You guessed it, the title of this post is a nod to the organization Mères au front, whose commitment I deeply admire. Like the mothers and grandmothers involved in this movement, I recognize the obvious links between health and the environment. I embrace several objectives promoted by this group: greening our communities, promoting sustainable mobility and protecting biodiversity to bequeath to our children a world that is as beautiful as it is healthy.
I also support the requests made to the various levels of government to impose better air, water and soil quality standards. In short, I share with the standard-bearers of the squared green heart the desire to do useful work on the primordial front of the environment.
Recently, my city emulated the inspiring approach of the mayor of Quebec, Bruno Marchand: a chair decorated by young students now sits at the heart of our caucus room. Some will consider this gesture to be futile or frivolous. This chair has the power to extricate anyone from the trap of short-sightedness that lies in wait for politicians. This symbolic presence reminds us of the importance of considering the impact that our decisions will have on future generations.
When, during a moment of calm during a session, my gaze meets this chair, the incoercible desire to go up to the front invades me.
Or rather, to rise to the fronts.
Although the environmental issue is essential, the fact remains that several social issues threaten our children and also deserve our urgent attention.
The exercise of power reveals to any elected official that the solutions often turn out to be more complex and less accessible than one suspects. Managing government finances and resources is a zero-sum game. Struggling with infinite needs and circumscribed abilities, the elect cannot work magic.
Low cost, big impact
However, some decisions escape this logic. We see it: some political gestures of a purely regulatory nature and which entail little or no cost nevertheless have notorious impacts. The CAQ has demonstrated this to us brilliantly by adopting, one after the other, a regulation restricting access to the labor market for children as well as a regulation prohibiting the flavors of female vapers.
Unfortunately, a missed opportunity to frame the cell phone at school adds a shadow to this picture1.
The teachers subscribe to this idea in a resounding majority. Most parents welcome this regulation that other jurisdictions have adopted. With one word, the three oppositions have agreed on the subject and the data is accumulating to corroborate the harmful impact of cellphones. The burden of proof therefore rests with the government, whose refusal seems incomprehensible in the circumstances. Hopefully there will be a sequel to this story.
In the same vein, the series of articles by The Press on pornography highlights another overlooked issue. On pain of appearing retrograde, few dare to broach this taboo subject. However, it is time to seriously question ourselves: what is progressive about leaving the sex education of our young people in the hands of algorithms that lead them down a slippery slope of violence, gagging and others blurred lines ? As Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne argues2, whose work I salute in this case, adding an age restriction governing access to porn sites would be a good first step. In the medium term, we could also consider making access to pornographic material chargeable.
Complex challenges abound when it comes to children: declining physical and mental health, staff shortages in childcare centers and schools, outdated infrastructure… We don’t have the luxury of overlooking the easy wins.