Disability rights in new housing

Why am I constantly ranting on social media about disability rights in new housing? Simply stated, not only because it's a subject that's near and dear to me but more importantly because it's human rights law!

 Let's take a moment to consider our homes, a place with such significant value for all of us, a place that should make us feel safe, comfortable, at ease, and then also symbolizing a sense of belonging and pride. But for many people, this isn't the case. Many of you have no idea what Universal Design is or why it should matter in new housing but it's a subject that I've spent a long time promoting for its many benefits...for all people...not just for seniors, disabled individuals or anyone else deemed to be "vulnerable". That's why it's Universal, it's for everyone no matter where you or your loved ones are in life's journey. 

Please allow me a few moments of arrogance to share my background to help demonstrate my high level of comfort with this subject:

-I started working front-line assisting individuals with disabilities in the Fall of 1994 and continue to do so now, that's 26 years of relevant experience. I've personally experienced the many benefits of Universal Design features in a variety of home environments throughout those years, but more importantly, I've personally witnessed the devastating impacts when Universal Design isn't considered in housing and it robs people of their independence and negatively impacts their health, safety and their ability to stay in their homes and neighborhoods (where they've established social connections and a sense of "home").

-Both of my parents have endured mobility challenges so there's a personal connection to this subject. My late mother was unable to safely visit our family home for part of her hospitalization because of its poor design and her fear of being carried up the front stairs (modifications to their home weren't completed until late 2005, less than a year before my mother passed away in August 2006). My father's mobility has changed over the years from using a cane, to a walker, to now using a wheelchair intermittently (he now lives in a retirement residence). Lousy design in their home created unnecessary hurdles that negatively impacted their lives. 

-My many years of research on this subject started in late 2006, soon after my mother passed away so I've spent thousands of hours on it, and thousands of dollars in various ways (obtaining my Certified Aging in Place Specialist course in Florida, visiting Bolingbrook, Illinois, visiting the Bridgwater neighborhood in Winnipeg, attending conferences and workshops, volunteering my time in countless presentations for the public's "education and awareness" purposes, etc). 

-I was one of six task force coordinators in a federal "VisitAbility Project" with the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies, I was the task force coordinator for Ottawa from December 2013 to March 2016, throughout the three-year mandate of this national project. (http://visitablehousingcanada.com/visitability-project/task-forces/)

-I was invited into the accessibility portion of the National Housing Strategy on September 7, 2016 when they had an event in Ottawa (before it became federal law in the National Housing Strategy Act in 2019). 

-I co-designed a house plan with many Universal Design features with the late Maureen Nolte, a real estate agent from the Kemptville area. Maureen discussed what would sell, I discussed what was needed to make it Universal in practicality/use. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl9Gubh-qyc)

-I was an advisor for Ontario's first VisitAble model home and sales office with Mapleview Homes (Grand Opening on May 27, 2017), formerly of 300 Fischl Drive in Prescott, Ontario. That home sold when they moved their business to Brockville Ontario, where they continued offering these features as standard in many of their new homes since then. 

-I was an advisor for the first VisitAble Lottery Home in Ontario, the 2018 Bluewater Health Dream Home. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6tEStdLr9Q&list=FLMgvym8hKEjWuxmnGNvR3Tg&index=24) (https://www.theobserver.ca/2017/08/08/hospital-lottery-grand-prize-uses-visitable-design/wcm/3e78495f-0310-a9ac-5b3d-2b2822d3f2a2)

-I submitted the first Code Change Request (#964) with the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes which addresses discriminatory building code policy in new housing, which also happens to be a clear violation of domestic and United Nations human rights laws against Canadians with mobility disabilities. It started on June 30, 2015 and is still on-going after 5.5 years of stalling by this federally-funded code development department within the National Research Council of Canada. 

-I'm a co-complainant with Judy Kerr in a United Nations complaint against the Government of Canada. Case number 76/2020 was registered on January 21, 2020 (submitted in January 2019). The issue of multiple violations of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the National Building Code of Canada, specifically relating to new housing, is the basis for this on-going UN complaint.  

What upsets me the most: lousy design in new housing is entirely preventable, accessibility and other standards have already existed for decades, which includes some custom housing and public housing (also look at the many public buildings that have had it as a requirement for decades and all of the pitfalls & challenges that are already sorted out in the commercial side of new development, that knowledge and expertise could easily be transferred on a larger scale to all new housing development). And best practices for new housing already exist in Canada, such as in Winnipeg as I previously mentioned by referencing the Bridgwater development. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy60KXRAnOc&t=60s) Furthermore, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, our national housing agency, has published many research documents on the subjects of VisitAbility, Adaptability, Accessibility and Universal Design. And just in case that wasn't enough, best practices from around the globe can also be easily replicated (https://www.lifemark.co.nz/).

One last point, housing is the biggest and wealthiest business in the world so the resistance against Universal Design can sometimes be daunting, they perpetuate myths against it because of their greed and indifference to human rights law. But there's one bright star in all of this, there are thankfully some innovative and sustainable home builders like Mapleview Homes in Brockville, Ontario and Lifemark in New Zealand that already offer these features in their new homes. To close, I'd like to reiterate what I said in my final report as a task force coordinator in 2016, we need model homes nationwide that showcase Universal Design to inform consumers about real, practical features that will allow them to have homes that will adapt to each person's evolving abilities and needs throughout their lifetime. With aging comes an increasing level of disability, that's why disability rights in new housing need to matter far more than they currently do, in case human rights aren't enough of a reason. 

 

A word of thanks to Accessible Media Inc.

I would like to share my gratitude to Accessible Media Inc and Now with Dave Brown for inviting me to speak about an active United Nations complaint on the morning of March 12th. The complaint submitted by myself and Judy Kerr, in January 2019, brought forward our concerns with the National Building Code of Canada ignoring human rights law in section 3.8.2.1.

Although grateful, I'm also left bewildered as Accessible Media Inc is the only organization in Canada to have engaged with us on this subject since the United Nations complaint was made public via social media accounts (the UN letter was pinned to my Twitter account on April 20th and posted publicly on my Facebook account on May 20th). There hasn't been one government department (municipal, provincial/territorial or federal), not one special interest group, not one human rights lawyer or anyone else whose salary is based on disability rights that's been in contact with either of us about this UN complaint since it went public. I acknowledge that my many tweets about discriminatory building code policy (that excludes Canadians with mobility disabilities from the majority of new private housing) can be abrasive or harsh at times but the subject matter is very important. The majority of new private housing in Canada continues to be built in a way that ignores 35 years of human rights law in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 15 equality rights for Canadians with disabilities became law in 1985, this hasn't been the case in new private housing since then).

Let me clarify, I've had regular contact with one federal department about discriminatory building code policy since June 30, 2015...the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC). It's been a very frustrating process to go through a Code Change Request for that long yet building code still exempts new private housing from human rights law. That's why the United Nations complaint was submitted in January 2019, my frustration with the CCBFC reached a boiling point because of their incredibly slow review of my Code Change Request which is soon approaching five years. My original submission in June 2015 not only highlighted human rights but also domestic and international research and best practices. I even highlighted the significant risk of litigation to the CCBFC, again with no immediate effect.

