At least three Ontario Members of Provincial Parliament refuse act as Commissioner of Oaths for signing exemption forms under the Immunization of School Pupils Act including Cheri DiNovo and France Gelinas. We were advised in November 2015 by an Ontario resident that Liz Sandals, MPP and Education Minister from the riding of Guelph, also refuses to sign exemption forms. Vaccine Choice Canada’s correspondence regarding this issue is below. We have received a response from Kathleen Wynne (link below) who has asked Health Minister Hoskins or his staff to respond. To date Liz Sandals and France Gelinas have not acknowledged receipt of our letters or responded to the questions we posed.
December 21, 2015
Premier Kathleen Wynne
Room 281, Main Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1
By email: kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Dear Premier Wynne,
RE: Legal Vaccine Exemptions as provided by the Immunization of School Pupils Act, Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief form 4897-64E (2013/08)
It has come to our attention that the office of Ontario’s Education Minister, MPP Liz Sandals refused to act as a Commissioner of Oaths for the Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief form 4897-64E (2013/08) under the Immunization of School Pupils Act.
It seems that Ms. Sandals is using her personal belief in vaccination to prevent one of her tax-paying constituents from using her office’s services to exercise legal exemption rights clearly provided in Ontario’s Immunization of School Pupils Act.
This seems to be a disturbing trend among Ontario MPP’s. Two NDP members, France Gelinas and Cheri DiNovo also refuse to assist taxpaying parents in their ridings who choose to exercise their legal rights under Ontario Law to forego or delay vaccinations for their children.
It is unconscionable that Members of the Ontario Legislature are permitted to act in a discriminatory way towards their constituents. As such, we draw your attention to the website of the Ontario Commissioner of Integrity where it is stated:
1) Members are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny.
2) A conflict of interest arises when an MPP allows their private interests to interfere with their ability to properly perform their duties of public office.
Furthermore, the legal right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including vaccination, is protected by Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act and by the Canadian Constitution which guarantees the legal right to security of the person and the freedom of conscience and religion.
We were also surprised to see in the Official Records for 14 May 2015 in the Ontario Legislature, a motion by Ms. Daiene Vernile, “addressing the importance of vaccinating our children is intended to bring clarity to the confusion now undermining the science behind life-saving immunization” which passed the house unanimously.
What was glaringly absent, was a balanced discussion on the risk side of the benefit/risk equation. There was not one mention of vaccine injury, even though every vaccine product insert discloses the risks and injuries known to be precipitated by the vaccine. As complex biochemical compounds injected into healthy children, every vaccine carries a risk of injury and death. Also missing was any mention of the lack of vaccine injury compensation in Ontario for those who suffer health injuries from vaccination. Canada has been collecting vaccine adverse events reports since 1965.
Our two in depth reports on Canada’s reporting system of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) here and here clearly show that vaccine reactions and injuries do occur and that the federal government maintains a dual reporting system which results in the vast majority of vaccine-associated events reports being routed to a data base (CAEFISS) where they remain inaccessible to public scrutiny.
As an example of what is hidden and what is revealed, the two, full public reports on CAEFISS confirmed that from 1992 to 2012, the CAEFISS databse recorded 87,911 vaccine adverse reaction reports. Compare this to the publicly accessible Canada Vigilance (CV) database which recorded 551 reports or less than 1% of all adverse reaction reports on CAEFISS during the same years. .
It’s estimated that one in 10 Canadian children have severe allergies, asthma, diabetes, epilepsy and other life-threatening conditions. No one in government seems to be asking what environmental factors, chemicals or drugs, including vaccines might be driving this health disaster. In 2011, two studies reported that U.S. children are suffering increasingly from chronic health disorders and are growing into even sicker adults. One study estimated that, “43% of US children (32 million) have at least 1 of 20 chronic health conditions assessed, increasing to 54.1% when overweight, obesity, or being at risk for developmental delays are included.” Another study found that the number of school-age children diagnosed with autism, ADHD, and other developmental disabilities was about 15 percent of children or nearly 10 million. Considering the similarities between social and environmental factors and an almost identical vaccine schedule in the both countries, one could reasonably expect equally grim statistics in Canada.
