"I think that if you are not good at conventional work at school, you were made to feel stupid."
"I believe I am good at other things and I only discovered that once I left school."
"I believe I am good at other things and I only discovered that once I left school."
"There was no such thing called dyslexia. You were called it slow or ret**ded or whatever."
"What you can never change is the effect that the words 'dumb' and 'stupid', have on young people."
"What you can never change is the effect that the words 'dumb' and 'stupid', have on young people."
He wishes that he was diagnosed before 2007:
"I wish I had somebody helping me to understand that there were many others like me."
"I wish I had somebody in my life then that was really able to do an intervention and get me through those rough[school] years."
"I didn't want to put a Band-Aid on something. I want to figure out how to make it go away forever."
"I wish I had somebody helping me to understand that there were many others like me."
"I wish I had somebody in my life then that was really able to do an intervention and get me through those rough[school] years."
"I didn't want to put a Band-Aid on something. I want to figure out how to make it go away forever."
Bill 23–The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously announced, we will now move to Bill 23, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act.
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister responsible for Accessibility): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon), that Bill 23, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les personnes vulnérables ayant une déficience mentale, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Ms. Squires: Bill 23 addresses several recommendations made by the Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Task Force. The task force was appointed in September of 2020 by the minister of Families to review policies and practices related to services for adults living with intellectual disabilities in Manitoba.
The undertaking of such a serious task was accomplished, thanks to the dedication, efforts and expertise of a nine-member team of community experts who researched, studied and consulted widely on significant issues affecting adults living with an intellectual disability.
In December of '21, a final report titled Pathways to Dignity: Rights, Safeguards, Planning and Decision Making was released alongside a series of recommendations and a two-year implementation plan. Several aspects of the task force recommendations touched on legislation. The proposed amendments before you are a reflection of changes to the act that were recommended by these community experts.
The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act came into force in 1996 as a way to meet the needs of a distinct population of adults living with an intellectual disability who were previously covered by the Manitoba Mental Health Act.
At that time, the act brought in a regime that was considered progressive for its time and is still, in some respects, unique across Canada. Despite the act's focus on best practices, it has not been updated in the past 26 years. Elements of the act are out of date and we recognize that the government must evolve as the understanding of disability changes.
The amendments recognize that adults living with an intellectual disability are people first, and are entitled to the same rights as all other adults. This is reflected in two new principles at the beginning of the act. New references to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been added to the act, and will play a strong role in aligning our legislation with international standards.
Bill 23 also introduces a people-first statement that ensures an adult's wishes, values and beliefs will guide all forms of decision making relevant to their well‑being. Whether these decisions are made independently or with assistance from others, we recognize that an adult's right to be treated the same as any other adult should always be the primary focus.
We heard from the task force that some of the language within the act is outdated, and that some terms, such as vulnerable persons and mental disability, hold negative connotations for the disability community. The proposed amendments will modernize the act's language to address these concerns, including the new titles for the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner and the act itself, which will now be referred to as adults living with an intellectual disability act.
A major component of the task force recommendations concern the protection for adults living with intellectual disabilities. The act determines how we define abuse and neglect, and sets out procedures for mandatory reporting, investigation and emergency intervention. In order to clarify and expand on these protections, certain aspects of the act's protection mandate have been updated to best–to reflect best practices in other jurisdictions.
New definitions of abuse and neglect, modelled after Nova Scotia's protection of persons in care act, will acknowledge concerns from the task force that the act creates an overly strict test to prove that an adult has been abused. Under the current definition, for example, a slap across the face would not meet the legal threshold, since it does not lead to serious or lasting physical consequences. The new definition reduces the threshold from serious harm to harm, so instances such as these are now captured. The department will be able to proceed with more cases, and include those previously considered as unsubstantiated or inconclusive.
Bill 23 also includes consequential amendments to definitions of abuse and neglect in the protection of persons in care act, as both acts contain protection mandates and refer cases to the adult registry–Adult Abuse Registry Committee. After consulting with the Department of Health, we felt that these amendments were necessary to ensure consistent reporting across departments, and that all adults receive equal treatment regardless of capacity or setting.
We also heard from the task force about a lack of information on what happens during and upon conclusion of an investigation. The task force noted that victims and their families are often left without important details or follow‑up regarding their cases, and so this act addresses that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to present this bill for the House's consideration.
QuestionsMr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining questions asked by any opposition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
The floor is open for questions.
MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Could the minister tell us what else her department and herself have heard from disability advocates on how to promote acceptance in respect of disability, and really move towards ending ableism?
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister responsible for Accessibility): That is a really good question, and I think ending all forms of discrimination is certainly something that everybody on the task force and in the department are working towards addressing.
And I–we do believe that updating the language to be more reflective of the community's wishes goes a long way. We also believe that including language from the declaration–the United Nations declaration on people with–living with an intellectual disability–be reflected as well as moving to ensure a better substitute and assisted decision-making efforts and initiatives are in place, so that people can fully realize their potential in Manitoba.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister: This is an act which covers people–persons with a mental disability; would it cover people who have a learning disability?
* (15:30)
Ms. Squires: So, it is specifically for people living with an intellectual disability and the definition of an intellectual disability.
But certainly, this act provides protocols and the threshold for investigations by the departmental branch whenever there is an abuse that would occur against a person living with a disability in the province of Manitoba and certainly does provide a framework for all individuals in Manitoba to achieve their highest destiny regardless–or irrespective of a disability.
MLA Fontaine: Could the minister share with the House whether or not Manitobans with disabilities were consulted on in respect to Bill 23, and overall, what was the consensus whether or not that they were supportive of the changes in the bill, and did they have any other additional recommendations?
Ms. Squires: Indeed, there were several consultations that had occurred with families and self advocates from the Family Advocacy Network, Community Living Manitoba, Continuity Care, Inclusion Winnipeg, Winnipegosis and District Residential Support Services, Community Venture, Life's Journey, epic smile St. Malo, Westman Parkland Network and Abilities Manitoba.
They were all supportive of these proposed amendments and we will be following up with these groups when we develop the related regulations and policies for this bill.
And there are also other measures that will be taken to address the comprehensive task force report that we've received earlier last year.
Mr. Gerrard: So, it's clear that, from the minister's statement, that most people with a learning disability, at least who don't have an IQ below–what is the 'i‑cloo' level that is considered under this act? Is it 70 or 75 or 80? Because we've heard a lot of different conditions.
And why is the minister specifically excluding people with learning disabilities? Because these are clearly brain disabilities, and some people would classify them as mental disabilities.
