https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies



David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others






#nbpoli#cdnpoli



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mandatory-vaccination-bill-11-notwithstanding-clause-1.5614659

MLAs vote to drop notwithstanding clause from mandatory vaccination bill

Contentious legislation seeks to remove religious, philosophical exemptions for school children

Jacques Poitras· CBC News· Posted: Jun 16, 2020 5:58 PM AT



A committee of MLAs have voted to remove the notwithstanding clause from Education Minister Dominic Cardy's mandatory vaccination bill. (Gilbert Rowan/CBC)

A committee of MLAs has voted to remove the controversial notwithstanding clause from a bill on mandatory vaccinations.

Members of all parties, including the governing Progressive Conservatives, voted unanimously to strike the clause, which would have protected the proposed law from future constitutional challenges in court.

That could improve the odds that the bill will eventually pass, since some Liberal MLAs have said they could only vote yes to the legislation if the clause was removed.

The bill would eliminate religious and philosophical exemptions from the requirement that children be vaccinated if they attend public schools. It will take effect for the 2021-22 school year.

Victoria-La Vallée Liberal MLA Chuck Chiasson introduced the amendment to remove the clause after accusing Education Minister Dominic Cardy of moving too fast to take away people's rights without looking at other options such as education campaigns.


Liberal MLA Chuck Chiasson says use of the notwithstanding clause creates 'a slippery slope' and other alternatives should be pursued.

"Once the freedom is gone it's good for good, and if we're going to take away rights and freedoms, we better have tried every other alternative and we better have a darned good reason," Chiasson said.

"I fear that we're headed down a slippery slope that we don't need to head down at this time, because there are alternatives. I for one just won't be part of it."

Chiasson emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not for his party.

All Liberal MLAs are allowed a free vote on the legislation, and Premier Blaine Higgs has said all PC members, including cabinet ministers, can also vote their consciences.

PC MLA Bruce Northrup has already said he will vote against the legislation, while other Tories have said they will wait to see the final amended version of the bill before deciding.

The legislation would allow Public Heath officials to establish a list of required vaccinations. Children not vaccinated for any reason other than health concerns would not be allowed to go to public schools starting in the fall of 2021.

The goal is to immunize enough children to create herd immunity so that the small number of children who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons will still be protected from an outbreak.

Controversial clause

Last fall, Premier Blaine Higgs said government lawyers had concluded the bill would not be constitutional unless it invoked the notwithstanding clause, which would exempt it from sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including those on freedom of religion.

But after Liberal objections, Cardy said he'd be willing to take it out to win more votes for the legislation. No one from the government spoke against Chiasson's amendment Tuesday.


Education Minister Dominic Cardy says the current exemptions are 'often abused.' (CBC)

Chiasson, the party's education critic, pointed out that last year, Dr. Noni MacDonald, a well-known Nova Scotia pediatrician, called mandatory vaccine laws "a simple solution to a complex problem."

She called for better education campaigns to persuade parents, something Chiasson said Cardy should try before he passes a bill infringing on rights.

"Why would we not try that before we went down the road of mandatory vaccinations?" he asked.
Cardy responded that the existing system already violates the rights of children who can't go to school because they have weakened immune systems and the risk of an infection is too great.

More vaccinations would create herd immunity that would make it safe for them, he said.
 
 
People's Alliance Leader Kris Austin says he's struggling on which way to vote. (Ed Hunter/CBC)

People's Alliance Leader Kris Austin inched closer to a clear statement Tuesday on how he'll vote, saying he'll be "hard-pressed" to support something that in his view violates parental rights.

But he concluded his questions to Cardy without declaring what he'll do, saying he was "really struggling" with how to vote.

'This is a balancing of rights'

Cardy acknowledged Tuesday that it's still not possible to provide a clear picture of vaccination rates in schools. There is no breakdown of how many exemptions are religious, how many are philosophical and how many are for valid medical reasons.

But he said the existing exemptions are "often abused," with people claiming medical reasons when there are none or citing supposed religious prohibitions to vaccinations that don't exist.

He also admitted that parental rights would be limited by the bill but he said the education system already limits other rights when it prevents students from bringing weapons, or even peanut butter, to school.

