Latest news with #Bill10
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
What to know about the House and Senate parental rights bills
House Speaker Sherman Packard (center) is expected to bring forward a floor amendment to SB 72 on Thursday. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) Thursday brings a major deadline: the final day in which the House and Senate can pass remaining legislation. And Republicans in both chambers will be pushing to achieve a long-sought priority and finally approve a 'parental bill of rights.' In past years, those votes have failed, often defeated by a handful of votes in the House. This week, the House and the Senate are considering two separate bills: House Bill 10 and Senate Bill 72. Each looks slightly different from past versions. Here's what to know. What are the bills intended to do? Supporters of the bills say they are meant to give parents a toolkit to assert control over their child's education in public schools. The laws outline a number of rights the parents have over that education. Many of those rights already exist in law, such as the right for a parent to choose whether to send their child to a charter school, private school, or to home school them; to learn about school disciplinary procedures and class curriculum; to opt their child out of sex education courses by providing alternative instruction; to receive a report card; to review medical records; and to exempt their child from immunization with a doctor's note or because of religious beliefs. Other provisions of the bills would be new. School boards would be required to develop policies to promote parental involvement in school around homework, attendance, and discipline. They would also be required to pass policies making it easy for parents to examine instructional materials and to withdraw their child from any lesson or material being taught. And the bills would clarify in law that 'no school may infringe on the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of his or her minor child.' But the legislation has inspired fierce pushback from teachers and LGBTQ groups, who say it puts too many burdens on teachers and staff, and that it could force them to divulge to parents details about students' sexual orientation or gender identity against the students' will. Do this year's bills require teachers to tell parents about a student's sexual orientation or gender identity? Unlike past attempts at a parental bill of rights, this year's bills do not explicitly require school staff and teachers to divulge to inquiring parents details about their child's sexual orientation or gender identity. Some bills in the past have included that explicit language, sparking opposition from LGBTQ rights groups and driving some Republicans to vote against them on the House floor. But this year's versions of the legislation do include a catch-all phrase that opponents argue achieves a similar result. Language in a floor amendment to SB 72 expected to be brought forward by House Speaker Sherman Packard Thursday provides parents the right to 'inquire of the school or school personnel and promptly receive accurate, truthful, and complete disclosure regarding any and all matters related to their minor child, unless an immediate answer cannot be provided when the initial request is made.' If an immediate answer is not available, the school employee must provide one within 10 business days. The bill provides an exception to providing the information if there is a 'compelling state interest' against doing so, and it defines that interest as 'an actual and objectively reasonable belief, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the infringement upon parental rights is necessary to prevent the child from being abused,' under the state's abuse laws. HB 10 includes similar language. Republicans say the requirement is necessary to prevent teachers from withholding information from parents and to allow parents full information about their children. Democrats and LGBTQ advocates say the requirement that the disclosure 'complete' could be difficult to follow, and that the standard that must be met to constitute a fear of abuse, 'clear and convincing,' is too high to meet in most situations. How would the bills affect health care services for students? While Republicans broadly support the parental bill of rights, they have disagreed over one key area: medical care for students. A version of SB 72 recommended by the House Children and Family Law Committee would have included language requiring parents to consent in writing before any biometric scans are conducted by a medical provider on a child, or before any DNA or blood is drawn. That version would also give parents the right 'to make health care decisions unless otherwise provided by law' and 'to be physically present at any health care facility providing care.' However, Democrats and advocates had raised concerns that the medical provisions would violate teenagers' health care and reproductive rights by impeding their ability to receive birth control and pre- and post-natal care without getting parental permission. And House Republican leadership appears aware: The floor amendment from Packard expected to be introduced on Thursday would strike those parental medical rights from the final bill. Meanwhile, both of this year's House and Senate versions of the bills include language to protect confidential conversations between children and counselors. Both bills protect school counselors, psychologists, nurses, or other health care providers from being required to disclose information about children to parents that 'was reasonably expected to be privileged.' What could be the consequences of noncompliance for schools or teachers? Past parental bill of rights legislation has made teachers personally accountable for failing to follow the law, in some cases opening teachers up to litigation or potential disciplinary action by the State Board of Education against their license. But this year, the House and Senate bills do not include direct consequences for teachers. The bills do provide that a parent who claims a violation may sue the school district for injunctive relief or for damages. What should be expected on Thursday? In their current versions, the two bills up for a vote Thursday — HB 10 in the Senate and SB 72 in the House — are largely identical. Both bills include parental rights over medical care that have attracted debate. But Packard's floor amendment, which removes those medical rights, would make SB 72 more moderate, and potentially more palatable for Gov. Kelly Ayotte to sign. Should the House Republican caucus vote to pass that floor amendment, as well as the underlying bill, SB 72 would return to the Senate, which would decide next week whether to accept the moderating changes and send the bill to Ayotte. But if conservative-leaning House Republicans join with Democrats to reject the floor amendment, SB 72 and HB 10 could head to the governor's office in their most robust form yet.