Premier Wynne, we hope that our concerns regarding the inappropriate refusal by Ontario MPPs to witness and sign personal belief vaccine exemption affidavits will lead to sober reflection on this highly charged issue, and that you will direct Members of the Ontario Legislature to separate their personal beliefs from their public duties.
We respectfully request your acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and your well considered response to our concerns.
Very sincerely,
Edda West, President of Vaccine Choice Canada on behalf of the VCC Board of Directors.
Attachments – Letter to:
Letter to Premier Wynne in PDF format here.
The response from Premier Wynne to the above letter can be read here (PDF).
December 10, 2015
Liz Sandals, Minster of Education
Ministry of Education
22nd Floor, Mowat Block
900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1L2
By email: lsandals.mpp@liberal.ola.org
RE: Immunization of School Pupils Act and the Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief Affidavit 4897-64E (2013/08)
Dear MPP Liz Sandals, Minister of Education,
It has been brought to the attention of Vaccine Choice Canada, that you have taken a “personal stand” to not witness your constituents’ signatures nor take their oaths or affirmations on the Government of Ontario issued Affidavits of Personal Conscience or Religious Belief Exemption to the requirements of Ontario’s Immunization of School Pupils Act.
This is particularly concerning since this Act falls into your portfolio. Your duty as an MPP and specifically as the Minister of Education is to enforce the Act in its entirety, not just the portions of the act with which you “personally” agree.
We would like to draw your attention to the website of the Ontario Commissioner of Integrity where it is stated:
1) Members are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny.
2) A conflict of interest arises when an MPP allows their private interests to interfere with their ability to properly perform their duties of public office.
Whether you personally disagree with the portion of the Act that establishes your constituents’ rights to religious or personal belief exemptions from vaccination is really not germane to your duties as a public official. The Act is the law, which you are duty-bound to uphold. Also to be clear, you are not granting an exemption to the Act by witnessing this government form in your role as a Commissioner for Taking Affidavits (or Oaths). The exemption has been granted by the Act itself.
Your duties as a Commissioner for Taking Affidavits do not in any way entail your personal agreement with or judgment of the contents of any affidavit. As the Attorney General of Ontario’s website states: “A commissioner for taking affidavits is a person who can legally administer an oath, affirmation or declaration, for example, to a person making an affidavit,” a right you are granted by virtue of your holding public office.
The Service Ontario website https://www.services.gov.on.ca/locations/serviceDetails.do?id=12620 [accessed 2015] is more specific about the duties of Commissioners of Oaths when it states [emphasis ours]:
A Commissioner of Oaths is a person authorized to take your oath or solemn affirmation when you sign an affidavit or a statutory declaration. A Commissioner does not certify that the statements being made in the affidavit or statutory declaration are true, but only certifies that an oath or solemn affirmation has been administered properly.
Section 9 (titled Duty of commissioner, etc. in administration of oath) of the Commissioners for taking Affidavits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.17 http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c17 makes clear that you are only witnessing a signature [emphasis ours]:
In other words, when a constituent asks you to witness any affidavit your only duty is to ask them if they swear or affirm that the statements contained in the affidavit are true, hear their response “I do” and then to confirm their signature. The statements contained in the Ontario government issued affidavit you would witness are simple. First the person confirms they are the parent of the named child and they have sincerely held religious or personal belief that is in conflict with requirements of the Act. Second, the parent confirms they are aware that their unvaccinated child may be excluded from school in the event of a disease outbreak.
By refusing to witness a signature and hear an affirmation due to your “personal beliefs” you throw into confusion what exactly it is that you do and do not believe in.
1) Do you not believe in Ontario’s Immunization of School Pupils Act itself? http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i01
2) Do you not believe in your constituents’ right to exemptions as stipulated in that Act?
3) Do you not believe in your constituents’ legal right to security of the person and to freedom of conscience as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution? http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
4) Do you not believe in your constituents’ rights to voluntary and informed consent as stipulated in Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act? http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/96h02#BK14
5) Do you not believe that it is discriminatory to exclude your constituents from your services due to their sincerely held religious beliefs or personal conscience?
