Kenora Association for Community Living

The intent of this paper is to provide a resource to Board and Staff of KACL on issues concerning social justice for persons with disabilities. Some issues which should be addressed by this paper include

(1) What rights must be secured to ensure a meaningful and satisfactory lifestyle.

(2) How can political, moral and social rights be enhanced or honoured whether legal or not.

(3) Which political, moral, economic, cultural, civic and social rights should be converted to legal rights,

(4) How do we convert them without externalizing responsibility any more than is presently the case with political rights.

(5) What are the long-term implications of doing so?

“Social Citizenship” or New Property Rights

Years ago, T. H. Marshall suggested that human rights are not absolute but are derived from prevailing social, economic and political conditions. Marshall in 1950 coined the term ‘social citizenship’ to cover a set of rights ‘ranging from the right to modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society’ (quoted from Vogt 199 page 174).

Charles Reich developed a theory of property to cover the property protection of the things over which most people depend upon more than land to provide then economic security such as pensions, social welfare and so forth[1] . Reich’s concept of property rights would cover such things as property in jobs, social security benefits (explicitly denied in the U.S. Supreme Court case (Flemming vs. Nestor, 1960) and KACL might include property in jobs, health and education.

Opposition and Arguments to a Rights Based Approach to Securing Social Justice

Generally most political philosophers agree that you can’t have both total liberty and total equality. Liberty of action among men inevitably leads to inequality. Fraternity is the moderating factor.

In an excellent article in McGill Law Journal (2000) 45 McGill L.J. 567 Mr Justice Charles D Gonthier concludes

When our current society comes across seemingly unsolvable problems...it may be that part of the solution should involve an understanding of the balance between liberty, equality and fraternity. Liberty can only be enjoyed in its fullest form in a community that respects and cares for one another. Equality means nothing if it is not informed by the actual differences between people, which may require those in positions of power or advantage to take additional steps to assist those less advantaged. This is substantial equality. It is democratic liberalism. It is community. It is fraternity.

Several social philosophers and commentators have asserted that hyper promotion of rights leads to inevitable impoverishment of community and corresponding ultimately leaves vulnerable people ultimately less well off. Many commentators have voiced opposition to what they see as the modern individualized society’s over emphasis on rights[2]

The Opposition to a Rights Orientation from Wolfensberger

Dr Wolfensberger has gained notoriety as a defender of the rights of the handicapped especially in the area of life and the avoidance of “Death making”. He has argued against a “radical rights approach” to protecting consumers. The following notes were delivered with their presentation:

Problems That Arise When Modernistic Radical Individualism Combines with a Radical Human Law/Rights Position

Modernists tend to embrace a socially decontextualized “Solo rights-bearer Notion
Modernists disproportionately demand rights in ways that totally ignore the legitimacy of the competing rights of others
Modernists irrationally feel that they have a legal right to a good life
Modernists are incoherent in demanding their legal rights plus transcendent rights, plus what legal rights cannot deliver
Rights get severed from their ancient and universal links to obligations/Responsibilities/duties

1. Some people want/get rights without obligations

2. Some people get Obligations without Rights

The severing of obligations from rights has eroded a sense of having extra-legal duties
Rights get severed from the competencies necessary to exercise them
Rights get severed from a responsibility to live with the adverse consequences of exercising them
The deleterious impact of the exercise of radical individual rights on the larger good is ignored; the adverse consequences are laid on other parties; Radical decommunitization

The Opposition from Communitarians

Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of ‘liberal theory and practice’[3] . Mary Ann Glendon[4] has suggested that rhetoric of personal liberty and rights tends to erode the social foundations upon which freedom rests, and impedes compromise, mutual understanding, and the discovery of common ground. A political language saturated with rights undermines our capacity for public discussion of the right ordering of our lives together.

Analogous to the issue of role of fats in western diet, rights are not a bad thing. The human body needs fats to properly function. But in the Western world too much fat in diets cause health problems. By analogy rights are not bad things. To the contrary, individual rights are necessary for a meaningful and satisfactory lifestyle and the smooth functioning of society. But too much talk about rights without similar talk about responsibilities leaders to an unhealthy society.