Another frustration has been the fact that I can't get an answer regarding Covid's impact on the July 21st deadline imposed by the United Nations. Will Covid mean an extension to the 6-month deadline indicated in the January 21st letter to the Government of Canada? My opinion is that 6 months is ample time to answer, Covid or not, because there are multiple federal departments impacted by the UN complaint (the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, the National Research Council of Canada, Codes Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of Disability Issues, etc). Given the fact that it pertains to chronic human rights violations (specifically, contempt of human rights law), I would hope that it would be a high priority subject for our federal government. To say that I'm eager for July 21st is an understatement. Will the Government of Canada acknowledge that the 2020 update of the National Building Code of Canada, delayed to February 2021, must end their exemption in section 3.8.2.1? Or will it be deferred to the 2025 update, thereby condoning this injustice for a full 40 years? Deferring to 2025 would likely open the door wide open to litigation with significant settlements as there are 600,000 Canadians with mobility disabilities...if ony 0.1% decided to sue, that would be 600 cases or one significant class-action case.

Again, my sincere thanks to Accessible Media Inc for their interest in our United Nations complaint (registered as case 76/2020 on January 21, 2020).

Letter to Frank Lohmann, Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, Dec 14/19

                                                                                           Roger P Gervais

                                                                                           182 Poplin Street

                                                                                           Manotick, ON, K4M 0G9

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                           December 14, 2019

Mr Frank Lohmann

Manager, Codes Development System

Codes Canada

National Research Council of Canada

Mr Lohmann;

Further to the 25^th meeting (2015-25) of the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) Executive Committee that I attended on December 11, 2019 at 1:00pm, I would like to raise my ongoing concerns with the chronic delays in completing the final version of the document entitled “CCBFC POLICY PAPER Accessibility in Buildings”. This policy paper was first mentioned in June, 2016 in Calgary during the 30^th meeting of the CCBFC held on June 27th & 28^th. The first draft of this Policy Paper on Accessibility, dated April 20, 2017 (co-authored by Sarah Gibb, Collinda Joseph, Marc Fortin and yourself) brought attention to many points that I’d made in my original Code Change Request 964 submission and attached documents, in addition to my numerous emails to CCBFC/Codes Canada/NRC members since 2015 and comments made during teleconferences and in-person meetings that I’ve participated in. I’ve also commented on my concerns with this draft document during its public review this past summer, comments which were emailed to you and Brigitte Potvin on July 23, 2019 as a follow-up to our meeting on July 19, 2019.

My most significant concern is the fact that Code Change Request 964 (VisitAbility of new housing) has gone through nearly an entire five-year code cycle yet it won’t be considered for the 2020 edition of the National Building Code of Canada because of chronic delays. Of equal concern are matters that were brought up in the agenda package for the 25^th meeting of the Executive Committee (2015-25 Div A-C), specifically:

Page 13: In the Executive Committee Work Plan, Code Change Request 964 is identified as a CCBFC and Executive Committee priority yet the overall completion of this CCR is only 45% as of August 27/19, more than four years since my original submission on June 30, 2015 and more than three years after the initial mention of a Policy Paper on Accessibility in late June 2016.

Page 46: It appears that the final version of the Policy Paper on Accessibility is anticipated to be received by the CCBFC in April 2020 but I’m not very confident that this will materialize given the chronic delays with this policy paper (and my CCR), in part due to the Provincial/Territorial Policy Advisory Committee on Codes (PTPACC), Standing Committees, Task Groups and Working Groups’ reviews of the various drafts of this document that have delayed its completion in a timely manner.

I’m very concerned that the CCBFC, Codes Canada and the National Research Council of Canada are in violation of multiple human rights documents, specifically:

1 - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (April 17, 1982):

Section 15 Equality Rights for Canadians with disabilities (which were delayed to April 17, 1985) have been ignored in new housing for more than three decades due to multiple building code cycles that have perpetuated discriminatory building code policy where new housing is exempt from barrier-free design requirements (due to the exemptions found in Part 3 and Part 9 of the NBC).

2 - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (March 11, 2010):

Article 9 of the CRPD relates to Accessibility, which includes housing, yet our National Building Code of Canada has also ignored this UN Convention for more than 9 years seeing as Canada ratified the CRPD and is bound to its implementation across all levels of government in Canada.

3 - Accessible Canada Act (June 21, 2019):

“The Accessible Canada Act applies to the federally regulated private sector which includes banking, transportation and telecommunications sectors, as well as the Government of Canada, Crown Corporations and Parliament.” (ESDC News Release, July 11, 2019). Barriers to accessibility must be identified, removed and prevented in the built environment, which includes preventing architectural barriers in new housing (barriers that exclude hundreds of thousands of Canadians with mobility disabilities and millions of Canadians with reduced abilities in physical mobility). Given the fact that the 2020 National Building Code of Canada will likely continue with the exemption of housing in Parts 3 and 9, my assumption is that the CCBFC/Codes Canada/NRC will effectively be in contempt of Parliament once the 2020 update of the National Building Code of Canada is published with the exemptions still in effect.

4 – National Housing Strategy Act (June 21, 2019):

The National Housing Strategy Act recognizes the Right to Housing yet this right to housing is denied to hundreds of thousands of Canadians with mobility disabilities and millions of Canadians with reduced abilities in physical mobility within the majority of new housing. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Ms Leilani Farha, has been very clear with the Canadian government about the expectations involved in realizing the right to adequate housing, and some of her reports to the UN Human Rights Council have been very clear in also identifying the expectations for the right to housing for vulnerable individuals, which include persons with disabilities. My significant concerns with the right to adequate housing for Canadians with disabilities lead to a Complaints Form being submitted to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights on January 5, 2019. I’ve also been in contact with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Ms Catalina Devandas) to express my concerns with the multiple violations of the CRPD as it relates to new housing in Canada, condoned systemically by ongoing discriminatory building code policy.

Another concern is the significant risk of class-action litigation that could be borne by the CCBFC/Codes Canada/NRC in the event that Canadians with disabilities exercise their Constitutional right to seek remedy for the violation of their Equality Rights in new housing dating back to April 17, 1985 (due to multiple building code cycles that have ignored their Charter-enshrined rights). I mentioned this litigation risk in 2015 as part of my Code Change Request, again ignored, but a written record exists which identifies this significant risk of class-action litigation (which I’d be compelled to acknowledge if under subpoena).

One final concern is the fact that the CCBFC/Codes Canada/NRC are ignoring very clear research by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, our national housing authority with decades of experience and knowledge in accessibility of housing. The societal and sustainability benefits of removing barriers in the planning stage of new housing, in addition to human rights, are well known to CMHC and have appeared in a number of their published reports. “Cost of Accessibility Features in Newly-Constructed Modest Houses” (November 2016, report #68668) and “Cost of Adaptability and Accessibility Features – Existing Modest Houses” (September 2019, report #69611) are two examples of recent CMHC research that add to the existing evidence in my original submission on June 30, 2015 and highlight their expertise and knowledge. These documents would be in addition to the countless others that I’ve emailed in these nearly five years of interactions with the CCBFC/Codes Canada/NRC.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate my strong objection to a 2020 update of the National Building Code of Canada that would continue with the exemption of new housing from barrier-free design requirements in NBC 3.8.2.1. The violation of the above-mentioned legislation would not only be unacceptable but likely lead to a significant settlement for plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit.

