New affordable housing announced for downtown Kelowna – Okanagan



A new affordable housing complex has been announced for downtown Kelowna.

The 68-unit building is expected to provide homes for low- to moderate-income individuals and families at below-market rates, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

The six-storey wood-frame building with above-ground parking will be located at 555 Fuller Ave. near Bertram Street.

Read more:
Kelowna named 6th most expensive rent market in Canada

Eight units are expected to be fully accessible for people with disabilities, and Pathways Abilities Society will manage the entire site.

The building will be called Hadgraft Wilson Place, in recognition of two families who were strong advocates for persons with disabilities, according to a news release.

Story continues below advertisement

“Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home,” federal Minister of Families, Children and Social Development Ahmed Hussen said.

“Investments like this one right here in downtown Kelowna demonstrates our government’s commitment to providing access to safe, affordable homes for singles, seniors, families and persons with disabilities, while helping create good middle-class jobs and stimulate the economy.”

Read more:
Kelowna residents can’t afford to purchase real estate, report says

The land is owned by the City of Kelowna, which is providing it for use on a long-term lease.

“This development will not only increase the amount of affordable housing in the city, but also supports the city’s official community plan and the desire for a more dense, walkable downtown core,” Kelowna Mayor Colin Basran said.

The federal government is providing at least $2.48 million towards the project, while the province is contributing at least $7.7 million.

Read more:
Suburbs fuel rise in housing completions, construction, CMHC says

Another $2.45 million will also be provided through an affordable housing fund that involves joint funding between the provincial and federal governments.

The new building is expected to open in the fall of 2022.




© 2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.





Source link

Halifax project set to create accessible sex toys for people with disabilities – Halifax


Sex should be part of any conversation and it’s already happening around people with disabilities, said the Atlantic regional coordinator of Tetra Society of North America.

“It’s a subject that is kind of seen as taboo,” said Andrew Jantzen, whose organization is working with Venus Envy on a project focusing on creating accessible sex toys for people with disabilities in Halifax.

The project is called “Adaptations for Accessible Sex Practices Project.”


Andrew Jantzen of Tetra Society.

“Sex toys are not designed for people with disabilities, just like most other things that exist out there, so it’s trying to fill that gap,” said Jantzen.

Story continues below advertisement

“And out there, people are talking about it. People want this to happen. So I’m just saying, how can we adapt things? How can we use some of the the handy skills that come with Tetra volunteers to be able to fill this gap?”

Read more:
People with disabilities still want sex, according to U of R research

The purpose of Tetra is to recruit skilled volunteer engineers and technicians to create assistive devices for people with disabilities, and creating adaptive and innovative equipment for sexual practices is just one of their many projects.

The education coordinator at Venus Envy, a sex shop and bookstore, said that the first phase of the project is to interview a group of people from the disabled community who want to talk about their sex lives, and to test out some of the devices that the project will be making.

“A lot of sex toys up until sort of five, 10 years ago were made for like straight penetrative sex. It’s not just disabled bodies that are being left out of kind of the thoughts around sex toys. It’s a lot of bodies,” said Rachele Manett.

Read more:
Young people with disabilities aren’t being taught sex-ed — and it’s putting them in danger

She said certain kinds of sex toys are just not working for people with disabilities.

Story continues below advertisement

“Sometimes they’re too heavy. Buttons don’t work specifically when it comes to certain kinds of mobility limitations,” said Manett.

This is why she said the first phase of the project will look into what kind of sex toys people have access to that have made things better or more difficult, so that in the second phase the team of engineers and design specialists will have the information they need to create the equipment.

Manett said 40 people have applied as participants in just three weeks since the project has been announced.


Click to play video 'N.B. people with disabilities call for priority in COVID-19 vaccine plan'







N.B. people with disabilities call for priority in COVID-19 vaccine plan


N.B. people with disabilities call for priority in COVID-19 vaccine plan – Feb 8, 2021

She said they’re now in the process of creating a diverse group of participants to interview for the project.

“We’re trying to create a group of people that is quite diverse in the types of disabilities (they have), but also in terms of identities. We are looking to prioritize people with intersecting marginalized identities. So really making sure that we’re including voices who are sort of often left on the margins,” said Manett.

Story continues below advertisement

She said that as a society, “we have very much infantilized people with disability and we treat them like children.”

“It’s really easy for us to say, well, that means disabled people aren’t having sex, which is not true … or that disabled people have more important things to worry about than sex,” Manett added.


Click to play video 'Adaptive clothing for people with disabilities'







Adaptive clothing for people with disabilities


Adaptive clothing for people with disabilities – Jan 2, 2021

But that’s not what the project is all about, she said.

“We already know that people with disabilities are having sex and want to be having sex. That’s the part that we’re not exploring,” said Manett.

“What we’re literally saying is how can we make sex better or more accessible or more inclusive and how can we as sort of a society, change our views instead of sort of asking more questions?”

Story continues below advertisement

Tetra Society is asking anyone who would like to volunteer for the project to complete the online volunteer intake application here. 




© 2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.





Source link

City of Calgary to invest $2.5M for upgrades to new home for National accessArts Centre – Calgary


Much-needed funding has been secured to help The National accessArts Centre, formerly known as Indefinite Arts Centre, move into its new home after a roof collapse at the Fairview Arena in 2018.

The arts organization, which provides artistic training for people with developmental, physical and acquired disabilities, is expected to set up shop in the Scouts Canada building along Memorial Drive.

Read more:
Indefinite Arts Centre finds new name and potential new home

According to a letter addressed to the organization from the City of Calgary, the City has secured $2.5 million for accessibility upgrades and repairs to the building, which is also a City of Calgary Historic Resource.

“These improvements are being done with the intention of offering the National accessArts Centre the space as their future new home,” City of Calgary building infrastructure manager Susan Specht wrote in the letter.

