Unvaxxed welfare recipients cut off benifits

So if a person is forced out of work by an employer or by government mandated rules due to their vaccination status and is thus refused EI benefits by our government that that the worker was legally obligated to pay into, does this mean that all welfare recipients must also be fully vaccinated before they receive their cheques?
This disadvantaged person would be unemployable due to their vaxx status and therefore not keeping up their side of the contract to try to be a valuable part of society while still collecting welfare.
Going down that rabbit hole, how about adding childcare benefits to the list of checks that could have vaxx strings attached.
Once it starts the snowball gets bigger and rolls downhill faster doesn't it.
John

Agree with You Johnjyb-if the Governments starts to roll ....hard to imagine where they will stop.

At the other hand,if one works in a job,where public exposure is part of the job,AND somwehetre it was stipulated in their contract(written or implied) ,that Public Health issues will be addressed at the Employer discretion, I do not see any difference between not getting welfare if one quits any job for any reason,or one leaves the job due of Non vaxed status(voluntarily or else).

If one signs up to be on the bus-needs to ride it ,as the driver dictates.

ACHTUNG!! PAPERS!! Show us ze papers. All that's missing is the yellow star sewn onto clothing. This insanity must be stopped. It's going way too far.

Still wondering how I opt out of EI coming off my paycheck every week

I wonder if thats a option since I'll never claim it lol

Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk

Employment Insurance in Canada has qualifications even if you've paid into it.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/be...igibility.html

Quote:

---

You need to demonstrate that you:

• lost your job through no fault of your own

---

Quote:

---

You may not be entitled for benefits:

• if you voluntarily left your job without just cause
• if you were dismissed for misconduct

---

Refusing to be vaccinated is your decision. Accept the consequences one of which is possibly not qualifying for Employment Insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

Employment Insurance in Canada has qualifications even if you've paid into it.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/be...igibility.html




Refusing to be vaccinated is your decision. Accept the consequences one of which is possibly not qualifying for Employment Insurance.

---

Being vaccinated is not a requirement for all workers. So cutting a benefit that has no requirement in the work place is nonsense.

It's just about using the tools to force people into being vaccinated. That's all it is .

What about the people who's work forced them them into and can't receive the second like gm. Gm made the decision to only have an exemption if they can't get the second meaning the first fd them up.

Australia is claiming up to 79 thousand adverse reactions and they wonder why the Hospitals are full.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NewGranad...nfowars.com%2F

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

I was always told I would be fired for drinking or doing drugs on the job. Experimental drugs for me are acid, mushrooms or unproven cocktails (vaxx anyone?). At one time even cocaine was legal as was LSD, at least according to "government studies".

Unless vaccination is mandatory by law (which they can't do) they cannot cut off social benefits.

Even if it was...they still can't stop social benefits...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Unless vaccination is mandatory by law (which they can't do) they cannot cut off social benefits.

Even if it was...they still can't stop social benefits...

---

Is EI not a social benefit?
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnjyb

Is EI not a social benefit?
John

---

No it's an 'insurance' type program that all workers contribute into..and draw from if you qualify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishfood

Being vaccinated is not a requirement for all workers. So cutting a benefit that has no requirement in the work place is nonsense.

It's just about using the tools to force people into being vaccinated. That's all it is .

What about the people who's work forced them them into and can't receive the second like gm. Gm made the decision to only have an exemption if they can't get the second meaning the first fd them up.

---

Here are the EI conditions pertaining to COVID vaccinations.

Quote:

---

COVID-19 vaccination
In most cases, if you lose or quit your job because you didn’t comply with your employer’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, you won’t be eligible for EI regular benefits. To determine if you’re eligible, we may contact you to obtain information such as:

• if your employer clearly communicated a mandatory COVID‑19 vaccination policy to you
• if you were informed that not complying with the policy would result in you losing your employment
• if applying the policy to you was reasonable within your workplace context
• if you have a valid reason for not complying with the policy and your employer didn’t provide you an exemption

We’ll use the facts provided by you and your employer to determine if you’re entitled to benefits.

---

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/be...igibility.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

Here are the EI conditions pertaining to COVID vaccinations.

---

That was countered by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) in a letter to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion:

Quote:

---

I am writing on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) regarding comments you have made in the media and information on the Employment Insurance (EI) website about eligibility for EI. As you know, the position stated is that if an individual is terminated for failing to comply with an employer’s vaccination mandate, the individual will not be considered eligible for employment benefits. In effect, a refusal to be vaccinated, or to disclose one’s vaccination status to an employer, is treated as misconduct. In our view, this policy is wrong-headed, counter-productive, and may well conflict with the government’s constitutional and human rights obligations. We strongly urge you to reconsider this position.

