New Brunswick legislators voted down a bill Thursday that would have eliminated non-medical exemptions from school-based immunization programs, a development experts fear could help fuel the anti-vaccination movement and weaken the uptake of an eventual COVID-19 shot.
The bill, introduced by the provincial government last year after a large measles outbreak, would have ended the use of religious or personal-belief exemptions to the province’s mandatory vaccine program for school-aged children. If it had passed, it would have been the strictest vaccination law in Canada, requiring parents to show proof of vaccination or else keep their children at home. Medical exemptions would have been allowed.
Dominic Cardy, New Brunswick’s Education Minister, said the defeat of the bill is “disappointing” and suggests that anti-vaccination groups were able to influence members of the legislative assembly.
“It’s created this idea … that there are somehow two sides to this debate, which there isn’t,” he said on Thursday.
The bill was defeated by a vote of 22 to 20, with four abstentions. A statement from Green Party Leader David Coon, whose caucus abstained from voting, says the decision to suspend parental exemptions should come from the Chief Medical Officer of Health and not be made for political reasons.
Some of those who opposed the bill have said they didn’t see the need to ban non-medical exemptions because there is no evidence that they are contributing to a problem with vaccine uptake.
“It is important that every child, where feasible, should be vaccinated,” Liberal Leader Kevin Vickers told Global News on Thursday, “and the best way to achieve that goal is through education, communication and encouragement, not by mandatory legislation of the state.”
In jurisdictions that have banned non-medical exemptions, such as California, data show that vaccination rates have increased after such changes take effect.
Kumanan Wilson, a physician-scientist at the Ottawa Hospital and an expert in vaccines, said the bill’s defeat will likely be used by anti-vaccination groups to undermine faith in vaccination programs. It raises questions about how officials will be able to ensure public buy-in when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, he said.
“It does set a certain precedent,” Dr. Wilson said. “[Anti-vaccination groups] will definitely be emboldened by this.”
He added that it’s possible a future COVID-19 vaccine may be only 60- to 70-per-cent effective, similar to a flu vaccine. In that case, health officials will need the vast majority of the population to take it for it to be effective, which could set up a future battle over the use of religious-belief or philosophical exemptions.
Anti-vaccination groups mounted opposition to the New Brunswick bill, with numerous witnesses telling a government committee about problems they’ve had with vaccines and others writing letters to members of the legislative assembly voicing opposition to it. Mr. Cardy said the tenor of the anti-vaccination opposition changed in recent weeks, which could have helped sway some members.
Early on, he said, they used fringe conspiracy theories to back up their opposition to the bill. More recently, letters to MLAs focused on the importance of maintaining personal freedom and medical choice, Mr. Cardy said.
Tim Caulfield, Canada research chair in health law and policy at the University of Alberta, said he’s troubled by the larger implications of the fact this bill was defeated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a mass-produced vaccine is likely the best option for life returning to normal.
“You get the sense that anti-vax rhetoric, misinformation and fear-mongering had an impact on this outcome,” he said. “For me, it seems to be almost a symbolic decision that it’s happening at a time when vaccines are on everyone’s mind.”
Ubaka Ogbogu, associate professor in the faculty of law and pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Alberta, said he thinks the bill was bogged down by too many problems to have passed.
For instance, the government included the nothwithstanding clause to eliminate the chance of a court challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even though the clause was removed before the final vote, Dr. Ogbogu said the question likely should be tested in court and that the government created too much controversy by adding the clause.
Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.
Carly Weeks