Connect with us

News

More than 7 in 10 Canadians support barring unvaccinated people from businesses: Nanos survey – CTV News

Published

 on


TORONTO —
More than seven in 10 Canadians support or somewhat support barring those who don’t have proof of vaccination from businesses where people are in close contact, according to a new Nanos survey.

The survey, conducted by Nanos Research in December 2020 and commissioned by CTV News, asked more than 1,000 Canadians 18 years of age and older if they would support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or oppose businesses (like airlines or movie theatres, where people are in close contact) having the right to bar a customer who does not have proof of vaccination.

In the results, 45 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they support the idea, 27 per cent said they somewhat support it, eight per cent said they somewhat oppose the idea, 16 per cent said they oppose it, and four per cent said they were unsure.

Support for the idea of barring individuals from businesses who don’t have proof of vaccination was most popular in Ontario, at 49 per cent and least popular in the Prairies, which had the highest percentage of those opposed to the idea at 21 per cent.

Canadians over the age of 55 were most likely to support the idea of barring people from businesses who don’t have proof of vaccination, with 57 per cent supportive, compared to those aged 18 to 34 who were 34 per cent supportive.

The survey also asked Canadians if they agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or disagree that with vaccines now being distributed in Canada, their lives will get back to normal by the end of 2021.

In the results, 22 per cent of Canadians survey agreed their lives would be back to normal by the end of 2021 due to the vaccines being distributed, 50 per cent somewhat agreed, 14 per cent somewhat disagreed, eight per cent disagreed and five per cent were unsure.

Quebec had the highest rate of people surveyed that agree, with 28 per cent, and the Prairies had the highest percentage of people who disagreed, at 11 per cent.

“Around 45 per cent of Canadians cite [the pandemic] as the top national issue of concern – unprompted,” Nik Nanos said on CTV News Channel Saturday, adding that sentiments can change on a dime as it’s “almost day-to-day, week-to-week” for provinces in the fight against the virus.

Aligning with those concerns, Nanos conducted another survey, commissioned by CTV News to assess whether or not Canadians supported the continued closure of the border between Canada and the United States.

The survey found more than nine in 10 Canadians support or somewhat support keeping the land border closed to non-essential travel until the number of cases in the U.S. significantly drops – even if that takes several months or longer.

In the breakdown of results, 80 per cent of Canadians surveyed supported the idea of keeping the Canada-U.S. border closed, 11 per cent somewhat support the idea, four per cent somewhat opposed it, four per cent opposed it and less than one per cent were unsure.

Support for keeping the Canada- U.S. border closed was highest in the Atlantic provinces, with 88 per cent in support of the idea – with the Prairies least in support of the idea with 71 per cent. The Prairies also had the largest percentage – seven per cent – of people who opposed the idea.

Canadians 55 plus represented the age group most supportive of keeping the border closed, with 85 per cent, compared to those 18 to 34 years of age with 74 per cent.

Currently, the Canada-U.S. land border closure has been extended to at least Feb. 21, 2021.

Methodology

For both surveys cited above, Nanos conducted an RDD dual frame (land- and cell-lines) hybrid telephone and online random survey of 1,048 Canadians, 18 years of age or older, between December 27 and 30, 2020 as part of an omnibus survey. Participants were randomly recruited by telephone using live agents and administered a survey online. The sample included both land- and cell-lines across Canada. The results were statistically checked and weighted by age and gender using the latest Census information and the sample is geographically stratified to be representative of Canada.

Individuals were randomly called using random digit dialling with a maximum of five call backs. The margin of error for this survey is ±3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

This study was commissioned by CTV News and the research was conducted by Nanos Research.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

News

'Each time we get a different answer': Do older children arriving to Canada have to stay in quarantine hotels? – CTV Toronto

Published

 on


TORONTO —
A group of Toronto-area parents are struggling to interpret Canada’s rules over whether younger adults and older children have to book themselves into so-called quarantine hotels when they return to Canada.

The problem appears to be the use of two definitions for whether a child or a young adult qualifies for an exemption and can go straight home — with two different ages — and, if someone is caught in between, no one is sure what will happen when they get to the airport.

“Each time we get a different answer,” said Michael Stavsky, whose 20-year-old son Isaac is slated to return to Canada after spending two years studying in Israel on March 10. Stavsky said his son has received both doses of the vaccine while studying abroad.

“We had answers ranging from, ‘sure it says 22 and under, that’s no problem,’ to others that said ‘no it’s 19 and under and even one saying, ‘it’s 20 and under.’ We don’t know,” he said.

The Stavskys aren’t the only family that’s had this issue, said Peter Kent, the MP for Thornhill. He said he’s received several calls from people who aren’t sure where government officials will send their children.

“It’s been very inconsistent and CBSA, Health Canada and Immigration Canada, the messaging is all over the place,” Kent told CTV News Toronto.

The hotel stay requirement can cost between $1,000 and $2,000 depending on the hotel and require all incoming air travellers to Canada to spend at least three days in an approved hotel at their own expense as they await the results of a COVID-19 test they were required to take when they landed in Canada.

Some guests have complained to CTV News about a lack of bottled water and hot, prompt meals; others have said the hotels have been very difficult to book.

CTV News Toronto reached out to the Canadian Border Services Agency about the question of whether young adults must stay in the hotels, but the department referred the inquiry to the Public Health Agency of Canada, which didn’t respond by deadline.

The answer, however, may lie in the order-in-council that explains the quarantine regulations. It says most people are required to “quarantine themselves without delay at a government-authorized accommodation…and remain until they receive the result for the COVID-19 molecular test.”

The rule doesn’t apply to a “diplomatic or consular courier” and an “unaccompanied dependent child or an unaccompanied minor.”

