In response to her consultation with Canadians, the following letter was sent to Minister Qualtrough, and to the Toronto Star for publication. The Minister is asking Canadians for input on the accessibility act she is drafting for Canada. This letter stresses the need to ratify the Protocol so that it can be part of Canada's new legislation. Without its ratification disability rights in Canada remain vulnerable -- with ratification they can be formally safeguarded. Supporters of this petition are urged to send their own letters to the minister. Efforts are also under way to encourage dissemination of the petition among Canadian teachers and students. Please share this petition as widely as possible! ----------------------------------------------- TO CHANGE THE WORLD Open Letter to the Hon. Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Sports and Disabilities, Salvatore (Sal) Amenta September 22, 2016 Dear Minister, you know that a bold new attitude towards disabilities is needed for changing the world to meet Prime Minister Trudeau's mandate. However, even that won't be enough -- Canada also needs to ratify the Protocol attached to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Before dealing with these issues, we must thank you for consulting us prior to drafting Canada's disability law, and for seeking a definition of disability that can bring about "real change". We welcome your following the examples set by the US in1990 and by Ontario in 2005 with their laws. Still, some of us worry that barriers across Canada may not come down any faster than in Ontario, whose legislation is guiding your work. The goal of achieving accessibility in Canada is a truly ambitious one that requires radical change and bold, new ideas. We could begin by defining an "accessible Canada" as one that accommodates citizens with all levels of ability; welcomes and celebrates diversity; and recognizes disability rights as human rights. Then, we could define "disability" simply as the inability to live a full and good life without appropriate supports. Accordingly, a condition is disabling only if not remedied -- with proper accommodations the impossible becomes possible, as we can see with paralympians and legally blind persons practicing law. This suggested definition of disability is in plain language for good reason. It is very different from those found in medicine, social work and education. We can continue using those in their fields, but a simple definition in this case can go a long way in ensuring ordinary Canadians are on side with the new law -- not just lawyers and bureaucrats. A plain-language and all-inclusive definition has other advantages. With their great detail, technical definitions camouflage the fact that we are utterly dependent in infancy if not also in senility. They also ignore the fact that few of us escape impairment by accident, illness, natural aging, depression, addiction, and countless other afflictions. Missing the big picture, however, is not their worst defect; technical definitions also routinely distinguish between "special" people with disabilities and us "normal" folks. That leads to marginalizing and even stigmatizing "special needs and disabled people", in effect further handicapping the handicapped. For all the above reasons, a simple definition can invite and enable Canadians to change the world. To that end, our new legislation can benefit from the radical proposition that all of us are "special" because we are all disabled in some way sooner or later. Of course, we are different from each other as unique products of genetic, environmental, and societal conditions; and our character is shaped by the personal experience of dealing with what we can and cannot do. However, from this unconventional perspective, we are all more or less able, and our limiting imperfections make us dependent on each other for fulfillment. Without that interdependence or mutuality, we have alienated and broken lives that are ripe for exploitation. In sum, adopting a simple definition is desirable for radically changing attitudes towards disability, eliminating social barriers, and celebrating our interdependence. It will also be helpful in framing the scope of our new accessibility law, for once we base it on inclusion and mutuality, we can harmonize it with existing laws, codes and charters across Canada, as well as monitor compliance nationally. But it doesn't end there, for we also have international obligations that should be met by ratifying the Protocol attached to the UN Convention. This document would hold Canada accountable to the Convention, and serve as the last resort once its citizens exhaust domestic remedies. It would be the ultimate safeguard for our disability rights. Without it Canada's adoption of the Convention is merely "aspirational" -- i.e., declaring noble intentions without accountability, like having a climate accord without emission controls. In 2015, a petition urging ratification of the Protocol was launched in Ontario and has since collected over 26,370 signatures. There is no reason to further delay its adoption since new legislation is not a requirement for ratification; indeed, Canada could and should have adopted it right after ratifying the Convention in 2010. But it did not, so if we do not ratify it right away, the Protocol cannot be part of our new law and we will still have no access to the UN complaints process. Good intentions alone are no safeguard, so disability rights will remain vulnerable in Canada. On the other hand, by ratifying the Protocol and harmonizing our national law with international standards, we can formally safeguard disability rights as human rights. In a truly accessible Canada, we can all sing in the same key and set the tone for other nations. Ratification will be, as you say, "huge for Canadians" -- perhaps even world-changing!