Respectfully Yours,

Roger P Gervais

Class-action litigation in housing by Canadians with disabilities

I wrote this in an email response on September 18th:

"I conservatively estimate tens of billions of dollars in damages if class-action litigation is initiated by the hundreds of thousands of Canadians with mobility disabilities and the millions of Canadians who face various limitations in their activities of daily living due to building code policy that negatively impacts their health and safety in their homes, as well as denies them their human rights in most housing. Building code policy has ignored Section 15 Equality Rights in housing for persons with disabilities since 1985, which are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Building code policy has also been ignoring disability rights found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Canada ratified in 2010. And the greatest liability to building code policy is that they've often chosen to ignore or refute domestic and global evidence-based research brought forward in many Code Change Requests during code development and updates. Whether we consider access, use or egress failures in housing, building code policy is directly responsible for health and safety impacts to individuals in their homes (which include preventable injuries and premature deaths). As well, ineffective statistical data on disability that primarily relies on self-reporting and invalid & unreliable methods of data collection are compounding the crisis that persons with activity limitations and disabilities face in housing. The above examples of negligence in building code policy would most certainly make it liable to remedy in our court system resulting in no less than tens of billions of dollars in damages if class-action litigation is initiated. Given that Ontario has roughly one-third of our nation's population, such an impact to our provincial economy would be far more significant than implementing the simple and low-cost features of VisitAbility to all new housing rather than only offering it in 15% of units in Group C Major Occupancy buildings [OBC 3.8.2.1 (5) to (8)]. Doing so would ensure human rights and improve the health, safety and sustainability of housing for a growing proportion of Canadians who desperately need adequate housing options that meet their current and future needs. The existing and growing accessible housing crisis can no longer be ignored by our governments, including the government of Ontario."

Inclusion, sustainability and health & safety in new residential development

I recently commented on Twitter that the City of Ottawa affordable housing sector has had environmental, economic and social sustainability figured out for years; the proof is in the projects that have been built in the last few years, like Salus Clementine and The Haven to name two. But I'd love to see this type of innovation transferred over to the private housing sector, especially passive house techniques (net zero) and Universal Design (VisitAbility being the minimum acceptable standard but more features would be advisable).

 In reading the City of Ottawa Official Plan discussion paper for housing, as well as Ontario's More Homes, More Choice Housing Supply Action Plan, I'm not seeing a satisfactory level of prompt and effective leadership when focusing in on Inclusionary Zoning and Universal Design. The Province of Ontario started allowing Inclusionary Zoning in 2018 but I have yet to hear of one municipality leading in it. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation published a great report about IZ that clearly showed its positive impact on increasing affordable housing stock in jurisdictions that acted on it, some were decades ago. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. We're also not there yet on Universal Design even though our National Housing Strategy has recognized housing a human right (2017) and is looking to ensure it in Bill C-98, the National Housing Strategy Act. When discussing housing as a human right and adequate housing, I often highlight the fact that both our Ontario Building Code and the National Building Code of Canada continue to exempt houses from barrier-free design requirements (Part 9 of building code deals with houses and small buildings, which is the bulk of new residential development. Architectural barriers continue to be created daily in new housing because of this exemption, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).

Recommendations for inclusion, sustainability and health & safety:

-Change Official Plans and Zoning by-laws to move forward more aggressively with 6 storey wood-frame residential construction anywhere in a community, especially ones serviced by transit routes (to increase density & intensification and to improve sustainability). Wood is more cost-effective than concrete and steel and certainly more sustainable. And fire prevention is far better than it was 50 years ago.
-These six storey multi-units must be mixed-use by ensuring that the main floor has retail and services, rather than constantly having to travel all over our communities to get the things we need/want. They must also be mixed income (thanks to inclusionary zoning, which would require a percentage of units to meet affordability criteria within any new development rather than be in segregated affordable housing projects). They must also be universally designed to ensure that our homes meet the needs of everyone, regardless of age or level of ability. They must also offer a variety of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units because not everyone needs a bachelor, 1 or 2 bedroom unit.
-They must be resilient as we've seen far too many environmental disasters destroy homes and lives. They must be either net zero or passive house for energy-efficiency. And finally, they must be safe (indoor air quality; fire resistance; great lighting; and other logical features to reduce injuries and deaths)

As the news and social media headlines have shown, Ontario isn't immune to the global affordability crisis and I can assure you that we're not immune to the global accessibility crisis either. Both are already happening here and this is why I suggest the recommendations above (and others thrown in for good measure). We can't keep designing and building housing the way we have been and expect it to sort itself out by market demand. It isn't logical to continue down this dysfunctional path, innovation in housing is desperately needed for private development. Our building codes need to move away from minimum standards and encourage best practices that are readily available globally. It just isn't acceptable to continue with minimum standards in housing and think that being reactive to problems is a sustainable mindset to continue. Cost inevitably comes up as an excuse on a regular basis to quash best practices (that's evidence-based best practices) but history has shown us that being reactive to poor design and policies costs us far more. Ask the insurance industry, claims relating to homes cost billions per year; as consumers, this is reflected in the higher premiums that we pay.

That's my two cents worth for today. All the best.

Housing has turned into this corrupt insanity only serving the healthy and wealthy.

It's difficult to be optimistic about housing when you hear and read everything that's going on in both the rental and ownership of housing. Housing prices and rents have gone into the stratosphere, gobbling up an ever-growing percentage of net income. The sheer amount of information available on Twitter alone, as an example, is both shocking and discouraging. Building code, zoning and land use policies; complex financing/mortgage schemes; money laundering into real estate; political donations by landlords & developers; inequitable taxation in favour of the wealthy...it’s a corrupt mess on a global scale. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Ms Leilani Farha, is a global expert on housing who has been ringing the alarm on this chaos in her reports to the Human Rights Council and in an excellent documentary currently circulating in film festivals (http://pushthefilm.com/). People of all walks of life are struggling to find or keep adequate housing and it's getting worse by the month as prices continue to soar unabated.

It wasn't long ago that the dream of many people was to land a full-time job, have a family and own a home. All of this has changed: full-time permanent positions (benefits and pensions too) disappear regularly at the sake of profits, marriages are failing at alarming levels or not happening at all, those who have children can barely afford to provide for their needs (often basic needs) in far too many cases. And owning a home is becoming a fiction, as is finding rents that aren't going to rob you of what little you have left after the various taxes and user fees (that we've all seen creep upwards and well above salary increases).

