Doing my best to remove barriers for individuals with disabilities

On the afternoon of Wednesday March 16, I introduced amendments to Bill 10, which would provide for accommodating for the needs of individuals with disabilities when important meetings of corporations, condominiums, cooperatives, credit unions and caisses populaires are held.   David Kron had pointed out at committee stage that this was badly needed in this act. Below are my remarks in making the report stage amendment.   However, the report stage amendment was not supported by the Conservative government of Heather Stefanson, so it did not pass.  As noted in the Hansard record, when the government MLAs said no to passing this bill, I asked for a recorded vote.  For this I needed NDP support, but the NDP did not support this so there was not a recorded vote.   As I point out in my remarks at Third reading of the bill – below the remarks to introduce the report stage amendment, the Conservative government decision was most unfortunate.  I hope that pressure from those in the disability community can be brought to bear to reverse this bad decision by the Stefanson government. 

 

REPORT STAGE AMEND­MENTS

Bill 10–An Act respecting Amendments to The Health Services Insurance Act, The Pharmaceutical Act and Various Corporate Statutes

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I've brought forward five report stage amend­ments to Bill 10, which itself, built in, provides amend­ments to The Health Services Insurance Act, The Pharmaceutical Act and various cor­por­ate statutes.

      The five amend­ments are similar, with one dealing with The Condominium Act, one for The Cooperatives Act, one for The Cor­por­ations Act and two for The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

      In each case, in the section dealing with electronic meetings, a clause is added which makes provision for the possi­bility of regula­tions which provide details for require­ments for barrier-free access for meeting parti­ci­pants in accordance with The Ac­ces­si­bility for Manitobans Act and the accessibility standards pre­scribed under that act.

      These words would come under the section which allows for regula­tions to be provided respecting electronic meetings in each of these bills. It follows clauses which allow for the provision of regula­tion in relation to the notices and the calling of electronic meetings and for voting at electronic meetings.

      The five amend­ments include one for The Condominium Act, one for The Cooperatives Act, one for The Cor­por­ations Act and two for The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

      The amend­ments are being intro­duced to address the concerns raised by David Kron at com­mit­tee stage with respect to access for individuals with dis­abil­ities. I will quote from the transcript from the com­mit­tee meeting.

      I had asked David Kron the following: Just to be clear in terms of what you're asking for, I think that part of what you would like is that where we're amending The Condominium Act, The Cooperatives Act and The Cor­por­ations Act, that there should be a clause in each of these amend­ments that spe­cific­ally says that the meeting must follow the require­ments for the–of The Ac­ces­si­bility for Manitobans Act. Is that the direction you would like?

      And David Kron then replied, and I quote: Yes, that's exactly what we would recom­mend to the com­mit­tee. It reinforces a law that's already on the books, and it makes all those organi­zations look and see what the AMA act is. Because one out of–almost 40 per cent of the busi­ness leaders in Manitoba do not know what the AMA is, this reinforces some­thing that's already been passed.

      Now let me illustrate with an example why it's so im­por­tant to add this clause. I will refer to the situation of individuals who are hard of hearing, who have a dis­abil­ity, in that they can hear less well and in order to what–understand what is said, they need assist­ance.

      Let me tell you the story of Gladys Nielsen, a senior who has dif­fi­cul­ty hearing and has a cochlear im­plant. She attended one of the gov­ern­ment's con­sul­ta­tion events with respect to the budget. She asked for closed captioning so she could easily follow what was said.

      The first meeting she was to attend, closed cap­tioning was not provided and the meeting was of little use to her. However, closed captioning was provided at a meeting she attended after Christmas and she was easily able to know what was happening and to partici­pate equally in the meeting with others.

      Now, individuals might say you could not do that at all the busi­ness meetings mentioned under these acts. However, the fact is that Zoom and other means which provide for electronic and virtual meetings, Zoom provides the ability to use closed captioning and there're, indeed, apps for Zoom which would make this very easy to provide.