Global News
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Global News
Ford government considers arming more special constables but won't say who will get guns
Should Ontario's transit enforcement officers or campus security guards be allowed to carry guns? That's a question raised by a change the Ford government quietly included in its latest proposed piece of omnibus justice legislation. Buried in the middle of the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act is a change that would allow Solicitor General Michael Kerzner to select groups of special constables who would be allowed to use firearms. Special constables are a police-adjacent category of officials who work in areas like campus security or transit enforcement. The vast majority carry pepper spray and batons but cannot use firearms. That could change if the omnibus bill, which is still being debated at Queen's Park, is passed into law. 'If passed, Bill 10 would allow the Solicitor General, through regulations, to permit groups of special constables to carry and use firearms,' a spokesperson for Kerzner's office told Global News. Story continues below advertisement Currently, in Ontario, only special constables who work for the Niagara Parks Commission or for an existing police force in another jurisdiction can carry guns. Other special constables do not. 'All special constables must meet mandatory training standards and adhere to a provincial code of conduct,' the spokesperson continued. The solicitor general's office did not say which special constables it was considering allowing to carry firearms, nor did it say why it was making the move now. Ken Price, a member of Danforth Families for Safe Communities, which advocates for gun control and reform, said the move was curious — and questioned why the government was considering expanding the number of officials who can carry firearms. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'Certainly, we would never begrudge — as Danforth families, any of us — would begrudge the police the kinds of resources they need to do their jobs, that's not what this is about,' he said. 'But I think when you're in the area of what special constables (do) and, most of them, it appears today, don't need weapons to carry out their jobs, so what's changed? Why does this need to be an element? When more guns in our minds is not a good idea.' Danforth Families for Safe Communities was formed in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting on Danforth Avenue in Toronto, which killed two and left 13 injured. Story continues below advertisement The proposed change has been rolled out quietly by the province. It wasn't announced at a news conference, nor was it included in a detailed background briefing released when the legislation was tabled. Sarah Strban, a criminal defence lawyer who read the proposed legislation, said how the move would be received depended entirely on who the solicitor general gave guns to. 'The important thing to remember is that a special constable is a very tightly-controlled category of law enforcement, and it applies to a really wide range of conduct,' she said. Strban suggested it would be 'quite reasonable' for special constables working with police forces to carry firearms. 'They're involved in investigations and maybe helping with things like arrest and detention, interviewing subjects, executing searches,' she explained. 'On the other hand, you get special constables that are dealing with more community work roles, so special constables work in university settings, in transit, in community housing — sometimes with very vulnerable populations. And there I do have some concern where you're adding more firearms to those situations.' The special constables who receive firearms will be decided through regulations issued by the solicitor general if the proposed law passes and won't be debated by the legislature. Ontario Liberal MPP Karen McCrimmon said, given the potentially seismic change, there should be deliberate consultations. Story continues below advertisement 'Carrying a firearm comes with the authority to use it, and we need to keep that threshold high,' she said in a statement. 'The rigorous training our officers receive keeps both us and them safe. Communities deserve a chance to consult on lowering these standards and taking on more risk.' The solicitor general's office said it 'worked closely with policing and community safety partners to put forward the proposed changes' in the legislation. McCrimmon suggested it was a dangerous, short-term measure. 'We need investment in a funded and experienced police sector, not a band-aid solution,' she said. 'Arming special constables with less training than police officers is not a proper solution. This government needs to ensure that anyone authorized to carry a gun is properly trained, which minimizes risk to the public and law enforcement.'