A tendency to frame nearly every social controversy in terms of a clash of rights impedes compromise, mutual understanding, and the discovery of common ground. A penchant for absolute formulations promotes unrealistic expectations and ignores both social costs and the rights of others. A near–aphasia concerning responsibilities makes it seem legitimate to accepts the benefits of living in a democratic social welfare republic without assuming the corresponding personal and civic obligations.[5]

Arguments based on View of Debilitating effects of Systems and Outsourcing to Professionals

Perhaps the best spoke person for this argument is John McKnight as expressed in his book The Careless Society, Community and Its Counterfeits; Peter Block as expressed in Community, The Structure of Belonging and The two of then in The Abundant Community, Awakening the Power of Families and Neighborhoods.

In The Careless Society[6] , John McKnight suggests that competent communities have been invaded, captured, and colonized by professional services – with devastating results. Overwhelmed by these social services, the spirit of community falters: families’ collapse, schools fail, violence spreads, and medical systems spiral out of control. “The enemy is not poverty, sickness, and disease,” states McKnight. “The enemy is a set of interests that need dependency masked by service”.

McKnight and Block (2010) indicate there are four stages in the transition from "community and family competence" toward "professionalization and communal incompetence:

What was a condition of being human is converted into a problem to be solved
Care becomes commodified, then reduced into a curriculum so that it can be categorized, taught, and then certified,
What is personal becomes a private conversation with the professional
The management mindset takes over. Providing efficient, consistent, and predictable services becomes a matter of aggregating the deficiencies of the people in the target market.

Commenting on the attempt of professional organizations to impose their wide discretion over entry, expulsion and formulation of rules governing the conduct of their members on the population at large, David Young in his book the Rule of Experts commented,

“Occupational regulation has served to limit consumer choice, raise consumer costs, increase practitioner income, limit practitioner mobility, deprived the poor of adequate services, and restricted job opportunities for minorities – all without a demonstrated improvement in quality or safety of the licensed activities.[7] ”

Examples of such regulation include: Certified Social Workers, Regulated Health Practitioners Act.

Examples where attempts have been made PECS (Picture Exchange Communications Systems)

Externalized Responsibility [8]

The opposite poles in the debate on the issues involved in the Ontarians With Disabilities Act and in the current debates concerning the ‘Welfare State’ are not in total disagreement. One side is not against taking care of people who are unable to care for themselves nor is the other side against people assuming responsibility for their own lives. In a different context, David Schmidtz indicated, “Differences are ones of emphasis, of what we think needs be said emphatically and what ought simply be taken to be business as usual”. Individual versus Collective Responsibility is not the real issue. More crucial is a distinction between what Schmidtz calls internalized and externalized responsibility. Economists say a decision involves a negative externality when someone other than the decision maker ends up bearing some of the decision’s costs (as for example a pulp mill dumping wastes into a river to be dealt with by the people down stream. “ Responsibility is externalized when people do not take responsibility: for messes they cause, for messes in which they find themselves…responsibility is internalized when agents take responsibility for their welfare, for their future, for the consequences of their actions”[9] . Collective responsibility can be a form of internalized responsibility. So when families willingly take responsibility for each other, we can see them as internalizing responsibility”.

Note on Legal Rights vs. Other "Rights"

When the typical person on the street talks of possessing certain “rights” he does not distinguish between moral or ethical, social, political, and legal “rights”. There may be a moral, ethical, social, or political rights that should be treated with respect, but unless there is a legal duty on the part of others to provide such respect, there is no legal “right” or entitlement. For example, you do not respect someone if you disturb him or her by loud boisterous insults at a political meeting (heckling). Morality and Social etiquette forbid such actions. However, only in or near a church service is it a legal right not to be disturbed (Canadian Criminal Code). However, you may not throw a pie at a politicians. Both criminal sanctions and civil rights sanctions (damages) may be used to enforce the right not to be assaulted. Only when the State, through its means of enforcement, enforces the observance of a right can a claim be called a legal right or entitlement. Similarly, Christian morality dictates that we should feed the poor. However, the poor are only legally entitled to Ontario Disability Support Pension, Family Benefit Assistance or General Welfare

Equally so the existence of a legal right does not necessarily mean that such a right has moral quality. For example, in a previous age, a legal right to “own a “slave” did not mean that all believed that slavery was a moral right.