Story continues below advertisement

Specht said the City is in the process of looking for a consultant, and engagement with the National accessArts Centre on interior renovation requirements in early-April.

The location was identified as a potential location for the centre to move into in November, but money was needed for upgrades on the city-owned facility to make it accessible for artists with disabilities.

“This is an exciting step forward for our organization,” National accessArts Centre CEO Jung-Suk Ryu said. “For three years, we’ve faced tremendous challenges and uncertainty following the collapse of the adjoining arena, and this has had an impact on our community of more than 300 artists living with disabilities.”

“Now, we are moving towards having a safe, fully accessible home for our organization.”

Read more:
Officials to begin demolition at Fairview Arena, inspections at other arenas underway

The Centre’s current location is in an adjoining facility to the Fairview Arena, which had its roof collapse in 2018.

The collapse prompted the arts organization to evacuate its adjoining space for six months while the City of Calgary completed an assessment of the building.  In November it was decided the building the arts organization occupied would also be demolished.

The arena, built in 1972, was demolished in March.

Story continues below advertisement

According to the City, the process to designate the Scouts Canada building as a municipal heritage resource is underway, and may come with requirements that affect project timelines.

Ryu said the group is expected to take occupancy of the building in late 2021 or early 2022.




© 2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.





Source link

Canmore minor hockey team named Good Deeds Cup regional finalist – Calgary



Hockey teams are playing for more than just a trophy when it comes to the Good Deeds Cup.

The winner of the Canada-wide competition will win $100,000 to make a difference in their community, and a Canmore minor hockey team has just made the finals.

Read more:
Ottawa hockey team scores Chevrolet Good Deeds Cup, $100K to help local tornado relief group

“Obviously excited, but hugely surprised,” Canmore Eagles head coach Sean Kjemhus said. “The idea to support an organization that initiates programs or experiences for kids and others living with disabilities, to try a variety of sports and it being in our backyard was very inspiring.”

Story continues below advertisement

Players on the U13 Canmore Eagles held a vote and chose to support Rocky Mountain Adaptive, a charity that helps people with disabilities access sports and take advantage of the great outdoors.

“We’re really lucky that a lot of our participants that are locals are in school with some of these (Eagles) athletes,” RMA program manager Kim Cosman said.

“To see that carry through outside of school and have them pick us just reinforces the message that we’re trying to get across and that inclusion piece in the community.”

Prior to the pandemic, Rocky Mountain Adaptive assisted roughly 2,000 people in a year.

Transit from the city, providing equipment and subsidizing programs have been major barriers for the group in the past, and COVID-19 has prevented them from holding their usual major fundraisers.

Watch:
WinSport launches adaptive sports program

By becoming regional finalists, the Eagles have already won $2,000 to help out Rocky Mountain Adaptive. That alone is a game-changer for the charity.

“The main thing that it will help us do is reduce those barriers, allow more people to access sport and recreation in the mountains,” Cosman added.

Story continues below advertisement

“We would like to create a camp that is fully inclusive and allows people that have never experienced mountain sport and recreation to come out free of charge, access these sports and engage members of the community to come out to the camp as well.”

Voting for the Good Deeds Cup is open until Feb. 24.




© 2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.





Source link

Comedian Mike Ward heads to Supreme Court over jokes about Jérémy Gabriel – Montreal


The Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal Monday from comedian Mike Ward, who was found by a lower court to have discriminated against a disabled singer in one of his routines.

Ward’s lawyer told the nine judges that Canadians don’t have a right not to be offended, and making fun of someone doesn’t take away their rights.

The lawyer for singer Jeremy Gabriel — who was awarded $35,000 by a rights tribunal — said Ward’s joke went too far and had long-lasting consequence’s on the disabled man’s life.

The nine justices took the case under deliberation at the end of the hearing.

READ MORE: Comedian Mike Ward loses appeal over penalty for joke about disabled boy

Lawyer Julius Grey argued Monday that his client’s joke about Gabriel — part of the comedian’s routine between 2010 and 2013 — targeted sacred cows in society as opposed to the singer’s disability.

Story continues below advertisement

“There is no right not to be offended,”Grey said. “To insult someone doesn’t deprive that person of a service or of a right.”

A 2016 Quebec human rights tribunal ruling had ordered Ward to pay $35,000 in moral and punitive damages to Gabriel, who has Treacher Collins syndrome, a congenital disorder characterized by skull and facial deformities. Gabriel became a celebrity in Quebec after he sang with Céline Dion and for the Pope.

In his act, Ward joked that he had thought Gabriel’s illness was terminal and people were only nice to him because he would soon die. Ward then joked that after he realized the child was not dying, he tried to drown him.

The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in a 2-1 decision in November 2019 that Ward’s comments compromised the young performer’s right to the safeguarding of his dignity and could not be justified, even in a society where freedom of expression is valued.

READ MORE: Comedian Mike Ward says Hells Angels protected him after joke about missing girl

Grey told the Supreme Court, “one could argue that Mike Ward provided equality for Jeremy (Gabriel) by treating him in the same way as other sacred cows.” The comment drew a response from Justice Russell Brown.

“Oh c’mon!” Brown said, interrupting Grey. “Don’t go that far. We aren’t talking about Galileo or Salman Rushdie, here. He’s no hero,” he added, referring to Ward.

Story continues below advertisement

Justice Sheilah Martin also reacted to Grey’s comments, stating: “We’re talking about somebody saying that they tried to drown a 13-year-old child that has a physical disability.”

Christopher Bredt, a lawyer for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, an intervener in the case arguing on the side of freedom of expression, told the court that “a lot of comedy is in bad taste.”


Click to play video 'Supreme Court set to hear comedian’s case'







Supreme Court set to hear comedian’s case


Supreme Court set to hear comedian’s case

But Stephanie Fournier, a lawyer representing Quebec’s human rights tribunal, said the case wasn’t about morality or taste but about discrimination.