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Premier Health Reports 2025 Second Quarter Results
MONTRÉAL, May 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Premier Health of America Inc. (TSXV: PHA) (the 'Company'), a leading Canadian Healthtech company, announces it has filed its unaudited Quarterly Consolidated Financial Statements and MD&A for its second quarter ended on March 31st, 2025. Highlights Mar. 31, 2025 Mar. 31, 2024 Mar. 31, 2025 Mar. 31, 2024 (in thousands of Canadian dollars) (3 months ) (3 months ) (6 months ) (6 months ) Revenues 27,137 46,277 59,269 83,250 Gross margin (1) 4,529 8,532 9,666 16,189 Gross margin as a % of revenues 16.7 % 18.4 % 16.3 % 19.4 % Adjusted EBITDA (1) 505 2,576 1,209 5,198 Net Loss (3,151 ) (1,531 ) (5,412 ) (1,762 ) (1) See the Company's MD&A for details on these non-GAAP measures. Summary Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was $0.5M ($2.6M for the same period in 2024), mainly driven by a decline in volume in Quebec and British Columbia. Net Loss for the quarter was $3.1M (loss of $1.5M for the same period in 2024), the result of lower Adjusted EBITDA, partly offset by favorable fair value adjustments and lower income tax. The effects of the implementation of Quebec's Bill 10 continued impacting the Per Diem segment during this quarter. As a reminder, Bill 10 imposes capped rates and a series of restrictions for using independent labor in Quebec. The Per Diem business now represents around 4% of revenues and 5% of gross margins. The travel nurse and northern communities' services are generally performing well except in BC where we are experiencing a volume reduction. This can be attributed to a service acquisition centralization effort by the health authorities, that we expect will eventually favour the best service providers. As previously announced, the Company's CFO, Guy Daoust, assumed the role of interim Chief Executive Officer on March 27th, 2025. The Company has continued to work on the reorganization of its Quebec operations. During Q2, it continued to reduce the workforce in that province as well as in the corporate structure. The targeted office leases were also successfully terminated during the quarter. Cost savings are on track with the amounts disclosed in Q4 of 2024 and should carry on in the coming quarters as the various initiatives are fully deployed. Cost structure at our BC subsidiary is being reviewed to address to the market conditions in that province. 'Our cost reduction plan is progressing well, but we need to take further steps to adapt to the ongoing challenges in our operations. Despite a slowdown at SSI in the last two quarters, bookings remain at levels comparable to when we acquired the company in 2023. We are rebalancing overhead costs to better align with our operations. The Per Diem segment is now mostly nonexistent, and our focus will shift to Travel Nurses. The Home Care sector presents interesting opportunities, and we are evaluating our capacity to gradually enter this market. In the short term, we remain committed to cost reduction, debt management, operational efficiency, and organic growth opportunities,' said Guy Daoust, CFO and interim CEO of Premier Health. More information can be found in the Company's quarterly financial statements and MD&A as available on About Premier Health Premier Health is a leading Canadian Healthtech company that provides a comprehensive range of outsourced services solutions for healthcare needs to governments, companies, and individuals. Premier Health uses its proprietary LiPHe® platform to lead the digital transformation of the healthcare services sector, providing patients with faster, more affordable, and more accessible care. Non-GAAP Measures Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ('EBITDA'), is calculated as the net profit (loss), before non-recurring items excluding acquisition and transaction costs, non-cash expenses (including loss from disposal of assets, impairments, amortization, and depreciation), change in fair values, interest expense, net of interest income and income tax expense (recovery). Adjusted EBITDA excludes Share-based compensation and unusual items, as determined from time to time. Gross margin is either used as a number or a percentage. As a number, it means Revenues minus Direct Costs. When used as a percentage, it means the ratio of Revenues minus Direct Costs to Revenues. More detail can be found in PHA's Management Discussion and Analysis. For Further Information Please Contact: Mr. Jean-Robert PronovostVice President Corporate DevelopmentPremier Health of America / 1 800 231 9916 Mr. Guy DaoustChief Financial Officer and interim Chief Executive OfficerPremier Health of America / 1 800 231 9916 Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION: This press release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities legislation which reflects the current plans and expectations of the Company with respect to future events and financial performance. All statements other than statements of historical or current facts may be forward-looking information. Forward-looking information includes statements that are predictive in nature, depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, or include words such as 'believes', 'continues', 'expects', 'projects', 'anticipates', 'plans', 'estimates', 'seeks', 'intends', 'targets', 'forecasts', or negative or grammatical versions thereof and other similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as 'may', 'will', 'should', 'would' and 'could'. Forward-looking information in this press release includes, but is not limited to, statements with respect to the execution of the Company's growth strategy. Forward-looking information is based on management's plans, estimates, projections, beliefs and opinions as at