Why Francois Legault Needs to End the Emergency Decree in Quebec

“François Legault au Congrès de la Relève le 13 Septembre 2015”: Louis Roy Qc, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

On March 13, 2020 Premier François Legault announced a public health emergency allowing his government to virtually create any measure necessary, “to protect the health of the population.” The order has been renewed around 85 times and with the COVID-19 situation now stable throughout the province, I believe the decree must be ended to reinstate democratic practices and deny the growth of corruption. The order allows measures to be passed extremely quickly and without debates from opposition parties. The emergency order must be renewed every 10 days, and the Leagault government has done so for over a year and a half. The COVID-19 pandemic has been the greatest public health emergency in the last century and undoubtedly required the exceptional power the emergency order gave to the government. However, thanks to Quebec’s vaccination campaign in which 87% of Quebecers’ aged 12 and up have been fully vaccinated as of November 6, COVID cases and deaths have been relatively low for the past 5 months. Legault has declared that the worst is behind the province and that we must live with the virus. Nonetheless, he has not ended the emergency decree and refuses to do so until children aged 5-11 are vaccinated. This has sparked great controversy among the public and particularly among other political parties as with the stable situation they question the need for an emergency order granting Legault and his party exceptional power. In my opinion, the public health emergency decree must be ended by François Legault to make handling the future of the pandemic a more democratic process, and to ensure the ‘exceptional’ nature of the emergency order is being upheld. Ending the state-of-emergency does not mean that all pandemic-related measures will end. Legislation can be created that allows for public health measures to be enacted quickly, and with consultation from other parties in the National Assembly.

The emergency order is problematic in many ways. Legault’s government was granted exceptional powers to respond to the ever-changing pandemic. However, these powers are extremely broad and thus can be misused. Most concerning is the government's continued ability to “bypass the rules of tendering to purchase goods and services.” This means that when signing contracts, there is no longer public competition. Legault can choose who to give contracts to, leaving room for corruption. While no evidence of corruption has been publicly announced, the constant renewal of the emergency order is allowing that temptation to continue.

Legault and the Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) have continuously refused to debate COVID-19 measures throughout the pandemic. While the party does have a majority in the assembly, democratic debates are still necessary. There is no justification for not allowing debates, the CAQ does not have to listen, in fact debates can only aid the party. They could help the CAQ in making the right decisions and debates would garner public support for public health measures when many detested Legault during the height of the lockdowns. In April of 2021, when the curfew had been in place for 3 months and many in the public were enraged, the Quebec Solidaire (QS) implored Leagault to hold a debate about the measure. QS leader Gabriel Nadeau-DuBois did not condemn the curfew, but he argued it may be disproportionately affecting some and wanted a ‘calm’ debate on the measure. This was promptly denied. In a feedback loop, the state-of-emergency has allowed Legault to justify his denial of debates and in turn he has refused to debate any of the renewals of the emergency order. Furthermore, in August the CAQ once again refused calls for a debate on the implementation of the vaccine passport. The Liberals, QS and Parti Québécois all agreed on the need for a debate, yet once again it was refused. No matter the necessity of these public health measures a democratic debate would have aided in their implementation and instilled public confidence. Legault and the CAQ have used the public health emergency to make decisions unilaterally.

In addition, the CAQ’s refusal to end the emergency decree is not justified by the continuing need for public health measures. As Legault has stated, we must live with the virus. Living with the virus cannot mean a permanent emergency decree. Public health measures can easily be a part of the democratic process. In British Columbia the public health emergency ended on June 30th 2021, its ending was included in stage 3 of the province's reopening plan. Many pandemic measures have continued, but as they consider the situation to be largely stable, the province-wide emergency decree has ended. 

Moreover, Quebec Solidaire has presented a transitional plan which would ensure that public health authorities can still act in an expedient and powerful manner, but would end the emergency decree. Their leader, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, stresses the exceptional manner of the state of emergency and warns of the perils of its continuous renewal. Although this idea comes from an opposition party who clearly seeks to increase their sway in legislation, it proves that there are alternatives to the continued renewal of the emergency decree.

This piece does not seek to critique Francois Legault and the CAQ's handling of the pandemic. Instead, I seek to bring attention to the decline in democratic practices in Quebec. With the pandemic under control for now, opposition parties and the media must bring to attention this quiet and constant renewal of the emergency decree that goes against its intended use and is detrimental to our society.