She said the joke attacked Gabriel’s human dignity. She told the court that Ward’s comedy routine was widely available online, which she said was a “major element” in the case, because the videos were accessible to Gabriel’s peers at school.

“He was mocked and intimidated at school …. He also had to deal with the stress of his parents. Therefore, there were enormous consequences for (Gabriel),” Fournier said.

Story continues below advertisement

Ward’s case has received a lot of attention in the province because of its implications for artistic freedom and the place of human rights tribunals to adjudicate issues of freedom of expression.

Another intervener in the case before the Supreme Court is an association representing professionals in Quebec’s comedy industry, l’Association des professionnels de l’industrie de l’humour.

The group’s lawyer, Walid Hijazi, said Monday that the industry is worried about the possibility of Ward losing the case. He warned of a possible “chilling effect” that would lead to self-censorship among comedians.




© 2021 The Canadian Press





Source link

‘Still far away’ from Ontarians being able to choose what COVID-19 vaccine they receive, Elliott says



Ontario Deputy Premier and Health Minister Christine Elliott said Thursday that the province is “still far away” from when Ontarians will be able to choose what vaccine they receive, because of limitations with with the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine and the number of accessible doses.



Source link

Canadian senators to vote on assisted dying bill Feb. 17 as deadline looms – National


Senators have agreed to put a bill to expand access to medical assistance in dying to a final vote by Feb. 17, but they’ve signalled their intention to propose substantial amendments.

The agreed date for the vote will leave just over a week for the House of Commons to deal with any amendments approved by the Senate before a thrice-extended, court-imposed deadline of Feb. 26.

It’s a tight timetable that could yet make it impossible to meet the court deadline.

Read more:
Canadian Senate committee accepts assisted dying bill but amendments still to come

Senators, who began final debate Monday, will begin dealing with the amendments to Bill C-7 on Tuesday.

An amended version of the bill would have to go back to the House of Commons for MPs to decide whether to accept or reject the amendments before shipping it back to the Senate, where senators would have to decide whether to approve the bill even if some or all of their amendments were rejected.

Story continues below advertisement

In theory, the bill could bounce repeatedly back and forth between chambers.

The bill is intended to bring the law into compliance with a 2019 Quebec Superior Court ruling that struck down a provision allowing assisted dying only for those whose natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.”

It scraps that provision but retains the foreseeable death concept to set up two sets of rules for eligibility: more relaxed rules for those who are near death and more stringent rules for those who are not.

It would also expressly prohibit assisted dying for individuals who are suffering solely from mental illnesses.

Sen. Marc Gold, the government’s representative in the Senate, acknowledged that some senators think the bill goes too far, while others think it doesn’t go far enough. But he said, to his mind, that divergence of opinion demonstrates that the bill has struck the right balance.


Click to play video 'Health Matters: end-of-life planning in light of COVID-19'







Health Matters: end-of-life planning in light of COVID-19


Health Matters: end-of-life planning in light of COVID-19 – Jun 18, 2020

“The bottom line is that it is a reasonable, prudent proposal that achieves a complex balancing of rights … Bill C-7 is neither too hot, nor too cold, but just the right temperature,” Gold said during Monday’s debate.

Story continues below advertisement

Gold further suggested that unelected senators should be cautious about tinkering with the bill, noting it was supported by two-thirds of elected MPs from all parties in the House of Commons, giving it “a strong democratic stamp of approval.”

But Sen. Pierre Dalphond, a former judge who sits in the Progressive Senate Group, argued that the exclusion of those suffering solely from mental illnesses is unconstitutional, violating their right to equal treatment under the law regardless of physical or mental disability.

Dalphond said he believes it’s reasonable to propose a sunset clause to put a time limit on that exclusion, giving the government time to come up with guidelines for providing assisted dying to people with mental illnesses.

And he said he’ll introduce another amendment to specify that the ill-defined concept of mental illness does not include neuro-congnitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease.

Read more:
Senator questions assisted dying sedative linked to botched U.S. executions

There is support among senators for referring the bill to the Supreme Court for advice on its constitutionality, both from those who think it’s too restrictive and those who think it’s too permissive.

Sen. Don Plett, leader of the Conservatives in the Senate, questioned why senators are rushing to expand access to what he termed “physician-induced death,” based on “a lower court decision made by one judge in one province” that the government chose not to appeal.

Story continues below advertisement

He implored his colleagues to listen to disability rights advocates who have denounced the bill for sending the “harmful and tragic message” that the lives of people with disabilities are not worth living.

Plett argued that extending access before improving palliative care and support services for people with disabilities will make it “easier to die than to live” and doesn’t give vulnerable people a real choice.


Click to play video 'Bill aims to ease rules in Canada’s medically-assisted dying laws'







Bill aims to ease rules in Canada’s medically-assisted dying laws


Bill aims to ease rules in Canada’s medically-assisted dying laws – Feb 25, 2020

Conservative Sen. Denise Batters said it’s “disgraceful” that the government is pushing a bill to expand access to assisted dying in the midst of a pandemic, when vulnerable people are even more “alone, isolated and economically disadvantaged” and with even less access to support services.

She argued that Black, racialized, Indigenous and poor Canadians with disabilities, “people who have been routinely pushed to the margins of our society,” are “crying out to us for help but they don’t want help to die, they want help to live.”

Story continues below advertisement

However, Sen. Chantal Petitclerc, a former Paralympian who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate, noted that the court ruling to which the bill is responding was triggered by Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, two Quebecers with severe disabilities.

Read more:
Senate vote on assisted dying bill delayed to February due to Quebec ruling

Petitclerc, a member of the Independent Senators Group, said senators can’t ignore the inequalities that exist in society or the lack of support services that can exacerbate suffering.

But she said she believes the government has correctly chosen to permit assisted dying “in order to respect the autonomy of those who choose it freely as a release from intolerable suffering,” rather than prohibit it for all people with disabilities “until all support and all resources are available.”