"This is a balancing of rights," he said.

Tuesday's committee session adjourned without a final vote on the bill. Debate is expected to resume Wednesday afternoon.



 




50 Comments





David Amos
Go Figure

"Last fall, Premier Blaine Higgs said government lawyers had concluded the bill would not be constitutional unless it invoked the notwithstanding clause, which would exempt it from sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including those on freedom of religion.

But after Liberal objections, Cardy said he'd be willing to take it out to win more votes for the legislation. No one from the government spoke against Chiasson's amendment Tuesday." 


Terry Tibbs
Reply to @David Amos:
Not another case of the Higgs shuffle, or maybe a Higgs shuffle with a twist, the twist of ignoring the government lawyers (what would they know anyway?) setting the whole thing up for failure............
I do know 1 thing though, when politicians say things like "it's a balancing of rights" it most surely isn't by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

























Jos Allaire
"He also admitted that parental rights would be limited by the bill but he said the education system already limits other rights when it prevents students from bringing weapons, or even peanut butter, to school. "
Peanut butter and butter tarts!


David Amos 

























James Smythe
Higgs now proposes mandatory injections of Irving oil into all New Brunswickers and their children in order to bolster demand for fossil fuels.


David Amos 































Bruce Ellingwood
Keep a record of those MLA's that vote in favor of Bill 11 and regardless of party affiliation, work on their riding association to replace them, or if that fails, follow them to all public events and remind them of choice.



Mary Smith
Reply to @James Smythe: It's like if you don't wear a seat belt in the car, and the other passengers do. You say "I don't need to wear one, you have yours" and then there's crash. What do you think will happen to the person without a seat belt on? They'll become a projectile, hitting and crashing into those wearing their seat belts, causing bodily harm.

We're all in the same car. What you do matters, and has ripple effects beyond your decision.

You don't vaccinate yourself or your kids, not because of medical exemption, but because you opt out for personal belief reasons. You could give it to someone who gives it to their sibling who is still to young to have received all of their shots. To an infant. To a pregnant mother, complicating her pregnancy and potentially causing life threatening and damaging consequences to the fetus. To someone who is immuno-compromised. To someone who can't be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons.

Or even to someone who did everything right, got their vaccines, but didn't create enough antibodies and doesn't have enough to be considered immune - it's rare, but it can happen - as it did to this doctor in NS: "We still have one doctor who tested negative [for measles immunity], despite the fact that he has been vaccinated and had all of his vaccinations. And so he can't work for two weeks on account of this person." This happened because the hospital was exposed to a Measles patient and they had to test everyone to see if they had enough of the Measles antibodies to be considered immune, and this one doctor fell below that threshold and had to go into isolation, potentially could have contracted Measles even though he did everything right.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/doctor-impact-measles-scare-1.5117284 


Mary Smith 


Mary Smith
Reply to @Mary Smith: But also, with that said, I think "better education campaigns to persuade parents" should be implemented if this bill can't pass in the form originally proposed. Have a campaign so that those who opt out, must at least be informed of what it is they're opting out of, and thus making an informed decision. Education is key, and if we can have people make well informed decisions based on science and not out of ignorance, we all win. If we go down that path, and people are still opting out of vaccines for personal reasons, then we should revisit this bill in it's original form - if you opt out of vaccines, you'd still be free to do that, but you wouldn't be free from the consequences of those actions, which would be either homeschool, private school, or online learning.

Mandatory vaccines for children attending public school - and remember, this does NOT include the Covid-19 vaccine, for which that doesn't exist yet, and this bill was made before this pandemic. This bill is for the mandatory vaccines all children in NB are supposed to receive: https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/h-s/pdf/en/CDC/Immunization/RoutineImmunizationSchedule.pdf



Terry Tibbs
Reply to @David Amos:
POOF! (guess I was right)


David Amos 


James Smythe
Reply to @Mary Smith: Your misplaced analogy makes for mildly entertaining sensationalism bordering on ridiculous hyperbole, but a more accurate representation would be that we are all driving our own car. My wearing or not wearing a seatbelt in the event of an accident between us has no bearing on your survival if you are wearing one.

