His figures on language, just like his figures on immigration, are riddled with falsehoods that divide Quebecers for political and partisan reasons.
After asserting that French was seriously threatened, one would have thought that François Legault would rejoice at the good news contained in a report from the Office québécois de la langue française: French is doing quite well!
Instead of being happy, he, by primary reflex, looked for another Bonhomme Sept Heures among “the others”.
Fearing losing the upper hand in his contest of identity intolerance with the Parti Québécois, Legault instead pulled an old, shriveled rabbit out of his hat: “ah… but we must continue to be afraid of temporary immigrants.”
An “explosion” controlled by Quebec
Legault even brought out the “threat” of a referendum on the subject of immigration, because, he said, the federal government has allowed the number of temporary immigrants to explode to 560,000.
Do you want to know what I’m thinking? It’s just a bluff.
Indeed, Legault would seem crazy and that is why there will never be a referendum on temporary immigration.
He fails to mention that, since the agreement signed between Mulroney and Bourassa in 1991, Quebec has had the last word on temporary foreign workers.
Those who pick the crops on our market gardens and help operate our factories are chosen by Quebec.
This is the case for several other categories of temporary immigrants. What is he complaining about, then? Refugees?
In 2023, 79% of asylum applications heard by the court were granted.
What would Legault do with the United Nations convention which is its basis? Tear it?
Why remove rights?
It’s not just Legault who played the old game of duplessism this week. For five years, Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause to withdraw rights from certain religious minorities.
Nowhere else in North America exist the kind of restrictions found in Bill 21.
The study by the National Assembly of the renewal or not of this clause should be an opportunity to debate it.
When the League of Rights and Freedoms expressed its opinion that Bill 21 is notably “sexist and discriminatory”, Minister Roberge played theater by refusing to discuss with this respected organization.
However, there is an entire chapter of Law 21 which can only apply to Muslim women. So it’s sexist.
There are also provisions which prohibit, for example, a Sikh who wears a turban from becoming a police officer in Quebec, even though this is not a problem anywhere else in Canada. It is therefore discriminatory.
Minister Roberge railed that the opinion of this organization constituted an insult to the Quebec state.
His refusal to debate when he doesn’t like an opinion is a real shame for the CAQ and a clear attack on freedom of expression here.