Thought of the Day Bill C-2 An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19

Unknown to many Canadians the Federal government has brought forward Bill C-2 “An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19.” By the title of this Bill, one may be of the opinion that this Bill will assist Canadians whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Buried in this Bill are some extremely draconian aspects which interfere with provincial jurisdiction and make life in Canada unsustainable. One aspect of this Bill is the statement that the Governor General (G.G.) may designate “lockdown regions.” This involves recommendations from the Minister of Health and/or the Minister of finance.

These “lockdown regions” are established under “lockdown orders.” These orders include “administrative monetary penalty” and are defined as: “lockdown order means an order, regulation or other instrument made by a competent authority (a) imposing, for reasons related to COVID-19, among other measures, (i) the closure to the public, in the region specified in the order, regulation or other instrument, of premises where persons carry out commercial activities or provide services that are not essential to preserving life, health, public safety or basic societal functioning, or (ii) a requirement, applicable in the region specified in the order, regulation or other instrument, that persons stay at home except for reasons that are essential to preserving life, health, public safety or basic societal functioning; and (b) non-compliance with which is an offence or may result in the imposition of a sanction, including an administrative monetary penalty.” [1]

---

Administrative monetary penalties (AMP) at the federal level are to be very few and yet here the federal government is using them to violate your and your provincial rights. AMPs are defined, at the provincial level, as: “About administrative monetary penalties Administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) are a civil (rather than quasi-criminal) mechanism for enforcing compliance with regulatory requirements. They are an effective, quick, clear and tangible way for regulators to respond to infractions of the law. In practice, a monetary penalty is assessed and imposed in the form of a notice with a prescribed date and time for payment. While monetary penalties do not lead to convictions or pose a risk of imprisonment, administrative decisions may still be made (e.g. demerit points, driver license suspensions). Because AMPs are imposed without a court hearing, other protections are put in place (e.g. unbiased decision maker, right to be heard) to ensure that the process for imposing a penalty is fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. AMP systems have been upheld by the courts as appropriate for matters under provincial control.” [2] At the federal level there are various Acts which use AMPs, but as this is “civil” in nature it shouldn’t be part of the federal government’s avenue of use. This could mean that the federal government may impose egregious fines and force the forfeiture of property, on the presumption that there may or may not be a “regional” issue with a virus. Not to mention that if the federal government has a bias this could be used against any of the various provinces to slow down and/or end the opening up of businesses. This could mean job losses and/or business closures that are unwarranted.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

The other extreme issue with Bill C-2 is the requirement that one be vaccinated to receive their Employment Insurance (EI) payments. Employees pay an insurance premium from their wages based on a percentage of their wage. The Employer must contribute $1.40 for every dollar the Employee pays. This is the money of the employee and the employer being held by government to ensure that if one is laid off, fired, etc., there are funds available for your survival. At present it states in the E.I. Act: [3] “Availability for work, etc. 18 (1) A claimant is not entitled to be paid benefits for a working day in a benefit period for which the claimant fails to prove that on that day the claimant was (a) capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment; (b) unable to work because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine, and that the claimant would otherwise be available for work; or (c) engaged in jury service. Exception (2) A claimant to whom benefits are payable under any of sections 23 to 23.3 is not disentitled under paragraph (1)(b) for failing to prove that he or she would have been available for work were it not for the illness, injury or quarantine. 1996, c. 23, s. 18; 2012, c. 27, s. 15; 2014, c. 20, s. 247; 2017, c. 20, s. 233.” Not to mention section 7 of the E.I. Act which states: “Benefits payable to persons who qualify 7 (1) Unemployment benefits are payable as provided in this Part to an insured person who qualifies to receive them. Qualification requirement (2) An insured person qualifies if the person (a) has had an interruption of earnings from employment; and (b) has had during their qualifying period at least 420 hours of insurable employment.”

---

This is to be the criteria for which one is to receive benefits, so how is it that the federal government can arbitrarily amend the criteria without your consent – after all this is a contract for you to pay premiums (with your employer) to ensure that if you have reached the 420 hours you can receive benefits you have paid for? With Bill C-2 it would seem this is violating section 7 and 18 of the E.I. Act with the criteria that “Eligibility 4 (1) A person is eligible for a lockdown benefit for any week that falls within the period beginning on October 24, 2021 and ending on May 7, 2022 and within a benefit period if… COVID-19 vaccination — paragraph (1)(f) (3) Despite paragraph (1)(f), a person is not eligible for a lockdown benefit if they lost their employment, were unable to perform self-employment work or had a reduction in income because they refused to comply with a requirement to be vaccinated against COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccination — paragraph (1)(h) (4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(h), the refusal by a person to comply with a requirement to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is not a reasonable excuse to have quit their employment or voluntarily ceased to work or to have done anything referred to in subparagraphs (1)(h)(i) to (iii).”

---

---

What government is essentially saying is that if you are not vaccinated and are not allowed to work you are not entitled to your and/or your employer’s contributions to E.I. That was not the terms of the agreement when Canadians entered into this arrangement with the federal government – there was to be no “vaccination” criteria. As expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadians have the right to refuse medical treatment, particularly medical treatment which may actually harm them, and as we have seen the vaccine does not stop the spread nor does it stop infection, therefore does this not violate contracts as well as human rights? In conclusion the federal government, it would seem, is over-stepping and is going down a path where Canadians may not want it going. Consider this – if they can withhold E.I. benefits for non-vaccination will they also withhold other benefits if one says something contradictory to government? Freedom of expression is also a right of Canadians and yet it is also in jeopardy with this Bill – the slippery slope seems to be growing and it is up to Canadians to put the brakes on this run-away train. Contact your federal MP and express that this Bill needs to die on the floor of the House of Commons for the sake of all Canadians. If it can happen to the unvaccinated it will, eventually, happen to you… References

1. BILL C-2
2. Exploring an online Administrative Monetary Penalty System for infractions of provincial statutes and municipal by-laws in Ontario
3. Employment Insurance Act