The debate in the National Assembly took a fruitful turn this week when Prime Minister Legault declared, plants in hand, that we should not mix apples, oranges and bananas in the Northvolt file.
The Liberal MP for the Thousand Islands, Virginie Dufour, added a market gardening touch by replying that he should rather walk around with a lemon and a turnip, to which she compared the government’s record on housing.
He had little more success in his negotiations with Ottawa, particularly in matters of immigration, even though he was keen to make federalism compatible with the aspirations of Quebec, something none of his predecessors did. has succeeded for half a century.
We can understand his frustration and his concern at the reluctance of the Trudeau government to alleviate the burden that the massive influx of asylum seekers imposes on Quebec, whose public services are already saturated, but prohibit access to daycares subsidized to their children cannot constitute either a response or a solution.
It is true that Quebec welcomes a disproportionate proportion of applicants and that 37,000 Quebecers are waiting on the waiting list, but it is too easy to present them as thieves of places.
If Ottawa deserves the lemon prize both for having transformed the borders into a sieve and for its slowness in processing asylum requests, the CAQ’s demagogic way of designating a scapegoat for its inability to deliver the daycare places that she had promised could make the Legault government a serious candidate for the Navet d’or.
***
The Ministry of Families estimates that it would cost $225 million to create the 5,000 places that would accommodate the applicants’ children, but they would not be close to filling them. In reality, they would simply add to the waiting list until their turn arrives.
Article 3 of the Educational Childcare Act stipulates that CPEs and subsidized daycares must be reserved for people who are in Quebec “mainly to work”.
Either, asylum seekers leave their country because they believe their security is threatened or they find themselves in a situation of economic distress, but they are still granted a work permit, which they only ask for. use, often working jobs that no one else wants, and they pay taxes. This entitles them to receive the services to which any taxpayer is entitled.
Perhaps realizing the pettiness of his decision to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, Prime Minister Legault felt the need to invoke the noblest motive, the need to preserve the French character of Quebec.
It is certainly urgent to curb the influx of asylum seekers, but whatever their number, the workplace will always be the main factor of integration. The extraordinary effect of CPE on women’s participation in the labor market has been demonstrated. It would be the same for asylum seekers, whose children will also become impeccable French speakers. This is “common sense,” as Mr. Legault would say.
***
We understand very well that the PQ threat pushes the Prime Minister into nationalist escalation, even if he has made membership of the Canadian federation an insurmountable limit.
It can also cause him to say stupid things. It is absurd to claim that the PQ fell flat on its face in front of Ottawa because it approved the invalidation of the provision of the law on childcare services by the Court of Appeal, made up of judges appointed by the federal government. It is ironic that he himself reacts to this by addressing the Supreme Court.
When it comes to the Trudeau government, it is often difficult to discern what should be attributed to incompetence or bad faith. It is true that many people are asking the same question about the Legault government.
In what seems like a dialogue of the deaf between Quebec and Ottawa on immigration, it is becoming difficult to understand what game both are playing. Justin Trudeau’s Quebec lieutenant, Pablo Rodriguez, claims that discussions between senior officials are taking place at a “table” that Quebec Minister of Immigration, Christine Fréchette, says does not exist.
We sometimes have the impression that this vagueness affects everyone. Ottawa does not want to give in anything while wanting to appear open, while the Legault government hesitates to push the confrontation too far, fearing having to draw the consequences of too brutal a refusal to requests that it presents as existential.
Now that the influx of asylum seekers is starting to raise eyebrows in Toronto, the Trudeau government will perhaps get a little more active. In the meantime, in the last episode of this bad soap opera, Mr. Legault plays the role of the evil neighbor who doesn’t like children.