      Thus, with a small change in the legis­lation it's possible to ac­com­modate an individual with a hearing dif­fi­cul­ty. And I would remind those MLAs who re­pre­sent rural areas that some 50 per cent or more of farmers over the age of 50 have a hearing loss and I'm sure that MLAs repre­sen­ting rural areas would not want to make it difficult for half the farmers in their con­stit­uencies to partici­pate in these meetings.

      It is 2022 and it's time to ensure that individuals with dis­abil­ities can partici­pate easily. There are about 175,000 Manitobans with a dis­abil­ity. They are im­por­tant. These report stage amend­ments are im­por­tant for them and I hope all MLAs will support these report stage amend­ments.

      Thank you. Merci. Miigwech. Dyakuyu.

 

CONCURRENCE AND THIRD READINGS

Bill 10–An Act respecting Amendments to The Health Services Insurance Act, The Pharmaceutical Act and Various Corporate Statutes

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to put a few comments on the record on Bill 10, the act respecting health ser­vices insurance, pharmaceutical and various cor­por­ate statutes.

      I will talk first about the point-of-care tests which are discussed under The Health Services Insurance Act and The Pharmaceutical Act. Clearly, it is im­por­tant that these point-of-care tests be available and that the tests which are available be both the rapid antigen tests and, when they are available, the rapid PCR tests.

      And we need–in addition to having these tests available it is becoming in­creasingly clear that it's very im­por­tant that people have a way of keeping a record which can be accepted as docu­men­ta­tion that they had a positive test. Right now, that is only possible if you have a test done at–by–in a pharmacy or in a hospital or health-care in­sti­tution. But for many people at the moment, the rapid antigen tests are being done at home and there is not adequate docu­men­ta­tion of a positive test that will be accepted as proof that the person has had a COVID infection.

      And this becomes im­por­tant in a variety of cir­cum­­stances. A number of countries are now accepting a recent–in the last six months–COVID-positive test as being equivalent to somebody having been vac­cinated, in that the person would have some level of immune response. That may be im­por­tant for a num­ber of people to have that docu­men­ta­tion if they want to travel at the moment, and we don't know how long into the future that will also apply.

      But it is also im­por­tant for people who develop long COVID. And if there is not docu­men­ta­tion which is formally accepted that a person has had a positive COVID test, then there is a possi­bility that the physician or the insurance company will not accept a  diagnosis of long COVID without there being a positive COVID test which has been properly documented.

      This would be, in a sense, equivalent to what has happened with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in the past, where there is a critical need, in order to have the diagnosis, for there to be a docu­men­ta­tion of alcohol use in pregnancy. This is completely different, but it is a similar sort of issue that, where you want to have a diagnosis of long COVID, it is likely that you will need to have docu­men­ta­tion of a positive COVID test, and, at the moment, tests done at home are not accept­able.

      We should work out ways in which tests done at home can be acceptable. People can take a photograph of the positive test. There can be somebody in the home or a neighbour who can provide signed docu­men­ta­tion of witnessing the positive test.

      This should be some­thing that is done and done properly right now because we have–will have, I suspect, many people in the future who can suffer because their COVID-positive test was not verified properly and may not have been then accepted in–by a physician wanting to diagnose or con­sid­ering diagnosing long COVID, or by an insurance company, whether here or elsewhere, accepting the fact that the individual has had a positive COVID test and has thus been infected by the coronavirus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus or COVID‑19.

      So this, sadly, was not included in this act and it should have been, in order to have proper docu­men­ta­tion, allowed, substantiated and proper records. This, interestingly enough, if it had been done and people were then reporting these, we could have had a much better incidence of the number of people who are developing COVID‑19 infections, and we would be in better shape today in terms of being able to monitor the extent of COVID‑19 infections in our com­mu­nity and in our province.

      Now there is a way that can be used for monitor­ing under the present circum­stances, when we don't have the same level of monitoring, when we don't have a proper way of verifying that somebody has a COVID‑19 positive rapid antigen test or rapid PCR test. And that would be for–by the testing of waste water. And we understand that the Province is doing some testing of waste water, but we are not getting daily results of that, as we should be getting, as other provinces and other juris­dic­tions are provi­ding.