Ms. Squires: So, this–we are not looking to expand the eligibility criteria for CLDS programming. That is not what this legislation is attempting to do. And we recognize that there are broader questions that need to be asked and answered in regards to who the act should serve.
And we recognize that that would involve a comprehensive analysis and consultation, which we will certainly be endeavouring to do, but in this specific bill, that is not covered and that is not what we'd consulted on, and that was not what the task force had recommended at this particular juncture.
MLA Fontaine: Could the minister share with the House what else she heard from disability advocates about how to promote acceptance of disability and ableism? So, by that I mean, like, what other recommendations have come forward in respect to that?
Ms. Squires: So, there are numerous things that we can all work towards to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to achieve their full destiny in Manitoba.
We heard very loud and clear that everybody who is living with a disability wanted to see the CLDS sector fortified. And that is why we enhanced those wages to $19 effective on April 1st of this year, a significant increase in the CLDS budget for enhancing and stabilizing that sector.
We also know that there was a need for ongoing funding for businesses and municipalities and others to apply to so that they can receive funding to make sure that their place of business, their websites, their physical–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: In the–this act, it's my understanding that the mental disability, so-called or defined, has to be manifested before the age of 18 years. And so it's leaving out people who are identified after 18 years, and in my experience, that the government is interpreting this as diagnosed before 18 years. Because I've had examples of people who were over 18 but had a history of having the mental disability before 18–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: So, I do want to remind the member that this bill is specific about modernizing the act when it comes to the language that we use when talking about people with disabilities, as well as providing more tools to deal with allegations of abuse.
Under the former act, something that would be, like, for example, a slap that would not cause serious harm, did not meet the threshold to be investigated by the Department of Families' protection unit.
And also, under the former act, caregivers and the person with a disability themselves were not able to get information about an ongoing investigation. We thought that that was–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: There are some positive things in this bill, that I'm really astounded that the government has left so much unattended to.
I brought up earlier today the fact that the government is currently not concerned about people with learning disabilities. And, in fact, this is proof positive, because the government has completely omitted people with learning disabilities who don't have a low IQ, and that is the majority of people with learning disabilities.
I ask: How could the government have not paid any attention to people with learning disabilities?
Ms. Squires: You know, I ask the member how he can politicize such an important bill and put such comments that he just made on the record.
This bill was a direct response to the 18 recommendations that were put forward by the vulnerable persons task force, nine of which are being fully addressed through these proposed amendments; six were addressed through changes to the CLDS policy; and two will be addressed in an upcoming legislative proposal.
Now, I wish that this member opposite really put his money where his mouth is and voted in favour of the many substantive changes that we've brought forward as a government, including increases in budget to enhance people's lives who are living with disabilities in the province of Manitoba. If he–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: The–you know, we don't have a problem with what's in the bill; we'll support it. But what we are very concerned about is the government is leaving out so much that needs to be addressed.
And as I have, you know, illustrated in numerous petitions and in questions and in various other ways, there is a significant problem in the way that this government is failing to address people with learning disabilities, with dyslexia, with dysgraphia, with a nonverbal learning disability, with dyscalculia and so on, and–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: The member opposite talks about a failure. Let me you about a failure.
This government put forward a pilot project to support adolescent kids with high intellectual and developmental disabilities–a pilot project so that they could receive those services and not have to go into CFS care to receive those enhanced respite services. It was an $8‑million pilot project.
And what did that member do? He voted against it. He voted against getting supports for children with disabilities. Shame on him.
Mr. Gerrard: All right, let's be clear: I voted against the budget. It didn't mean that I don't agree with every tiny item in the budget.
This is–[interjection] Yes, and it was so small that some people who tried to apply quickly were–it was already totally used up. I mean, it really is a problem when this government can't get their act together when they're dealing with people with learning disabilities, with executive function disabilities.
You know, it's a real problem. This government just can't do what needs to be done.
Why is this government falling so far short? [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
* (15:40)
Ms. Squires: Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the member for River Heights to stand up and say that an $8‑million commitment to helping children and adolescents with extreme developmental and intellectual disabilities, an $8‑million pilot to support those families is a small, inconsequential item, is shameful.
And I would like to get–ask him to get up and apologize for putting those reprehensible comments on the record, and I'd like him to apologize to those families who are being supported by that $8‑million bridge program pilot.
Mr. Gerrard: When we're talking about $8 million in an eight–more than $8‑billion budget–$16‑billion budget, it's small, it's not inconsequential; that's a different word. Let's put it–let's make it clear.
But there is a big problem if this government is not doing its job when it comes to helping people with learning disabilities, and we have a bill here which, sadly, although it has some good, positive things in it, is not addressing some of the major issues that we're facing in Manitoba today with children with learning disabilities; they're not being properly screened.
When will the government, if it's interested in–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to put on the record that our government will always stand up for people with disabilities.
We enhanced our budget this year–$640 million in the budget this year alone–to supporting families and individuals with disabilities. We also included $104‑million‑item increase to stabilize the sector for enhancing people who are living in community with disabilities.
These are not inconsequential initiatives; these are substantive changes that our government has made in the funding for people with disabilities and the programming that people with disabilities can receive.
What did the member do when it came time to–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: I'm going to ask the minister–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Gerrard: –when is she going to do something that's going to make a difference for all the kids in Manitoba with learning disabilities? When is the minister going to take the broader view that's necessary when we're looking at children and adults with disabilities?
Ms. Squires: Of course our government is taking a broader view. That is why we did come–have the $8‑million bridge pilot program that we had implemented over a year and a half ago. That is why we formed the task force on these issues, and the report, the 18 recommendations that they had reported back to us are being implemented.
That is why we have grown the Families budget by 25 per cent since we took office. And the member opposite has continuously voted against a 25 per cent increase in the budget for social initiatives and for supporting people with disabilities.
I say–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
And the time for questions has expired.
DebateMr. Deputy Speaker: The floor is open for debate. [interjection] Order.
MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'm just going to put a couple of words on the record in respect to Bill 23.
However, and I don't do this very often, but I will back up the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) in respect of some of the concerns that he's raising with children with learning disabilities.
I want to remind Manitobans and, certainly, members opposite that it was under Brian Pallister that this government and each and every one of those members, save for maybe a couple, actually celebrated and supported cutting supports in school for children with learning disabilities. And I think that that's really important to put on the record today, that that is actually the legacy of this government in the work that they've done for children with learning disabilities.
In respect of this particular bill, I think it is really important that–and I think it's reflected in the bill–that as we learn more about using inclusive language and terminology that is disrespectful and disparaging and socially constructs Manitobans with disabilities as less than and contributes to ableism, when we learn that we can do better. And I would suggest that this is what this bill is aiming to do, and I fully support that.
