The Great Ontario Fraud » Ontario’s new COVID-19 bill is an assault on our rights

The province of Ontario is making emergency powers permanent while simultaneously declaring the emergency over because it allows the government to maintain control over certain aspects of life in the province. This power-grab by the premier is an unjustified violation of Charter protected rights, and citizens should be concerned because it gives the government too much power and could lead to potential abuses of those rights. The government should not be allowed to have such sweeping powers without proper oversight and accountability. Citizens should demand that their elected representatives ensure that any emergency powers are limited in scope and subject to regular review.

The proposed legislation would also give the government the power to issue new orders and regulations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes the ability to impose restrictions on businesses, public gatherings, and travel. It would also allow for the continuation of virtual meetings and remote voting in municipal councils.

The proposed legislation is intended to provide a flexible approach to managing the pandemic while allowing for economic recovery. It would also provide additional support for businesses, workers, and individuals affected by the pandemic.

If passed, Bill 195 would come into effect on July 15th.

The proposed legislation also allows the government to make orders that override collective agreements for the redeployment of workers. This means that employers can be ordered to redeploy workers to different roles or locations, even if it is not in line with their collective agreement. The government has stated that these orders will only be used as a last resort and will be subject to consultation with unions and employers.

The proposed legislation also allows for police officers to demand identification from people they suspect of breaking public health orders. This practice, known as carding, has been criticized by civil liberties groups who argue that it disproportionately affects racialized communities.

Finally, the proposed legislation allows for the sharing of personal health information between government agencies and other organizations such as hospitals and long-term care homes. This could include information about an individual’s medical history, contact tracing data, or test results. Privacy advocates have raised concerns about this provision, arguing that it could lead to a violation of individuals’ privacy rights.

The government is attempting to protect the health and safety of its citizens, which is a pressing and substantial objective. In this case, the limits imposed on our Charter rights are likely reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that during a state of emergency, governments may be able to limit certain Charter rights if they can demonstrate that the limitation is necessary to address the emergency situation. This means that governments must show that there is no other way to address the issue at hand, and that the limitation is proportional to the threat posed by the emergency. Governments must also ensure that any limitations are not overly broad or arbitrary, as this could lead to an infringement of Charter rights.

In conclusion, while under a declared state of emergency, limits to our Charter protected rights may be justified under section 1 of the Charter if they are necessary for addressing the emergency situation and are proportional to the threat posed by it.

That is why it is important for the government to clearly define when a state of emergency has ended, and to ensure that any restrictions on rights are lifted as soon as possible. This will help to ensure that citizens’ rights are respected and protected, even in times of crisis.

In order for an emergency order to be made, the government must declare a state of emergency. This is done by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGIC) or the Minister responsible for EMPCA. Once a state of emergency has been declared, the LGIC or Minister may make an emergency order that is necessary to protect people and property from harm or damage. The order must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat posed by the emergency.

Emergency orders are temporary and can only remain in effect as long as the state of emergency exists. They may also be revoked at any time by either the LGIC or Minister responsible for EMPCA.

The orders that cabinet can make during an emergency include:

-Imposing restrictions on movement and gatherings, such as curfews and travel bans.
-Closing public places, such as schools, universities, and businesses.
-Requiring people to stay at home or in their place of residence.
-Regulating the sale of goods and services.
-Suspending certain laws or regulations temporarily.
-Establishing special powers for police and other authorities to enforce the emergency orders.
-Providing financial assistance to individuals or businesses affected by the emergency.

The orders issued under the emergency are continuing under Bill 195 because they are necessary to protect public health and safety, and to ensure that essential services continue to be provided. The government is of the view that while the state of emergency has ended, the risk posed by COVID-19 remains high and it is important to maintain measures that will help reduce the spread of the virus.

The bill also removes the requirement for the Premier to consult with the opposition parties before issuing orders. This means that the government can issue orders without consulting with other parties, which could lead to a lack of accountability and transparency.

Finally, Bill 195 allows for orders to be issued without any public consultation or debate. This could lead to decisions being made without considering the views of those affected by them, which could have a negative impact on people’s rights and freedoms.

Sheppard’s statement is an example of how the policy process works in times of emergency. He is pointing out that the government’s position on the COVID-19 pandemic has changed, and this has implications for how emergency powers are used. In other words, it is no longer possible to justify orders that directly conflict with constitutional rights. This highlights the importance of understanding the policy process and its implications for emergency powers during times of crisis. It also serves as a reminder that governments must be mindful of their actions and ensure they are not infringing upon citizens’ rights in order to protect public safety.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) has released a new report that examines the impact of the federal government’s proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). The report, entitled “The Impact of CPP Reform on Canadians: An Analysis of the Federal Government’s Proposed Changes”, finds that the proposed changes will have a significant negative impact on Canadians.

The report finds that the proposed changes will reduce benefits for current and future retirees, increase costs for employers and employees, and reduce retirement security for many Canadians. The report also finds that the proposed changes will disproportionately affect low-income earners, women, and those with shorter work histories.

The CCPA report is based on an analysis of data from Statistics Canada and other sources. It estimates that if the proposed changes are implemented, they would result in a reduction in benefits of up to $3,000 per year for some retirees. The report also estimates that employers could face increased costs of up to $1 billion per year due to higher contributions required under the new system.

In addition to these direct impacts, the CCPA report warns that there could be indirect impacts as well. For example, it suggests that employers may respond to higher costs by reducing wages or cutting jobs. This could lead to further reductions in retirement security for many Canadians.

Overall, the CCPA report concludes that the proposed changes to CPP are likely to have a negative impact on Canadians and should be reconsidered by the federal government.