The public may believe that persons with disabilities are legally entitled to minimum supports from state funded agencies or Associations such as are provided by KACL. But such supports are only discretionary and MCSS determines what level of supports they will collectively provide. If the Government of the day decides to reduce supports beneath political acceptable levels, only a change of Government and not an application to a court will change support levels. In such a changed world such rights would be a legal entitlement.

A Historical Perspective on Accessibility Legislation

This analysis paper commenced with discussions on an CLO campaign to promote a “strong” "Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act was the short title of the Ontario Government's Bill 125 - "An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities and to make related amendments to other Acts". The Act received Royal Assent on 14 December 2001 and came into force on February 7, 2002. It was replaced with by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 in 2005, and is no longer in force.

The Bill's original purpose had been to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for persons with disabilities - a right of full participation. It was to require the timely removal of existing new barriers, within reasonable time lines and in accordance with reasonable cost parameters. It was meant to apply to employment, public transit, education, provincial and municipal government services and facilities, and other goods, services and facilities offered to the public.

Those who supported the idea of an ODA hoped that it would require government bodies, and others bound by law to identify the barriers that they now have which impede persons with disabilities from full participation, and to design reasonable plans consistent with their resources to remove these barriers and to prevent new ones from being created, all within reasonable time lines. They wanted it to allow for the enactment of regulations with input from disability groups, business interests and others, to set out measures to be implemented to achieve the ODA's goals, and reasonable time lines for their achievement. It was meant to incorporate an effective, fair and timely process for enforcement.

However, Bill 125 was severely criticized because the act[ merely required voluntary action without enforcement, penalties or deadlines. The government passed a stronger, more effective Act, which they did in 2005 with the enactment of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005(AODA). many of its provisions do not come into force until 2025.

The Ontario Human Right’s act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of mental “handicaps” [qua disability] in a number of areas of activities. However, it does not require corporations or persons to ensure that persons with disabilities can participate fully in employment or the life of the community. The desires of those spearheading the passing of a strong Ontarians with Disabilities Act desired to accomplish the latter.

Convention on the Rights of The Disabled

On March 11 2010 Canada Ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Disabled which may be found at http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml.

Article 1 - Purpose

The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.

Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

Article 2 - Definitions

For the purposes of the present Convention:

"Communication" includes languages, display of text, Braille, tactile communication, large print, accessible multimedia as well as written, audio, plain-language, human-reader and augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication, including accessible information and communication technology;
"Language" includes spoken and signed languages and other forms of non spoken languages;
"Discrimination on the basis of disability" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;
"Reasonable accommodation" means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;
"Universal design" means the design of products, environments, programs and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. “Universal design” shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed.

Article 3 - General principles

The principles of the present Convention shall be:

Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;
Non-discrimination;
Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;
Equality of opportunity;
Accessibility;
Equality between men and women;
Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Article 4 - General obligations

1. States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability. To this end, States Parties undertake:

To adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention;
To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities;
To take into account the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities in all policies and programs;
To refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present Convention and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformity with the present Convention;
To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability by any person, organization or private enterprise;
To undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, services, equipment and facilities, as defined in article 2 of the present Convention, which should require the minimum possible adaptation and the least cost to meet the specific needs of a person with disabilities, to promote their availability and use, and to promote universal design in the development of standards and guidelines;
To undertake or promote research and development of, and to promote the availability and use of new technologies, including information and communications technologies, mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities, giving priority to technologies at an affordable cost;
To provide accessible information to persons with disabilities about mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, including new technologies, as well as other forms of assistance, support services and facilities;
To promote the training of professionals and staff working with persons with disabilities in the rights recognized in this Convention so as to better provide the assistance and services guaranteed by those rights.

2. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, each State Party undertakes to take measures to the maximum of its available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights, without prejudice to those obligations contained in the present Convention that are immediately applicable according to international law.

3. In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations.

Previous Statements by KACL

The Association’s Shared Responsibility Paper speaks about “an equal assurances of life opportunities”.

