Nothing. What a void.
Posted at 12:00 p.m.
Not a single word, not a single hint, not a single thought about the abuse of our children. Nothing of nothing in the four hours that will have lasted the electoral debates. As if the little girl from Granby had never existed, hadn’t died at the hands of adults on whom she was entirely dependent in an unspeakable mess of the system whose mission was to protect her. As if April 29, 2019 had been erased from the calendar and from our collective memory.
The candidates and the organizers and animators of these pivotal democratic evenings have turned the page. Not a word about the fate reserved for thousands of vulnerable families left behind by bloodless prevention services. Not a word either on the impacts of this disastrous preventive emptiness on the well-being, development and safety of tens of thousands of Quebec children whose reports are withheld from youth protection. No reference, however small it might have been, to the recommendations of the Special Commission on the Rights of Children and Youth Protection (Laurent Commission), even though this commission affirmed that the mistreatment of our children should be considered a major public health issue.
A failing collective memory
The day after April 29, 2019, I said on Radio-Canada that there would be “a before and after Granby”. François Legault resumed the formula the same day. We felt in him, as in the population, a sincere enthusiasm and indignation as great as it was sad at the tragedy of this little girl. “Never again Granby”, we heard. Quebec was going to come out of its denial and give itself the means it needed!
Since then, the government has taken steps to ensure that children’s right to a healthy and safe life is better protected – by reforming the Youth Protection Act, creating the post of National Director of Youth Protection , by increasing financial support for community groups, in particular. But many questions remain with which it would have been imperative to confront the candidates.
Should Quebec recognize mistreatment as a priority public health issue? Accordingly, should it set a national target and measurable regional targets for reducing child maltreatment over a known time period?
Who among the regional and national actors should be held accountable for achieving these goals? Should the budget for prevention and local services for our vulnerable families be increased, and if so, by how much? How do the candidates plan to ensure quality prevention services offered according to standards known and respected by everyone, everywhere in Quebec? How can we better support interveners working in prevention and those working in youth protection? What should we do to avoid sinking into denial again and turning a blind eye until the next Granby?
Obviously there is more glamour than the distress of our children whose development and safety are compromised. The contrast between the time for debate reserved for the question of 3e link and a 6 or 4 lane tunnel and the total lack of time dedicated to the well-being of our most vulnerable children is telling. We are moles.