In the case of asylum seekers, where Prime Minister François Legault is furious at not obtaining the hoped-for results, exasperation has become a very poor advisor. In Paris, where there was more question of immigration than protection of the French language, Quebec showed itself in an inflexible and inhumane light, which does not correspond to its image.
This is because tensions are exacerbating between Ottawa and Quebec on the issue of asylum seekers, for which Quebec claims a share corresponding to its demographic weight in the federation. A completely justified request, let us remember, but which in no way justifies the way in which the leader of the Coalition Avenir Québec goes about making his demands heard. While it represents 22% of the Canadian population, Quebec welcomes around 40% of the total asylum seekers, which is now putting pressure on its capacity to provide services to the population. If it is true that the State struggling to adequately respond to demand, it is totally fallacious to suggest that the overflow of refugees could be the sole cause: the mammoths of education and health do not need migratory movements to suffer from serious problems!
It is this speech that Quebec supports to challenge the right of asylum seekers holding a work permit to send their children to subsidized daycares all the way to the Supreme Court. Rejected by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal, Quebec continues its quest with the highest court, despite the criticism raining down on him and attaching the label of a calculating and ruthless political actor.
In short, even if the claim is fair, the words to say it have exceeded the limits of acceptability. While in Paris last week, François Legault suggested twice rather than once that, faced with the lamentable failures of volunteerism, he was now hoping for coercive methods. To better distribute asylum seekers between Canadian provinces, the Prime Minister hopes for compulsory movement of people, in order to achieve the desired balance. As soon as it was repeated, this idea attracted the wrath of the majority, starting with Ottawa, which believed that it would not pass the test of fundamental rights. It’s more than likely.
Even if the Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, quickly qualified it, the idea of imposing forced movement between provinces on people already well established in Quebec flouts all the principles of dignity of humanism . This is a deeply detestable concept, and few voices have supported this demand. However, the idea of imposing their fair share on other hitherto recalcitrant and indifferent provinces is frankly less so. It is also an idea that the federal government is toying with, since it has already made a proposal, as explained Duty last week.
This “voluntary relocation” model would rely on incentives, including financial ones, and could allow nearly 50,000 asylum seekers to choose another province as their place of accommodation. The target clientele is those who, upon entering Canada, need immediate housing assistance. The procedure imagined by Ottawa is based on the “informed consent” and explicit of the participants, and also assumes enthusiastic participation from the other provinces, which for the moment is utopian. Duty calculated that, if this voluntary distribution worked optimally, Quebec could shelter a little more than 51,000 asylum seekers in the country, which corresponds to its demographic weight in the federation, i.e. 22%.
There is of course a long way to go since this idea remained on the table. For the moment, Prime Ministers Justin Trudeau and François Legault have failed in any attempt at rapprochement on the thorny issue of immigration. Letters, public vociferations, the work of a federal-provincial committee, nothing has made it possible to find fair common ground. Quebec is outraged by the apathy of the federal government in a matter that Ottawa participated in making it explosive by practicing the wide open door policy. But this does not justify the excesses of François Legault, who contributes with harsh remarks to dehumanize the cause of asylum seekers.
These people who are presumed vulnerable upon their arrival in the country do not need to be exploited or reduced to a statistic or the cause of an excess in order to score political points. Due to political exasperation directed against Ottawa and its crass apathy on this issue, is Quebec gradually transforming itself into the bearer of a message of intransigence? The exercise is certainly very delicate, but when he handles issues that could lead to intolerance and encourage discrimination, the Prime Minister should understand that the end does not always justify the means.