Once again, immigration issues give rise to a war of numbers. This time, it is before the Court of Appeal, in the case relating to the access of children of asylum seekers to subsidized childcare places. How many are they ? How do they affect waiting lists? Are they taking the place of little Quebecers?
What there is to know
The government asked the Court of Appeal on Thursday to suspend its decision on asylum seekers’ access to subsidized childcare places.
The Attorney General argues that the addition of around 10,000 child asylum seekers will put undue pressure on the network.
The lawyers for the other party counter that there are 1,175 vacant subsidized child care spaces in Montreal.
These are arguments of this nature that the Quebec government raised on Thursday to ask the Court of Appeal to suspend its decision of February 7, forcing it to open the door to reduced-contribution daycare centers for the children of applicants. asylum seeker holding a work permit.
This decision was binding, meaning it applied immediately.
The government’s Attorney General returned to the same court on Thursday to ask it to suspend the execution of its decision until the Supreme Court examines the case.
Quebec announced on February 21 its intention to appeal this judgment before the highest court in the country, although this appeal has not yet been filed and it is unknown whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case.
To defend his point of view, the Attorney General had to convince the Court of Appeal that the immediate application of his decision would cause “irreparable harm” to the government of Quebec. The pleadings therefore largely rested on this question.
Quebec’s argument is as follows: waiting lists for subsidized daycares are already long – 32,000 children are currently waiting for a place. If asylum seekers have access to the network, up to 10,000 children could be added.
This would force Quebec to immediately invest in additional facilities to meet the needs of this new clientele, while it is possible that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.
Vacancies
Lawyers for the other side have found flaws in this reasoning, including the fact that it is not asylum seekers who are to blame for this long waiting list, but rather failures in the system. There is not a single waiting list, there are several waiting lists depending on the region, recalled Me Sibel Ataogul, who defends this cause voluntarily (pro bono) with his colleague Me Guillaume Grenier.
PHOTO ROBERT SKINNER, THE PRESS
Me Sibel Ataogul and Me Guillaume Grenier defends pro bono the cause of asylum seekers. We see them here at the Court of Appeal.
Adding children of asylum seekers to these lists does not affect those who have been there longer. In other words, this doesn’t change anything.
“The majority of applicants are in Montreal,” said M.e Ataogul.
In Montreal, there are vacant places, a lot of vacant places. According to the data we submitted, there were 1175 vacancies at the moment. So what is irreparable harm?
Me Sibel Ataogul
“We submit to you that there is a public interest in not allowing a law to persist which has already been declared unconstitutional because it is discriminatory,” she added, addressing Judge Lori Renée Weitzman.
A clear judgment
The debate also focused on the reasons why Quebec would like to appeal this judgment, which is based on the discriminatory nature of the regulation prohibiting access to subsidized daycares, by limiting women’s access to the job market. The court ruled that this regulation contravened section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Quebec government’s approach is based on the hypothesis that the Supreme Court could agree with it.
“The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the validity of the decision. There is no final judgment yet. The rights are not definitively decided to the extent that we say that we will refer the question to the Supreme Court,” declared the Attorney General.
An argument which does not seem to have convinced Judge Weitzman.
“It is your right, but for the moment, I am not in a situation of a provisional interlocutory judgment. We have a clear judgment,” she said, referring to the fact that the Court of Appeal decision, rendered after three months of deliberation, was a detailed and unanimous judgment of some 60 pages. And which, moreover, largely confirmed another very well-founded judgment, that of the Superior Court.
The issue has political dimensions. On the one hand because it concerns refugees and immigration, an area where Quebec and Ottawa are at loggerheads. On the other hand, because Prime Minister François Legault personally attacked the judges who made this decision, accusing them of having been “appointed by the federal government”1.
The Court of Appeal reserved the case. His decision is expected in the coming days.
1. Read the column “François Legault and the “federal judges””