Poste - Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children

More documents

Recommendations

Info

C A N A D I A N C O A L I T I O N F O R T H E R I G H T S O F C H I L D R E N unsuccessfully challenged in the courts a number of times. 14 Citizenship and Immigration Canada acknowledged in 1998 that this provision is “often perceived as inhumane and the decision-making process slow.” A “significant number” of refusals are overturned on appeal to the Refugee Board or on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. However, the onus is on the families to appeal. Immigration Canada is currently assessing the impact of removing this provision for spouses and dependent children of Canadian citizens and permanent residents. 15 Policies The Federal Task Force on Disabilities was established by the ministers of Human Resources Development Canada, Finance, Justice and Revenue. In its 1996 report, the Task Force argued that the federal government should “support programs and policies that help all Canadians participate effectively in the economic and social mainstream.” 16 The Task Force encouraged the government to introduce a “Canadians with Disabilities Act,” including an enforcement and monitoring mechanism, similar to American legislation that has had considerable success in eliminating discrimination against people with disabilities in public life through mandatory compliance. 17 The government has not taken action on this. In October 1998, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services released In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues. This policy document was designed to guide government action and reduce litigation about discrimination complaints. 18 National disability groups have expressed concern, however, that the policy recommended: would further devolve federal responsibility for Canadians with disabilities to other levels of government; does not propose new funding; and will lead to a lack of program accountability and national standards. 19 These groups wrote the federal government in 1999, criticizing its lack of commitment to disability issues and the lack of action to implement the federal Task Force on Disability’s recommendations. 20 The federal government is establishing centres of excellence on children’s well-being across the country. Parents of children with disabilities are very concerned that disability issues will not be addressed. 21 58 Government Advocates New Brunswick and Alberta, among others, have disabilities advocates within their governments. In Alberta, the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities was established in 1988 “to enhance and promote the opportunity for full participation of persons with disabilities in the life of the province.” The Council focuses on policy review and public education and works with government departments serving people with disabilities. 22 The effectiveness of the Alberta Council has been questioned since its independent chair was replaced in May 1998 by a member of the provincial legislature. 23 Neither the Alberta nor the New Brunswick council has an explicit focus on children in its mandate24 and there is no information on the effectiveness of these councils. Independent Complaint Mechanisms Complaints about discrimination on the basis of disability can be pursued through the courts, human rights commissions, ombudsmen and/or child advocates. (General information about these mechanisms can be found in the chapter on The Fundammental Freedoms.) Cases involving discrimination against people with disabilities are the largest single category of complaint filed with human rights commissions in Canada and the number of cases continues to rise. 25 Discrimination on the basis of disability was cited by 32 percent of Canadian Human Rights Commission complainants in 1998, up from 29 percent in 1997. 26 However, not all human rights bodies include children in their mandate and there are no statistics on the number of children with disabilities who file complaints with commissions. Time and money required to pursue discrimination complaints restrict the number of cases filed with these commissions. The Court Challenges Program funds federal court challenges to advance equality and language rights for members of disadvantaged groups, including people with disabilities. 27 In 1996, the Federal Task Force on Disability Issues recommended that the Court Challenges Program be expanded to include provincial and territorial laws. 28 The Challenges program is funding an impact study by the Canadian Association for Community Living of the effects of two Supreme Court rulings involving disability issues and the Charter’s equality rights guarantee. (The Eaton and Eldridge cases are described later in this paper.) The study results are
