Quebec’s Proposed “Vax Tax”
Government of Quebec
In early January, Québec Premier François Legault announced that his government was considering taxing those who chose not to get vaccinated. Legault, after public uproar, has now confirmed that this bill will not be made law.
The proposed plan would have taxed those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 within the province. Every adult who chose not to get vaccinated would be charged a significant healthcare “contribution.”
Following the announcement, there was a spike in first-dose vaccination bookings in Québec. Québec Health Minister Christian Dube stated that following the tax announcement, first vaccination appointments increased up to 5,000 on January 10 and 7,000 on January 11, a “record for [the past] several days.”
Roughly ten per cent of Quebecers eligible for vaccination remain unvaccinated. The main focus of this bill would’ve been to encourage unvaccinated people to get vaccinated as an alternative to having to pay the “significant contribution.”
Additionally this tax would be pushing part of the cost of hospitalization for people with COVID-19, who are disproportionately unvaccinated people, onto those who choose to remain unvaccinated against the virus.
“I think right now it’s a question of fairness for the 90 per cent of the population who made some sacrifices,” Mr Legault said while announcing the plan to tax. “I think we owe them this kind of measure.”
A bill had been prepared by Quebec’s Finance Minister, Eric Girard, but according to Legault, will not be considered further.
The tax was scrapped due to concerns raised by many citizens and the risk of dividing the Quebecois. During his announcement on the scrapping of the tax, Legault emphasized on the need for unity and “social peace” in Québec.
“I understand that this divides Quebecers and right now we need to build bridges,” Legualt sympathized. “My role is to try to bring Quebecers together to stay united as a people.”
This announcement comes after growing concerns over the ethicality and legality of this proposed bill. Many civil rights advocates have expressed distaste and concern over the proposed plan, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who considered the plan deeply troubling. Cara Zwibel, Director of Fundamental Freedoms and acting General Counsel for the association, called the plan “divisive” and “unprecedented,” pointing out that “[the Canadian] Charter recognizes individual autonomy over our bodies and medical decisions.”
Legality may have also been a problem for this plan if it were to be implemented. According to Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg LLP lawyer, Jean-Phillippe Groleau, the bill would likely not be seen as violating the Canada Health Act, but would almost certainly face some issues with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be settled in court.
This plan, according to Vardit Ravistky, a professor of bioethics at the Université de Montréal and at Harvard Medical School, would have disproportionately impacted low-income people.
Dr. Ravistsky also speculates how the proposal, combined with societal views of healthcare within Canada, may provoke many people across the country, noting that “we see health as something that we get from the government free of charge, and the notion of attaching a tax or a penalty to the domain of health seems a step in the wrong direction.”
The cancellation came during the planning of a protest that would have taken place in Québec City, on the steps of the Quebec National Assembly. However, Legault claims that this decision to scrap the bill was not influenced by the possibility of protests and asked the protestors to remain respectful and refrain from using hateful symbols.
After this backlash Legault has claimed that instead of the tax, the government will try more educational measures to encourage people into getting the vaccine. Door-to-door campaigns to encourage people to get vaccinated and even at-home vaccinations have been mentioned as possible alternatives to the taxation.
Legault’s Liberal opposition and the general public have questioned the sincerity of this proposal or whether it be just a short term push for people to get the vaccine.
This proposed taxation plan follows some of the similar principles currently used in Singapore.
Singapore’s government, as a part of a relief plan to help citizens at the start of the pandemic, has paid for the full medical treatment for almost all COVID-19 patients since last year. They took this approach to reduce any financial burdens on citizens and to dissuade public concern over the disease.
Starting December 8th, the Singapore government stopped paying for the COVID-19 treatment of those who are unvaccinated as a way of encouraging people to get vaccinated. “We have to send this important signal, to urge everyone to get vaccinated if you are eligible,” said Singapore’s Health Minister Ong Ye Kung. This shift has not come without other initiatives, as the Singaporian government had already implemented additional educational and other passive campaigns to get people vaccinated as well.
The tactic taken by the Singaporean government has raised some ethical concerns among the public and healthcare professionals, with one unnamed, vaccinated Singaporean doctor stating, “The healthcare system needs to be there for everyone, not just for those whose choices we endorse.”
Singapore’s vaccination rate, according to the Singaporian Ministry of Health, is 92 per cent of the total population as of February 18, 2022.
Other countries have put in similar but perhaps less punitive measures to encourage and in some cases, ensure vaccination among eligible citizens. For example, Austria requires all adults to get vaccinated. Fines are charged to people who do not get vaccinated or fail to show up to appointments, with fines in Vienna costing up to $4,050. Greece also enforces vaccines for citizens over 60 years of age.