© 2021 The Canadian Press





Source link

Waiting list ‘abyss’ in N.S. for care and housing of people with disabilities: doctor


A Nova Scotia family doctor says people with intellectual disabilities can develop illnesses ranging from diabetes to stroke when forced to live in unsuitable housing without expert help.

Dr. Karen McNeil told a legislature committee today many families feel like they’re experiencing “an abyss” because their loved ones languish on a 1,698-person waiting list, either to begin receiving care or in hope of being transferred to a more suitable living arrangement.

McNeil is a founding member of the Dalhousie family medicine adult developmental disability clinic in Halifax, where since 2010 she has supported primary care doctors who care for adults with intellectual disabilities

She told the committee that larger, so-called “congregate care” facilities that house about 525 of the 4,979 adults receiving care are unsuitable and that it’s well established they should be living in smaller, community homes.

Read more:
N.S. pledges homes for people with disabilities but advocate calls pace ‘glacial’

Story continues below advertisement

McNeil says that’s particularly true during a pandemic when sharing bedrooms and bathrooms “is a recipe for disaster.”

The doctor says she sees people who are frustrated by living amid too much noise or who lack specialized care, leading to undiagnosed needs.

“When people with intellectual and development disabilities are forced to live in unhealthy situations, they try to communicate, and this is difficult when you have few words or no words,” McNeil told the Department of Community Services legislature committee.

“Sometimes they communicate very loudly, sometimes they get physical, sometimes they beat on themselves, sometimes out of desperation they beat on others.”

“I feel that they are telling us their environment is not suitable and in some cases it is oppressive,” she added.

The physician says family doctors often prescribe psychotropic medication because the province hasn’t created multidisciplinary teams of doctors who can probe the root causes of frustration. “There’s no reason we can’t create these teams,” she said. “And by not having this we are using more drugs. What do those drugs do? They create side effects such as diabetes and put them at risk of heart attack and stroke.”


Click to play video 'Facing eviction during COVID-19'







Facing eviction during COVID-19


Facing eviction during COVID-19

McNeil is part of the advocacy organization, Community Homes Action Group, which is urging the province to move more swiftly toward transferring people out of their congregate facilities – referred to as adult residential centres or regional rehabilitation centres – to small options homes where up to four people live with caregivers.

Story continues below advertisement

Joyce d’Entremont, the chief executive of Mountains and Meadows Care Group, noted that a plan to shift 27 residents from Harbourside adult residential facility in Yarmouth to community homes – the first in the provincewide plan to phase out the institutions – has shown the process must take place at the pace that families and residents are comfortable with.

The Harbourside move, d’Entremont said, is happening over 12 to 18 months.

The hearing heard that Nova Scotia is the last jurisdiction in Canada to undertake the closure of institutions, after a moratorium on the construction of small options facilities occurred through the 1990s, as other provinces forged ahead with smaller residences.

Read more:
Battle over housing rights for people with intellectual disabilities in N.S. court

Maria Medioli, executive director of the disability support program, told the committee the advantage of being last is that the province has learned about the downside of shifting people into the community without adequate support.

“We have to set people up for success,” she said. “Some of these people have lived in an institution their whole lives. They’ve been told when to eat, when to sleep and who they have to live with. So to move to a community can be scary.”

The government has said in earlier news releases that it has budgeted $7.4 million in 2020-21 to create 50 new community placements, with plans to expand this transition “over the next several years.”

Story continues below advertisement

Tracey Taweel, the deputy minister of Community Services, noted during today’s hearing that the department’s budget for the disabilities support program has grown $70 million in five years, to $389 million annually, with $75.5 million going toward the large congregate facilities.

She noted in her presentation that the province “remains fully committed to phasing out” the large facilities.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 2, 2021.


Click to play video 'Dalhousie University professor says older LGBTQ+ face challenges in accessing housing supports'







Dalhousie University professor says older LGBTQ+ face challenges in accessing housing supports


Dalhousie University professor says older LGBTQ+ face challenges in accessing housing supports – Dec 30, 2020




© 2021 The Canadian Press





Source link

Today is the 40th Anniversary of Parliament Agreeing to Guarantee A Constitutional Right to Equality to People with Disabilities – A Victory Disability Advocates Now Invoke to Prevent Disability Discrimination in Access to Life-Saving Critical Care if Hospitals Start to Triage Critical Care


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Today is the 40th Anniversary of Parliament Agreeing to Guarantee A Constitutional Right to Equality to People with Disabilities – A Victory Disability Advocates Now Invoke to Prevent Disability Discrimination in Access to Life-Saving Critical Care if Hospitals Start to Triage Critical Care

January 28, 2021 Toronto: Forty years ago today was the most important single event to protect the constitutional equality rights of millions of people with disabilities, in Canada’s first 114 years. Four decades ago today, the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada (“the Joint Committee”) voted to add equality rights for people with disabilities to the proposed Charter of Rights, then being debated. (“The disability amendment”)

Weeks earlier, in October 1980, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced a bill into Parliament to add a new Charter of Rights to Canada’s Constitution. The proposed Charter of Rights included an equality rights provision, section 15. However, section 15 did not include equality rights for people with disabilities. Unless amended, courts could not interprete section 15 to protect disability equality.

Without the benefit of fax machines, email, the internet or social media (which were years away), people with disabilities campaigned for the disability amendment. Their blitz got little media coverage.

In fall 1980, three major disability organizations appeared before the Joint Committee to call for the disability amendment. In response, on January 12, 1981, Justice Minister Jean Chretien said no to the disability amendment.

Despite that, people with disabilities tenaciously kept up the pressure. Victory came on January 28, 1981, when the Trudeau Government withdrew its opposition to the disability amendment. That day, the Joint Committee voted to pass the disability amendment. Canada became the first western democracy to explicitly protect equality for people with disabilities in its constitution. (Hansard transcript below)

Over the forty years that followed, the disability amendment led to some important court victories for disability rights. It also helped drive the passage of several accessibility laws: Ontario’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005, Manitoba’s Accessibility for Manitobans Act 2013, Nova Scotia’s Accessibility Act 2017, and the federal Accessible Canada Act2019.