But back to housing. I said the following in an email this morning "Housing has turned into this corrupt insanity only serving the healthy and wealthy." Look through some of my Twitter activity and you'll get that message loud and clear. There's already lots of media attention about the global affordability crisis and the efforts of various governments to combat it, unsuccessfully, because we're dealing with TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in the largest business in the world, housing. Pension funds, real estate investment trusts, big banks and organized crime, the wealth by these key players in housing is insurmountable. As is the political will by some elected officials who justify political donations from some of those sources of wealth.

Look around at prices and what's being built these days: aesthetically pleasing homes that far too often have building code violations or other unacceptable issues, at a time when prices are far out of reach to working-class and middle-class households. Even dual-income households find themselves unable to qualify for a mortgage or struggling to pay rent after all other deductions are accounted for.

My concern has always been with architectural barriers that are perpetuated in building code at a time when the world is aging/ageing and persons with activity limitations (and various disabilities) are on the rise. Again, we're putting out new inventory that applies to a shrinking percentage of buyers. If you aren't wealthy and healthy, then you're on your own with what's left out there. Or homelessness that's reached alarming levels everywhere.

The solution? The exact opposite of what's been happening in the last thirty or forty years. Some countries are far better off with their inventory of affordable and accessible housing, perhaps it's time to learn from their strategies. The elephant in the room are the lawyers, bankers and accountants (our white collar criminals) who have played a key role in creating the climate that we're currently facing and the utter lack of ethics and common decency involved, all based on corporate or selfish greed. Of course I'm a bleeding heart socialist, I've made my living assisting adults with disabilities for more than two decades and have seen first hand their struggles with affordability and accessibility but they're far from the only ones. Documentaries like Push are exposing this nightmare to the masses and fuelling a revolution in housing that's already begun.

We're heading into interesting times, I'm very curious to see what the next 24 months bring to the surface in this corrupt insanity that we call housing.

United Nations State visit to Canada, April 2-12, 2019 by Ms Catalina Devandas Aguilar, UN Special Rapporteur to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Excerpts below are taken from the video available at http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/headline-politics/episodes/65969897

02:09-02:23

"...My main finding is that Canada urgently needs to transform (its) system, that systemic change is needed to ensure that people with disabilities can enjoy their human rights on an equal basis with others."

02:30-02:40

"I have noticed that there are significant shortcomings in the way that the federal, provincial and territorial governments implement the rights of persons with disabilities."

02:40-02:50

"In many cases, persons with disabilities have to initiate very lengthy and onerous legal procedures to get their rights recognized."

03:30-03:52

"One thing that is lacking is a comprehensive human rights-based approach in the responses that the governments are giving to this population and this needs to be changed in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that has been ratified by Canada."

03:53-04:35

"I am deeply concerned, moving to an issue that is fundamental, that is the independent living of persons with disabilities within their communities, and I'm deeply concerned that many persons with disabilities are presented with no other choice except the placement in residential institutions like nursing homes and group homes, and it is important that the country break these segregated approaches and move to inclusive policies that provide the necessary support for persons with disabilities to live independently in their communities. This should be recognized as a human right and not merely as a social assistance program."

06:20-06:42

"...I'm also highly concerned about the specific challenges faced by Indigenous people with disabilities because they are over-represented in the population that face poverty, exclusion and discrimination and that overcoming this structural discrimination is essential to building an inclusive and equal society in Canada."

07:10-07:30

"One of the concerns that I have is that we need to look at the situation of persons with disabilities also residing for long term in psychiatric facilities."

10:05-11:26

"As I said, I think that one of the main challenges of Canada is particularly the provision of home support. Home support that allows persons with disabilities to live independently and to perform all their daily activities in the community with autonomy, and these, there are severe and significant discrepancies across the country in how persons with disabilities are receiving that support. That support is not considered to be an entitlement, it's more like a program that is social assistance and it's tapped. You know, you have funding taps, you have long waiting lists to receive that kind of support, and as a result, in many cases when there are high support needs, people with disabilities by default being sent to residential facilities, which is a fact, I think a risk, that Canada is engaging in a process of re-institutionalization of persons with disabilities and this is something that really needs to be addressed urgently to make sure that services are provided in the community, that support is available for persons with disabilities so that you avoid situations in which nursing homes or home groups or other kind of residential facilities are the only and default option for persons with disabilities. And yes, it is against the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly Article 19."

17:31-18:53

"Yes, with Indigenous populations indeed, Indigenous persons with disabilities, I think that there are dramatic challenges to be addressed and their access to services in a timely manner, and services that are culturally sensitive, that would avoid the risk of assimilation. Many persons with disabilities living on reserve can only access services by leaving their communities, which presents additional challenges. And I do appreciate that Bill C-81 is probably going to, there's going to be an opportunity to discuss with First Nations governments on how to advance, and if, and how, this Bill applies to Indigenous persons with disabilities. What my recommendation is that in that regard, is that it is important that all authorities involved in that process make sure that this process is done in the most efficient, and as fast as possible, to ensure that the needs of persons with disabilities in the Indigenous community are protected as well."

19:30-21:20  Solutions for support in the community are discussed:

                      -community-based services
                      -independent (individualized) funding
                      -remove caps on hours
                      -increase hours of support in the community for high needs individuals rather than  default to institutionalization.

ONE SOLUTION FOR SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WASN'T DISCUSSED WAS THE NEED FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FEATURES IN HOUSING. BARRIERS IN HOUSING OFTEN LEAD TO UNSAFE HOME CIRCUMSTANCES, OR IN MORE EXTREME SITUATIONS, TO PREMATURE INSTITUTIONALIZATION BECAUSE HOME ENVIRONMENTS AREN'T TYPICALLY WELCOMING TO A DECLINE IN ABILITIES NOR TO DISABILITIES. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE BARRIERS IN LARGE PART RELATE TO BUILDING CODES THAT PERPETUATE THESE BARRIERS IN HOUSING.

A report on Canada will be submitted to the Human Rights Council in March 2020. This will be the second report highlighting the shortcomings of the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Canada, the first one available at:
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2fC%2fCAN%2fCO%2f1&Lang=en

The initial report on Canada, as well as this State visit, should be a wake-up call to Canada...we must do far better for Canadians with disabilities. We are obligated to do so in the CRPD as well as in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today's Accessibility Town Hall, Queen's Park

MY 3-MINUTE PRESENTATION WILL FOCUS ON ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS IN HOUSING THAT EXCLUDE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

The intended goal of the AODA has been to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities but one sector where we've failed miserably is housing. I think it's despicable that we're now into our 14th year of the AODA yet no standard has been created for housing; we're intentionally ignoring our human rights' obligations in housing. Worse than that, the "Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard" dated June 2009 died in 2011 due to intense lobbying against it; Chapter 13 already contained recommendations for housing. This 272-page draft document would have prevented new barriers in housing had it been implemented 10 years ago rather than eliminated. It might have actually decreased the accessible housing crisis that we're now facing.

As it stands, the Ontario Building Code continues to exempt nearly all private housing from barrier-free design requirements in section 3.8.1.1; the only exception is that 15% of units in new apartment buildings are required to be VisitAble, which is the most basic & affordable form of barrier removal in housing. This discriminatory building code policy condones architectural barriers that exclude persons with mobility disabilities from most housing. The unfortunate result is that anyone who needs housing more suited to their changing abilities has no choice but to search for a suitable renovation contractor...or build a custom home...both of which are expensive propositions. 

