Monday, December 28, 2020
Sunday, December 27, 2020
Even in the face of COVID-19, governments cannot act without constraint.
First, the executive can do only what the legislature has empowered it to do. The Cabinet, individual ministers, and other government officials may have broad statutory authority, but “there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled ‘discretion’ ... ; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose, however capricious or irrelevant, regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute” (Roncarelli v. Duplessis,  S.C.R. 121, at p. 140, per Rand J.).
Second, the executive and the legislature are both bound by the Constitution. The Constitution Act, 1867 specifies the separate jurisdictions of Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), meanwhile, requires governments to impose only reasonable limits on Canadians’ constitutional rights, and allows legislatures to enact laws beyond those limits only in limited circumstances and for limited periods.
These constraints shape how governments can respond to the COVID-19 crisis. They may also ultimately be enforced by the courts.
Constitutional constraints on governments’ emergency powers
Declaring a state of emergency, or a public health emergency, does not dilute the Charter’s requirement that limits on Canadians’ rights and freedoms be reasonable, prescribed by law, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1.
Nor do emergencies generally alter the division of powers between Parliament and the provincial legislatures in the Constitution Act, 1867, though the federal government may intrude on areas of provincial jurisdiction to respond to an emergency, as discussed below.
Many emergency measures imposed in response to COVID-19 could limit Canadians’ rights as guaranteed in the Charter. For example:
orders restricting individuals’ movements (see, g., s. 8(1)(a) of the federal Emergencies Act) would likely limit the “freedom of peaceful assembly” under s. 2(c) of the Charter, “the right … to move to and take up residence in any province” under s. 6(2)(a), and possibly even “the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned” under s. 9;
orders requiring individuals to be immunized against COVID-19, if such a vaccine were developed (see, g., s. 16(1)(a) of the British Columbia’s Public Health Act; s. 38(1)(c) of Alberta’s Public Health Act), could limit the “freedom of conscience and religion” under s. 2(a) of the Charter, or “the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” under s. 7, or even “the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” under s. 15(1); and
orders involving the collection and use of personal information, including through mobile apps for contact tracing or quarantine enforcement (see, g., s. 7.0.2(4)13 of Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act), could limit “the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” under s. 8 of the Charter.
That said, Charter rights are not absolute; as noted above, s. 1 provides that they are guaranteed “subject … to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. If a government measure in response to COVID-19 limits a Charter right, and if that measure is challenged in court, then the government will be required to show that the limit is justified. Whether the limit is justified will be, “by its very nature[,] a fact-specific inquiry” (RJR—MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 199, at para. 133, per McLachlin J.).
Courts will likely accord a broad measure of deference to governments under s. 1 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly speculated that even “a violation of the right to life, liberty or security of the person which is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, might be justified under s. 1 during “national emergencies”, including “epidemics” (see R. v. Heywood,  3 S.C.R. 671, at pp. 802-803; Reference re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (British Columbia),  2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 518).
Still, this is not a blank cheque. In particular, the government must “show the absence of less drastic means of achieving [its] objective in a real and substantial manner” because “the deprivation of Charter rights [must be] confined to what is reasonably necessary to achieve the state’s object” (Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, at para. 102, internal citation omitted).
Further, where a limit on a Charter right cannot be properly justified, only Parliament or a provincial legislature can invoke the “notwithstanding clause” in s. 33 of the Charter to limit it nevertheless. The notwithstanding clause is not available to the executive branch. If an executive order made under federal or provincial legislation were struck down as an unconstitutional infringement of a Charter right, then the government could re-impose the measure only if Parliament or the legislature enacted new legislation that invoked the notwithstanding clause. Such legislation would need to declare expressly that it would operate notwithstanding the Charter. The declaration would automatically expire after five years, unless the legislation provided for a quicker expiry, or further legislation renewed the declaration sooner.
Federal and provincial jurisdiction
Unlike the Charter, the Constitution does not contemplate reasonable limits on the division of powers between the federal and provincial legislatures specified in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. If federal or provincial measures imposed in response to COVID-19 transgress jurisdictional limits, they will be unconstitutional.
Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over, among other things, the regulation of trade and commerce, navigation and shipping, border control, airports, and inter-provincial undertakings such as railways and pipelines. Provincial legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights and matters of a local or private nature in the province, as well as hospitals and municipal institutions.