“Canada should be proud of what was achieved forty years ago today in the name of equality and full participation for people with disabilities,” said David Lepofsky who was one of the disability advocates who appeared before Parliament to advocate for the disability amendment and who now chairs the non-partisan AODA Alliance that campaigns for disability accessibility. “However, despite the disability amendment, over six million people with disabilities in Canada still face far too many unfair barriers in areas like employment, transportation, education, health care and access to buildings. Top of mind today is the serious danger that patients with disabilities will suffer unjustified disability discrimination in access to life-saving critical medical care if the COVID-19 pandemic overloads Ontario hospitals, requiring the rationing or “triage” of critical care, dressed up as objective medical science. Those of us who fought for the disability amendment could not have imagined that forty years later, we’d need to use that victory to try to prevent disability discrimination in access to life-saving critical medical care.”

In months of public debate over the Charter of Rights four decades ago, the only new constitutional right that was added to the Charter, and which was not in the original draft, was equality for people with disabilities – something the media has also rarely covered. Even lesser known was a second disability rights victory for people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing at the Joint Committee four decades ago today. The Joint Committee also amended section 14 of the Charter, to guarantee the constitutional right to an interpreter for deaf persons when participating in legal proceedings. Previously, section 14’s wording did not guarantee the right to an interpreter to persons needing one due to hearing loss.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, [email protected]

For more background, check out:

  1. Transcript of the three disability organizations’ presentations in the 1980 fall to the Joint Committee calling for the Charter disability amendment.
  1. Captioned video of the December 12, 1980 presentation by David Lepofsky to the Joint Committee, on behalf of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. He is now chair of the AODA Alliance.
  1. Transcript of the initial refusal on January 12, 1981 by federal Justice Minister Jean Chretien to agree to the disability amendment, which he announced during his appearance before the Joint committee – a decision the Federal Government reversed forty years ago today.
  1. Online captioned lecture at the Osgoode Hall Law School by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on the history of the campaign for the Charter disability amendment.

Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada on the Constitution of Canada Hansard Excerpts January 28, 1981

The following took place on Charter ss. 14 and 15 as it pertains to people with disabilities:

Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would then move this amendment as follows, that Clause 14 of the proposed constitution act, 1980 be amended by striking out lines 40 to 44 on page 5 and substituting the following:

  1. Every person has the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings before a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority in which the person is involved or is a party or a witness if the person does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted, or is subject to a hearing impairment.

Et en français, it est proposé

Que l’article 14 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 40 à 43, de ce qui suit:

«14. Les personnes qui ne comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue dans laquelle se déroulent des procédures devant une instance judiciaire, quasi-judiciaire, administrative ou autre, ont droit à l’assistance d’un interprète; les personnes atteintes de déficiences auditives ont également ce droit dans les mêmes circonstances.»

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Before I invite you to give an explanation, Mr. Robinson, the honourable James McGrath on a point of order.

Mr. McGrath: I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, at first glance it would seem that our amendment, which is CP-7, Clause 14, page 5 should come first.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): The only reason I have called the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party, I refer to you the previous indication that the Chair would call in order the amendments, and so far as the New Democratic Party amendment deals with line 40 and your amendment deals with line 43, that is why I have to call according to the previous procedure, I have to call the New Democratic Party amendment first even though the Chair realizes that if the

[Page 84]

New Democratic Party amendment is accepted by this Committee, the amendment identified CP-7 is already included in the previous amendment, but if the amendment by the New Democratic Party is not accepted that does not prevent you from moving the amendment identified as CP-7.

Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, for a matter of clarification, you gave the background of the discussion on Clause 14. We cannot accept the amendment of Mr. Robinson and I will explain why, but we can accept the amendment of the Conservative Parvty and so perhpas we should deal with the two and I can give the explanation to Mr. Robinson so that it will not—the intention is all the same but the way of drafting one is better than the drafting of the other, and the Robinson amendment, if I can use that term, the 150th amendment, it is too vague and could create all sorts of problems.

I am informed, for example …

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the Minister, if I might have an opportunity to at least explain the amendment before it is shot down by the Minister. That is, I believe the normal procedure.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): I will invite Mr. Robinson to present his amendment in the usual way.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that the Minister still has an open mind on the subject and will be listening with great interest and will not be subject to any impairment involving hearing. it is one thing not to listen, Mr. Chairman, it is another thing to be subjected to a hearing impairment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to expand the protection presently accorded in Clause 14 to an interpreter, and it is not something which is unusual or vague or difficult to apply, as the Minister suggested, because with respect, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, the wording is taken precisely from the terms of Bill C-60.

Now, once again, Mr. Minister, I would have assumed that the same people who advised you on Bill C-60 would be advising you today and I am sure that they would not have wished to advise you at that time to accept something which was vague or impossible to interpret.

Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of vagueness, it is a question of scope. In Clause 14, as the amendment would read, we would be going beyond proceedings in which a person was a party or witness, but we would be going to proceedings in which a person was involved, to use the words of the proposed amendment, and we would also be expanding the words to deal with other authorities.

As I say, this is the proposal in Bill C-60, it was accepted by the MacGuigan-Lamontagne Committee, it was not considered by the government two years ago to be vague or difficult to interpret. I suggest that the amendment was reasonable and that it should be accepted. I would hope that it would be accepted by the government.

I would also say that I am pleased to hear that the government is prepared to accept the amendment with respect to

[Page 85]

deafness which is being proposed both by the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party but I would hope that the government would recognize the desirability of expanding this in terms which it was presented in Bill C-60.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Chrétien: I will ask my advisor to give the explanation but the fact that it was accepted in Bill C·60, the deputy minister is not the same, perhaps he is a judge now, so we have a different troop and to explain why we feel after reflection what is better.

