Five years after the first case of COVID-19 in Quebec, the curfew of the province remains controversial: more than half of the fines are not paid, legal battles continue and health experts still discuss whether the benefits exceeded costs.
Quebec was the only province that prohibited its citizens from leaving their homes at night during the pandemic.
The coalition of Prime Minister François Legault Avenir Québec Government imposed a touch of nocturnal curm on two separate occasions.
It’s worth it? Dr. Horacio Arruda, who was the Director of Public Health of the province when the touches were imposed, said it was a necessary movement at that time.
“We needed it due to the indicators of the medical care system, the number of people who became ill,” said Arruda in a recent interview with CBC News.
“For me, a curfew is something that was used for war or things like that. But we had seen what other countries, France and other countries did, and used it and was a success. So we added it to our toolbox.”
The first time, the curfew, which forced the quebece to remain inside 8 pm to 5 am, was initially supposed to four weeks. He ended up remaining in his place for almost five months, from January 9, 2021 until May 28, 2021.
The second curfew extended from the eve of New Year 2021 until January 17, 2022.
Breaking the curfew resulted in fines between $ 1,000 and $ 6,000.
Arruda said that in both cases, the left touch helped keep the cases low when the waves of the virus put the hospitals in the province under immense pressure.
Even so, five years later, there are questions about the effectiveness of the curfew and its lasting legacy, given the violation of civil liberties.
Show or effective public health measure?
The Legault government faced a rejection of the decision, particularly during the second curfew, when a group of experts He was public with his concerns.
“At best, the curfew is a show,” said the open letter. “In the worst case, it is a punishment for people to mask negligence and systemic inaction in pandemic management.”
It was later revealed that Montreal Public Health had also advised against the second curfew.
François Castonguay, professor of public health at the University of Montréal, said there is some evidence that the curfew helped contain the propagation of the virus. limiting mobility.
TO Study 2023For example, he discovered that the nocturnal curfew in Hamburg, Germany, was “more effective than international travel restrictions and school closures, but less effective than the orders of staying at home.”
But he said that there were also involuntary consequences and impacts on people’s mental health.
“At least from a perspective of reducing mobility, it worked. To which that translated exactly is more difficult to evaluate,” he said.
Roxanne Borgès da Silva, professor of public health at the University of Montréal, advocated a curfew when hospitalizations rose in 2021. In an email this week, he also said that the curfewthe touches probably helped limit the propagation of the virus, but added that there is also a “opportunity cost associated with twisting.”
“The remaining touches may probably have positive effects on reducing virus transmission, but also have negative effects on the social life and mental health of the population,” he said.
“Then, it was difficult compensation and difficult decisions for governments.”
A charter challenge
While experts have weighed both the benefits and the inconveniences of the curfew, the measure also faces scrutiny in the courts.
The Justice Center for Constitutional Liberties is appealing a decision of the Provincial Court that defends the imposition of curfew by the Quebec government.
The lawsuit was launched after a protester was fined for being after the curfew in masters, which. The judge of the Court of Quebec, Marie-France Beaulieu, ruled last February, the remaining touch violated the rights of the letter, but those violations were justified by the context of public health.
Beaulieu wrote that the rapid increase in cases of COVID-19 constituted an “exceptional” situation, which “forced the government to adopt measures to reduce the risks of propagation to protect the life and health of the population.”
The appeal will be heard in April. Olivier Séguin, a lawyer at the Justice Center, said the trial made it clear that the curfew was not just about controlling the spread of the virus, it was also a way of “causing an impression on the minds of the people.”
“Our claim is that this objective was not allowed by law,” he said.
More than half of unpaid tickets
Beyond the legal challenge, millions in fines remain unpaid. Of $ 67.9 million in tickets delivered for pandemics infractions, less than half have been paid, with some disputed or retired, according to the latest government figures.
About 17 percent of the criminals paid or declared themselves guilty, while many others probably face default judgments. Despite a 95 % conviction rate in Quebec courts, some cases are still pending.
The lawyer Dylan Jones, a criminal defense lawyer, represented several homeless people who were fined during the pandemic. He successfully appealed his fines.
“The law met quite hurriedly, and I understand that it was an emergency, so they had to deal with that in a kind of record time, but obviously there were blind points,” he said.