Courts will not afford any deference to governments if their emergency measures are challenged as unconstitutional on the basis of the division of powers in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at para. 55). Nor is there any equivalent to s. 33 of the Charter; neither Parliament nor a provincial legislature can legislate notwithstanding its jurisdictional constraints.
However, courts have recognized an “emergency branch” to Parliament’s power under s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to “make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada”. The emergency branch permits Parliament temporarily to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction if it has a “rational basis” for seeing the intruding measure as “temporarily necessary to meet a situation of … crisis imperiling the well-being of the people of Canada as a whole and requiring Parliament’s stern intervention in the interests of the country as a whole” (Reference re Anti-Inflation Act,  2 S.C.R. 373, at p. 425, per Laskin C.J.). Parliament would likely be afforded significant deference under the emergency branch; courts will likely lack any appetite to second-guess democratically accountable politicians about what constitutes an emergency.
Thus, were the federal Cabinet to proclaim a “public welfare emergency” and invoke its extraordinary powers under the federal Emergencies Act, it would have some leeway to venture beyond Parliament’s ordinary jurisdiction. That is not true of provincial Cabinets invoking provincial public health or emergency legislation, however. Even in an emergency, the provincial legislatures are subject to the usual division of powers rules.
Statutory constraints on governments’ emergency powers
When governments exercise their powers under emergency or public health legislation, they are constrained by the terms of the applicable legislation; they have only such powers as the legislature has given them. Limits on their powers may be enforced through the courts – which have a constitutional duty to ensure that statutory decision-makers act within the bounds of their authority – in judicial review proceedings governed by the principles of administrative law.
In most judicial review proceedings, the question is whether the decision-maker (e.g., a minister) has made a decision that exceeded the scope of, or was otherwise inconsistent with, the legislator’s grant of power. A court will generally defer to a decision-maker’s interpretation of her or his enabling legislation, provided the court sees the interpretation as reasonable.
For example, under s. 13 of the Statistics Act, the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada can require any business to provide any documents or records that contain information sought “in respect of the objects of this Act”.
If the Chief Statistician made an order under s. 13 in aid of the federal government’s response to COVID-19, and that order were challenged as being beyond the s. 13 power, then the success of the challenge would turn on whether the information sought was “in respect of the objects of this Act”. The court would defer to the Chief Statistician on this issue; the order would likely be upheld unless the court determined that the Chief Statistician’s interpretation of the Statistics Act’s objects was unreasonable – i.e., not “consistent with the text, context and purpose” of the legislation (Vavilov, supra, at para. 120).
If emergency measures adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are challenged in court, governments will usually enjoy significant deference. In considering whether limits on Charter rights may be justified under s. 1, courts are unlikely to second-guess government decisions, necessarily made rapidly, about which measures were (or are) necessary to save lives. Nor, in the administrative law context, would courts quash emergency orders unless they rely on an unreasonable interpretation of the legislation under which they have been made. The single exception to the courts’ deferential posture would be in most challenges based on the division of powers; if the rules of Canadian federalism allegedly have been broken, then no deference is warranted unless Parliament is said to have invoked the emergency branch of its peace, order, and good government power.
Judicial oversight of government action is an essential feature of Canada’s legal landscape. Still, modern principles of public law have never been applied in a pandemic, or in its aftermath. In the coming months, courts may well have to apply those principles urgently, as the extraordinary measures implemented in response to COVID-19 implicate the interests of Canadian businesses, organizations, and individuals. The courts’ task in doing so – and the responsibility of governments – will be to ensure that Canada’s efforts to manage this crisis are consistent with our constitutional commitments and the rule of law.
For more information
Elsewhere, we and our colleagues have discussed:
the powers that governments in every province and territory – British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut – have exercised, or could exercise, under their respective public health and emergency legislation, and the powers that governments could use to enforce emergency orders made under such legislation;
the powers that the federal government has exercised under the Quarantine Act and the Aeronautics Act, and that it could exercise if it proclaims a “public welfare emergency” under the Emergencies Act; and
the powers that governments have used, or could use, to order businesses to close.
We and our colleagues are also maintaining an up-to-date list of measures that governments across Canada have implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in our Emergency Measures Tracker. For up-to-date information on COVID-19, and for McCarthy Tétrault’s perspective on the legal issues it presents, please visit our dedicated hub, here.