What you do has ripple effects in your car as well if you’d like to continue this analogy. Let’s say for example you’re changing your radio station as the light is turning green, and you’re 2 seconds late in advancing on said green. The person behind you takes an on-ramp to a highway, where they are then sideswiped by a truck and pass away in the accident. Had you not been playing with your radio that extra 2 seconds, this wouldn’t have happened. So you’d be comfortable being charged as an accessory to their untimely death in this case? We can’t hold everybody infinitely and retroactively culpable for the infinite amount of possibilities that may arise from our actions.




















Bruce Ellingwood
Parents /guardians who agree with forced vaccinations sure put an enormous amount of faith in for profit chemical corporations.


David Amos 


John Grail
Reply to @Bruce Ellingwood: Let's hope NB's MLAs still vote against this bill. It seems to be trying to cure problems that just don't exist. 


Justin Gunther
Reply to @John Grail: Certain commenters on this story are likely not even in New Brunswick, and possibly have never been in New Brunswick based on simple Google searching. It's hard not to have an online presence these days. Go-go vaccine apologists.

Have you been to New Brunswick?


John Grail 

David Amos
Reply to @Harvey York: Obviously there is no need to do so with you 


Harvey York
Reply to @David Amos: those of us who have managed to lead fairly normal lives and keep our noses clean normally don't appear in google searches. Feel free to look me up on Facebook, however


David Amos 

Harvey York
Reply to @David Amos: got nothing on you, actually you have my sympathies.




























Justin Gunther
Are there so many religious/philosophical objections that it's impossible to reach herd immunity without making vaccines mandatory? If we're only talking about a few fringe people who have no idea what they're talking about, and clearly no valid reason to hesitate, shouldn't herd immunity be reached without making it illegal to go to school without it?

What is it, 70% required for herd immunity? So does this mean you are literally attempting to force at least 30% of parents to vaccine their kids? That's a large fringe.

Somebody help me understand this. I am admittedly not a subject matter expert on vaccines.


David Amos  


David Amos
Content disabled 
Reply to @Justin Gunther: "Nobody in this thread has a verifiable NB presence based on googling their name and "New Brunswick." That's all I'm saying."

Try it again
























Greg Miller
So will the law have "teeth" or are we wimping out?


Bob Smith 


John Grail
Reply to @Greg Miller: Let's hope this violation of rights gets shut down entirely.





https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/vaccination-bill-11-cardy-new-brunswick-1.5605162

Much-anticipated mandatory vaccination debate begins in N.B. legislature

Review of contentious Bill 11 extended into Wednesday

Jacques Poitras· CBC News· Posted: Jun 09, 2020 6:12 PM AT



The controversial Bill 11 seeks to eliminate philosophical and religious exemptions from the requirement for schoolchildren to be vaccinated. (Gilbert Rowan/CBC)


Education Minister Dominic Cardy has warned his fellow MLAs that the issue of mandatory vaccinations won't be going away.

Cardy made the comments as a committee of the legislature began a long-awaited consideration of Bill 11, his legislation to eliminate philosophical and religious exemptions from the requirement for schoolchildren.

"When faith in science and institutions is coming under more threat and pressure than at probably any other point in our lifetimes, this bill is a firewall to protect our schoolchildren," Cardy said.


"Because this won't be the end of the discussion. Vote yes or no on this bill, if there's a vaccine for COVID-19, how will we have that conversation? These are the problems we're all going to face as legislators. The question now is what we do about it."


Education Minister Dominic Cardy said Tuesday his bill is a 'firewall to protect our schoolchildren.' (Submitted by the Government of New Brunswick)


The committee's review of the bill is expected to continue Wednesday.

Bill 11 would eliminate all non-medical exemptions to the requirement for vaccinations, including those on religious and philosophical grounds.

An earlier version of Cardy's bill was introduced long before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the bill has no specific reference to the coronavirus, for which no vaccine is expected to exist until next year.

The legislation would apply to a list of vaccines established by Health Canada. Children not vaccinated for any reason other than health concerns would not be allowed to go to public schools starting in the fall of 2021.
The goal is to immunize enough children to create herd immunity so that the small number of children who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons will still be protected from an outbreak.



