Senators weigh pros, cons of mask-wearing

Independent Senator Maria Dillon-Remy said she was convinced political leaders contributed significantly to people not following public health regulations and therefore the rapid increase in covid19 cases over the last weeks.

In her contribution to the Public Health (Amendment) Bill, 2020 discussion in the Upper House on Saturday, she said during the campaign leading up to the August 10 general election, leaders were saying one thing and doing another.

She noted there were numerous images of people from all political parties not wearing masks, not social distancing, hugging others and generally disobeying the health regulations, and the population followed what they saw.

The bill, piloted by Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi allows for fixed penalties for breaches of public health regulations rather than arrest.

For example, for the improper wearing of masks, there will be a fine of $1,000 for the first offence, $2,000 for the second, and $3,000 for the third. After that, a person can be fined up to $250,000.

Al-Rawi stressed that $250,000 was the maximum amount but a person could be reprimanded and discharged with no consequence.

The bill also allowed for the Minister of Health to amend the Schedule to the Regulation by Order, to add or remove offences and to alter the fixed penalties. But the fixed penalty could not be more than $20,000.

Dillon-Remy agreed with going through subsidiary legislation. She said the virus is new and advice keeps changing so there must be flexibility to make changes.

However, she said legislation alone would not be sufficient because people would put on the mask when they see the police approaching, and slip it back over their chins after the police passed because the mask felt uncomfortable.

She said it was not just about telling people they have to wear masks but addressing behavioural change, although she admitted that was difficult, especially when some people with covid19 did not look sick. They had to understand why they were making that decision.

“What we have to do is try to get to the people, to have them make internal changes that they are going to let themselves said that, ‘Listen. I am doing this because I understand it, and I’m doing this because I know it will affect, not just me from getting ill, but also my family, my loved ones and eventually my community.”

She said people could not see wearing face masks in isolation but should see it as part of policy packages. In addition, she said consistent and effective public messaging was vital to compliance.

To those who said it was their right not to wear masks she said individuals had rights but when those rights affect others, for example, if not wearing a mask lead others to being infected, then it was no longer about an individual’s rights.

Law to fine people

In her maiden contribution in the Senate, Opposition Senator Jayanti Lutchmedial said the government did not bring face mask legislation to Parliament but a law to fine people.

“Parliament has no input into the nitty gritty of this mask-wearing legislation. It is being done through subsidiary legislation, and amendments to the regulations which is going to be made by one member of the executive.”

She said even though the Public Health Ordinance was saved law, the measures introduced in regulations could be challenged in the court as unconstitutional and struck down. She said the government was creating room for more litigation in the burdened justice system.

She suggested the parent legislation be amended or the bill brought as a stand-alone piece of legislation that would be “subjected to parliamentary scrutiny” that would simply say it was necessary to wear masks in public.

She asked several questions that she said the amendment did not address including: What type of mask is acceptable? Who has to wear a mask? Where would wearing it be necessary? What are the processes and procedures to get an exemption for wearing one?

She said if people had to go to a doctor to get a medical for an exemption, it would be another financial burden on a suffering population to have to pay the doctor for such.

She also disagreed with several aspects of the bill including leaving the regulations in the hands of only one person, and the use of the word “charged” rather than “issued” when a person is given a penalty notice.

She said allowing the notice to be contested after payment could also be burdensome and time consuming and she suggested appeals be left for before payment.

No need for separate bill

However, Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs, Amery Browne, disagreed with her. He said a separate bill for mask-wearing would deny public health officials and the government the flexibility of responding to covid19 and future epidemics.

“What happens after that as we learn more about the virus, as a new measure comes into place? Come back here every time? That doesn’t make sense Madam President. It doesn’t make sense. And what about other measures that we may have to take? And that’s why we have subsidiary law, to provide for that flexibility.”

He said in Brazil, where he was ambassador for four years, 3.5 million people were infected by covid19, and vulnerable communities and indigenous tribes were practically wiped out by the virus. Yet, many people in the streets did not wear masks.

Also, at the two international airports he entered to return to TT, São Paulo and Miami, cities where covid19 was prevalent, the same was true.

He said the regulations provided public health officials additional tools to protect the public “because talk has not made the difference.” So when people did not comply with the regulations, not just mask-wearing, there would be consequences, some “teeth” behind the regulations, which would be positive because studies show that fines could influence behaviour.

Referring to a comment by Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar in May that TT was handling the pandemic well because of the climate, he said that was “an unfortunate debacle.”

“Confusion and mixing the issues, introducing pseudo-science, has dangerous implications for the behaviour of our citizens. So we need to be clear about where we all stand on a matter like this.”

However, Opposition Senator Jearlean John said the issue was not that citizens were in the wrong or to blame. She said the government made no attempt to prepare people for the second and possibly third wave of covid19.

She said especially with the changing directives, a “robust distribution of information” and marketing were necessary because information was “too piecemeal” to catch on with citizens. People should be educated on the dire situation the country was in and the benefits of following the public health regulations.

She said the government was sending out messages that made people feel safe and at rest so people acted on that information. Now, she said Government wanted to take punitive measures.

“A few months ago we were told that we are number one in the world in something, so how do you expect people to take this seriously? People jumping up all over the place saying, ‘We are number one in the world. We did this thing so beautifully.’”

She added that when the bill was passed and people were being fined, it was important to ensure everyone had access to face masks. She said some people had difficulty finding $100 in a month so $1,000 in 14 days was not something they could do.

“We must really be concerned about people and to ensure when we implement law, it is not another way of separating the haves and the have nots.”