Egypt, in reference to The Corpus Hermeticum below, is to be construed as the entire world. Below, in parts 25 and 26 of the Hermeticum, Hermes narrates the future of Humankind to Asclepius. He then reveals God's final intervention, and how God will undo the evil that has overtaken His creation.
The warnings of the Hermeticum are especially significant when it speaks to the "Religion of the Mind". Today, the Technocrats are attempting every conceivable form of mind manipulation and destruction to control and eradicate humanity. Examples include algorithms, media propaganda, musical chords/words, technology, pharmacology, Black Magic and science. To control and destroy humanity they must first dismantle and sabotage the human mind. The Trans-humanist agenda seeks to preserve Mother Nature and the construction of the Ages, but not who built it. Perhaps why global war is not wise depopulation choice.
Vaccines and DREADDS, are likely the binary companions of science and technology. Vaccines will deliver the necessary nanotechnology to disrupt and mutate our RNA/DNA, and DREADDS will provide technology the ability to control our minds.
Chemogenetics is an especially compelling approach because, after an initial surgery, it requires no invasive procedures. The technology works by putting specially designed receptors into a chosen cell population in the brain. The receptors are delivered by injecting a special virus into the target brain region (this is the spatial restriction). The virus is genetically modified so that it contains instructions to produce the receptor. The instruction will work only in certain cell types (this is the genetic restriction). Some well-known groups of cells that can be targeted in this fashion and are implicated in psychiatric illness include the dopamine-producing cells of the substantia nigra and the serotonin-producing cells of the raphe nuclei. Once the cells contain the genetic information to produce the receptors, their activity can be modulated at any time by giving the subject the specific molecule that activates the specific receptors. So, a patient with receptors inserted into dopamine cells could activate them at a later point by simply taking a pill with that molecule.
It is my understanding that DREADDS can be delivered via drinking water, chem-trails and vaccines. The possibilities are likely endless. While many of you view Covid-19 as a virus, I view it as a device to destroy the MIND. Once again, the mind is the ethereal software that connects consciousness, or God, to the human brain.
With "pot" now being legalized in many countries throughout the world, and with pot dispensaries popping up everywhere, would it not be coincidental if genetically modified strains of marijuana would in fact be DREADDS activation mechanisms?
In an earlier email, I concluded that dopamine was covertly introduced into seniors residing in eldercare facilities. Dopamine, when introduced in specific populations (ex individuals with Parkinsons) will create the same symptoms as someone with severe Covid-19 symptoms (i.e. high fever and major organ shutdown). This is likely why 85% of the Covid related deaths in Canada are attributable to eldercare facilities. The experimentation has gone live!
1. Why dost thou weep, Asclepius? Nay, more than this, by far more wretched,—Egypt herself shall be impelled and stained with greater ills.
For she, the Holy [Land], and once deservedly
the most beloved by God, by reason of her pious service of the Gods on earth,—she, the sole colony 1 of holiness, and teacher of religion [on the earth], shall be the type of all that is most barbarous.
And then, out of our loathing for mankind, the World will seem no more deserving of our wonder and our praise.
All this good thing, 2—than which there has been fairer naught that can be seen, nor is there anything, nor will there [ever] be,—will be in jeopardy.
2. And it will prove a burden unto men; and on account of this they will despise and cease to love this Cosmos as a whole,—the changeless work of God; the glorious construction of the Good, comprised of multifold variety of forms; the engine of God’s Will, supporting His own work ungrudgingly; the multitudinous whole massed in a unity of all, that should be reverenced, praised and loved,—by them at least who have the eyes to see.
For Darkness will be set before the Light, and Death will be thought preferable to Life. No one will raise his eyes to Heaven; the pious man will be considered mad, the impious a sage; the frenzied held as strong, the worst as best.
3. For soul, and all concerning it,—whereby it doth presume that either it hath been born deathless, or that it will attain to deathlessness, according to the argument I have set forth for you,—[all this] will be considered not only food for sport, 1 but even vanity.
Nay, [if ye will] believe me, the penalty of death shall be decreed to him who shall devote himself to the Religion of the Mind.
New statutes shall come into force, a novel law; naught [that is] sacred, nothing pious, naught that is worthy of the Heaven, or Gods in Heaven, shall [e’er] be heard, or [even] mentally believed.