the date of this release, and the assumptions related to those plans, estimates, projections, beliefs and opinions may change; therefore, they are presented for the purpose of assisting the Company's security holders in understanding management's views at such time regarding those future outcomes and may not be appropriate for other purposes. Although the forward-looking information contained in this release is based on assumptions which the Company believes are reasonable, there can be no assurance that actual results will be consistent with such forward-looking information. The forward-looking information in this release relate only to events or information as of the date on which the statements are made and, except as specifically required by applicable securities laws, the Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date on which the statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. There can be no assurance that the forward-looking information will prove to be accurate. These statements should not be read as guarantees of future performance or results. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from those implied by such statements. The Company assumes no responsibility to update or revise forward-looking information to reflect new events or circumstances unless required by law. These factors and others are more fully discussed in the filings of the Company with Canadian securities regulatory authorities available at in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The criminalization of medicine fails New Hampshire's physicians and patients
"While health care and the practice of medicine is not — and should not be — political, tactics that seek to criminalize medical care and aspects of the physician-patient relationship stem from shifting political headwinds." (Getty Images) Each year, a number of bills aim to legislate medicine. These are attempts by lawmakers to regulate the treatment relationship between physicians and their patients, or to determine when treatments can and cannot be delivered. This is nothing new, but a concerning trend has emerged recently in New Hampshire: Some bills go beyond an attempt to legislate medicine by including provisions that also criminalize medicine. These tactics include language within bills that impose criminal or civil penalties for physicians who do not comply with specific mandates. This year, House Bill 10, House Bill 232, and House Bill 377 each include provisions that would impose penalties on physicians. While health care and the practice of medicine is not — and should not be — political, tactics that seek to criminalize medical care and aspects of the physician-patient relationship stem from shifting political headwinds. Criminalizing medicine distracts and shifts the focus away from the real issues. Facets of medical practice that are seen as hot-button issues are likely to garner debates, both scientific and ideological. Legislating and criminalizing medicine, though, will have a ripple effect that might be felt throughout the health care community in numerous ways. Criminalizing medicine is an irresponsible and inappropriate way to control and respond to these issues. As physicians, we dedicate our lives and our careers to our patients, typically spending over a decade in training. This includes four years of undergraduate education, four years of medical school, three to eight years of residency training (depending on the medical specialty), and potentially one to three years of subspecialty fellowship training. This training provides us with the medical knowledge necessary to treat the unique health care challenges of each of our patients. Legislating and criminalizing medicine in New Hampshire, however, would mean that our physicians would be practicing medicine with one hand tied behind their back. This would then increase the likelihood that a patient's health care needs might not be adequately addressed. Such bills, even when well-meaning, offer a reductive and punitive approach to health care. Treating the health care needs of vulnerable populations requires physicians to combine evidence-based principals, experience, training, and patient preferences to provide individualized medical care for each of our patients. Health care decisions are not made in a vacuum, and bills that criminalize medicine compromise our ability to make these vital treatment decisions. Bills that criminalize medical care could set a dangerous precedent and have a 'chilling effect,' creating barriers to providing high quality medical care for New Hampshire's physicians. In other states that have criminalized elements of medical practice, physicians may hesitate to provide care in emergencies due to fear of criminal penalties. This has led to patient deaths that otherwise may have been avoidable. As medical professionals, we need to be entrusted to provide the right care at the right time for patients who need it. While Granite Staters already are finding medical care to be hard to come by, criminalizing medicine would make it more difficult to attract and retain physicians and other medical professionals to New Hampshire. This would in turn make it more difficult for patients to get appointments for primary care and specialist care. Bills that remove physician autonomy to care for our patients and penalize them for using their skills and training will have the unintended consequence of pushing physicians out of the state and exacerbating our shortage of physicians — especially in the most rural areas of the state. Criminalizing the practice of medicine would not just fail our state's physicians, but it would also fail all of our patients. This would set a dangerous precedent in New Hampshire and put the government in the middle of the relationship between physicians and their patients.
