On the eve of the return to parliament, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois said he was worried to see the tax imposed on the non-vaccinated monopolize the debates in the National Assembly.
The “health contribution” is neither a public health measure nor a crisis exit plan, but a political strategy imagined by the CAQ strategists, lamented the parliamentary leader of Québec solidaire.
There is indeed a lot of strategy in there. A new tax is usually announced as part of a budget, among other tax measures that must be voted on en bloc after a 25-hour debate. This time, the amount and the terms of application of the contribution will be specified in a separate bill which will have to go through all the stages provided for in the regulations of the National Assembly. The discussion can stretch ad nauseam.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that the bill will be adopted. After having drawn all the political benefit it can hope for, the Legault government could very well decide that the improvement in the health situation makes it less necessary and simply let it die on the soap opera. Recourse to gag would be very ill-advised.
In the meantime, the opposition parties will have to explain why they oppose a measure that is favored by 61% of Quebecers, according to a Léger poll conducted between January 14 and 16.
As other countries have done, the government could just as well have chosen to decree compulsory vaccination, which is even more popular (65%) and whose effectiveness would be more difficult to dispute, but it would not have had no reason to drag things out, whereas here he can invoke the requirements of democracy to prolong the debate on the contribution.
For the leader of the PLQ, Dominique Anglade, all this is more of a diversion. “It raises a thousand questions, from an ethical point of view, from a legal point of view, and even about the effectiveness of such a measure,” she said.
She is absolutely right. These are fundamental questions that deserve careful consideration. This is precisely the interest of the thing for the government. There are so many things to consider that the debate can drag on as long as discussions about the sex of angels.
Since the pandemic will remain the unavoidable subject over the coming months, the government has every interest in directing the debate in the direction that suits it best. Premier Legault certainly prefers to expound on the innumerable questions raised by the health contribution than on air quality in schools, the reproaches of the Health and Welfare Commissioner or even the contradictory statements of Marguerite Blais those of other actors in the crisis.
If Mme Anglade wants to challenge the ethics of the health contribution, Mr. Legault will be able to discuss the risks that the unvaccinated pose to the entire population, the costs that their stubbornness causes, the exhaustion of nurses, the wavering morale of the nation, etc
A debate on its compatibility with the Canada Health Act would also make it possible to continue the fascinating exploration of the inexhaustible legal riches concealed in the basement of Canadian federalism. As for its effectiveness, even the national director of public health did not want to comment.
This exegesis of the contribution promises to be fascinating, but the essential should not be overlooked. In 1453, Byzantine theologians were still bickering about the sex of angels when the Turkish hordes were at the gates of Constantinople.
If the downward trend in hospitalizations makes us breathe a sigh of relief, the last few weeks have shown how fragile the health network is and could well collapse next time.
Everyone understands that eight months before the elections, we cannot prevent politicians from playing politics, but it would certainly be more urgent to agree on the best way to “refound” the network than to drag on on the ins and outs of the health contribution.
Unfortunately, this does not bode well. Announcing this week that she was definitely renouncing any form of “third link”, Dominique Anglade declared that she preferred to invest in health and education.
The parliamentary leader of the government, Simon Jolin-Barrette, immediately cried demagoguery, before declaring: “We must not choose between one and the other. The health system is well funded in Quebec. ” Is that so ? It was Justin Trudeau who must have been happy to hear it.