I have said many, many times that there is power in the language that we use. The discourse and the language that we use informs the way that we see and feel and experience the–in the world. And so, I think that this is a good bill in that sense, that we're going to be changing language, and on this side of the House we will certainly support that.
I think it's important to put on the record in respect of Manitobans with disabilities will often face higher rates of abuse than Manitobans with no–that are not disabled. And I want to put on the record here that women with disabilities experience higher rates of intimate partner violence than non-disabled women. And that's from–a statistic from 2018.
As well, in 2014, it showed that women with disabilities were twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime than non-disabled women. The report also found that women with disabilities were nearly twice as likely as women without disabilities to have been sexually assaulted in the last 12 months, and women with disabilities were also more likely to have been victimized multiple times.
And then, as well, that abuse against Manitobans with disabilities can take many forms, and does not always result in physical harm. So, expanding the definitions of abuse and neglect is an important part of recognizing the prevalence of all forms of abuse, and certainly fighting and working to end it here in Manitoba.
Again, I also–this bill looks at the term vulnerable, and how we have shifted away from that language as well. It–the terminology vulnerable portrays persons with disabilities as being produced by external circumstances and is not innate or intrinsic to the person themselves. So, moreover, everyone can be vulnerable in a given situation or over a period of time.
So, to that end, some persons with disabilities may be more vulnerable than the rest of the Manitoban–Manitoba in certain times, such as gender-based violence, but less vulnerable to others, such as identity theft. And because there–the lack of–there is a lack of societal supports and systemic ableism that makes persons with disabilities vulnerable when the specific barriers and circumstances causing vulnerability are addressed, they are no longer vulnerable.
So, we know that the United Nations has put forward the disability inclusive language guidelines as part of their efforts to implement the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy, which was launched in 2019. And the United Nations suggested as general principles to use people-first language.
And some examples of that is that people-first language is the most widely accepted language for referring to persons with disabilities. People-first language emphasizes the person, not the disability, by placing a reference to the person or group before the reference to disability. For example, Deputy Speaker, we can use expressions such as children with dyslexia, women with intellectual disabilities and, of course, persons with disabilities.
However, the person-first rule does not necessarily apply to all types of disabilities. So, if in doubt, you should ask the person or group how they choose to identify. Persons with disabilities are not a homogenous group, and they may self-identify in a variety of different ways. These identities should be respected and recognized.
* (15:50)
And then, I think something that is very important, and there's been a lot of movement in the last many years, is, you know, avoiding labels and stereotypes and, as well, do–not using condescending euphemisms. And I think that that's really important because I do note that there has been a couple of incidents over the last many years, and including myself in a tweet that I had said, and somebody actually corrected me and I apologized and promised to do better in respect of that.
And that is really the bare minimum that we can do in steps to ending ableism, is to be very self-conscious–or to be very conscious of the language that we use and to not use these condescending euphemisms.
So, I'm not going to repeat any of them in this House, but I think it is incumbent on each and every one of us to ensure that we're reaching out to folks if we don't know if a certain thing is okay to say or if we shouldn't be saying it, and to get that information from folks with disabilities, who are more than willing and able to share those teachings and that knowledge and that information.
So, to that end, Deputy Speaker, I–we will, on this side of the House, be supporting Bill 23.
Miigwech.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to begin by thanking those members of the Family Advocacy Network and others who put a lot of effort into providing a report and to providing comment and ideas, in terms of this bill.
It is a step forward in many respects, even though I have been and continue to be critical about it omitting so many children with learning disabilities. At least the change to–of the title to vulnerable persons living with a–the adults living with an intellectual disability act is more consistent with the population that we're dealing with; that is, those with an intellectual disability.
I'm curious as to why the children are not included but, be that as it may, the effort that has been made to help individuals with 'lintellectual' disability must be acknowledged and must be supported; and individuals who are involved must be thanked for their effort.
I believe one of the major problems was that the government started with a narrower mandate than they should have because they have completely omitted recognition of the importance of the individuals with learning disabilities, which is, in fact, one of the most common disabilities. And so, it is sad that there has not been the attention to individuals with learning disabilities who have an IQ above 70 or 75 or 80, depending on who's assessing it, it appears.
So, I look forward and we look forward, as Liberals, to this bill moving forward, but we are noting that there is a large amount of work that has not been done in the last two decades dealing with and helping children and adults with learning disabilities. I have advocated for those with learning disabilities on many occasions, including many occasions in this Chamber, and I have noted, as the minister has acknowledged, the importance of addressing individuals who have learning disabilities who are adults and providing a way for helping them.
Interestingly, the government in Newfoundland and Labrador has decided that is it not a strict IQ‑based criteria that should be used, but that it should be based on what the needs of individuals actually are. And that would certainly be a recognition which is long overdue.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
When I have been helping individuals who have had learning disabilities and–what is interesting is that they may be very low on some aspects of the IQ test and very high on other aspects of it; and it's generally agreed that when you get this kind of variation, that you really shouldn't be relying on IQ and the IQ test as the determining factor. Because, as indeed some of the reports that I have seen for such individuals, they say, well, you have a caution here that you should be very careful about applying the mean IQ determined in this way as a single number to a person in this circumstance.
I have been helping an individual who has an executive-function disability, who in many respects has done–and is an incredible individual with amazing talents–but he's not able to–doesn't have the adaptive functioning to be able to do well as an adult without some help. And it may be that, over time, he can learn that and do very well, but at this point, he's certainly struggling and, without help, could very easily end up homeless.
I refer members of this Chamber to a study that was done by Linda Siegel of individuals who are experiencing homelessness in Toronto. And what she found was that 83 per cent had some sort of a learning disability. And the point that she made is that they were homeless–experiencing homelessness–not because they were raised in a home that was poor, not because of the many other things that could explain this, but they were there because they had a learning disability and that they had not been adequately helped.
We clearly need to make major changes in this province to help those with learning disabilities who are falling through the cracks. I spoke earlier today in–to recognize the work that Twila Richards has done in advocating for those with learning disabilities. She has lived experience in this respect; she has a child with a learning disability and another child with autism. And it has been a struggle: a struggle to get a proper diagnosis, a struggle to get assessed by a school psychologist in the school, a struggle even when there was a diagnosis, to get the help that is needed.
And there are certainly reams of work and good studies that have been done showing the kind of teaching, the kind of help that is necessary for a child with a–dyslexia, as an example–and I am told that in too many places in Manitoba that the schools are not really providing the kind of help that these kids really need. There are considerable variations from school division to school division, with some school divisions doing pretty well and quite a number of school divisions not doing the job that's needed in screening and in making the diagnosis, and in helping these kids to succeed.