Social Justice

During the summer of 2010 the Executive Director reviewed the past and recent history of the “Social Citizenship” issue with Community Living Ontario, the Federal and Provincial discussions and pronouncements on the “Social Union” and the general discussion in the Internet community and suggested that the term Social Justice was more in line with the attainment of “human”, “civil”, “political”, “cultural” and “economical” rights that the Association and those we serve were seeking. This term had both a past dating the middle of the 19^th century and has been expanded in the 20th century. The original term was coined by Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the concept expanded by John Stuart Mills in the 1860s, by John Wesley and by John Rawls in the 19^th century. In Canada its spokesperson has been seen as Tommy Douglas who in 2004 beat out Terry Fox, Pierre Trudeau, and Frederick Banting to be named the Greatest Canadian in a CBC poll. Social justice in all its various pronouncements is concerned with human, political, civil, cultural and economic. It is based on concepts of human rights, economical and social equality rights but it emphasizes cooperation rather than conflict. It also emphasizes social justice as a way of life rather than abstract theorizing Margaret Conrad, an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2004 and a director of Canada’s History Society, recalls a speech of Douglas that she heard as a member of the Progressive Conservative Students Society at Acadia University in the late 1960s. Douglas’s comments on social justice:

Social justice is like taking a bath. You have to do it every day or pretty soon you start to stink.

In searching for an enlarged definition that captures what KACL is advocating the following definition was discovered:

The goal of social justice is full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure. We envision a society in which individuals are both self-determining (able to develop their full capacities and interdependent (capable of interacting democratically with others). Social justice involves social actors who have a sense of their own agency as well as a sense of social responsibility toward and with others, their society, and the broader world in which we live. These are conditions we wish not only for our own society but also for every society in our interdependent global community. (Adams, Bell, Griffin, Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice

Further emphasis can be provided by the additional quote of Jerome M. Segal, 1999 in Graceful Simplicity, which speaks to KACL’s desire to reduce poverty in many dimensions:

The human good is too diverse to try to capture either its richness or its poverty in a single dimension. For instance, we can identify five forms of impoverishment:

Material impoverishment, meaning inadequacies of goods and services such that the individual experiences (or is exposed to) disease, hunger, starvation. This could be caused by inadequacies of monetary income, inadequacies of public investment, inadequacies of human support systems, or even simply bad luck.

Intellectual impoverishment, meaning an inadequacy of education and/or absence of interaction with others so that the individual does not partake in a life of the mind. This can be brought about through lack of schooling leading to illiteracy, or more commonly a culture of intellectual isolation.

Spiritual impoverishment, meaning the absence of any transcendent meaning in the experiences or activities of the individual. This might include, but certainly should not be limited to or defined in terms of, religious experience.

Aesthetic impoverishment, meaning the absence of beauty within the person's life, whether it is the beauty of material possessions, the natural environment, the urban world, or the absence of ceremony.

Social impoverishment, meaning an absence of central relationships, of friends and loved ones. (Jerome M. Segal 1999)

Our shared Responsibility paper speaks to the responsibility of various social actors.

The Role of the Family

Glendon argues that with the growth of the modern welfare state, the basis of wealth and status in society has altered the position of the family. The ‘new family’ to use Glendon’s terminology, has emerged in tandem with the ‘new property’.

The Church

In John McKnight’s The Careless Society there is a beautiful chapter entitled ‘Christian Service’. In it he claims, “We are Christians, people who have it backwards, we serve rather than rule- act as servants rather than lords.” But as McKnight acknowledges that many Christians use the idea to conquer, rule and dominate others in Christ’s name. “It is not enough, therefore, to ask whether someone says he or she is serving Christ. There are bad and good servants”. Bad servants conquer, dominate, exploit and control. They become lords rather than servants, McKnight questions whether the human reality is always to make servant hood into lordship. Christ concluding remarks in St. John’s reporting of the last Supper was to call his disciples friends rather than servants. McKnight concludes:

Perhaps beyond the revolution of Christian Service is the final revolution, the possibility of being friends. Friends are people who know, care, respect, struggle, love justice, and have a commitment to each other through time.

Why friends rather than servants? Perhaps it is because He (Christ) knew that servants could always become lords but that friends could not. Servants are people who know the mysteries that can control those to whom they can give “help”. Friends are people who know each other. They are free to give and receive help.

Could the Church become a place where persons with disabilities might find friends?