The myths surrounding barrier removal in housing include the following: it's ugly, it's too expensive, it's too complicated or there's no demand for it. All of these myths are false. It's not ugly, I've personally seen beautiful design in Winnipeg and also in Bolingbrook, Illinois. The cost is far more reasonable in new construction because renovating for accessibility can be up to 20 times more expensive. It's not too complicated because best practices already exist nationwide, home builders simply need to learn from their colleagues who have already done it. And regarding demand, I know there is because we have millions of baby boomers who are already seniors & experiencing a decline in their abilities...and hundreds of thousands of Canadians with a variety of mobility disabilities.

But there is hope. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation already has decades of experience with barrier removal in housing, one example being their FlexHousing program going back to the early 1990s. As well, the Canadian Standards Association has a section about housing in their B651 accessibility standards. And there are a number of accessibility professionals eager to guide home builders through the process of barrier removal.

What we need is strong leadership to move forward with human rights in housing, to ensure that architectural barriers are prevented as part of our AODA ambitions. We need housing to be welcoming, safe and sustainable...Ontarians with disabilities deserve far better than our current practice of ableism and exclusion. We must act to eliminate the exemption of housing from barrier-free design requirements in Ontario Building Code section 3.8.1.1.

THANK YOU.

This morning's email to Minister Jean-Yves Duclos

Minister Duclos;

I'm writing in response to yesterday's News Release regarding your presentation of Canada's Voluntary National Review at the United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development on Tuesday, July 17th. I'm quite concerned that SDG 11 doesn't mention Universal Design of new dwellings even though our National Housing Strategy specifically makes reference to Universal Design. When mentioning Social Inclusion, Fairness, Equality, Livable, Sustainable and Safe on page 84 of the VNR, my mind automatically thinks of Universal Design:

a) Universal Design and Social Inclusion: building new dwellings with Universal Design ensures social inclusion by welcoming everyone into dwellings, irrespective of disability. The negative impact of architectural barriers is significant; Canadians with mobility disabilities are excluded from the majority of new dwellings because building codes continue to exempt homes from barrier-free design requirements in section 3.8.1.1, a violation of 33 years of Equality Rights in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [delayed to 1985 in section 32 (2)]. I submitted Code Change Request 964 for VisitAbility of new dwellings to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes on June 30, 2015 because I felt that it was the most economical and simple way to achieve inclusion for Canadians with disabilities in new dwellings. Three years later, this CCR is still in its infancy due to long delays by the Executive Committee, the Use and Egress Committee and the Housing and Small Buildings Committee in reviewing my CCR.

b) Universal Design and Fairness & Equality: how does the National Building Code of Canada, the National Housing Strategy and Canada's efforts with SDG 11 hope to achieve fairness and equality if we continue to condone systemic discrimination in new dwellings with the exemption found in building code section 3.8.1.1? By excluding a growing percentage of Canadians with mobility disabilities from our new dwellings (because there's a correlation between aging and an increase in disability rates), we eliminate any fairness or equality (let alone the many Canadians with mobility disabilities who aren't seniors because all ages are faced with mobility disabilities). 

c) Universal Design and Livability: new dwellings with Universal Design make these homes far more livable across the life span of each home, which often impacts multiple families across more than one generation (if you think of how many occupants each home has in its life span of many decades).

d) Universal Design and Sustainability: Sustainability is a significant area of interest of mine as it relates to Universal Design. If we make reference to the New Urban Agenda 2030 and its Social, Environmental and Financial Sustainability, Universal Design has a positive impact on all three:

i) Social Sustainability: Universal Design of new dwellings would ensure social inclusion of all Canadians by welcoming everyone into any new home. The benefits of social interaction and inclusion for Canadians with mobility disabilities in universally designed new dwellings in significant, let's think of family gatherings where a member of a family with a mobility disability cannot participate because of architectural barriers resulting from our current building codes.

ii) Environmental Sustainability: having to modify a home to suit a person's changing abilities is very carbon intensive. There were the Green House Gases for the original construction, the GHG relating to the demolition and disposal of the original construction, and the GHG for the renovations for the required modifications to suit the person's changing abilities. Not considering Universal Design in the planning stage of any new dwelling has a negative impact on our already fragile environment.

iii) Financial Sustainability: the United Nations has shown that Universal Design in new development only adds one percent of additional cost so it's very economical when planned into a new dwelling. Research from Australia indicates that modifying a home for accessibility can cost up to twenty times more than doing so during the planning stage of a new dwelling. The financial implications of incorporating Universal Design during the planning stage of a new dwelling is significant enough to not be overlooked.

e) Universal Design and Safety: the Public Health Agency of Canada has indicated that seniors' falls in their homes costs our public health system approximately one billion dollars per year (and it also has a devastating impact on their quality of life post-injury). Universal Design of new dwellings creates a much safer environment, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation research involved in FlexHousing in the 1990s proved this long ago. The adaptability of FlexHousing is based on a number of Universal Design features being incorporated into a home; doing so in a new home decreases the GHG effect of adapting it later on when abilities change.

Page 84 of the Voluntary National Review has the "Rising to the challenge" heading which then speaks of sustainable homes. I hope that my points made above have clarified the positive impacts of Universal Design on Social Inclusion, Fairness, Equality, Livability, Sustainability and Safety. I would be pleased to offer supporting documents if any part of my email needs clarification. I would also be honored to discuss this further if any of your team members at ESDC are interested in the many benefits of Universal Design in new dwellings as part of our National Housing Strategy. In order to champion the advancement of the 2030 Agenda, it is my humble belief that Minister Kirsty Duncan must be included with the eight other ministers that have been given this task by the Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if we intend to leave no one behind, including Canadians with mobility disabilities. 

Here's the link to yesterday's News Release:

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2018/07/minister-duclos-will-lead-the-canadian-delegation-for-the-2018-united-nations-high-level-political-forum-on-sustainable-development.html

Here's the link to the Voluntary National Review that Minister Duclos will be presenting on Tuesday at the United Nations HLPF meeting (refer to pages 83 to 89 for SDG 11). 

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/20312Canada_ENGLISH_18122_Canadas_Voluntary_National_ReviewENv7.pdf

Canada's Building Code development process...it's broken

As a proponent of an active Code Change Request with Canada's National Building Code, I'm confident in saying that our building code development process is broken (federal and provincial/territorial). My Code Change Request 964 for VisitAbility of new dwellings was submitted on June 30, 2015 yet nearly two years later there's much left to be done by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes to even come close to considering it for their 2020 update. I shouldn't be surprised though because another CCR on dimensions of stairs took decades to complete.