The first version of the bill was harshly criticized by anti-vaccination activists who testified during three days of committee hearings last summer.

In the wake of those hearings, some MLAs from all four parties in the legislature said they were undecided whether to support the bill.

Fairness questioned

On Tuesday afternoon, Liberal MLA and education critic Chuck Chiasson questioned the logic behind some aspects of the bill, such as the fact it applies to children but not to adults working in schools.

"If you're a child and you're not vaccinated, you cannot attend school," he said. "If you're an adult and you're not vaccinated, you can attend school.

"To me it just doesn't sound like something that is — I could say — fair. It's not affording exactly the outcome that the minister is looking for."



Liberal education critic Chuck Chiasson said he was frustrated with the lack of information coming from the education minister.


He also said it was hard to decide on how to support the bill when Cardy, citing privacy rules, wouldn't provide a breakdown of how many exemptions are medical, how many are philosophical and how many are religious.

At one point Chiasson said he was frustrated with how long Cardy was taking to answer his questions.

"I don't need all this pomp and ceremony around each question that I ask," he said. "I find it kind of disturbing that I have to keep digging and digging just to get that straight answer."

Cardy explained that because of physical distancing requirements, he was relying on staff to help him answer questions via a digital device and that's why his replies were taking so long.

Notwithstanding clause

In his questions, Chiasson did not broach a key issue for the Liberal opposition: the bill's invocation of the notwithstanding clause from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would shield the bill from a constitutional challenge.

Both the Liberals and the Greens have said they will try to remove the clause.

At last summer's hearings on the first version of the bill, one national anti-vaccination organization threatened to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation if it passed.

Cardy responded with a new version of the bill last November citing the notwithstanding clause of the charter. That would exempt the bill from a charter challenge on a number of grounds, including sections that guarantee freedom of religion.

Premier Blaine Higgs is giving all his MLAs, including his cabinet ministers, a free vote on the bill. The Liberals are expected to vote in unison against the bill if the notwithstanding clause stays in but will be able to vote freely if it comes out.
 
The Greens and the People's Alliance have also raised concerns about the use of the notwithstanding clause.











Commenting is now closed for this story.



David Amos
I repeat Methinks Cardy's all knowing attitude is becoming more of burden for Higgy et al with each passing day N'esy Pas?

 








john smith
if it wasnt for this bill i would almost back cardy but he has shown his plumage as a tyrant










https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/vaccination-bill-11-new-brunswick-cardy-anderson-mason-1.5586973

PC ministers spar over vaccination bill, but debate unexpectedly delayed

Attorney General Andrea Anderson-Mason voiced discomfort with Education Minister Dominic Cardy's bill

Jacques Poitras· CBC News· Posted: May 27, 2020 4:38 PM AT



Education Minister Dominic Cardy wants to use the notwithstanding clause to fend off court challenges to his mandatory vaccination bill. (CBC)

The long-awaited and potential decisive phase in New Brunswick's debate over mandatory vaccinations was abruptly put on hold Wednesday.

MLAs were poised to begin studying Education Minister Dominic Cardy's Bill 11, which would eliminate all non-medical exemptions to the requirement for vaccinations, including those on religious and philosophical grounds.

But the sitting of the legislative committee that was going to examine the bill was abruptly called off when Cardy had to attend a special meeting of the government's all-party committee on COVID-19 happening at the same time.

"It would be impossible to have proper debate on this bill without his presence, so committee was delayed until next Tuesday," said Caraquet Liberal MLA Isabelle Thériault.
Opposition MLAs on the committee hope to amend the bill in a way that could make or break its chances of passing.

Both the Liberals and the Greens will try to remove the bill's use of the notwithstanding clause from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By invoking the clause, the legislation is shielded from a constitutional challenge.

Attorney general voices concern

At the same time, two Progressive Conservative cabinet ministers continue to spar over the need for the legislation.

Attorney-General Andrea Anderson-Mason has repeatedly signalled she's not comfortable with the bill, and in a recent Facebook post implicitly rejected Cardy's description of its opponents.

"I was originally told that the only people who would oppose this bill would be people on the fringe," she said in a May 24 post. "That was incorrect."