What is remarkable is how well kids with dyslexia can do–kids with learning disabilities. Winston Churchill had dyscalculia, and he certainly did pretty well. Picasso had a learning disability. And–go on and on, and Malcolm Gladwell talks about the many entrepreneurs who have dyslexia, and how well people with dyslexia can do, if given half a chance.
* (16:00)
It's time for us as Manitobans to give people with–children and adults with dyslexia half a chance, so that they can do well and be important contributors to our society. It's time that we made that shift from where we are now.
So, with those comments, we look forward to this going to committee stage, and we look forward to the next steps for this legislation.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Merci. Miigwech.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 23, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously announced, we will now move to Bill 23, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act.
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister responsible for Accessibility): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon), that Bill 23, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les personnes vulnérables ayant une déficience mentale, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Ms. Squires: Bill 23 addresses several recommendations made by the Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Task Force. The task force was appointed in September of 2020 by the minister of Families to review policies and practices related to services for adults living with intellectual disabilities in Manitoba.
The undertaking of such a serious task was accomplished, thanks to the dedication, efforts and expertise of a nine-member team of community experts who researched, studied and consulted widely on significant issues affecting adults living with an intellectual disability.
In December of '21, a final report titled Pathways to Dignity: Rights, Safeguards, Planning and Decision Making was released alongside a series of recommendations and a two-year implementation plan. Several aspects of the task force recommendations touched on legislation. The proposed amendments before you are a reflection of changes to the act that were recommended by these community experts.
The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act came into force in 1996 as a way to meet the needs of a distinct population of adults living with an intellectual disability who were previously covered by the Manitoba Mental Health Act.
At that time, the act brought in a regime that was considered progressive for its time and is still, in some respects, unique across Canada. Despite the act's focus on best practices, it has not been updated in the past 26 years. Elements of the act are out of date and we recognize that the government must evolve as the understanding of disability changes.
The amendments recognize that adults living with an intellectual disability are people first, and are entitled to the same rights as all other adults. This is reflected in two new principles at the beginning of the act. New references to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been added to the act, and will play a strong role in aligning our legislation with international standards.
Bill 23 also introduces a people-first statement that ensures an adult's wishes, values and beliefs will guide all forms of decision making relevant to their well‑being. Whether these decisions are made independently or with assistance from others, we recognize that an adult's right to be treated the same as any other adult should always be the primary focus.
We heard from the task force that some of the language within the act is outdated, and that some terms, such as vulnerable persons and mental disability, hold negative connotations for the disability community. The proposed amendments will modernize the act's language to address these concerns, including the new titles for the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner and the act itself, which will now be referred to as adults living with an intellectual disability act.
A major component of the task force recommendations concern the protection for adults living with intellectual disabilities. The act determines how we define abuse and neglect, and sets out procedures for mandatory reporting, investigation and emergency intervention. In order to clarify and expand on these protections, certain aspects of the act's protection mandate have been updated to best–to reflect best practices in other jurisdictions.
New definitions of abuse and neglect, modelled after Nova Scotia's protection of persons in care act, will acknowledge concerns from the task force that the act creates an overly strict test to prove that an adult has been abused. Under the current definition, for example, a slap across the face would not meet the legal threshold, since it does not lead to serious or lasting physical consequences. The new definition reduces the threshold from serious harm to harm, so instances such as these are now captured. The department will be able to proceed with more cases, and include those previously considered as unsubstantiated or inconclusive.
Bill 23 also includes consequential amendments to definitions of abuse and neglect in the protection of persons in care act, as both acts contain protection mandates and refer cases to the adult registry–Adult Abuse Registry Committee. After consulting with the Department of Health, we felt that these amendments were necessary to ensure consistent reporting across departments, and that all adults receive equal treatment regardless of capacity or setting.
We also heard from the task force about a lack of information on what happens during and upon conclusion of an investigation. The task force noted that victims and their families are often left without important details or follow‑up regarding their cases, and so this act addresses that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to present this bill for the House's consideration.
QuestionsMr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining questions asked by any opposition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
The floor is open for questions.
MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Could the minister tell us what else her department and herself have heard from disability advocates on how to promote acceptance in respect of disability, and really move towards ending ableism?
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister responsible for Accessibility): That is a really good question, and I think ending all forms of discrimination is certainly something that everybody on the task force and in the department are working towards addressing.
And I–we do believe that updating the language to be more reflective of the community's wishes goes a long way. We also believe that including language from the declaration–the United Nations declaration on people with–living with an intellectual disability–be reflected as well as moving to ensure a better substitute and assisted decision-making efforts and initiatives are in place, so that people can fully realize their potential in Manitoba.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister: This is an act which covers people–persons with a mental disability; would it cover people who have a learning disability?
* (15:30)
Ms. Squires: So, it is specifically for people living with an intellectual disability and the definition of an intellectual disability.
But certainly, this act provides protocols and the threshold for investigations by the departmental branch whenever there is an abuse that would occur against a person living with a disability in the province of Manitoba and certainly does provide a framework for all individuals in Manitoba to achieve their highest destiny regardless–or irrespective of a disability.
MLA Fontaine: Could the minister share with the House whether or not Manitobans with disabilities were consulted on in respect to Bill 23, and overall, what was the consensus whether or not that they were supportive of the changes in the bill, and did they have any other additional recommendations?
Ms. Squires: Indeed, there were several consultations that had occurred with families and self advocates from the Family Advocacy Network, Community Living Manitoba, Continuity Care, Inclusion Winnipeg, Winnipegosis and District Residential Support Services, Community Venture, Life's Journey, epic smile St. Malo, Westman Parkland Network and Abilities Manitoba.
They were all supportive of these proposed amendments and we will be following up with these groups when we develop the related regulations and policies for this bill.
And there are also other measures that will be taken to address the comprehensive task force report that we've received earlier last year.
Mr. Gerrard: So, it's clear that, from the minister's statement, that most people with a learning disability, at least who don't have an IQ below–what is the 'i‑cloo' level that is considered under this act? Is it 70 or 75 or 80? Because we've heard a lot of different conditions.
And why is the minister specifically excluding people with learning disabilities? Because these are clearly brain disabilities, and some people would classify them as mental disabilities.
Ms. Squires: So, this–we are not looking to expand the eligibility criteria for CLDS programming. That is not what this legislation is attempting to do. And we recognize that there are broader questions that need to be asked and answered in regards to who the act should serve.