Mr. Ewaschuk: Obviously in relation to the proceedings the administration of justice is conducted by a provincial authorities. The expression in which the person is involved means more than the party or the witness so you can have all kinds of interested parties come to court and this would in fact give them a constitutional right to have interpreters so they could understand the proceedings.

Now, oftentimes that is so. If it is a language problem, the interpreter is there, and there is translation that goes on and there is certain accommodation, but if you were to do that for everybody who came in, who is somehow involved, they may be in fact a relative or so who does not understand the language but they are not a witness, they are not the accused and such, it could have certain important ramifications for the adminis· tration of justice and I think that the position we take is that, yes, we are not opposed to that but we would let the provincial try to work that out rather than saying that they have to in fact do it.

We say the minimal, yes, it should be for the witness, it should be for the party, extended to the deaf, but that is as far as we are willing to go at this particular time.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Thank you very much.

Mr. Robinson to conclude.

Mr. Robinson: Just a question, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to the officials or to the Minister.

Is it my understanding that Clause 14 as the government is proposing now would not cover the right to an interpreter of a person who is, let us say, arrested or detained; if they are being questioned, that they would not be protected by this right to an interpreter, that is my reading at least of Clause 14. Whereas, under the proposed amendment, because of the insertion of the words “or other authority” in which the person is involved, they would be protected in those circumstances?

Mr. Ewaschuk: Well, I kind of doubt that. When you are talking about procedings before another authority, I doubt that you would get a court characterizing that as being police interrogating somebody.

You must keep in mind again, and we have gone over this before, that the Crown has to prove a statement as voluntary, so if you have two English policemen who were in fact interrogating somebody who did not understand English, it is very unlikely that the judge is going to find that that statement is voluntary.

[Page 86]

So rather than say that the police have to have to bring in, anytime there is a question on whether or not somebody was being interrogated can understand English, they will do that as a matter of course if they want to get that statement in, but it would not be an absolute right in relation to proceedings because I just do not see that as being characterized as proceedings.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Mr. Robinson to conclude.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Just to conclude, I would remind the Minister through you, Mr. Chairman, of the recent case in Toronto in which this very point was canvassed and raised in connection with an East Indian who was questioned under circumstances in which it was alleged that he did not understand the language in which he was being questioned.

I would also suggest that the words “other authority” have been interpreted by our courts to include circumstances in which a person is being questioned by the police, that the person is an authority figure, when we are dealing, for example, with confessions, and that is the way Canadian jurisprudence has interpreted those words.

I think, Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the present deputy minister, that the advice which was given in 1978 was very sound advice and I would suggest that this Committee should accept that advice.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Amendment negatived.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): I would like then to invite the motion identified as CP-7, Clause 14, page 5, the motion proposed by the Conservative Party to be moved and invite the Honourable James McGrath to so do.

Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, before I read the amendment there is a slight change. The amendment should read “ed or who is deaf” to make it conform technically with the page.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is as follows, I move that Clause 14 of the proposed constitution act, 1980, be amended by striking out line 43 on page 5 and substituting the following:

ed or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an”

I will ask my colleague, Senator Tremblay, if he will read it en français, s’il vous plait.

[Translation]

Senator Tremblay: Just to please my colleague who could very well read it himself.

[Text]

Il est proposé

Que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 …

j’imagine

[Page 87]

soit modifié par substitution …

Il faut continuer à dire 1980, n’est-ce pas? Merci, monsieur le président, de cette indication.

… soit modifié par substitution, à l’article 14, de ce qui suit:

«14. La partie ou le témoin qui ne peuvent suivre les procédures, soit parce qu’ils ne comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue employée, soit parce qu’ils sont atteints de surdité, ont droit à l’assistance d’un interprète.»

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Thank you, Senator Tremblay.

[Text]

Mr. McGrath, to propose the motion in the usual way?

Mr. McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I must be getting overtired or perhaps I must be developing a hearing impediment because I thought I hear the Minister say he was going to accept our amendment.

Mr. Chrétien: Yes. Yes.

Mr. McGrath: Well, Mr. Chairman, now that that fact has been so dramatically verified I expect any minute to ask the Minister to give consent to have the amendment withdrawn to be moved on a subsequent amendment. It would be more in keeping with the experience we have had here.

However, Mr. Chairman, this is a serious amendment and I am very, very encouraged by the fact that the government has seen fit to accept it because there are a number of people in this country who have a serious hearing handicap. Indeed, I stand to be corrected on this, but there are over 200,000 Canadians who are deaf or have a hearing disability to the point where they are clinically or legally deaf, and it is a serious problem because their handicap is not apparent and it becomes compounded when they are party to legal proceedings. That is why this amendment is so important.

It is not without interest to note that we are moving in the direction of recognizing the rights of these people, for example in broadcasting they have mechanical devices now in the public broadcasting system in the United States for the hard of hearing or the deaf. I understand that we are moving in that direction in Canada as well.

Mr. Chairman, I am gratified that the government has accepted our amendment and, as a matter of fact, I am speechless.

Mr. Crombie: Two good events on one motion. Two!

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): I will not speak on behalf of the government, of course, honourable James McGrath, but you might wonder why the government has changed its mind about that and I told you last week that some see the light because they found their hearts and some change their mind because they hear the voices, and that is probably what happened in the present case.

An hon. Member: I am sure they heard footsteps.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): I see that the honourable members are ready for the vote.

Amendment agreed to.

[Page 88]

Clause 14 as amended agreed to.

On Clause 15—Equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): I will invite, then, honourable members to take the amendments in relation to Clause 15. There are a certain number of amendments dealing with Clause 15, especially taking into account that very clause of the proposed motion has two subclauses, Clause 15(1) and Clause 15(2), and in order to deal with the two subclauses in order I would like to invite honourable members to take the amendment identified G-20, Clause 15(1) page 6.