These are all questions that must be considered by someone in public office who is prejudicially withholding their services from certain of their constituents.
We hope that our concerns regarding your personal stance on witnessing exemption affidavits will lead to more sober reflection on this highly charged issue, and that you will be able to separate your personal beliefs from your legislative duties.
We respectfully request your acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and your thoughtful responses to the five questions we ask above.
Very sincerely,
Edda West, President of Vaccine Choice Canada on behalf of the VCC Board of Directors.
Cc: Premier Wynne, NDP Leader Horwath
Letter to MPP Liz Sandals in PDF format here.
December 10, 2015
MPP France Gelinas, NDP Critic for Health and Long-Term Care
Room 186, Main Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A5
By email: fgelinas-qp@NDP.on.ca
RE: Immunization of School Pupils Act and the Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief Affidavit 4897-64E (2013/08)
Dear MPP France Gelinas, NDP Critic for Health and Long-Term Care,
It has been brought to the attention of Vaccine Choice Canada, that you have taken a “personal stand” to not witness your constituents’ signatures nor take their oaths or affirmations on the Government of Ontario issued Affidavits of Personal Conscience or Religious Belief Exemption to the requirements of Ontario’s Immunization of School Pupils Act.
This is particularly concerning since as the Critic for Health it is imperative that you understand the Act. And hence your duty to uphold the Act in its entirety, not just the portions of the act with which you may “personally” agree.
We would like to draw your attention to the website of the Ontario Commissioner of Integrity where it is stated:
1) Members are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny.
2) A conflict of interest arises when an MPP allows their private interests to interfere with their ability to properly perform their duties of public office.
Whether you personally disagree with the portion of the Act that establishes your constituents’ rights to religious or personal belief exemptions from vaccination is really not germane to your duties as a public official. The Act is the law, which you are duty-bound to uphold. Also to be clear, you are not granting an exemption to the Act by witnessing a government issued form in your role as a Commissioner for Taking Affidavits (or Oaths). The exemption has been granted by the Act itself.
Your duties as a Commissioner for Taking Affidavits do not in any way entail your personal agreement with or judgment of the contents of any affidavit. As the Attorney General of Ontario’s website states: “A commissioner for taking affidavits is a person who can legally administer an oath, affirmation or declaration, for example, to a person making an affidavit,” a right you are granted by virtue of your holding public office.
The Service Ontario website is more specific about the duties of Commissioners of Oaths when it states [emphasis ours]:
A Commissioner of Oaths is a person authorized to take your oath or solemn affirmation when you sign an affidavit or a statutory declaration. A Commissioner does not certify that the statements being made in the affidavit or statutory declaration are true, but only certifies that an oath or solemn affirmation has been administered properly.
Section 9 (titled Duty of commissioner, etc. in administration of oath) of the Commissioners for taking Affidavits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.17 http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c17 makes clear that you are only witnessing a signature [emphasis ours]:
Every oath and declaration shall be taken by the deponent in the presence of the commissioner, notary public, justice of the peace or other officer or person administering the oath or declaration who shall satisfy himself or herself of the genuineness of the signature of the deponent or declarant and shall administer the oath or declaration in the manner required by law before signing the jurat or declaration.
A Commissioner of Oaths is a person authorized to take an oath or solemn affirmation when they sign an affidavit or a statutory declaration. A Commissioner does not certify that the statements being made in the affidavit or statutory declaration are true, but only certifies that an oath or solemn affirmation has been administered properly.
In other words, when a constituent asks you to witness any affidavit your only duty is to ask them if they swear or affirm that the statements contained in the affidavit are true, hear their response “I do” and then to confirm their signature.
The statements contained in the affidavit are written by the government in conformance with the Act. The parent adds only the identifying information for themselves and their child. When they say “I do” they are confirming they are the parent of the named child, they have sincerely held religious or personal belief that is in conflict with requirements of the Act and they are aware that their unvaccinated child may be excluded from school in the event of a disease outbreak.