And we recognize that that would involve a comprehensive analysis and consultation, which we will certainly be endeavouring to do, but in this specific bill, that is not covered and that is not what we'd consulted on, and that was not what the task force had recommended at this particular juncture.
MLA Fontaine: Could the minister share with the House what else she heard from disability advocates about how to promote acceptance of disability and ableism? So, by that I mean, like, what other recommendations have come forward in respect to that?
Ms. Squires: So, there are numerous things that we can all work towards to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to achieve their full destiny in Manitoba.
We heard very loud and clear that everybody who is living with a disability wanted to see the CLDS sector fortified. And that is why we enhanced those wages to $19 effective on April 1st of this year, a significant increase in the CLDS budget for enhancing and stabilizing that sector.
We also know that there was a need for ongoing funding for businesses and municipalities and others to apply to so that they can receive funding to make sure that their place of business, their websites, their physical–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: In the–this act, it's my understanding that the mental disability, so-called or defined, has to be manifested before the age of 18 years. And so it's leaving out people who are identified after 18 years, and in my experience, that the government is interpreting this as diagnosed before 18 years. Because I've had examples of people who were over 18 but had a history of having the mental disability before 18–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: So, I do want to remind the member that this bill is specific about modernizing the act when it comes to the language that we use when talking about people with disabilities, as well as providing more tools to deal with allegations of abuse.
Under the former act, something that would be, like, for example, a slap that would not cause serious harm, did not meet the threshold to be investigated by the Department of Families' protection unit.
And also, under the former act, caregivers and the person with a disability themselves were not able to get information about an ongoing investigation. We thought that that was–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: There are some positive things in this bill, that I'm really astounded that the government has left so much unattended to.
I brought up earlier today the fact that the government is currently not concerned about people with learning disabilities. And, in fact, this is proof positive, because the government has completely omitted people with learning disabilities who don't have a low IQ, and that is the majority of people with learning disabilities.
I ask: How could the government have not paid any attention to people with learning disabilities?
Ms. Squires: You know, I ask the member how he can politicize such an important bill and put such comments that he just made on the record.
This bill was a direct response to the 18 recommendations that were put forward by the vulnerable persons task force, nine of which are being fully addressed through these proposed amendments; six were addressed through changes to the CLDS policy; and two will be addressed in an upcoming legislative proposal.
Now, I wish that this member opposite really put his money where his mouth is and voted in favour of the many substantive changes that we've brought forward as a government, including increases in budget to enhance people's lives who are living with disabilities in the province of Manitoba. If he–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: The–you know, we don't have a problem with what's in the bill; we'll support it. But what we are very concerned about is the government is leaving out so much that needs to be addressed.
And as I have, you know, illustrated in numerous petitions and in questions and in various other ways, there is a significant problem in the way that this government is failing to address people with learning disabilities, with dyslexia, with dysgraphia, with a nonverbal learning disability, with dyscalculia and so on, and–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: The member opposite talks about a failure. Let me you about a failure.
This government put forward a pilot project to support adolescent kids with high intellectual and developmental disabilities–a pilot project so that they could receive those services and not have to go into CFS care to receive those enhanced respite services. It was an $8‑million pilot project.
And what did that member do? He voted against it. He voted against getting supports for children with disabilities. Shame on him.
Mr. Gerrard: All right, let's be clear: I voted against the budget. It didn't mean that I don't agree with every tiny item in the budget.
This is–[interjection] Yes, and it was so small that some people who tried to apply quickly were–it was already totally used up. I mean, it really is a problem when this government can't get their act together when they're dealing with people with learning disabilities, with executive function disabilities.
You know, it's a real problem. This government just can't do what needs to be done.
Why is this government falling so far short? [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
* (15:40)
Ms. Squires: Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the member for River Heights to stand up and say that an $8‑million commitment to helping children and adolescents with extreme developmental and intellectual disabilities, an $8‑million pilot to support those families is a small, inconsequential item, is shameful.
And I would like to get–ask him to get up and apologize for putting those reprehensible comments on the record, and I'd like him to apologize to those families who are being supported by that $8‑million bridge program pilot.
Mr. Gerrard: When we're talking about $8 million in an eight–more than $8‑billion budget–$16‑billion budget, it's small, it's not inconsequential; that's a different word. Let's put it–let's make it clear.
But there is a big problem if this government is not doing its job when it comes to helping people with learning disabilities, and we have a bill here which, sadly, although it has some good, positive things in it, is not addressing some of the major issues that we're facing in Manitoba today with children with learning disabilities; they're not being properly screened.
When will the government, if it's interested in–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Squires: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to put on the record that our government will always stand up for people with disabilities.
We enhanced our budget this year–$640 million in the budget this year alone–to supporting families and individuals with disabilities. We also included $104‑million‑item increase to stabilize the sector for enhancing people who are living in community with disabilities.
These are not inconsequential initiatives; these are substantive changes that our government has made in the funding for people with disabilities and the programming that people with disabilities can receive.
What did the member do when it came time to–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Minister's time has expired.
Mr. Gerrard: I'm going to ask the minister–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Gerrard: –when is she going to do something that's going to make a difference for all the kids in Manitoba with learning disabilities? When is the minister going to take the broader view that's necessary when we're looking at children and adults with disabilities?
Ms. Squires: Of course our government is taking a broader view. That is why we did come–have the $8‑million bridge pilot program that we had implemented over a year and a half ago. That is why we formed the task force on these issues, and the report, the 18 recommendations that they had reported back to us are being implemented.
That is why we have grown the Families budget by 25 per cent since we took office. And the member opposite has continuously voted against a 25 per cent increase in the budget for social initiatives and for supporting people with disabilities.
I say–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
And the time for questions has expired.
DebateMr. Deputy Speaker: The floor is open for debate. [interjection] Order.
MLA Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'm just going to put a couple of words on the record in respect to Bill 23.
However, and I don't do this very often, but I will back up the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) in respect of some of the concerns that he's raising with children with learning disabilities.
I want to remind Manitobans and, certainly, members opposite that it was under Brian Pallister that this government and each and every one of those members, save for maybe a couple, actually celebrated and supported cutting supports in school for children with learning disabilities. And I think that that's really important to put on the record today, that that is actually the legacy of this government in the work that they've done for children with learning disabilities.
In respect of this particular bill, I think it is really important that–and I think it's reflected in the bill–that as we learn more about using inclusive language and terminology that is disrespectful and disparaging and socially constructs Manitobans with disabilities as less than and contributes to ableism, when we learn that we can do better. And I would suggest that this is what this bill is aiming to do, and I fully support that.
