Finally, the federal government has decided to reinstate the visa requirement for Mexican travelers. As usual, this decision comes too late, when the damage has already been done. Indeed, the lifting of this requirement, decided at the start of the mandate by Justin Trudeau’s government, led to a massive arrival of asylum seekers in the country.
Since the closure of Roxham Road, thousands of people have flocked directly to Trudeau and Pearson airports. Quebec welcomes them as best it can, offering them last resort assistance (until the federal government agrees to grant them a work permit so that they can support themselves), sending the children to school and providing housing, despite the housing crisis.
Recently, several Quebec government ministers denounced the irresponsibility, inaction and passivity with which the Trudeau government is managing this crisis. They reiterated a request made many times: reinstate the visa requirement for Mexicans in order to control the influx of asylum seekers.
- Listen to the political meeting with Yasmine Abdelfadel and Marc-André Leclerc via QUB :
These criticisms prompted Minister Miller to publicly refute Quebec’s statements, even questioning the facts put forward and the figures presented.
However, can we not consider that the reinstatement of visas is testimony to the fact that the speaking of our ministers has had an impact? Wasn’t it timely, reasonable and thoughtful? Are the proposals expressed not feasible and necessary given the situation?
Yes, definitely.
It appears that only a public call for action can spur the federal government into action. We saw it for Roxham, and we’re seeing it now for visas.
ARCHIVE PHOTO, QMI AGENCY
Now that the visa issue is resolved, what about reparations? Quebec is demanding reimbursement for the extraordinary expenses it had to incur to compensate for federal irresponsibility: in education, health, housing, francization and last resort assistance.
How many press conferences, tweets, official declarations will it take for the check to be sent and for the federal government to financially assume the consequences of its deliberate choice to welcome so many asylum seekers? The financial cost will always be infinitely less than the political cost of this negligence.