Here's a prime example in Ontario. On January 1/15, Ontario Building Code section 3.8.2.1 (5) started requiring 15% of apartments to be VisitAble (basic/cheapest/easiest form of barrier-free design features known globally). My research on issued building permits in the City of Ottawa has revealed a disturbing trend in loopholes to OBC 3.8.2.1 (5) based on the fact that "apartment" isn't defined in the building code (nor is semi-detached, duplex, triplex, townhouse, or rowhouse), it's left up to the municipalities to define and enforce compliance for these different types of housing. What's happened in Ottawa is that a building (see photo) can be called a "stacked dwelling" to be exempted from the 15% requirement. I have also challenged the issue of 600 square meters of building area (6,458 sq ft) requiring compliance to section 3.8 for Barrier-Free Design but the Ontario Building Code definition of building area is broad enough to permit exemptions for that reason too. So either the OBC doesn't define housing types, or creates broad definitions that create exemptions, it's a mess that continues our shameful history of ignoring human rights in housing, even though our Ontario Human Rights Code is supposed to have primacy over our building code. I guess it's all rhetoric when home builders start their lobbying, always crying poor or complaining that it will kill off their industry (but it's ok to keep ignoring equality rights of persons with disabilities/activity limitations).

Check out the definition of stacked dwelling according to City of Ottawa zoning. "Independent entrance to the interior" doesn't seem to be the case for the building on the right because there are roughly 13 exterior doors for 19 units, some have a shared exterior door as the covered entranceways reveal in the photo above.

I emailed an Ontario Code Development Coordinator and was told the following:

My response today was the following:

"Ms Smith;

I'm confused by your email. You're telling me that I would need to submit a CCR, wasting countless public tax dollars, and wait until 2022 to possibly have "apartment" defined, something that should have already happened decades ago? To then further deflect it to the NBC, which would delay it even longer, leaves me questioning the millions of dollars that go into the code development process. I am speechless."

I shouldn't be surprised though, Ontario has continued with Tarion (our failed home warranty program) even though there's been a formal review of its many problems. Consumers have a lousy home warranty program, building code is being manipulated by municipalities to create loopholes to compliance, and Ontario seems perfectly content in ignoring the most basic element, defining what exactly an apartment is (and other types of housing). Without a clear definition of "apartment" in our building code, it's allowing a number of projects in Ontario to avoid compliance to OBC 3.8.2.1 (5). 

There's even a video on YouTube about building code violations of accessibility requirements in a new building funded by public dollars, it's a disgusting mess that no one seems willing to acknowledge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRmVBmOy6xg&t=6s

I'm willing to provide specifics if anyone is interested, just reach out to me on social media and we can arrange it by email. I'm completely disgusted with the poor leadership shown in Ontario, a province that states that it will be fully accessible by January 1, 2025 (see https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11). Housing, where all of us spend the greatest portion of any day, is apparently off-limits for an accessible Ontario. I guess our Human Rights Code is a hoax then, there's no right to Occupancy of Accommodation when our only dwelling type in Ontario that requires VisitAbility has seen quite a few "stacked dwelling" exemptions in Ottawa, it's simply ridiculous and unacceptable.

I suspect that I've provided sufficient proof that our code development process is broken, and that there's no desire to improve it apparently.

UN Conference of State Parties, June 13-15, New York

As we approach the tenth Conference of State Parties pertaining to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, I view June 13th to 15th as a defining moment for the government of Prime Minister Trudeau. The mandate letter presented to Cabinet Minister Carla Qualtrough in November, 2015 spoke of greater accessibility and inclusion for Canadians with disabilities. Next week's COSP10 is an opportune moment to reinvigorate Canada's commitment made to the CRPD in our 2010 ratification; we must now announce the accession of the Optional Protocol and implement the many recommendations made on April 12th by the CRPD Committee. Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau guaranteed rights for Canadians with disabilities on April 17, 1982 with our Constitution Act and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although those Section 15 rights were delayed for three years in Section 32 (2).
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4tg_BbLqbw&t=219s&index=4&list=FLMgvym8hKEjWuxmnGNvR3Tg

2017 is not only Canada's 150th anniversary but the 32nd anniversary of Section 15 rights for Canadians with disabilities yet we continue to see thousands of human rights complaints per year, as reported to the United Nations by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in their December 2015 report. Canada's public consultations for the accession of the CRPD Optional Protocol concluded on March 16th, which then opened consultations with the Provinces and Territories. Today marks 83 days of consultations, surely we can come to a conclusion by June 13th and announce our accession after 90 days of consultations with the Provinces & Territories, and seven years after the ratification of the CRPD.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made a number of comments regarding diversity, equality and inclusion since taking office in November 2015, COSP10 will be a defining moment in his term to bring this to fruition. Continuing with status quo, with the thousands of human rights complaints per year, will erode his credibility with millions of Canadians with disabilities and with Member States that admire Canada for having been the first country to guarantee disability rights in a nation's Constitution. Prime Minister Trudeau must ensure that Canada's reputation on the world stage isn't tarnished any further, we must announce our accession of the Optional Protocol no later than June 15th. Anything less will surely put the prospects of a second term in question.

Our current housing crisis: don't blame the consumer

The current housing crisis seems to have many theories but very little accountability. Let's ask ourselves who's been in positions of authority throughout the decades of our decline in affordability and insufficient efforts in sustainability. Our democratically elected governments are the ones who have been creating questionable policy (monetary, land use, building codes, etc). Our urban planners have brought these policies into action. And our housing industry hasn't really done a great job of planning for demographics or sustainability. The consumer in large cities is left with a dwindling supply of inventory, which unfortunately has caused bidding wars and a crisis in affordability.

Who's to blame? The consumer, the one left struggling to make ends meet because of rising costs which far outpace their salaries? Or is it our leaders who are ineffectively reacting to crises rather than seeking out global best practices?

I've tweeted many times on the subject of Canada's adoption of the United Nations New Urban Agenda 2030 (which happened on October 20/16) by using the hashtags #NewUrbanAgenda2030, #NUA2030 and #NUA. Habitat III was the UN's largest conference in history (35,000 attended) and many countries adopted the NUA2030. Here's it is as a download: https://www2.habitat3.org/bitcache/97ced11dcecef85d41f74043195e5472836f6291?vid=588897&disposition=inline&op=view

What I like about the New Urban Agenda, and its associated Sustainable Development Goals, is the fact that thousands of experts have collaborated in its creation, and thousands more are involved in ensuring its successful implementation (see @urbancampaign). I also like that sustainability in the New Urban Agenda is environmental, financial and social, and encompasses 17 goals to transform our urban landscape (see http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html). I'd much rather put my faith in thousands of experts, drawing on global best practices, than on our current system of reactive policy that's failed consumers miserably.  My hope is that Canada's National Housing Strategy, due some time in November, will have a heavy emphasis on the wisdom within the New Urban Agenda. Let's keep in mind that the World Bank is monitoring sustainable development (http://datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgs/) so this will have a bearing on monetary policy at some point in the near future.

I look forward to the next few months to see how our policy makers, urban planners and the housing industry respond and adapt to transformative change in new housing that is so desperately needed because consumers are at a breaking point. 

Architectural barriers in new dwellings versus human rights in housing

Here's a brief explanation of the basis for my advocacy/activism in removing architectural barriers in new dwellings.