I have said many, many times that there is power in the language that we use. The discourse and the language that we use informs the way that we see and feel and experience the–in the world. And so, I think that this is a good bill in that sense, that we're going to be changing language, and on this side of the House we will certainly support that.
I think it's important to put on the record in respect of Manitobans with disabilities will often face higher rates of abuse than Manitobans with no–that are not disabled. And I want to put on the record here that women with disabilities experience higher rates of intimate partner violence than non-disabled women. And that's from–a statistic from 2018.
As well, in 2014, it showed that women with disabilities were twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime than non-disabled women. The report also found that women with disabilities were nearly twice as likely as women without disabilities to have been sexually assaulted in the last 12 months, and women with disabilities were also more likely to have been victimized multiple times.
And then, as well, that abuse against Manitobans with disabilities can take many forms, and does not always result in physical harm. So, expanding the definitions of abuse and neglect is an important part of recognizing the prevalence of all forms of abuse, and certainly fighting and working to end it here in Manitoba.
Again, I also–this bill looks at the term vulnerable, and how we have shifted away from that language as well. It–the terminology vulnerable portrays persons with disabilities as being produced by external circumstances and is not innate or intrinsic to the person themselves. So, moreover, everyone can be vulnerable in a given situation or over a period of time.
So, to that end, some persons with disabilities may be more vulnerable than the rest of the Manitoban–Manitoba in certain times, such as gender-based violence, but less vulnerable to others, such as identity theft. And because there–the lack of–there is a lack of societal supports and systemic ableism that makes persons with disabilities vulnerable when the specific barriers and circumstances causing vulnerability are addressed, they are no longer vulnerable.
So, we know that the United Nations has put forward the disability inclusive language guidelines as part of their efforts to implement the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy, which was launched in 2019. And the United Nations suggested as general principles to use people-first language.
And some examples of that is that people-first language is the most widely accepted language for referring to persons with disabilities. People-first language emphasizes the person, not the disability, by placing a reference to the person or group before the reference to disability. For example, Deputy Speaker, we can use expressions such as children with dyslexia, women with intellectual disabilities and, of course, persons with disabilities.
However, the person-first rule does not necessarily apply to all types of disabilities. So, if in doubt, you should ask the person or group how they choose to identify. Persons with disabilities are not a homogenous group, and they may self-identify in a variety of different ways. These identities should be respected and recognized.
* (15:50)
And then, I think something that is very important, and there's been a lot of movement in the last many years, is, you know, avoiding labels and stereotypes and, as well, do–not using condescending euphemisms. And I think that that's really important because I do note that there has been a couple of incidents over the last many years, and including myself in a tweet that I had said, and somebody actually corrected me and I apologized and promised to do better in respect of that.
And that is really the bare minimum that we can do in steps to ending ableism, is to be very self-conscious–or to be very conscious of the language that we use and to not use these condescending euphemisms.
So, I'm not going to repeat any of them in this House, but I think it is incumbent on each and every one of us to ensure that we're reaching out to folks if we don't know if a certain thing is okay to say or if we shouldn't be saying it, and to get that information from folks with disabilities, who are more than willing and able to share those teachings and that knowledge and that information.
So, to that end, Deputy Speaker, I–we will, on this side of the House, be supporting Bill 23.
Miigwech.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to begin by thanking those members of the Family Advocacy Network and others who put a lot of effort into providing a report and to providing comment and ideas, in terms of this bill.
It is a step forward in many respects, even though I have been and continue to be critical about it omitting so many children with learning disabilities. At least the change to–of the title to vulnerable persons living with a–the adults living with an intellectual disability act is more consistent with the population that we're dealing with; that is, those with an intellectual disability.
I'm curious as to why the children are not included but, be that as it may, the effort that has been made to help individuals with 'lintellectual' disability must be acknowledged and must be supported; and individuals who are involved must be thanked for their effort.
I believe one of the major problems was that the government started with a narrower mandate than they should have because they have completely omitted recognition of the importance of the individuals with learning disabilities, which is, in fact, one of the most common disabilities. And so, it is sad that there has not been the attention to individuals with learning disabilities who have an IQ above 70 or 75 or 80, depending on who's assessing it, it appears.
So, I look forward and we look forward, as Liberals, to this bill moving forward, but we are noting that there is a large amount of work that has not been done in the last two decades dealing with and helping children and adults with learning disabilities. I have advocated for those with learning disabilities on many occasions, including many occasions in this Chamber, and I have noted, as the minister has acknowledged, the importance of addressing individuals who have learning disabilities who are adults and providing a way for helping them.
Interestingly, the government in Newfoundland and Labrador has decided that is it not a strict IQ‑based criteria that should be used, but that it should be based on what the needs of individuals actually are. And that would certainly be a recognition which is long overdue.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
When I have been helping individuals who have had learning disabilities and–what is interesting is that they may be very low on some aspects of the IQ test and very high on other aspects of it; and it's generally agreed that when you get this kind of variation, that you really shouldn't be relying on IQ and the IQ test as the determining factor. Because, as indeed some of the reports that I have seen for such individuals, they say, well, you have a caution here that you should be very careful about applying the mean IQ determined in this way as a single number to a person in this circumstance.
I have been helping an individual who has an executive-function disability, who in many respects has done–and is an incredible individual with amazing talents–but he's not able to–doesn't have the adaptive functioning to be able to do well as an adult without some help. And it may be that, over time, he can learn that and do very well, but at this point, he's certainly struggling and, without help, could very easily end up homeless.
I refer members of this Chamber to a study that was done by Linda Siegel of individuals who are experiencing homelessness in Toronto. And what she found was that 83 per cent had some sort of a learning disability. And the point that she made is that they were homeless–experiencing homelessness–not because they were raised in a home that was poor, not because of the many other things that could explain this, but they were there because they had a learning disability and that they had not been adequately helped.
We clearly need to make major changes in this province to help those with learning disabilities who are falling through the cracks. I spoke earlier today in–to recognize the work that Twila Richards has done in advocating for those with learning disabilities. She has lived experience in this respect; she has a child with a learning disability and another child with autism. And it has been a struggle: a struggle to get a proper diagnosis, a struggle to get assessed by a school psychologist in the school, a struggle even when there was a diagnosis, to get the help that is needed.
And there are certainly reams of work and good studies that have been done showing the kind of teaching, the kind of help that is necessary for a child with a–dyslexia, as an example–and I am told that in too many places in Manitoba that the schools are not really providing the kind of help that these kids really need. There are considerable variations from school division to school division, with some school divisions doing pretty well and quite a number of school divisions not doing the job that's needed in screening and in making the diagnosis, and in helping these kids to succeed.