      The gov­ern­ment needs to pull up its socks and do a proper job instead of not reporting the level of COVID in our waste water today.

      The Pharmaceutical Act allows for continuation of pharmacists to do rapid antigen tests, and one pre­sumes also rapid PCR tests, when they're available, and to verify the fact that it is positive or not.

      This is im­por­tant that this continue, but it is really im­por­tant that it's not just available for people who are travel­ling, as it was for quite some time. I am told that it's more available now than it was. I was told that  the change was made in November or December, but, clearly, at the end of December, early January, this change had not been made aware–or not all pharmacists had been made aware of that change.

      It is im­por­tant that people know that they have a positive test and can get that test done. It is vital, if that's to be a service provided by pharmacists, that phar­macists will be able to have the test materials, whether it be the rapid antigen test or the rapid PCR test, and on an ongoing and continuing basis.

      It is interesting that this will set an im­por­tant pre­cedent, that pharmacists should be able to do point-of-care tests in a number of areas in the future, and it is likely, given the changing nature of diag­nos­tic laboratory tests. For example, it–with the ap­pro­priate attachments to an iPhone, you're now able to get a num­ber of tests done, including, I'm told, an ultra­sound. And that will change the dynamics, the avail­ability and where a test can be done.

      And I suspect, in the not too distant future, we will have a larger variety of tests being able to be done in pharmacies, and that is probably a good thing, provided that we have the standards–adequate stan­dards and assurance of quality control that is well needed.

      Let me say a few words about The Condominium Act change, The Cooperatives Act, Cor­por­ations Act, Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act changes. These are changes to make virtual meetings possible with these condominiums, co‑operatives, cor­por­ations, credit unions, caisses populaires, and make them sure that they are legitimate.

      This is a positive step and it is a reflection of the fact that we have learned a lot during the COVID pan­demic about using virtual means from Zoom to Teams, to many others. It is im­por­tant–an im­por­tant change, but coming along with this im­por­tant change, there should have been the amend­ments, which I brought forward, which would have ensured that individuals with dis­abil­ities were not disadvantaged by this change.

      It is not just me, but the MLA for Union Station, who has put forward a variety of circum­stances where individuals who are disadvantaged or with dis­abil­ities may be handicapped by this approach and may not be able to fully partici­pate.

      It is really im­por­tant that we are an inclusive society. It is really im­por­tant that we have The Accessi­bility for Manitobans Act and the standards which come under that act. It is with almost disbelief that I saw the minister stand up and say she wouldn't support this.

      I think we are at a day, at an age, at a time when people with dis­abil­ities should be supported and ac­com­mo­dated. These are, in fact, required under law, and so it shouldn't have been a big step to include The Ac­ces­si­bility for Manitobans Act, and the standard under that act is clearly applicable in these circum­stances.

      It is so im­por­tant. Whether it be dis­abil­ities like problems hearing or problems seeing, or physical dis­abil­ities or mental dis­abil­ities, there needs to be some action, some con­sid­era­tion. People should not be dis­missed. They should not be turned aside. They should not be prevented from adequately partici­pating.

      There are 175,000, approximately, Manitobans with dis­abil­ities. This is a large group of individuals. We have seen the rise of the possi­bilities for those  with dis­abil­ities. We have recently seen the Paralympic Games, which Canadian athletes did very well at. It is past time that we should make sure that people with dis­abil­ities can partici­pate and can partici­pate well.

      We have made a substantive change in this Chamber to ac­com­modate a former MLA, Steven Fletcher. And we did that because, in this Chamber, MLAs got together and they said, this is im­por­tant, that an individual with a dis­abil­ity should be able to partici­pate just like anybody else. That should have been a part of this act and this amendment, and it's a disgrace that it is not.

      I'm sorry that it didn't happen. I am discouraged by the negative approach of the minister and the lack of support that I saw. I can only hope that at some point in the future, the gov­ern­ment will change its approach to people with dis­abil­ities and be much more open and much more inclusive and ensure that people with dis­abil­ities are no longer disadvantaged the way they have too often been in the past.

      Thank you. Merci. Miigwech. Dyakuyu.