By refusing to witness a signature and hear an affirmation due to your “personal beliefs” you throw into confusion what exactly it is that you do and do not believe in.
1) Do you not believe in Ontario’s Immunization of School Pupils Act itself? http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i01
2) Do you not believe in your constituents’ legal right to exemptions as stipulated in that Act?
3) Do you not believe in your constituents’ legal right to security of the person and to freedom of conscience and religion as guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution? http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
4) Do you not believe in your constituents’ rights to voluntary and informed consent as stipulated in Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act? http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/96h02#BK14
5) Do you not believe that it is discriminatory to exclude your constituents from your services due to their sincerely held beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or of personal conscience?
These are all questions that must be considered by someone in public office who is prejudicially withholding their witness services from certain of their constituents.
Further as a former nurse, someone who worked in health for 25 years and as NDP Health Critic, we can only assume you are familiar with the reports of the Public Health Agency of Ontario. Their 2014 Immunization Report for School Pupils has data for both vaccine coverage and vaccine exemption rates for students in Ontario schools. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/eRepository/Immunization_coverage_report_2012-13.pdf
Generally, the report states that exemptions account for between 1.5–2% of students. Specific exemption data is given only for 7-year olds. (See Figure 4 following.) Coverage data is given for all ages and all required vaccines. Coverage ranges between a low of 69% and a high of 95%. (See Figure 3(a) and (b) following.)
Looking at a couple of specific examples from the data in the report will perhaps clarify that it is not the pupils with exemptions that the main cause of low coverage rates. Rather it is the larger volume of unvaccinated children whose parents are not applying for exemptions that has the much larger effect on those rates.
The highest rate of exemptions in 7-year olds is for polio at 1.95% per Figure 4. The coverage rates for polio for 7-year olds is 74.2% per Figure 3(a). Adding these together accounts for 76.15% of 7-year olds. That means 23.85% are unvaccinated and their parents have not filed for exemptions. It seems apparent that it is these pupils who are by far the largest contributor to the lowered coverage rates for polio. If one considers the MMR vaccine, 1.54% of 7-year olds have exemptions for measles and the coverage rate for that age group is 88.3%. So 10.16% of 7-year olds are unvaccinated against measles, but their parents have not filed for an exemption.
To repeat, it is obvious that those who file vaccine exemptions and follow the intent of the Act have a very minor influence on vaccine coverage rates, although admittedly they are an easy group to target. By discriminating against the very small proportion of your constituents who wish to exercise their legal and Constitutional right to vaccine exemptions, you may be encouraging those who are not acting responsibly and therefore hope to remain outside your “scrutiny”.
We also note that your much publicized refusal to sign an affidavit for an exemption to the MMR vaccine for a 16 year old makes very little sense considering the high and stable rate of coverage for the MMR vaccine as shown in Figure 3(b) above. 16 year olds actually have the highest coverage rates of any age group in 2013.
The final point we would like you to consider is in regard to your suggestion to the parent requesting your services as a Commissioner of Affidavits that they take the form to a doctor for signature. We can only remind you, doctors are not Commissioners unless they have applied for this position and paid the requisite fees. We sincerely doubt many, if any, have done so. While doctors are qualified to sign a medical exemption, notarizing religious or personal belief affidavits is outside their purview.
In your leadership role as Heath Critic you have influenced at least one other MPP with your confusion about your role as a Commissioner of Affidavits. While we do not doubt your sincerity in wishing to see increased vaccine coverage rates for Ontario school children, disenfranchising your constituents of their legal right to exemptions under the Act is hardly a route to your goal we would recommend.
We hope that our concerns regarding your personal stance on witnessing exemption affidavits will lead to more sober reflection on this highly charged issue, and that you will be able to separate your personal beliefs from your legislative and public duties.
We respectfully request your acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and your thoughtful responses to the points we make and the questions we ask above.
Very sincerely,
Edda West, President of Vaccine Choice Canada on behalf of the VCC Board of Directors.
Cc: NDP Leader Horwath, MPP Cheri DiNovo
Letter to MPP France Gelinas in PDF format here.