What is remarkable is how well kids with dyslexia can do–kids with learning disabilities. Winston Churchill had dyscalculia, and he certainly did pretty well. Picasso had a learning disability. And–go on and on, and Malcolm Gladwell talks about the many entrepreneurs who have dyslexia, and how well people with dyslexia can do, if given half a chance.
* (16:00)
It's time for us as Manitobans to give people with–children and adults with dyslexia half a chance, so that they can do well and be important contributors to our society. It's time that we made that shift from where we are now.
So, with those comments, we look forward to this going to committee stage, and we look forward to the next steps for this legislation.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Merci. Miigwech.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 23, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
Learning disorders/diabilities
Specific learning disorders with impairment in reading, writing, and math are also known as: dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia respectfully.
Dyslexia Links: |
Dysgraphia Links: |
Selective Mutism and anxiety |
Auditory Processing |
What works:
Orton Gillingham.
Orton and Gillingham had the following credentials: pathologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, neurologist, and master of English. They gathered knowledge of the English language and developed the best teaching method for those who have dyslexia. OG is not a program but a wealth of knowledge and approaches to best teach all students how to read, spell, and write (there is OG math, too).
What is the Orton-Gillingham Approach? | Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (ortonacademy.org)
About OG — OG Canada (ogtutors.com)
Orton–Gillingham: What You Need to Know | Reading Rockets
Orton-Gillingham Research | Understood
Orton-Gillingham Principles:
Personalized
Teaching begins with recognizing the differing needs of learners. While those with dyslexia share similarities, there are differences in their language needs. In addition, individuals with dyslexia may possess additional problems that complicate learning. Most common among these are attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD).
Multisensory
It uses all the learning pathways: seeing, hearing, feeling, and awareness of motion, brought together by the thinking brain. The instructor engages in multisensory teaching to convey curricular content in the most understandable way to the student. The teacher also models how the student, by using these multiple pathways, can engage in multisensory learning that results in greater ease and success in learning.
Diagnostic and Prescriptive
An Orton-Gillingham lesson is both diagnostic and prescriptive. It is diagnostic in the sense that the instructor continuously monitors the verbal, nonverbal, and written responses of the student to identify and analyze both the student’s problems and progress. This information is the basis of planning the next lesson. That lesson is prescriptive in the sense that will contain instructional elements that focus upon the resolution of the student’s difficulties and that build upon the student’s progress noted in the previous lesson.
Direct Instruction
The teacher presentations employ lesson formats that ensure the student approaches the learning experience understanding what is to be learned, why it is to be learned, and how it is to be learned.
Systematic Phonics
It uses systematic phonics, stressing the alphabetic principle in the initial stages of reading development. It takes advantage of the sound/symbol relationships inherent in the alphabetic system of writing. Spoken words are made up of individual speech sounds, and the letters of written words graphically represent those speech sounds.
Applied Linguistics
It draws upon applied linguistics not only in the initial decoding and encoding stages of reading and writing but in more advanced stages dealing with syllabic, morphemic, syntactic, semantic, and grammatic structures of language and our writing system. At all times the Orton-Gillingham Approach involves the student in integrative practices that involve reading, spelling, and writing together.
Linguistic Competence
It increases linguistic competence by stressing language patterns that determine word order and sentence structure and the meaning of words and phrases. It moves beyond this to recognizing the various forms that characterize the common literary forms employed by writers.
Systematic and Structured
The teacher presents information in an ordered way that indicates the relationship between the material taught and past material taught. Curricular content unfolds in linguistically logical ways that facilitate student learning and progress.
Sequential, Incremental, and Cumulative
Step-by-step learners move from the simple, well-learned material to that which is more and more complex. They move from one step to the next as they master each level of language skills.
Continuous Feedback and Positive Reinforcement
The Approach provides for a close teacher-student relationship that builds self-confidence based on success.
Cognitive Approach
Students understand the reasons for what they are learning and for the learning strategies they are employing. Confidence grows as they gain in their ability to apply newly acquired knowledge about and knowledge how to develop their skills with reading, spelling, and writing.
Emotionally Sound
Students’ feelings about themselves and about learning are vital. Teaching is directed toward providing the experience of success. With success comes increased self-confidence and motivation.
Hawkin-2008-Foundations-for-literacy-an-eivdence-based-toolkit-for-the-effective-reading-and-writing-teacher.pdf (idaontario.com)
Orton and Gillingham had the following credentials: pathologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, neurologist, and master of English. They gathered knowledge of the English language and developed the best teaching method for those who have dyslexia. OG is not a program but a wealth of knowledge and approaches to best teach all students how to read, spell, and write (there is OG math, too).
What is the Orton-Gillingham Approach? | Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (ortonacademy.org)
About OG — OG Canada (ogtutors.com)
Orton–Gillingham: What You Need to Know | Reading Rockets
Orton-Gillingham Research | Understood
Orton-Gillingham Principles:
Personalized
Teaching begins with recognizing the differing needs of learners. While those with dyslexia share similarities, there are differences in their language needs. In addition, individuals with dyslexia may possess additional problems that complicate learning. Most common among these are attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD).
Multisensory
It uses all the learning pathways: seeing, hearing, feeling, and awareness of motion, brought together by the thinking brain. The instructor engages in multisensory teaching to convey curricular content in the most understandable way to the student. The teacher also models how the student, by using these multiple pathways, can engage in multisensory learning that results in greater ease and success in learning.
Diagnostic and Prescriptive
An Orton-Gillingham lesson is both diagnostic and prescriptive. It is diagnostic in the sense that the instructor continuously monitors the verbal, nonverbal, and written responses of the student to identify and analyze both the student’s problems and progress. This information is the basis of planning the next lesson. That lesson is prescriptive in the sense that will contain instructional elements that focus upon the resolution of the student’s difficulties and that build upon the student’s progress noted in the previous lesson.
Direct Instruction
The teacher presentations employ lesson formats that ensure the student approaches the learning experience understanding what is to be learned, why it is to be learned, and how it is to be learned.
Systematic Phonics
It uses systematic phonics, stressing the alphabetic principle in the initial stages of reading development. It takes advantage of the sound/symbol relationships inherent in the alphabetic system of writing. Spoken words are made up of individual speech sounds, and the letters of written words graphically represent those speech sounds.
Applied Linguistics
It draws upon applied linguistics not only in the initial decoding and encoding stages of reading and writing but in more advanced stages dealing with syllabic, morphemic, syntactic, semantic, and grammatic structures of language and our writing system. At all times the Orton-Gillingham Approach involves the student in integrative practices that involve reading, spelling, and writing together.