If that seems clear, it isn’t, said immigration lawyer Michael Battista, who pointed out that “unaccompanied minor” is customarily someone under 18, while a “unaccompanied dependent child” for immigration purposes is someone who is under 22 — as long as they are not married.

“To use both definitions simultaneously does create confusion,” Battista said.

He said strictly the language implies that if a person meets either definition they should be eligible — but it is going to be up to the border guards — because any legal appeal will take too long to make a difference for a two-week quarantine.

The people coming into Canada from Israel are much more likely to be vaccinated than those already here — more than 93 per cent of adults in the country have received at least one dose, while less than five per cent of Canadian adults have.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Canada's Divorce Act modernized | CTV News – CTV Toronto

Published

 on


CALGARY —
The federal government has revamped legislation in hopes couples won’t have to go through custody battles during a divorce.

As of Monday, significant changes have been made to Canada’s Divorce Act, which hasn’t seen substantial updates in more than 20 years. 

The federal government said the aim of the legislation — which applies to legally married couples who are divorcing — is to put more emphasis on the best interests of a child.

“The children are at the centre of this legislation,” said Tahira Karim with Legal Aid Alberta.

“Parties are going to have to demonstrate how their decisions are going to impact the child and that impact better be positive.”

For the first time, the Divorce Act mentions family violence and will require courts to consider any instances of abuse when making decisions. 

“It’s a really big step forward in recognizing that violence could have a huge impact on the family and more importantly, impact on children,” said Karim.

Karim said the changes are a long time coming.

“We needed something that was written down, something that acknowledged various things that were happening in life and society that weren’t recognized by law,” said Karim.

The legislation also establishes guidelines for when one parent wants to relocate with a child. 

“The more things written down there, the less you have to fight for yourself right,” said Livia Fajkusz, a mother of three whose divorce was finalized in January.

Fajkusz said her divorce was amicable but she believes the new laws will help other couples settle their differences outside court.

“For me the most important changes are they put a more detailed description about family violence … not just physical violence but mental, emotional abuse, financial abuse,” she said.

Fajkusz is a life coach who now runs divorce coaching for parents. She said it’s an emotional process.

“It’s an overwhelming thing going through divorce and taking care of the kids at the same time and dealing with your own feeling of loss,” she said.

The reforms were schedule to go into effect July 1, 2020 but were postponed until March. 

The government also said other objectives include helping to reduce child poverty and make Canada’s family justice system more accessible and efficient.

More details on the Divorce Act can be found on the Government of Canada’s website.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Canada's chief science adviser issues warning about B.C.'s 'experiment' with vaccine timing – CBC.ca

Published

 on


British Columbia’s decision to extend to four months the interval between first and second doses of three different vaccines amounts to a “population level experiment,” said Mona Nemer, Canada’s chief science adviser.

“I think that it’s possible to do it. But it amounts right now to a basically population level experiment. And I think it needs to be done as we expect clinical trials to be carried out,” Nemer told CBC News Network’s Power & Politics today. 

Nemer told host Vassy Kapelos that the data provided so far by Moderna and Pfizer on their vaccines were gathered when the first and second doses of the vaccines were being spaced three to four weeks apart, not three to four months apart. 

“I think it’s really important that we stick with the data and with the great science that give us these fantastic vaccines, and not tinker with it,” she said. 

If provinces want to find out if the interval between the first and second doses can be extended to 16 weeks, she said, those provinces should conduct proper clinical trials by registering participants and explaining to them the possible advantages and disadvantages of taking part.

She said that while such trials might show that it’s safe to extend the interval to four months, Canada is not there yet.  

“For now, we simply don’t have enough data that tells us this is an effective strategy, particularly when we think that we have variants of the virus that are emerging that are not as well recognized by the vaccine,” Nemer said. 

“Partial immunity is something that people need to be very wary of. And it’s probably best to just vaccinate as recommended and as studied for now.”

Watch: Mona Nemer: ‘partial immunity is something that people need to be very wary of.’:

In response to B.C. extending the gap between first and second doses, Canada’s Chief Science Advisor says “partial immunity is something that people need to be very wary of. And it’s probably best to just vaccinate as recommended and as studied for now.” 2:18

B.C. extends the interval

Earlier today, B.C.’s Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry announced that the province would be extending the interval between doses of the Moderna, Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines to 16 weeks.

“From the very early days, we made sure that every single dose is recorded and we knew who got what vaccine when, and part of this feeds into our evaluation of vaccine effectiveness,” Henry said.

“We have seen that the vaccines we have here in B.C. are safe and they provide a very high level of real world protection with the initial dose.”

Henry said data from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, and countries around the world, shows “miraculous” protection of at least 90 per cent from the first dose of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

NACI guidance

Henry said the B.C. CDC has been exchanging data with colleagues across the country and similar results are coming from Quebec, as well as from the U.K., Israel and other countries.

She also said the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) has been looking at the issue and will be issuing a statement on the matter in the near future.

As of March 1, however, the advice NACI is providing on its website says that the interval between the first and second shots of the Moderna vaccine should be four weeks, the interval for Pfizer should be three weeks and the interval for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine should be 12 weeks. 

The head of Moderna’s Canadian operations, Patricia Gauthier, told Kapelos Monday that the company’s own trials, and the conditions under which the vaccine was approved by Health Canada, are tied to a four week interval.

“That being said, we’re in times of pandemic and we can understand that there are difficult decisions to be made,” Gauthier said. “This then becomes a government decision. We stand by the product monograph approved by Health Canada, but governments … can make their own decisions.”

Gauthier said she is not aware of any studies done or led by Moderna on what happens when the interval between the first and second doses is changed from four weeks to four months.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending