Addresses new emphasis on social exclusion in emerging focus on poverty reduction / provides cutting-edge economic development opportunities

12. Few if any other reasonable alternatives available to achieve same range and depth of benefits


The Cons

1. Strays from an ‘indivisibility’ of rights approach / may be seen to feed into ‘hierarchy’ of protected groups

2. Does not address all disability concerns including a range of very important ‘bread and butter’ issues

3. Will take considerable and sustained energy to achieve

4. Will have very limited impact if standards, monitoring and/or enforcement are weak

5. Will likely not be possible in the 3-year window if the provincial government is not interested and supportive / it might move to an election issue

Arguments For and Against


The Pros1. Focuses on a universally appealing objective that will

build on interest in the CRPD and the CHRM

2. Provides a foundation for reform in several areas of concern shared among all persons with disabilities, as well as range of particular priorities

3. Promises to result in systemic changes that address the social, physical and economic infrastructures

4. Will shift the ‘burden’ away from persons with disabilities and promote broad attitudinal and awareness gains that will buttress public support for progress on other fronts

5. Raises and sustain high profile on disability issues in the broad public discourse

6. Provides for ongoing collaboration and cooperation in the disability community

7. Legislative base provides durability

8. Clear precedents and working models are available from which to build

9. Addresses a major unfulfilled commitment from Full Citizenship

10. Is consistent with national priorities that emerged as part of End Exclusion and the approaches recommended in Out of the Shadows at Last (The Kirby Report)

11. Addresses new emphasis on social exclusion in emerging focus on poverty reduction / provides cutting-edge economic development opportunities

12. Few if any other reasonable alternatives available to achieve same range and depth of benefits

The Cons1. Strays from an ‘indivisibility’ of rights approach /

may be seen to feed into ‘hierarchy’ of protected groups

2. Does not address all disability concerns including a range of very important ‘bread and butter’ issues

3. Will take considerable and sustained energy to achieve

4. Will have very limited impact if standards, monitoring and/or enforcement are weak

5. Will likely not be possible in the 3-year window if the provincial government is not interested and supportive / it might move to an election issue

Arguments For and AgainstOn Balance?

A Proposed Basis for Manitoba Legislation

Provincial accessibility legislation to be enacted in order to:Remedy the systematic exclusion and discrimination that persons with disabilities have and continue to experience in all aspects of life in Manitoba

The Legislation must:• Cover all disabilities

• Reflect a principled approach to equality

• Move beyond the complaints-driven system to comprehensively address discrimination and barriers

• Establish a definite target date to achieve a barrier-free Manitoba

• Require the development of clear, progressive, mandatory and date-specific standards in all major areas related to accessibility that will apply to public and private sectors

• Incorporate ongoing leadership roles for disability community

• Establish timely and effective process for monitoring and enforcement of standards with significant penalties for non-compliance

• Supersede all other provincial legislation, regulations or policies which provide lesser protections

• Not diminish other legal and human rights protections

Design Issues That will Require Broad Consultation

1. Principles• What values and principles inform the approach?

2. Roles for the Disability Community• Nothing about us without us!

3. Definition of Disability• How is coverage defined?

4. Standards• In what areas?• What scope?• Who develops?• Based on what criteria?• What measures to provide for ongoing refinement?

5. Compliance and Enforcement• Who is responsible for enforcement and with what resources?• What are penalties for non-compliance?

6. Accountability and Transparency of/in Overall Process

7. ‘Tightness’ of Enabling Legislation• What level of generality for framework?


Documents

Where We Are Today