Linguistic Competence
It increases linguistic competence by stressing language patterns that determine word order and sentence structure and the meaning of words and phrases. It moves beyond this to recognizing the various forms that characterize the common literary forms employed by writers.
Systematic and Structured
The teacher presents information in an ordered way that indicates the relationship between the material taught and past material taught. Curricular content unfolds in linguistically logical ways that facilitate student learning and progress.
Sequential, Incremental, and Cumulative
Step-by-step learners move from the simple, well-learned material to that which is more and more complex. They move from one step to the next as they master each level of language skills.
Continuous Feedback and Positive Reinforcement
The Approach provides for a close teacher-student relationship that builds self-confidence based on success.
Cognitive Approach
Students understand the reasons for what they are learning and for the learning strategies they are employing. Confidence grows as they gain in their ability to apply newly acquired knowledge about and knowledge how to develop their skills with reading, spelling, and writing.
Emotionally Sound
Students’ feelings about themselves and about learning are vital. Teaching is directed toward providing the experience of success. With success comes increased self-confidence and motivation.
Hawkin-2008-Foundations-for-literacy-an-eivdence-based-toolkit-for-the-effective-reading-and-writing-teacher.pdf (idaontario.com)
Consequences for no intervention:
Delayed interventions:
Approx. 74% will continue to struggle with reading
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/Supplement_1/916
Inmate:
http://policeabc.ca/files/factsheets_englishPDFs/Literacy_factsheets_eng.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12443331_Prevalence_of_dyslexia_among_Texas_prison_inmates
http://www.lexion.co.uk/download/references/dyslexiabehindbars.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leiladebruyne/2016/09/14/how-this-founder-gets-the-world-to-care-about-dyslexia/?sh=7779b7116507
PCAP:
https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/381/PCAP-2016-Public-Report-EN.pdf
Provincial reading scores:
https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/381/PCAP-2016-Public-Report-EN.pdf
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-students-worst-in-canada-in-math-science-and-reading-1.2789907
Dropout rates:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-006-x/2017001/article/14824-eng.pdf?st=ViMx1zEP
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/dp95/97473-6.asp
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529660/
Health:
https://abclifeliteracy.ca/health-literacy/
http://www.ldonline.org/article/19296
Early identification:
https://www.scilearn.com/2019-update-dyslexia-research/
https://osf.io/z4ryh/
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/9/1720
http://dyslexia.yale.edu/articles_directors/us-senate-help-committee-hearing/
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(15)00823-9/fulltext
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/early-intervention-dyslexia-can-narrow-achievement-gap-uc-davis-study-says?id=11349
https://news.yale.edu/2015/11/03/closing-dyslexia-achievement-gap
http://dyslexia.yale.edu/advocacy/national-advocacy/science-of-dyslexia-hearing/
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fmvuvhel6qaj8tghvu1nl75i0ndnlp0yz
https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Specific-Learning-Disorder.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3855155/
Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle are making strides understanding how dyslexic brains work. Developmental neuropsychologist Virginia Berninger, Ph.D., and neurophysicist Todd Richards, Ph.D., lead a team of researchers whose studies have shown that the brains of children with dyslexia work about five times harder than other children's brains when performing the same language task.
http://faculty.washington.edu/toddr/dyslexic.htm
IQ:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-study-finds-dyslexia-not-tied-iq
Approx. 74% will continue to struggle with reading
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/Supplement_1/916
Inmate:
http://policeabc.ca/files/factsheets_englishPDFs/Literacy_factsheets_eng.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12443331_Prevalence_of_dyslexia_among_Texas_prison_inmates
http://www.lexion.co.uk/download/references/dyslexiabehindbars.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leiladebruyne/2016/09/14/how-this-founder-gets-the-world-to-care-about-dyslexia/?sh=7779b7116507
PCAP:
https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/381/PCAP-2016-Public-Report-EN.pdf
Provincial reading scores:
https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/381/PCAP-2016-Public-Report-EN.pdf
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-students-worst-in-canada-in-math-science-and-reading-1.2789907
Dropout rates:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-006-x/2017001/article/14824-eng.pdf?st=ViMx1zEP
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/dp95/97473-6.asp
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529660/
Health:
https://abclifeliteracy.ca/health-literacy/
http://www.ldonline.org/article/19296
Early identification:
https://www.scilearn.com/2019-update-dyslexia-research/
https://osf.io/z4ryh/
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/9/1720
http://dyslexia.yale.edu/articles_directors/us-senate-help-committee-hearing/
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(15)00823-9/fulltext
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/early-intervention-dyslexia-can-narrow-achievement-gap-uc-davis-study-says?id=11349
https://news.yale.edu/2015/11/03/closing-dyslexia-achievement-gap
http://dyslexia.yale.edu/advocacy/national-advocacy/science-of-dyslexia-hearing/
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fmvuvhel6qaj8tghvu1nl75i0ndnlp0yz
https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Specific-Learning-Disorder.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3855155/
Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle are making strides understanding how dyslexic brains work. Developmental neuropsychologist Virginia Berninger, Ph.D., and neurophysicist Todd Richards, Ph.D., lead a team of researchers whose studies have shown that the brains of children with dyslexia work about five times harder than other children's brains when performing the same language task.
http://faculty.washington.edu/toddr/dyslexic.htm
IQ:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-study-finds-dyslexia-not-tied-iq
Reading Recovery is not for those who have LDs:
I am concerned about the fact that it is proven that Reading Recovery has negative impacts on students, the conflicts of interests for RR board members and RR training group president, and for the fact I have been told by several Reading Recovery teachers that dyslexia does not exist.
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2022/04/23/reading-recovery-negative-impact-on-children
https://rrcanada.org/about-cirr/
https://readingrecovery.org/rrcna/about-rrcna-2/?tmpl=component
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-to-read-inquiry-report
https://youtu.be/Lxx7hs0qdKQ
Solutions:
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2022/04/23/reading-recovery-negative-impact-on-children
https://rrcanada.org/about-cirr/
https://readingrecovery.org/rrcna/about-rrcna-2/?tmpl=component
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-to-read-inquiry-report
https://youtu.be/Lxx7hs0qdKQ
Solutions:
https://sbptsdstor.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/medialib/literacy-standards-brochure.4ffc2a9588.pdf
Manitoba Education ELA Curriculum
English Language Arts Curriculum Framework: A Living Document (gov.mb.ca)
https://sbptsdstor.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/medialib/literacy-standards-brochure.4ffc2a9588.pdf
https://sbptsdstor.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/medialib/literacy-standards-brochure.4ffc2a9588.pdf