4. The sorrowful departure of the Gods from men takes place; bad angels 2 only stay, who mingled with humanity will lay their hands on them, and drive the wretched folk to every ill of recklessness,—to wars, and robberies, deceits,
and all those things that are opposed to the soul’s nature. 1
Then shall the Earth no longer hold together; the Sea no longer shall be sailed upon; nor shall the Heaven continue with the Courses of the Stars, nor the Star-course in Heaven.
The voice of every God 2 shall cease in the [Great] Silence that no one can break; the fruits of Earth shall rot; nay, Earth no longer shall bring forth; and Air itself shall faint in that sad listlessness.
1. This, when it comes, shall be the World’s old age, impiety,—irregularity, and lack of rationality in all good things.
And when these things all come to pass, Asclepius,—then He, [our] Lord and Sire, God First in power, and Ruler of the One God [Visible], 3 in check of crime, and calling error back from the corruption of all things unto good manners and to deeds spontaneous with His Will (that is to say God’s Goodness),—ending all ill, by either washing it away with water-flood, or burning it away with fire, or by the means of pestilent diseases, spread
throughout all hostile lands,—God will recall the Cosmos to its ancient form 1; so that the World itself shall seem meet to be worshipped and admired; and God, the Maker and Restorer of so vast a work, be sung by the humanity who shall be then, with ceaseless heraldings of praise and [hymns of] blessing.
2. For this [Re-] birth of Cosmos is the making new 2 of all good things, and the most holy and most pious bringing-back again of Nature’s self, by means of a set course of time,—of Nature, which was without beginning, and which is without an end. For that God’s Will hath no beginning; and, in that ’tis the same and as it is, it is without an end.
Boston doctor says he almost had to be INTUBATED after suffering severe allergic reaction from Moderna Covid vaccine
Boston doctor says he almost had to be INTUBATED after suffering severe allergic reaction from Moderna Covid vaccine
Dr. Hossein Sadrzadeh, a hematology oncology fellow at Boston Medical Center, was given the drug on Christmas Eve. The health care worker, who has a severe shellfish allergy, said his heart began to race after taking the vaccine. Initially, he thought his increased heart rate was due to anxiety he had about the jab, stemming from reports of serious medical episodes occurring after people with allergies were injected with Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine.
However, he soon realized that he was suffering from something far more dangerous. Within minutes, Sadrzadeh’s tongue and throat began to tingle and go numb, a reaction that he associated with his shellfish allergy. Even more concerning, his blood pressure then dipped so low that it wasn’t even detectable with a monitor.
Luckily, the doctor had brought his own EpiPen, which he administered on himself before hospital staff rushed him to the emergency room. He was given several medications, including steroids and Benadryl. A record of his hospital visit stated that he was admitted to the ER for “shortness of breath, dizziness, palpitations and numbness after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.”
By Friday morning, he said that he was feeling normal. But the doctor seemed to suggest that the episode could have been far more harrowing had he not come prepared for the worst.
“I feel that if I did not have my EpiPen with me, I would be intubated right now, because it was that severe,” he said, adding that it was the worst allergic reaction he had experienced since he was 11 years old.
The physician said he now recommends that people with allergies receive the vaccine in a hospital setting, instead of getting it from a clinic or local provider.
“I knew the symptoms. I had the experience. I was a physician, and I was scared to death. Imagine someone who does not have the information,” he noted. Sadrzadeh has offered Moderna a blood sample in an effort to help the firm identify what ingredient in the vaccine may have triggered the allergic reaction.
“I really don’t want anybody to go and experience this and go through this event that I had,” he said.
The concerning case is the first of its kind to be linked to the Moderna jab. Officials with the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are investigating at least six cases of severe allergic reactions occurring in people who took the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. However, it is still being determined whether an ingredient in the vaccine is responsible for the health episodes.
Apple plans to launch its first self-driving car in 2024
Apple's self-driving car concept.
Apple is moving forward with self-driving car technology. According to the “rumors”, the hi-tech giant, Apple would have decided to produce an electric car equipped with industrialized batteries from the same brand with a design that would reduce its cost and increase the vehicle’s range. It is planning to launch its first passenger car in 2024 using its own technology.
Friday, December 25, 2020
Monday, December 14, 2020
Pierre Kory, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke's Aurora Medical Center, delivers passionate testimony during the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II."