Community Organizations

See also Various Dossiers files including Financial Income (Should This be renamed Financial Security), Housing, Transportation, Education,

Financial Income

· ODSP Issues

· Making the Disability Tax Credit Refundable

· Employment and Workfare

Housing

· Availability and affordability

Transportation

· Civic Responsibility

· Availability and Affordability

Appendices

Mission

The goal of KACL is to ensure that all persons with special needs have the opportunity to live a meaningful and satisfying lifestyle and interact as an equal in their community by providing continuing opportunities for personal growth through education, training, support, advocacy and an informed public.

ODA Resolution Unanimously passed by the Ontario Legislation

October 29, 1998

In the opinion of this House, since persons with disabilities in Ontario face systemic barriers in access to employment, services, goods, facilities and accommodation; and since, all Ontarians will benefit from the removal of these barriers, thereby enabling these persons to enjoy equal opportunity and full participation in the life of the province; and since Premier Harris promised in writing during the last election in the letter from Michael D. Harris to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee dated May 24,1995 to:

(a) Enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within its current term of office; and

(b) Work together with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, amongst others, in the development of such legislation.

And since this House unanimously passed a resolution on May 16, 1996 calling on the Ontario Government to keep this promise, Therefore this House resolves that the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should embody the following principles:

1. The purpose of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should be to effectively ensure to persons with disabilities in Ontario the equal opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in all aspects of life in Ontario based on their individual merit, by removing existing barriers confronting them and by preventing the creation of new barriers. It should seek to achieve a barrier free Ontario for persons with disabilities within as short a time as is reasonably possible with implementation to begin immediately upon proclamation.

2. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act's requirements should supersede all other legislation, regulations or policies which either conflict with it, or which provide lesser protections and entitlements to persons with disabilities;

3. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require government entities, public premises, companies and organizations to be made fully accessible to all persons with disabilities through the removal of existing barriers and the prevention of the creation of new barriers, within strict time frames to be prescribed in the legislation or regulations;

4. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require the providers of goods, services and facilities to the public to ensure that their goods, services and facilities are fully usable by persons with disabilities, and that they are designed to reasonably accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. Included among services, goods and facilities, among other things, are all aspects of education including primary, secondary and post-secondary education, as well as providers of transportation and communication facilities (to the extent that Ontario can regulate these) and public sector providers of information to the public e.g. governments. Providers of these goods, services and facilities should be required to devise and implement detailed plans to remove existing barriers within legislated timetables;

5. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require public and private sector employers to take proactive steps to achieve barrier-free workplaces within prescribed time limits. Among other things, employers should be required to identify existing barriers which impede persons with disabilities, and then to devise and implement plans for the removal of these barriers, and for the prevention of new barriers in the workplace;

6. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a prompt and effective process for enforcement. It should not simply incorporate the existing procedures for filing discrimination complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as these are too slow and cumbersome, and yield inadequate remedies;

7. As part of its enforcement process, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act should provide for a process of regulation making to define with clarity the steps required for compliance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, It should be open for such regulations to be made on an industry-by-industry basis, or sector-by-sector basis. This should include a requirement that input be obtained from affected groups such as persons with disabilities before such regulations are enacted. It should also provide persons with disabilities with the opportunity to apply to have regulations made in specific sectors of the economy;

8. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should also mandate the Government of Ontario to provide education and other information resources to companies, individuals and groups who seek to comply with the requirements of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act;

9. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should also require the Government of Ontario to take affirmative steps to promote the development and distribution in Ontario of new adaptive technologies and services for persons with disabilities;

10. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act should require the provincial and municipal governments to make it a strict condition of funding any program, or of purchasing any services, goods or facilities, that they be designed to be fully accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Any grant or contract, which does not so provide is void and unenforceable by the grant-recipient or contractor with the government in question;

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act must be more than mere window dressing. It should contribute meaningfully to the improvement of the position of persons with disabilities in Ontario. It must have real force and effect.

