Now that the fifth wave of the pandemic is subsiding and that the gradual abandonment of constraints is well underway, the opposition parties have continued this week to demand an end to the state of health emergency.
On March 13, it will be two years since the Legault government has had exceptional powers that allow it to govern by decree, flout the usual rules that govern public contracts and ignore collective agreements for state employees. In fact, under section 123 of the Public Health Act, he can do anything, that is to say “order any […] necessary measure to protect the health of the population”. Moreover, the government, the minister or any person cannot be prosecuted for an act performed in good faith in the exercise of these emergency powers. And in this regard, we must assume the good faith of the CAQ government.
François Legault can however give the impression of wanting to stretch the sauce, to prolong the pleasure. It is not certain that his government has not taken the fold and does not feel comfortable in the sovereign exercise of these exceptional powers. For an impatient Prime Minister who favors action and is reluctant to talk, the expeditious nature of this type of management does not lack attraction. On the other hand, let us agree that this power consists in imposing measures that are less and less tolerated by the population. Nothing to strengthen the support of the CAQ training.
At the National Assembly, François Legault explained that the maintenance of the health emergency was necessary for four or five reasons, including the imposition of the wearing of the mask and the vaccine passport as well as the hiring of vaccinators. He also spoke about the payment of bonuses to nurses outside of collective agreements. It should also be remembered that the CEOs of CIUSSSs and CISSSs are exempt from complying with all of the working conditions of employees of the health network. However, it should be noted that many bonuses, outside the collective agreements and negotiated with the unions, were introduced to remedy the shortage of nurses and orderlies in the hospitals.
In an interview given to Homework, law professor Martine Valois cut to pieces the claims of the Prime Minister. According to the lawyer, the Public Health Act allows the government to impose constraints without it being necessary to resort to a state of health emergency. The Barreau du Québec also insisted that the continuation of the restrictions be reassessed according to their “rationality”.
On Wednesday, the acting national director of public health, the Dr Luc Boileau, by revealing that wearing a mask will no longer be required in class for students after their spring break, indicated the desire of the authorities to gradually eliminate the obligation to wear a mask in society in general. A similar decision affects the vaccine passport. In this regard, some provinces, including Ontario, have already announced the abandonment of the vaccine passport.
As the National Assembly, like the schools, is taking a break for the next two weeks, we can consider the last salvoes of the opposition as a last stand. Upon return, on March 15, most of the health restrictions will have been abandoned and the CAQ government will table a bill to ensure the transition after the end of the state of emergency. He will want to extend the payment of bonuses to nurses until March 31, as he has promised. The bill could contain other adjustments to ensure the continuation of things. The CAQ government is counting on the opposition parties to adopt it quickly. In this scenario, it is therefore the opposition that will determine when this historic state of emergency will be lifted.
It was to end in January. But the meteoric spread of the Omicron variant in December derailed that timeline. We cannot therefore blame the CAQ government for this postponement. Could he have tabled his bill so that it could be adopted before spring break and thus put an end to the health emergency more quickly? May be. But it must still be recognized that it was Public Health that recommended that the government proceed with caution and gradually.
Of course, it’s time to end it. The government must undertake to table an “event report” in the National Assembly before the end of the session, as provided for in the Public Health Act, without waiting for the next election. As the Barreau suggests, there is good reason to begin a reflection on the revision of the Act and on this power, which has no time limit or obligation to consult the National Assembly.