The hard head hunt
A second demonstration in opposition to the curfew took place in Montreal and brought together some sixty people on Wednesday evening.
CHRONICLE – A truism, I know, but still: amazing how virtually everything, politically speaking, is a house of cards. While the Legault gang was still dreaming, at the beginning of December, of a possible deputation of around a hundred, the reality of its pandemic management is finally catching up with it.
Past master in the art of diversion – naming ministers responsible for the respective return of the Nordiques and the Expos proving here a record at the International Games of Cynicism – the said gang now ventures into a new discipline: the hunt for no -vaccinated.
Not that these, it goes without saying, do not deserve such an operation. Some will even say that the first minister's patience with them was worthy of an episode of Passe-Partout, tone and vocabulary included. Still, it is permissible to ask the following legitimate question: why not before? Answer: to channel popular hatred, manifest in the polls so prized by the CAQ, and to lead the pack of dissatisfied people chasing after the swayed bone.
What about the constitutionality of the tax? hard-headed, currently cogitated, or any other measures with compulsory vaccination sauce?
Many have wondered, Trudeau in mind, if a similar tax would violate the provisions of the Canada Health Act, which governs federal transfers to the provinces in this regard. In the event of contravention of the applicable principles, the sums paid will suffer, as a penalty, considerable levies.
Among these inviolable principles, integrality and universality. As it is understood that our unvaccinated will be able to continue to invade our hospitals and siphon off available resources without particular financial burdens, it is possible, if not probable, that the two principles discussed are safe and sound.
< p>There remains, however, the following obvious nuance: in its section 3, the Act states that its “primary objective is to protect, promote and improve the physical and mental well-being of the inhabitants of Canada and to facilitate satisfactory access access to health services, without financial or other obstacles”.
Thus, while it seems certain that an upcoming tax would not hit the wall of federal conditions head-on, the question remains as to the spirit of the Act: does a tax not constitute, by definition, a financial obstacle related, in this case, to a medical status until now if not valid, at least tolerated? A fortiori if this, hypocrisy aside, is aimed precisely at them because of the risk of hospitalization they represent.
What precedes, let us notice well, holds more theory than reality. Knowing the current deep aversion of the federal authorities towards non-vax, the probabilities that Quebec will pay the price for its measure are, all in all, practically nil.
What about charters? A bit more complex. Can we speak, in this case, of discrimination in the classic sense of the term? While the relevant provisions expressly refer to traditional grounds, in particular age, sex, religion or language, nothing prevents the Court from adding to them what it describes as “similar grounds”, thus broadening the scope application of prohibited discrimination. The chances of success of including unvaccinated status? Subject to repetition, said statute being permitted today, let's say that they exist. justified in a free and democratic society. Within this exercise of balancing individual rights and freedoms and collective interests, it will be a question of whether, overall:
– Is Quebec pursuing a real and urgent objective? Anyone who knows the impact of non-vaccination on hospital and medical resources will answer yes, without pushing too hard.
– Is there a rational connection between the measure and the objective? Let's wait to see the results of the threat on the rise in vaccinations.
– Is this a so-called minimal impairment of rights? Here as often, here is where the shoe pinches. What amount are we talking about? Will it be regressive? If so, let's say a $500 penalty for Fitzgibbon and his Chambers of Commerce buddies doesn't, of course, have the same impact as a homeless or refugee. As the 2021 fiscal year is already over, will it be retroactive? And the question of the confidentiality of the medical record?
– Does the operation respect the principle of proportionality? In other words, is the game really worth the candle?
The pavement is now fed up. It will be enough to know the details, where El Diablo usually hides.