There are two subamendments, to that amendment. The first subamendment that the Chair will invite honourable members to take is the one identified N-21, Clause 15(1), page 6, revised, that is the one with the word “revised” on it, and the next subamendment in relation to the same main amendment is the one identified as CP—8(1), Clause 15, page 6.

So it means that the first subamendment we will be dealing with is the last one that I have mentioned, CP-8(1), Clause 15, page 6, but before we deal with that second subamendment I would like to invite Mr. Irwin to move, or Monsieur Corbin, to move the one identified G-20, subclause 15(1), Page 6.

Monsieur Corbin.

  1. Corbin: Merci, monsieur le president.

Or, je propose

Que le paragraphe 15(1) du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, à la rubrique qui précède la ligne 1, et aux lignes 1 à 5, page 6, de ce qui suit:

«Droits à l’égalité

  1. (1) La Loi ne fait acception de person ne et s’applique également à tous et tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi, indépendamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondées sur la race, l’origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe ou l’âge.»

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the heading preceding Clause 15 and Clause 15(1) of the proposed constitution act, 1980, be amended by striking out the heading immediately preceding line 1 and lines 1 to 5 on page 6 and substituting the following:

“Equality Rights

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

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Le coprésident (M. Joyal): Thank you, Mr. Corbin.

[Text]

I would like to invite Mr. Robinson on behalf of the New Democratic Party to introduce the subamendment revised N-21, Clause 15(1), page 6.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Page 89]

I am very pleased to move the subamendment as follows …

Mr. Epp: Just a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I must have misunderstood you. I take it now that you are going to ask for the New Democratic subamendment first and then call for our subamendment to the subamendment?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Yes. That is what I have already stated, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Epp: I did not understand it that way. I thought you asked for our subamendment to the amendment.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): No, that is not the way.

Go on, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amendment is as follows, first of all in English, this is to the proposal of the government, I move that the proposed amendment to Clause 15(1) of the proposed constitution act 1980, be amended by (a) striking out everything immediately following the words “Every individual is equal» and substituting the following:

in, before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law, and to access to employment, accommodation and public services, without unreasonable distinction on grounds including sex, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion or age.

And then, Mr. Chairman, there are six additional subsections. The first is: (b) adding to Clause 15(1) the following: “physical or mental disability,”; (c) adding to Clause 15(1) the following: “marital status,”; (d) adding to Clause 15(1) the following: “sexual orientation,”; (e) adding to Clause 15(1) the following: “political belief,”; (f) adding to Clause 15(1) the following: “lack of means”; and (g) moving the word “or” so that it appears immediately after the penultimate proscribed ground of discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, those are our proposed amendments to Clause 15(1) to recognize some very fundamental and important grounds of discrimination which are not recognized in the government’s proposal.

In French, Mr. Chairman, if you would like me to read this in French.

Il est proposé

Que le projet de modification du paragraphe 15 (1) du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par:

  1. a) substitution, à ce qui suit le membre de phrase «La loi ne fait exception de personne», de ce qui suit:

«Tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi, ainsi qu’à l’accès aux emplois, au logement et aux services publics, indépendamment de

[Page 90]

toute distinction abusive fondee notamment sur le sexe, la race, l’origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion ou l’âge.»

  1. b) adjonction, au paragraphe 15 (1), de ce qui suit: «les déficiences physiques ou mentales,»
  2. c) adjonction, au paragraphe 15 (1), de ce qui suit: «la situation familiale,»
  3. d) adjonction, au paragraphe 15 (1), de ce qui suit: «l’inclination sexuelle,»
  4. e) adjonction, au paragraphe 15 (1), de ce qui suit: «les croyances politiques,»
  5. f) adjonction, au paragraphe 15 (1), de ce qui suit: «l’insuffisance de moyens.»
  6. g) insertion de la conjonction «or» avant la dernière distinction discriminatoire énoncée au paragraphe 15 (1) tel que modifié.

Monsieur le president, je crois que cela doit etre «ou» et non’ pas «or».

Mr. Chairman, again these are proposed additions and changes to Clause 15(1) and I am very pleased to note that the Conservative Party will also be proposing the addition of physical and mental disability, supporting our amendment on that particular subclause.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

I would like to invite the honourable James McCrath to move the amendment on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Mr. Crombie will do so.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): The honourable David Crombie.

Mr. Crombie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, dealing with Clause 15 and our amendment to it, which is numbered CP-8(1) on the sheet, I wish to move that the proposed amendment to Clause 15 of the proposed constitution act, 1980, be amended by striking out the words “or age” in Clause 15(1) thereof and substituting therefor the following words:

age or mental or physical disability.

En français, il est proposé

Que le projet de modification de I’article 15 du porjet de loi constitution ne! de 1980 soit modi fie par la substitution, a «ou l’âge», au paragraphe (1), de «l’âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques.»

Mr. Chairman, speaking to the motion, my understanding is that the government is willing to accept our amendment.

Now, I am not sure we can continue to take this prosperity any longer!

However, on behalf of those groups, organizations and individuals who find themselves physically and mentally dis-

[Page 91]

abled in this country, I would like, on their behalf, since I am the spokesman on their behalf at this point, to offer my thanks to the government for their acceptance of the amendment.

Thank you very much.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Thank you, the honourable David Crombie.

Mr. Chrétien: But who told you that I have accepted the amendment. I have not yet spoken. I think it was a good put on.

Mr. Crombie: I have already spoken to Bob Kaplan and he has said it is okay!

Mr. Chrétien: If I can have five minutes I will call the Prime Minister.

It is with great pleasure that I accept the amendment on behalf of the Government.

I do not think we should debate it. There was a great deal of debate. I was very anxious that we should proceed tonight. They were preparing to have a big group tomorrow.

You can have lots of beer on my health.

Thank you for your good representation.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): So the amendment is carried, I should say wholeheartedly with unanimous consent.