CBC
30-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Why these 16- and 17-year-olds want to cast their vote in N.B. elections
Léo Babineau has had a part-time job for the past two years. He drives a car and pays taxes. But at the age of 17, he's still not able to have a say in the policies and politics that impact his life. "You can do all these things. You can be a functioning member of society. You can drop out of school at 16 as well. And yet we can't vote," said the Grade 11 student at École Sainte-Anne in Fredericton. Among the issues most important to Babineau are the environment and the cost of living. But at the top of the list is the right for youth to vote. "I'd really like to be able to have my voice heard and just see that the people who represent me — represent me," he said. Romane Doucet has similar feelings. She wants to be as involved as she can in her community and is intrigued by the idea of lowering the voting age. "As soon as I heard of it, I was jumping up, doing research and trying to tell others," said the 17-year-old, who is in Grade 12. "I've been just trying to pass the message as much as I can, to see how people my age feel about it and see if they're as excited as I am." Open letter to legislature Across the country, there's a renewed push to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. Some is tied to the national #Vote16 Canada initiative, but local students are driving their own campaign at the New Brunswick Legislature. "We are hoping that it will become a federal movement in Canada," said Emma Raphaelle, president of the Francophone Youth Federation of New Brunswick. WATCH | 'I'd really like to be able to have my voice heard': Should you be able to vote at 16? These teens say yes 8 minutes ago Duration 2:40 More than 30 student representatives have signed an open letter to elected officials asking for the voting age to be lowered. The goal is to urge MLAs to bring forward a bill that would allow youth to vote in provincial and municipal elections. So far, representatives from 32 francophone groups in New Brunswick have signed an open letter. They represent student councils from Campbellton to Edmundston to Dieppe, and they are working on getting anglophone student leaders to sign the letter as well. Along with that, the youth federation wants New Brunswick students to be more informed about politics. "What's really important would be civics education. It's something that we have on the anglophone side and we are working to get towards the francophones," Raphaelle said. Not the first time This isn't a new proposal for New Brunswick politicians. Back in 2014, Green Party Leader David Coon introduced legislation that would lower the voting age to 16. Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Elections Act, passed first and second reading at the legislature before being sent to a committee where it died. Then, in 2017, New Brunswick's electoral reform commission recommended lowering the voting age but legislation was never introduced. There are places where the voting age is lower: in Brazil, Austria and Cuba, it's 16. And it's 17 in Greece and Indonesia . Pushing for progress The group of students met recently with Green Party MLA Megan Mitton, Progressive Conservative MLA Bill Hogan and Liberal MLA Robert Gauvin, mof the province's three seat-holding parties. "We really were met with a lot of open-mindedness," said Babineau. "And we're not here to just shove this down people's throats, we really want to hear what the politicians have to say, why they might be against it, and why we think it's a good idea." All three MLAs introduced the students in the legislature, but no new legislation has been put forward at this point. And while they didn't get a chance to address the legislature directly, for these teenagers, it's one more step toward making their voices heard.
