The leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, Dominique Anglade, does not see how her political party could support a bill on a “health contribution”, which in her opinion contravenes the principle of universality of the Quebec health system.
“It raises 1000 questions, from an ethical point of view, from a legal point of view, and even on the effectiveness of such a measure”, launched the elected official on Wednesday, at the opening of the second day. of the Liberal caucus.
“ A priori, I do not see how we are going to be in favor of such a measure, but we will wait to see what will be tabled, ”she added.
On January 12, Prime Minister François Legault announced his intention to impose a “health contribution”, the amount of which will be “significant”, on people who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19. He then clarified that his government intended to introduce a bill to that effect.
In Ms. Anglade’s opinion, the idea of a financial penalty is a “diversion”. ” They [les caquistes] have already accustomed us to making a diversion when they want to change the topics of discussion. No need to remind you of the Nordic episode, ”she said.
Last fall, Mr. Legault caused the surprise by declaring that his government was interested in the file of the return of the Nordiques, disappeared from the radar screens for a few years. A meeting between the commissioner of the National Hockey League, Gary Bettman, and the Minister of Finance, Eric Girard, took place on January 13.
According to Ms. Anglade, the proposal for a “health contribution” stems from improvisation and the tendency of the Coalition avenir Québec to “govern by polls”.
“If you poll the population and say, ‘Do you agree that the unvaccinated should be taxed more?’ And [si] the answer is yes, [vous allez] forward. It still gives the impression that it is a government that manages by poll, which comes up with an idea that is not thought out, ”she said.
In his opinion, the government decided to proceed by bill to save time. “Afterwards, they said it might not be applicable until next year. It’s not very believable,” she insisted.