Amendment agreed to.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): I would like, then, to invite honourable members to come back to the first subamendment and to invite Mr. Robinson to introduce the amendment in the usual way.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Minister for listening to the concerns of both the physically and mentally disabled.

I know the Minister will recognize that this is in many ways unprecedented and a historic occasion, because it is a right which has not yet been recognized in many international covenants and charters; I think the Minister and the government deserves full credit for accepting the recommendations of the subcommittee and of many other Canadians.

Certainly, I want to join with my colleague and friend, Mr. Crombie, in thanking you, Mr. Minister, for accepting this very important amendment.

Mr. Chrétien: I forgot to mention, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, that I think we should thank all the members of the special committee, presided over by Mr. David Smith, who has worked very hard indeed.

I would like to thank Mr. Smith and all members of the Committee who have worked all summer very hard on the problem.

We are entering a new field, and quite properly breaking good ground. I think we should be careful that we should not take it to the extent of opening the door to a list that would be meaningless. It is on the list as an amendment which will be accepted.

[Page 92]

Mr. Robinson: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I know that the Minister will listen carefully to the representations made on the amendment which we will be proposing, just as he has listened with care to the representations of the groups representing the physically and mentally disabled.

Mr. Chairman, I also cannot resist pointing out that this fundamental right to protection from discrimination on grounds of physical and mental disability is surely one which should be accorded to all Canadians right across Canada, in every province in Canada, and that no provincial government should be permitted to opt out of providing basic and fundamental rights and freedoms to the handicapped.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps my Conservative colleagues would pay particular attention to that point, that the effect of their proposed amending formula, would grant rights to the handicapped in some provinces and not to the handicapped in other provinces which chose to opt out.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Joyal): Mr. Robinson, I regret to interrupt, but as I have already expressed on other occasions, I think you should address yourself to the content of the proposed amendment.

The amending formula will come later on in our discussions; but at this point we are dealing on a clause which does not have any reference to the amending formula as such.

I would invite you to restrict your remarks to the contents of the proposed amendment.



Source link

Accessibility advocates say Peggy’s Cove viewing deck will ensure safe access for all – Halifax


The recent public announcement of a multimillion-dollar project that would see an accessible viewing deck constructed at Peggy’s Cove, has been met with plenty of different views and opinions.

Following the announcement, Michelle Paul, a Mi’kmaw water protector, raised concern over the possibility of construction damaging areas where Mi’kmaq harvest sweetgrass, one of their sacred medicines.

The Crown corporation behind the project, Develop Nova Scotia, says they’ve taken Paul’s concern seriously and have verified that the deck won’t impact sweetgrass areas and they’re also working to ensure no other sweetgrass areas will be impacted.

Read more:
Mi’kmaq fear new Peggy’s Cove boardwalk could endanger sacred medicine

On Saturday, a small group of protesters met outside of Peggy’s Cove, masked and distanced with RCMP officers also on-site, to express their concerns over the roughly 14,000 square-foot accessible deck.

Story continues below advertisement

Develop Nova Scotia has repeatedly stated that 85 per cent of the build will be on the existing roadway. The organization says discussions about the deck were open to the public, including a one-week period in February 2019 where the public could talk to architects, planners, and other team members about the project. This public event was held during the 2019 Peggy’s Cove Design Week.

For the most part, those who gathered on Saturday aren’t in favour of the accessible viewing deck project.

“Accessibility is always good for everybody but let’s keep it reasonable and try not to destroy the beauty,” Peter Stokeijk said, who participated in the protest, said.


A number of infrastructure enhancement projects are underway in the community of Peggy’s Cove. From roadway upgrades to the addition of new accessible washrooms.


Alexa MacLean/Global Halifax

Wheelchair citizen, Darrel MacDonald, says he agrees with civil discourse, especially when it comes to taxpayer dollars being spent, but doesn’t agree with able-bodied persons adamantly opposing a project that’s rooted in improving accessibility.

Story continues below advertisement

“It screams ableism to me. Take five minutes to understand that this is going to be beneficial to everybody,” MacDonald said.

Read more:
Nova Scotia, feds investing $3.1M for construction of viewing deck on Peggy’s Cove shore

MacDonald has been in a wheelchair ever since he experienced a military accident 22 years ago. Since that time, he says he’s only been able to see Peggy’s Cove from the parking lot. An area that makes him fear for his safety because of how jam-packed it can be.

“Especially with big trucks and the buses because I’m at a lower height and so a lot of people can’t see me. With a viewing deck, I’m not worried about that,” he said.

The deck is being constructed out of wood and steel and Develop Nova Scotia says it will create a public space that is fully accessible and safe for all visitors.

The protesters are calling for more public engagement. Develop Nova Scotia is hosting a virtual public engagement session to discuss the project on January 28. They are asking people to register in advance to participate.


Click to play video 'Group of protestors gathered at iconic Peggy’s Cove Saturday'







Group of protestors gathered at iconic Peggy’s Cove Saturday


Group of protestors gathered at iconic Peggy’s Cove Saturday

Fellow wheelchair citizens Brian George and Paul Vienneau say the project falls in line with Nova Scotia’s mandate to make the province fully accessible and barrier-free by 2030.

Story continues below advertisement

“When you improve accessibility for supposedly one group, my group, you actually improve it for all groups because we all benefit from the ease of access,” Vienneau said.

George echos Vienneau.

“Everybody needs to be included and that’s exactly what this is about. Everybody needs to be able to do what everyone else can do and this is just one of those things that’s going to make that happen,” he said.

Both George and Vienneau says they are looking forward to enjoying the fresh salty air and shoreline splendor Peggy’s Cove has to offer from the safety of an elevated, flat and accessible platform.

“This project is going to allow a bunch of people to take part in a fuller part of their lives,” Vienneau said.

Develop Nova Scotia aims to have the project completed by June 2021.




© 2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.





Source link