---

Quote:

---

There is a point at which encouragement and incentives become de facto coercion. In our view, denying employment insurance benefits to individuals who have lost their job rather than comply with a vaccine mandate crosses this line. Further, since poverty is one of the key social determinants of health, such an approach may well be counter-productive from a public health perspective. Finally, the individual circumstances of those who may be denied EI as a result of this policy may give rise to Charter or human rights claims. We strongly urge you to reconsider your government’s approach to this issue. We look forward to your reply.

---

https://ccla.org/fundamental-freedom...ent-insurance/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

ACHTUNG!! PAPERS!! Show us ze papers. All that's missing is the yellow star sewn onto clothing. This insanity must be stopped. It's going way too far.

---

Amen!
Attachment 42980

Hey Badenoch, did you know that there is aborted fetal tissue in this vaccine and others, according to the NIH website? I bet not. Step out of the Stockholm syndrome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

That was countered by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) in a letter to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion:
https://ccla.org/fundamental-freedom...ent-insurance/

---

Oh my, a threatening letter from the CCLA. I'm sure the government is quaking in its boots. The CCLA letter was not accompanied by a court action which makes it hot air and empty threats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirewodGuy

Hey Badenoch, did you know that there is aborted fetal tissue in this vaccine and others, according to the NIH website? I bet not. Step out of the Stockholm syndrome

---

Yes, I did know that and I don't care. Incidentally, the Pope doesn't care either.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...icovid_en.html

Quote:

---

In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

Oh my, a threatening letter from the CCLA. I'm sure the government is quaking in its boots. The CCLA letter was not accompanied by a court action which makes it hot air and empty threats.

---

Did the Minister kick anyone off EI ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

Yes, I did know that and I don't care.

---

That is also not true...they were not used in the mRNA vaccines

Quote:

---

Fetal cell lines were not used to make the Moderna (Spikevax) and Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. However, the cell lines were used in the very early stages of research and development of these vaccines to test 'proof of concept’ (to test that the vaccines could work).

---

Quote:

---

The AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria) vaccine uses the HEK 293 fetal cell line, and the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine uses the PER.C6 fetal cell line. However, the vaccines themselves do not contain fetal cells or tissue. The purification process removes nearly all the cell components so that only trace amounts of DNA and protein may be present in the vaccine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

That is also not true...they were not used in the mRNA vaccines

---

Firewoodguy "
Hey Badenoch, did you know that there is aborted fetal tissue in this vaccine and others, according to the NIH website? I bet not. Step out of the Stockholm syndrome


You conspiracy guys need to keep your stories straight.

Correction: fetal cell lines, not tissue derived from abortions and cultivated from abortions in the 60s
I'm sure many will say that cell lines grown in the past is immensely different than recent tissue to try to diminish the argument
The info in the below link matches up with the website I mentioned previously
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2LU1T9

Correction: fetal cell lines, not tissue derived from abortions and cultivated from abortions in the 60s
I'm sure many will say that cell lines grown in the past is immensely different than recent tissue to try to diminish the argument
The info in the below link matches up with the website I mentioned previously
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2LU1T9

Oh I get it, so if the pope strays from his path (on other anti-Biblical issues as well,) then its okay, not when he's on the path of what he represents lol. Don't we call those hypocrites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirewodGuy

Oh I get it, so if the pope strays from his path (on other anti-Biblical issues as well,) then its okay, not when he's on the path of what he represents lol. Don't we call those hypocrites?

---

Not being Catholic I don't care what the Pope says but anti-abortion advocates must be wallowing in despair that their biggest ally has sold them out.

Being pro-choice I have no issues with the use of fetal cells in medical research and have no qualms about using products derived from them. YMMV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

Not being Catholic I don't care what the Pope says but anti-abortion advocates must be wallowing in despair that their biggest ally has sold them out.

Being pro-choice I have no issues with the use of fetal cells in medical research and have no qualms about using products derived from them. YMMV

---

Yes, the pro-choice say theyre not babies in the womb because they look like an amoeba, but then they call bacteria on Mars a sign of life. Wont be long till there's full bodies harvesting in labs, all the while the population will not be able to procreate naturally. Coincidentally, I just saw a mainstream news article about artificial wombs. Everything is going artificial because of science and most don't think anything could go wrong or that there's any issues of ethics, morals or sanctity, which are not built into science. Natural boundaries and laws of nature, who needs that.I'm sure everything would be just peachy in the world if everyone could live forever as well