Revelations that the Quebec government ordered its December 2021 COVID-19 curfew contrary to scientific advice have prompted calls for investigations into pandemic measures imposed by Quebec and other jurisdictions across Canada, including by two civil and constitutional rights groups.
“Professionals from Montreal Public Health and also from the [Quebec] public health institute said explicitly directly to the chief of public health that there is no scientific evidence for this,” Joseph Hickey, executive director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA), told The Epoch Times.
“‘We can’t provide it because we don’t have any. And on this short timeline, there’s no way we could try to do a study or anything like that. All we have is the experience of last year. … This is not a good idea. Do something else if you have to do something,’” Hickey paraphrased the advice the Quebec government received.
When the province’s public health institute said it didn’t have an existing analysis and couldn’t produce one on such short notice, Quebec imposed the 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew anyway.
Asked to provide justification for the curfew at a press conference on Dec. 30, Quebec Premier Francois Legault called it “du gros bon sens,” or common sense. Dr. Arruda resigned less than two weeks later, citing public skepticism on the “credibility of our opinions and our scientific rigour.”
Samuel Bachand, a Quebec lawyer for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, said the revelations were “significant, though not surprising.”
“Now we have the proof. It’s a demonstration that the Quebec government throughout those two years acted on the basis not of a stringent justification in regards of the protected and constitutional rights and freedoms, but on a simply opportunistic basis,” Bachand said in an interview.
‘Enormous Damage Done’
Douglas Farrow, professor of theology and ethics at McGill University in Montreal, told The Epoch Times the situation calls for a royal commission.“Why did [the Quebec government] keep on locking down and locking out healthy citizens if it lacked hard evidence for efficacy? Why did it sacrifice so much for so little, hurting so many to save so few?” asks Farrow.
“This question must be pressed not only in Quebec but across the country. It is the question of accountability for the enormous damage done to the health and welfare of the people, to the whole economy, and to the rule of law. There must be a royal commission of impartial judges to examine it and to determine the requisite forms of accountability.”
Farrow said he believes that some responsible for the response were “reacting like deer in the headlights—that is, as frightened incompetents,” but that others were “working from very different motives to very different ends,” given their insistence on harmful policy not based on evidence.
“We have every reason to believe that some saw this as an opportunity to advance the psychological and actual infrastructure for a digital ID scheme, a scheme that will fundamentally change the very fabric of Canadian life. It is no accident that this has become a major topic and the object of legislation. It should also become the object of lawsuits.”
Farrow said an investigation such as a commission of inquiry won’t occur without a fight.
‘Severe Measure’
Hickey says neither science nor common sense were employed in the curfew order, best demonstrated by one “completely ridiculous and unjustifiable” component that banned Quebecers from walking their dogs.“The government is willing to apply draconian wartime measures without any basis of evidence or experience,” he said. “This sordid affair of the Quebec curfew is an example that highlights that the government is willing to do that. It’s pure abuse of power, and many of the COVID policies have been like this.”
The Quebec health ministry, for its part, previously told The Epoch Times that “observational studies” show curfews can prevent gatherings, which “proved useful at a time when the number of cases remained high among the general population.”
Spokesperson Marjorie Larouche added, “We are of the view that the curfew is a severe measure which should apply only when other transmission reduction measures have been put in place and do not demonstrate the desired effects, as was the case at the beginning of the month of January.”
Hickey says Quebec and other jurisdictions need to provide more answers.
“Canadians should remember that these policies were extremely serious, very harmful to many people. They should demand accountability, they should demand investigations, and they should demand mechanisms to make sure that these kinds of draconian policies are not implemented in the future without any basis,” he said.
“It’s been [a] huge travesty of science, what has happened over the past two years, and we need to correct that for the way forward somehow.”
“In the course of those legal actions, public officials will be examined. They will be under oath and they will be forced to answer,” Bachand said.
“I’m all for public inquiries, but it’s more of a symbolic gesture.”