Unless the Government Of Canada can produce substantial evidence
that public demand exists for mandatory masks, the Canadian Nationalist
Party will not comply.
If and when the Government Of Canada attempts to mandate
medical facemasks on the population, in public spaces there must be
lawful grounds to do so. The local authorities cannot enforce masks on
the citizens unconditionally without the public’s approval or consent.
As it stands right now, neither has been earned by the Government Of Canada.
In March of this year, the Canadian Nationalist Party served the Provincial Government Of Saskatchewan a notice of objection to their declared state of emergency
regarding COVID-19 due to having “a high probability of causing undo
suppression of our economic conditions – especially in rural areas of
the province.”
We believe those words to be self-evident today.
This declaration of emergency was unnecessary to begin with. It may or may not remain that way,
but ultimately the cost of such an alarmist reaction can be seen and
felt on the streets of our towns and cities – where small business has
taken the greatest hit and many storefronts have been boarded up and
closed down. Meanwhile, the Globalist Elite buy up properties for a
fraction of the price they would otherwise fetch on an open market,
unrestricted by these very COVID-19 emergency measures.
Unless the Government Of Canada can produce substantial evidence that public demand exists for mandatory masks, the Canadian Nationalist Party will not comply.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation has questioned the constitutionality of orders requiring face coverings in certain Ontario municipalities.
In a letter to Dr. Nicola Mercer,
medical officer of health at the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph public
health region, the CCF said that a June 12 order imposing the use of
mandatory face coverings in commercial establishments breached s. 7, s.
15 and s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The order prima facie violates the right to liberty of the
person under s. 7 because it forces people to cover their faces and
interferes with their bodily integrity, the CCF said. It also infringes
the right to non-discrimination on the basis of disability under s. 15
since it imposes a disproportionate burden on persons with disabilities,
including breathing problems like asthma and emphysema or trauma-based
phobia of breathing obstructions.
“[I]f a person has PTSD related to having their breathing obstructed,
they should not need to discuss this with strangers in order to buy
toilet paper or fill up their gas tank,” said Christine Van Geyn,
litigation director at the CCF.
The order does include an exemption which allows such individuals to
forgo masks, but the CCF argues that requiring a person to disclose
private health information in order to claim an exemption infringes
privacy rights under s. 8, particularly the right to informational
privacy. Forcing such a disclosure may cause a person with trauma-based
phobia to re-experience the traumatic experience and suffer reputational
harm.
The CCF said that the order should be repealed or at least amended
due to these issues. Tested against the requirements found in R. v. Oakes,
the limitation imposed by the order is not rationally connected to the
objective, is not minimally impairing and is not proportionate, the CCF
said.
To support its argument of a lack of rational connection to the
objective, the CCF cited the relatively low local rate of community
transmission in the area and questioned why the order applies to retail
commercial establishments but not to other places also subject to public
gatherings, such as churches or community centres. The CCF said that
the order should be amended to require masks only when physical
distancing of six feet is impossible.
The order is not minimally impairing because it fails to consider its
impact on the privacy and equality rights of persons with disabilities,
who risk reliving trauma and experiencing reputational harm, the CCF
said. Therefore, the CCF asks for an amendment to the effect that an
employee of a commercial establishment should accept a claim for a
medical exemption at face value, without requiring a disclosure of
private health information.
Most Read
The CCF then said that the $5,000 fine imposed on commercial
establishments who do not enforce the order is disproportionate, given
that much lower fines were implemented during the peak of the outbreak.
The order should be amended to set a $500 fine instead, the CCF said.
“It is our strong preference not to commence litigation, when simple
amendments to the Order would achieve the goal of protecting both the
health and the rights of citizens,” wrote Van Geyn.
The CCF intends to send letters to other Ontario communities with
similar orders either implemented or contemplated, such as York Region,
Kingston and Waterloo.