expected to enhance understanding of equality rights for persons with disabilities and assist in future cases. 29 Protection from Abuse and Violence People with disabilities are more likely to experience physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse, neglect, financial exploitation and violence than those without disabilities. The Roeher Institute provides the following statistical estimates of abuse of children with disabilities: • 39 to 68 percent of girls with intellectual disabilities will be subject to sexual abuse before the age of 18; • 16 to 30 percent of boys with intellectual disabilities will be subject to sexual abuse before the age of 18; 30 • 54 percent of boys who are deaf have been sexually abused, compared to 10 percent of hearing boys; • 50 percent of girls who are deaf have been sexually abused, compared to 25 percent of girls who are hearing; 31 • 39 percent of children with multiple disabilities admitted to a psychiatric hospital have suffered maltreatment (mainly physical abuse); • 40 percent of sexually abused children with multiple disabilities admitted to a psychiatric hospital have been abused by more than one perpetrator. 32 Every province and territory has legislation to protect children from abuse and violence. It is an offence under Canada’s Criminal Code to deny the basic necessities of life to persons with disabilities when it involves permanent injury or severe harm that endangers the victim’s life. In some cases, courts have awarded custody and state protection due to parental failure to address the disability-related needs of children. The courts have also highlighted the state’s responsibility to ensure that disability-related needs are addressed. 33 The Canada Evidence Act allows individuals to provide evidence in any manner they can to make themselves understood. However, the Roeher Institute says that complaints to authorities by individuals with disabilities may be ignored. 34 For example, the Office of the Ombudsman of British Columbia filed a report in 1993 about abuse of some students with hearing impairments at the Jericho Hill school for the deaf. School children “who struggled to let their claims be known were ignored, discredited and unsupported. Their claims were measured strictly on the basis of whether there was evidence sufficient to justify criminal charges being laid... Few considered the importance of early, appropriate and fair intervention. This was an error.” 35 H O W D O E S C A N A D A M E A S U R E U P ? 59 Some initiatives to address abuse and violence include: • Toronto youth with disabilities wrote an abuse prevention handbook for youth with disabilities; 36 • the Medicine Hat Regional Association for the Mentally Handicapped was funded by (the former) Health and Welfare Canada to develop a training manual to prevent abuse of the mentally disabled person; 37 and • the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres, funded by Health Canada and Human Resources Development Canada, studied the issue of family violence and abuse involving people with disabilities and produced a training resource. 38 Assumptions about the quality of life of persons with disabilities can affect their legal protection from abuse and violence. For example, when Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer murdered his daughter, Tracy, many saw this as a mercy killing and over 26,500 people signed a petition in his support. 39 Robert Latimer was sentenced to two years less a day for second-degree murder, a conviction that normally has a mandatory life sentence and no eligibility for parole for 10 years. Both the Crown and the defendant are appealing the sentence. The Crown said that “Tracy’s disability had a significant impact... on the decision to end her life. And to permit a person’s life to be taken [under the defence of necessity] runs contrary to all our legal principles.” 40 According to Bruce Uditsky of the Alberta Association for Community Living: Robert Latimer’s sentence and the rationale for its reduction creates a clear and present danger to the lives of our children and other Canadians with disabilities... Societally sanctioned devaluation, as exemplified by Justice Noble’s reasoning [in the Latimer case], invites discrimination, prejudice and abuse. 41 Right to Special Care and Assistance Beginning in the 1950s, funding began for community services for persons with disabilities. By the 1970s and 1980s, most provinces were beginning to consider alternatives to institutional life for people with mental handicaps. By the early 1990s all provinces had policies to keep people with disabilities in their communities. 42 Technological advances have significantly improved survival rates and also increased the numbers requiring
Page 1:
THE UNCONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF T
Page 4 and 5:
C A N A D I A N C O A L I T I O N F
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11: C A N A D I A N C O A L I T I O N F
Page 12 and 13: articles 13, 14 and 15 (cont’d)
Page 16 and 17: article 23 (cont’d) NEEDS DIALOGU
Page 18 and 19: article 28 and 29 (cont’d) NEEDS
Page 28 and 29: Article 13 The Right to Freedom of
Page 32 and 33: (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; a
Page 38 and 39: Promoting the Freedoms C A N A D I
Page 40 and 41: Endnotes C A N A D I A N C O A L I
Page 68 and 69: Coalition Questionnaire: C A N A D
Page 76 and 77: Bibliography Children with Disabili
Page 96 and 97: Title of Act Years of compulsory ed
Page 108 and 109: Benefit of the Doubt C A N A D I A
Page 110 and 111:
Visa Restrictions C A N A D I A N C
Page 112 and 113:
Timeliness of the Process C A N A D
Page 114 and 115:
Lack of appeal mechanism C A N A D
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Process and Protocols PROCESS: Key
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Positive Factor C A N A D I A N C O
Page 132 and 133:
Concern C A N A D I A N C O A L I T
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140:
This is aproject of the CanadianCoa
show all

Poste - Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?