Definitions:

Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy in its various appellations –constitutional democracy, representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, modern democracy is a regime – a political form of society that is exclusively at the level of the political leaving aside its possible accompaniment with a particular economic system. It is a specific form of organizing human coexistence political that results from the articulation between two different traditions: (1) political liberalism (rule of law, and individual rights; (2) democratic traditions of popular sovereignty[10]

Democratic Capitalism

Social Democracy

The core value of social democracy – the sense that communities and equal citizenship matter, that ordinary people need to work together to improve their lives, to increase their ability to cope with the impact of change – is a good value. It is the "ought" that gives us the vision to face a difficult world. The value is deep and enduring, but the policy instruments we choose to express it must change and evolve in response to experience. Some people get so attached to a nostrum-government ownership, a particular method of registration, one system of taxation or another – that they fail to see these policies are just tools. They are not the idea of social democracy itself. The essence of social democracy is its belief in the equal right of every person to enjoy the good things of life, its commitments to freedom, and its recognition of the enduring value of human solidarity.[11]

Except from In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues, Ministers of Social Services, December 1997

In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues

A Canadian Approach

In Unison is a vision made up of values, principles and building blocks that affirms the importance of ensuring the full participation of persons with disabilities in society.

Persons with disabilities participate as full citizens in all aspects of Canadian society. The full participation of persons with disabilities requires the commitment of all segments of society. The realization of the vision will allow persons with disabilities to maximize their independence and enhance their well-being through access to required supports and the elimination of barriers that prevent their full participation.

Although the vision does not promote special treatment of persons with disabilities, it does recognize the need for specialized services for persons with disabilities within the generic framework for the delivery of services and supports. The intent is that persons with disabilities will have the same opportunities as other Canadians. The vision also reflects the changing attitudes of society. Most persons with disabilities no longer are seen or see themselves as dependent individuals with no ability to control their lives. They no longer are considered permanently unemployable or unable to contribute to society. Indeed, persons with disabilities contribute to Canadian society through art, culture, sports, political, voluntary and community activities, and other activities which are not solely economic. These realities must be reflected in legislation, public policy and programs.

To realize the vision, governments have identified an overarching theme of citizenship and three key building blocks of disability supports, employment and income. These building blocks are guided by a set of values and principles.

In meeting the needs of persons with disabilities, governments recognize above all that an integrated approach is required. An integrated approach will help ensure that actions taken in one building block are consistent and complementary with actions taken in another building block. If actions are uncoordinated, they can offset or reduce the effectiveness of actions taken in another area.

Governments can facilitate, for example, the transition to work for persons with disabilities by adopting complementary income and employment strategies. Currently, persons with disabilities face significant barriers to work because access to disability supports is tied rigidly to eligibility for specific programs such as income support, training and employment. Some income programs also adopt an 'all or nothing' approach to providing financial assistance. Individuals are classified as either incapable (eligible for income support) or fully capable (of working) and as such, income programs do not provide an incentive to work or volunteer. Individuals who find work not only lose their income support but also may lose their disability supports. Many individuals are unable to make the transition to work unless they can purchase disability supports with their employment income. The rigid link between income programs and disability supports as well as the lack of adequate incentives in many income programs to pursue work or volunteer opportunities counteract employment strategies targeted for persons with disabilities.

From this perspective, In Unison promotes a common approach by governments to persons with disabilities. The objective is to ensure a seamless and coordinated system of benefits and services for Canadians with disabilities. At the same time, governments recognize that each jurisdiction requires a degree of flexibility to address the specific circumstances and priorities of its citizens. Moreover, In Unison recognizes the need for governments to focus their initial efforts on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of programs and the coordination between programs. At the same time, the document recognizes that this new disability agenda may require new investment or reinvestment as fiscal resources permit.

In Unison builds on years of consultation and government study. The building blocks -disability supports, employment and income- evolved from the many initiatives undertaken by governments over the years to improve the lives of persons with disabilities. The building blocks have been guided and shaped by this extensive body of work, summarized in Appendix D. In Unison is also consistent with recent reform initiatives by the Government of Canada and provincial/territorial governments to harmonize income support programs and to develop and implement the Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities initiative (successor to the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons program).

Values

In developing this document, jurisdictions focused on the set of values rooted in the notions of equality, the social union and federalism.

Equality is a right guaranteed to all Canadian citizens. The values inherent in the concept of equality include self-determination, autonomy, dignity, respect, integration, participation and independent living. These values are consistent with those that shape the social union (Appendix E): compassion, dignity, sharing, fairness, equity, equal opportunity and independence. The values that underlie Canadian federalism provide for mutual respect among jurisdictions and an acceptance of diversity; flexibility to respond to local priorities and circumstances; and citizen engagement and public accountability.