Municipal:

-The City of Ottawa Older Adult Plan had a 2016 mandate to promote adaptable, age-friendly homes, which has yet to be fulfilled. There's a clear correlation between aging and an increase in disabilities (or decreased physical abilities) which should actually encourage a clear action plan in housing.
-The World Health Organization certified Ottawa as an Age-Friendly City so architectural barriers in new dwellings seem to put this certification in question.
-The City of Ottawa Accessibility Design Standards (2015 update) encourage VisitAbility for the residential sector on page 194 but how is this actually happening in private dwellings? The one section of the Ontario Building Code that actually requires VisitAbility [OBC 3.8.2.1 (5)] in one type of dwelling is facing exemptions in some Ottawa projects. I've alerted Mayor Watson to this fact by making reference to building permits issued since January 1, 2015, when this became law. I have yet to receive a satisfactory response on the evidence that I've provided (see #OBC38215 on Twitter for some of the information if you're curious).

Provincial:

-The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids disability discrimination and also speaks of the Occupancy of Accommodation. Seeing as the Ontario Human Rights Code has primacy over the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code (and their limitations and failures), why are architectural barriers in new dwellings allowed to continue? The Ontario Human Rights Commission has also published information regarding disability discrimination in housing yet fails to enforce its mandate against discriminatory policy like Ontario Building Code section 3.8.1.1, which exempts houses from barrier-free design requirements.

Federal:

-The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids disability discrimination in section 15 since 1985. 2017 being Canada's 150th anniversary, it would be an opportune time to end 32 years of discriminatory federal policy, like our National Building Code section 3.8.1.1.
-My Code Change Request #964 with the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes has hundreds of documents attached that substantiate my request to abolish NBC 3.8.1.1 in houses and offer VisitAbility in new dwellings (submission on June 30, 2015 and ongoing).

United Nations:

-Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010 (yet continues to omit the Optional Protocol, the real power behind this convention). Architectural barriers in new dwellings violate Articles 9 (which speaks of accessibility of housing) and 19 as two examples from this convention, among others. A recent review of Canada by the UN wasn't very flattering, here's their report if you'd like proof:
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2FC%2FCAN%2FCO%2F1&Lang=en

-Canada adopted the New Urban Agenda 2030 on October 20, 2016. Within the NUA 2030 is the Sustainable Development Goal #11 (Inclusive Cities and Communities) and their emphasis on disability-inclusive development and Universal Design of the built environment (which includes housing). Canada's commitments at the UN should compel us to act promptly but delay tactics reinforce status quo.

Conclusion:

All countries are struggling with aging populations, and the impact that this will have across many sectors, which includes housing. To continue building new dwellings with architectural barriers brings forward the following concerns:

-There are the obvious human rights violations against persons with disabilities (also persons with activity limitations). Excluding Canadians with disabilities or activity limitations from the majority of our new housing stock is inexcusable The need is growing for dwellings that adapt to our changing abilities and needs so current policy that ignores this fact seems contrary to logic.
-The strain that is added to our public health system by injuries sustained in our unsafe dwellings: falls in Canada cost 2 billion dollars per year, roughly 50% of those exorbitant costs are for seniors falling in their homes. Our Canadian Standards Association B651-12 has wonderful standards for accessibility, which includes residential in section 7, so why wouldn't we improve section 3.8 in our provincial and territorial building codes and ensure that the residential sector uses CSA B651-12?
-Domestic and international research has clearly stated that Universal Design features in new construction are low to negligible in cost (VisitAbility being the cheapest and easiest to accomplish). I have personally seen beautiful design that dispels the ongoing myths and biases.
-Continuing with architectural barriers in new dwellings exposes our housing industry to the risk of litigation on the basis of discrimination and injuries and deaths. Why would they risk this when there are best practices within our own borders that they could easily implement? And why does our insurance industry not realize that removing architectural barriers in new dwellings would actually decrease their liability to claims and their clients' risk of litigation.

We need strong leadership to correct all of the above, I have yet to see any level of government act promptly on abolishing human rights violations in new dwellings. It's shameful, we must to better.

After ten years of advocacy for human rights in housing, I'm tired and admitting that it's time for a break.

-I'm tired of spending thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on advocacy when only a small minority of Canadians care about human rights in housing. It's been a hard pill to swallow.

-I'm tired of rhetoric by all levels of government in Canada. I judge leaders on their actions...what I've seen in ten years is that our weak leaders are perfectly content with status quo and token efforts/programs. There continues to be thousands of human rights complaints per year, even though we've forbidden disability discrimination since 1985 in section 15 of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The simple fact that government policy is often contrary to section 15 of our Charter speaks volumes. Case in point, our building codes that continue to exempt homes from barrier-free design requirements, flat out shameful.

-I'm tired of our housing industry who in large part is perfectly content in continuing to deliver dwellings that are full of architectural barriers which exclude a growing percentage of our population, and are missing the business case for accessibility (that it can actually increase your profitability if done properly). There are innovators and entrepreneurs who get it, so it's not all bad.

-I'm tired of collecting domestic and international research documents, which provide clear evidence of best practices, that largely get ignored. The same goes for photos of Universal Design that prove that it can be done beautifully when you have skilled individuals.

-I'm tired of Canadians who seem perfectly content in being reactionary rather than proactive. There's wisdom in planning for changing needs and abilities; it seems to be the norm to wait for a crisis before acting, which unfortunately compounds the stress and expense.

-I'm tired of Canada's credibility evaporating at the United Nations. We've made commitments to a number of Conventions that see little to no concrete action, yet again rhetoric by weak leaders.

After ten years, I've finally gotten discouraged by the facts listed above. It's time for a break, I'm tired of banging my head against the wall.

Commentary on Canada and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

You may wish to be sitting down for this commentary because it will be a factual rant, one based on years of advocacy.

Here are some facts:
-Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has forbidden disability discrimination since 1985. Our provincial and territorial human rights commissions and tribunals face regular human rights complaints based on this one section of our Charter.
-Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010 but omitted the Optional Protocol, the accountability portion of the CRPD. Canada announced on December 1, 2016 that it was reviewing the accession of the Optional Protocol, with a public consultation concluding on March 16, 2017. Consultations with provincial and territorial governments are still ongoing.
-Canada's first review by the United Nations CRPD Committee was this week, April 3rd and 4th in Geneva. If you wish to view 6 hours of video for the open portions of this review, here are the links (some of the questions by the CRPD Committee members are unflattering to say the least, in some cases an embarrassment to our human rights credibility):
Day 1, April 3rd: http://webtv.un.org/watch/consideration-of-canada-318th-meeting-17th-session-of-committee-on-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/5384573989001

Day 2, April 4th: http://webtv.un.org/watch/consideration-of-canada-contd-319th-meeting-17th-session-of-committee-on-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/5384573987001

If you're not already aware of what the Convention and Optional Protocol are, please see the following: http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

If you wish to read the many reports leading up to this week's review, please scroll down to the section on Canada, which also includes two reports from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (see "Info from Civil Society Organizations (for LOI's)", which is the List of Issues and "Info from NHRIs (for the session)":
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=1141&Lang=en

I hope you're sitting because my tact filter is now officially off.