She said that "being told by government what you can or cannot do with your body does not settle well."

Cardy said Tuesday he was not concerned with his PC cabinet colleague's comments.

"I think Andrea Anderson-Mason's comments have been pretty clear, and I think mine are as well, and I'm happy mine are backed by science and reason, and I'm happy to go forward on that basis," he said.


Andrea Anderson-Mason, minister of justice and attorney general, has signalled concern about the government telling people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. (Radio-Canada)

Cardy also repeated his criticisms of opponents of the bill, including protestors on the lawn of the legislature Tuesday who didn't practice physical distancing from each other.

He described them as people "who subscribe to a vague, weird Trumpian ideal of how the world works."

The unusual public spectacle of two ministers sparring over a piece of legislation would normally be untenable in the Westminster system of cabinet government.

But Higgs is allowing all his MLAs, including his ministers, a free vote on the bill.
"I don't relish the idea of two ministers duking it out in the public, but it is what it is," he said Tuesday. "They can each vote their own way."

Anderson-Mason did not respond to an interview request Wednesday.

Bill would come into effect fall 2021

Cardy's bill was introduced long before the COVID-19 pandemic and has no specific reference to the coronavirus, for which no vaccine is expected to exist until next year.

The bill would eliminate philosophical, religious and other non-medical exemptions from an existing requirement that all school children be vaccinated.

Children not vaccinated for any reason other than health concerns would not be allowed to go to public schools starting in the fall of 2021.

An earlier version of the bill was harshly criticized by anti-vaccination activists who testified during three days of committee hearings last summer.
In the wake of those hearings, some MLAs from all four parties in the legislature said they were undecided whether to support the bill.

One national anti-vaccination organization threatened to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation if it passed.

Cardy responded with a new version of the bill last November that includes the use of the notwithstanding clause of the Charter.

That would exempt the bill from a Charter challenge on a number of grounds, including sections that guarantee freedom of religion.


People's Alliance Leader Kris Austin said he's concerned for government overreach with the current makeup of the bill. (Ed Hunter/CBC)

Liberal Leader Kevin Vickers said this week his party remains "concerned" about the preemptive suspension of Charter rights and will try to amend the bill to take out the clause. That will make it more likely that some Liberal MLAs can vote for it.

Cardy said again this week he is willing to remove the notwithstanding clause.
"For me, it wouldn't be a compromise," he said. "I have no issues with the notwithstanding clause not being included. I felt the bill would stand without it and I'm very happy to support it without it."

Vickers said the debate is really about "the best way to get the most number of people vaccinated" and said Liberal MLAs would also be able to vote freely on the bill.

Green Party Leader David Coon said his party will also introduce amendments, including one to remove the notwithstanding clause. Another would give chief medical officer of health Dr. Jennifer Russell the power to decide when the bill takes effect.
 

Liberal Leader Kevin Vickers said his party will try amend the bill to remove the notwithstanding clause. (Ed Hunter/CBC)

Meanwhile, People's Alliance Leader Kris Austin sounded a sceptical note about the legislation.
He said whether the notwithstanding clause stays in the bill or comes out, it's use is an acknowledgement the legislation is not constitutional.

"For me the real question is more about people's right to choose for themselves," he said, questioning whether school staff, health-care workers and eventually other government employees will also be subjected to similar laws.

"Where do we stop?" he said. "It's about government overreach to me."

Cardy said he's optimistic that there will be enough MLAs from all parties who see the merits of the bill, especially with COVID-19 highlighting the importance of vaccinations.
 




Commenting is now closed for this story.



David Amos
Methinks whereas the Minister of Health is a lawyer I bet some folks would like to know where Teddy Baby stands on the need for Cardy's vaccination legislation and his latest scheme about the notwithstanding clause N'esy Pas? 












Lou Bell
Guess some politicians have less of a concern for the health of their constituents than others ! Not really surprising . Money trumps doing the right thing . Move on Ms. Anderson- Mason , you've had your 15 minutes of infamy .


David Amos 













David Amos

Surprise Surprise Surprise The legislature just adjourned til June 9th 














john smith
Content disabled
treating healthy people as lepars is really quite rich