In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues

Principles

In Unison also is guided by three sets of principles that relate to the substance and process of reform. The substance of the proposed changes is informed by the principle of inclusion that seeks to enhance the full participation of persons with disabilities in all domains of Canadian society. The process of reform is shaped by the work of the social union and the principles inherent in the concept of flexible and efficient federalism. Finally, both the substance and process are framed by a set of principles that guide social policy reform.

Inclusion

The full inclusion of persons with disabilities is a central theme in previous reports and initiatives of both governments and nongovernmental organizations. The Federal Task Force on Disability Issues was the most recent major initiative that employed this theme as a key organizing concept.

Participation and inclusion also are embodied in the following principles set out more recently by Federal/Provincial/ Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services. These principles were derived from the federal/provincial/territorial review, Mainstream 1992 — Pathway to Integration.

Rights and responsibilities: Persons with disabilities have the same rights and the same responsibilities as other Canadians. They are entitled, as others are, to the equal protection and the equal benefit of the law and require measures for achieving equality.

Empowerment: Persons with disabilities require the means to maximize their independence and enhance their well-being.

Participation: Persons with disabilities require full access to the social, economic and physical infrastructure that supports our society so that they can participate fully and equally in their communities.

Food and Meal Distribution

Formal Name	Informal Names	Program Descriptions	Total Served /Disabled[12]	# Volunteers /Disabled
Lake of the Woods Salvation Army		Breakfast 7.15 – 8:00 Monday - Fridays	50-85	6/ 1 or 2 irregular
		Food Bank & Vouchers	“Single, Family 2 and Family 3 Bags” + Safeway Vouchers
		Christmas Hampers
Agape Table	Soup Kitchen, Soup Line	Lunch 11:00 – 12.15 Mon. Tues. Thurs. Fridays September 26 to May	60-85/5-10	5 – 8, Total of 20 – 25 / 5
Kenora Fellowship Centre		65-95 for Coffee	65-95 / 5
Kenora Fellowship Centre		Lunch when Agape closes in Summer
Baptist Church	Open Door	11:00-1:00 , Saturday Lunch	50-75 / 5-10	15-20/ 1
		Thanksgiving Dinner	100/5-10	20-25
		Food Distributed Sunday to Friday	3	20-25
Knox United		Subway Food Vouchers 2 a month

Case 1

Part 1

John (John is severely mentally handicapped) and Jack life share in a part of the city that was once called McClure’s’ Mills. Across the street two houses down lives James, the former Chief of Police of that part of the city that was once called Millbrook. John used to live in a former institution that was called South East Regional Centre. Over the years in the institution he became highly addicted to nicotine. Whenever John can “get away” from his home unobserved he makes a beeline for outside James house to pick up cigarette buts for James smokes outside his house. This doesn’t bother James but it “terrorizes” his wife Janet who is afraid of John. James tells jack that he better make sure that John doesn't come on his property. Jack suggests that he certainly will try but sometimes John “escapes” and arrives at James house. Jack further suggests that John would head over to his house except for the butts and hence if the butts weren’t dropped on the property the property wouldn’t have as much appeal. Further, if James locked his house John enter his house looking for cigarettes

James replies, “I have the right to do whatever I want with my property. A person has no duty to come to the aid of a “stranger”.

Part 2

Query whether James “ is free to do whatever he wants on his property- rights of neighbours to be fee from noxious stimulus, burning leaves, right not to have children attracted to dangers, by-laws that prevent certain buildings etc.

Part 3

Query what rights does John have – to go to a total institution and have all citizens pay for it.

Case 2

Wayne’s Story

Wayne is a young lad who does not like strictures. He prefers to sleep outdoors much of the year and only lives indoors during for the coldest months of winter. He receives ODSP on a monthly basis and almost on a monthly basis he gets beaten up and the remaining amount is taken. He refuses trusteeship of his financial affairs. He rarely misses a breakfast at the local Salvation Army program or lunch at the local Soup Kitchen. He acts as a volunteer at both programs and is very much appreciated for his contribution of setting up and taking down tables and chairs, running errands such as picking up food when his cheque. He also sets up table and acts as security for numerous events that take place on the waterfront. He is very much appreciated by the organizers of these events. Many in the community believe that Wayne should be placed in a “group home” because he is “obviously retarded”. Wayne used to live in a group home and he will tell you quite eloquently that he didn’t like living there. Others who are aware of his constant victimization at the hands of others believe he should be cut off ODSP and made to live in a group home.