Let's start with section 15 of our Charter. Our very own Canadian Human Rights Commission submitted a report to the United Nations on human rights complaints which highlights some significant concerns with the chronic abuse of section 15 in every province and territory. Here's that report, which highlights thousands of human rights complaints per year, precisely 41, 728 complaints between 2009 and 2013 (which doesn't account for the fact that many Canadians didn't bother going through this painfully long process, so the numbers are higher than reported):
https://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/eng/content/rights-persons-disabilities-equality-and-non-discrimination

Let's move on to systemic discrimination, such as ignoring legal precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada. like their decision on Eldrige v BC (1997):
http://ojen.ca/en/resource/landmark-case-eldridge-v-british-columbia-attorney-general

Further systemic discrimination, which is the main basis of my years of advocacy, is the National Building Code of Canada, section 3.8.1.1 which continues to exempt houses from barrier-free design requirements (where we spend the greatest portion of any day, where the vast majority of Canadians wish to remain as they age (85%), where injuries from falls have cost billions to our health care system, and where hundreds of deaths per year occur due to poor design which makes our homes unsafe). Here's an excerpt from the 2010 edition of the NBC:

Rather than simply continue complaining about our NBC 3.8.1.1, I brought forward a Code Change Request (CCR964) on June 30, 2015, which is still ongoing as you'll see for this upcoming May 1-3/17 meeting in Ottawa:

If you wish to know more about the content of this Code Change Request, please see the following summary document from my Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/btuyd00f19zlic6/CCR%20964%20Visitability%20Package.pdf?dl=0

My Code Change Request is based on domestic and international research documents and best practices of Universal Design (VisitAbility is the most basic and economical form of Universal Design, the primary goal is to remove architectural barriers that discriminate by excluding a growing percentage of Canadians). It's also important to highlight that our National Building Code section 3.8.1.1 not only violates section 15 of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which forms part of our Constitution Act 1982) but also Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (which includes accessibility of housing). I take all of this very seriously as you can see.

Back to the CRPD review of Canada earlier this week. I mentioned that the CRPD Committee asked some tough questions, including matters pertaining to our hundreds of murdered and missing aboriginal women, administrative segregation of prisoners with mental health disabilities, the federal government's efforts to implement the CRPD with our provinces and territories, and the list goes on. There were some very important questions asked, which brought embarrassment to our international reputation as a human rights leader. We must remember that two political parties have been in power since we ratified this Convention in 2010, the PCs and Liberals, yet status quo is ongoing. In my opinion, it's shameful and a true testament of our lack of political will on disability rights in Canada. Our history is not flattering when you consider institutionalizations, abuse/neglect, and current issues with poverty and low employment rates, inadequate housing options, etc.

In order for Canada to regain some of its clout on the international stage, we must act immediately to accede/ratify the Optional Protocol, we must ensure that the CRPD forms an important function in the creation of our Canadians with Disabilities Act (tentatively 2018), our 2017 National Housing Strategy must be based on our recent commitment to the United Nations New Urban Agenda 2030 (and the associated Sustainable Development Goal #11 for sustainable cities and communities), and we must put an end to systemic discrimination at all levels of government that perpetuate discriminatory policy, such as our National Building Code section 3.8.1.1. Prime Minister Trudeau's omissions in 2017 will weigh heavily on his government if this is allowed to persist any longer. We must end chronic violations of section 15 of our Charter and of the CRPD, enough is enough. We need decisive action...immediately.

Effective marketing of VisitAbility

I recently found an excellent YouTube video of a VisitAble home in Winnipeg's Bridgwater neighbourhood (I'm a huge fan of the 50% mandate for VisitAbility). Here's the video for your review:

While looking through the real estate agent's website, I noticed that it was listed at $688,800 and sold in 3 days.
http://www.scottmoore.ca/103-lake-bend-road

Equally interesting was the fact that it didn't mention anything about it being a VisitAble home, or the features that make it a great home to purchase. Instead, it spoke of the usual features of a home and neighbourhood because the VisitAbility features are very subtle (it shows the success of its great design because few people would be able to notice anything different about it). Here are some of the features (VisitAbility, plus others) according to the timing from the video:

00:03 - Unrelated but the wide sidewalks and a barrier-free path means that all are welcome on the trails: walking, biking, skateboards, walkers, scooters, wheelchairs...
00:22 - No step main entrance, covered from the elements.
00:24 - Wide front door, with the adaptability to wider if needed, thanks to the side window.
00:33 - Open concept design; low resistance flooring; and lots of natural and artificial lighting (safer).
00:40 - Clear space under the counter; D handles on the cabinetry; drawers for some of the bottoms (easier to reach items); ample clear space by the fridge.
00:42 - French door fridge (easier if using a mobility device); optimal stove height.
00:58 - Large, lower-set windows (easier to see out if seated / mobility device, and easier to exit if trapped in that area during a fire).
01:17 - Clear transfer space next to the toilet (where the flower stand is).
01:19 - Lever faucets; step-in shower (roll-in is better); low effort hardware to open the shower door.

There's also another great video about a bungalow with a walk-out basement, again with very subtle features:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy60KXRAnOc&t=92s

Here are some of the features (VisitAbility, plus others) for this second home:

00:04 - No-step main entrance, covered from elements

00:25 - Wide front door (adaptability to wider); lever door handle; Decora light switches

00:30 - Wide hallways
00:33 - "D" handles on cabinetry (easier than knobs)

00:33 - Ample clear space in front of the stove and fridge; low resistance flooring.
00:39 - Alternate heights for ovens, not low to the floor like standard ovens.
00:39 - French doors on the fridge are much easier for someone using a mobility device.

00:39 - Some drawers for the bottoms, rather than doors (more practical for accessing items).
00:41 - Ample clear space between the island and the cabinets.
00:44 - Single lever faucet (easier to use; dual lever faucets are ok as well).
00:48 - Front stove controls, colour contrasted (safer, easier to see).

1:00 - Open concept kitchen, dining, family areas

1:17 - Step-in shower (roll-in would be better), ample clear floor space, single lever faucet

1:22 - Not a fan of soaker tubs for safety reasons, prefer a standard bathtub with full length access like at 1:38

1:28 - Adjustable height shower head

1:52 - Great emergency egress thanks to walk-out, and lots of natural light too.

Obviously, there's ample natural and artificial light throughout, with low glare/shadows. There's always more that can be done but kudos to what they achieved.

My point to all of this is to highlight the fact that both of these homes are beautiful AND VISITABLE! The first home sold in 3 days at a price point of $688,800 so these homes are very marketable (contrary to what the majority of the housing industry thinks, in large part because of myths and biases against VisitAbility). If it can be done in Winnipeg (a northern climate, with full basements) and sell quickly, then what's the resistance really about?

If you'd like to know more about the Bridgwater neighbourhood, here's a Case Study from the national project that I was involved in:
http://visitablehousingcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Final-Bridgwater-Case-Study-Report.pdf