Case 3

Rod’s Story

Rod likes company. The problem is that his company doesn’t always like Rod. Many call the local office of the Association for Community Living asking for help for Rod. What they really want is for Rod to stay away from their home or place of business. The problem is they don’t want to tell Rod. Rod doesn’t want help. He doesn’t want a job.

Extra Material

Some Comments on Terminology

The bulk of the persons served by KACL have what is commonly referred to in Kenora Ontario as a handicap. Different conceptions abound as to the nature of handicaps. Many authors presume a unitary perspective on what is a handicap.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has presented a sequence that makes some useful distinctions:

Disease (and Birth Defects) Impairments Disability Handicap

An impairment is “any loss of or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function”. A disability reflects the consequences of impairment, being any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for non-impaired persons. A handicap, a disadvantage resulting from an impairment or disability, limits or prevents the person from fulfilling his or her normal role. Handicaps therefore are not determined by one’s physical capabilities but rather reflect the social consequences of that disability. In short, the individual’s perception of a handicap is tempered by the society in which that person lives.[13]

A handicap then is not a fixed feature of a person but rather the product of a social, legal, political and economic context.(WHO)

Personal limitations are pert of the human condition, and they get split into two kinds. One is the limitation that can’t be fixed; the other is that which can be fixed. This is the distinction between mental health, which we believe is curable, and developmental disabilities, which we believe are not. We are less accepting of people recovering from mental illness because it is considered solvable, People with visible disabilities which we know will not be changed, are more integrated into society. In one case cure, in the other acceptance.

The point is the condition we are in is being human. To be human means to be fallible. How do you deal with limitations and the suffering that goes with them? You can fix it or accept it…The system mindset thinks the human condition is a problem to be solved. The competent community treats troubles as a condition. They can not be solved. However, they can be accepted, and the person is valued for their gifts that build our community.(McKnight and Block 2010)

Resources

Etzioni, Amitai (1993), The Spirit of Community, Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda, New York: Crown Publishers, 1993

Fukuyama, Francis (1995) Trust, The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995

Glendon, Mary Ann (1991) Rights talk, The Impoverishment of Political Discourse, New York: the Free Press, 1991

Groce, Nora Ellen (1985) Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language, Hereditary Deafness on Martha’s Vineyard, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985

McKnight, John, The Careless Society, Community and Its Counterfeits, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1995

Rae, Bob (1998) The Three Questions, Prosperity and the Public Good, Toronto: Viking Press, 1998

Richards, John (1997) Retooling the Welfare State, Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute, 1997

Rioux, Marcia and Michael Bach (1994) Disability is not Measles, New Research Paradigms in Disability, Toronto: Roeher Institute, 1994

Schmidtz and Robert E. Goodin, Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998

Vogt, Roy (1999) Whose Property, The Deepening Conflict between Private Property and Democracy in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999

[1] Reich, Charles 1965 ‘The New Property’ Yale Law Journal 73, No.5 733-87

[2] See Etzioni, Amitai (1993), The Spirit of Community, Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda, New York: Crown Publishers, 1993; Glendon, Mary Ann (1991) Rights talk, The Impoverishment of Political Discourse, New York: the Free Press, 1991

[3] Carmen Sirianni and Lewis Friedland, Communitarianism, Civic Practices Network, http//www.cpn.org/sections/tools/models/Communitarianism.html

[4] Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free Press 1991; The New family and the New Property Toronto: Butterworths, 1981

[6] John McKnight The Careless Society, Community and Its Counterfeits, New York, 1995

[7] S. David Young, The Rule of Experts, Occupational Licensing in America, Washington, Cato Institute, 1987, page 1

[8] This section draws heavy on Schmidtz and Goodin 1998

[10] See Chantal Mouffe, “Democracy, Power, and the Political” in Seyla Benhabib (editor), Democracy and Difference, Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1996 p.242

[11] Bob Rae, The Three Questions, Prosperity and the Public Good, Toronto: Viking Press, 1998, Page7-8

[12] Numbers described as disabled or handicapped differ quite substantially based on perceptions. For example some include person with solvent abuse as disabled some do not.

[13] Groce, Nora Ellen (1985) Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language, Hereditary Deafness on Martha’s Vineyard, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985, page 127