To use the Calendar, Javascript must be activated in your browser.
For more information

Home > News and Press Room > Press Conferences and Scrums > Point de presse de Mme Dominique Anglade, porte-parole de l’opposition officielle en matière d’immigration

Advanced search in the News and Press Room section

Start date must precede end date.

Point de presse de Mme Dominique Anglade, porte-parole de l’opposition officielle en matière d’immigration

Version finale

Wednesday, February 20, 2019, 13 h

Salle Bernard-Lalonde (1.131), hôtel du Parlement

(Treize heures cinq minutes)

Mme Anglade : Alors, si on se retrouve ici aujourd'hui, c'est qu'il y a environ deux semaines... en fait, il n'y a même pas deux semaines, le ministre de l'Immigration, M. Jolin-Barrette, a pris deux décisions. Il a fait le dépôt de son projet de loi sur l'immigration et, parallèlement à ça, il a pris une décision politique d'éliminer 18 000 dossiers dans le système de l'immigration, et qui affecte 50 000 personnes.

Dès le départ, on a vertement critiqué cette position, qu'on n'a pas jugée acceptable, et depuis, il y a eu des centaines de personnes qui se sont manifestées, qui sont affectées par les décisions qui émanent de cette décision politique du ministre Jolin-Barrette. Il y a eu des lettres ouvertes, il y a des experts qui se sont prononcés sur la question, il y  a eu des motions à l'Assemblée nationale, mais rien n'a fait changer le ministre Jolin-Barrette de sa décision. Il a maintenu sa décision tout le long.

Pire que ça, je pense que, lorsque l'on fait des politiques publiques, on se doit minimalement de maîtriser ses dossiers, et ce qu'on a constaté, au fil du temps, c'est qu'il y avait un manque total de maîtrise des chiffres qui conduisent ou qui sous-tendent la décision qui a été prise. Des exemples? Taux de rétention des immigrants, ils ne connaissaient pas les chiffres; taux de chômage sur les immigrants zéro-cinq ans, jusqu'à la semaine dernière, et le premier ministre et le ministre de l'Immigration utilisaient des mauvais chiffres; sur le nombre de dossiers qui affectaient des personnes qui étaient ici, au Québec, on a eu trois chiffres différents à l'intérieur d'une seule et même journée; puis, finalement, aujourd'hui, lorsqu'on demande au ministre combien de dossiers, qui étaient en inventaire en 2018, ont été traités par son propre ministère, il est incapable de répondre à ça. C'est son ministère, ce n'est pas le ministère d'une autre personne, c'est son ministère, et il est incapable de répondre à ça. Alors, encore une fois, je pense qu'il faut minimalement maîtriser ses dossiers pour pouvoir faire des politiques publiques et prendre de telles décisions.

Et aujourd'hui on est rendus avec une demande d'injonction, ce qui signifie que, vraisemblablement, on va se retrouver avec des dépenses, d'un point de vue légal, pour le gouvernement, et le gouvernement va devoir se défendre de ne pas faire le travail, en fait, qu'il est supposé faire. Alors, est-ce qu'on pense réellement que c'est normal de se retrouver dans cette situation-là? Ce que j'ai à dire, c'est que le ministre a la capacité d'agir. On lui demande d'avoir du coeur, on lui demande aussi d'avoir la volonté politique. On a démontré aujourd'hui que les chiffres... les 18 000 dossiers pourraient très bien être traités, il n'y a pas de raison de ne pas le faire. Alors, il a la capacité à agir, qu'il agisse. Je vais prendre vos questions.

Mme Prince (Véronique) : Est-ce que vous êtes étonnée de voir effectivement qu'il y a une poursuite qui est déposée alors que le projet de loi n'est pas encore adopté?

Mme Anglade : Il y a deux choses très différentes, hein? L'injonction qui est faite aujourd'hui, là, ce n'est pas sur le projet de loi lui-même, c'est sur la décision politique qui a été prise d'arrêter de traiter les 18 000 dossiers. Si on fait référence à ce que, par exemple, le gouvernement conservateur sous Stephen Harper avait fait, il avait attendu la fin de l'adoption de son projet de loi pour décider de supprimer les dossiers. Et, en passant, à l'époque de Stepen Harper, ce n'était pas l'ensemble des dossiers qui avait été éliminé, c'était une portion des dossiers qui avait été éliminée après le dépôt du projet de loi. Vous me demandez si je suis surprise. Quand on fait un travail aussi peu rigoureux, il ne faut pas s'étonner après que des choses comme ça se produisent.

Une voix : D'autres questions?

Mme Senay (Cathy) : Can I ask you in English about what's your reaction regarding this injunction that was tabled at the Court today?

Mme Anglade : So, the decision that was taken, the political decision that was made by Simon Jolin-Barrette not to consider the 18 000 files that are impacting 50 000 people was not well advised, was not a good decision and we said it right at the beginning, two weeks ago. And, over the course of the last weeks, we have realised that the minister doesn't master the information, doesn't master the numbers, whether it's the retention levels for immigrants, whether it is for… regarding the number of files that considered… that were dealt with in his Ministry last year. He didn't have any information about that.

So, I'm not surprised about the situation today because that's what happens when you're not structured enough, when you don't master your files, and when you don't know the numbers affecting your files, that's what happens. And, unfortunately, we are in this situation. The only thing that I would add is he has the ability to act. He can decide today that, you know, that this was not a good decision. We're going to go back and we're going to go through all those files in the old system. That's the logical thing to do from both a human perspective and from a logical perspective.

Mme Senay (Cathy) : What do you think about the reaction of Simon Jolin-Barrette and Premier Legault on this? They kept saying : Well, the bill has not been adopted yet. And do you have the impression that they are underestimating what it is?

Mme Anglade : Obviously, they are underestimating the situation. And their reaction today in the Chamber was not appropriate at all. And we're going to say it in French and then I'll switch to English. Mais le ministre Jolin-Barrette a dit que la décision était saugrenue. Vraiment? C'est comme ça qu'on… Il y a une injonction. Il y a eu beaucoup, beaucoup de manifestations qui ont eu lieu, que ce soit des lettres ouvertes, que ce soit des témoignages qui ont eu lieu dans les deux dernières semaines pour essayer de faire comprendre au ministre que sa décision politique n'était pas la bonne. Ça n'a rien à voir avec son projet de loi, en passant, rien à voir avec son projet de loi. Et là, il qualifie la demande d'injonction de saugrenue? Je me serais gardé une petite gêne après avoir aussi peu maîtrisé mes dossiers pendant les dernières semaines.

Mme Senay (Cathy) : You didn't like this use of words, this choice of…

Mme Anglade : I don't think it's about… You know what? When I've been Minister of Immigration, in his position, I would not have used this word. I think I would have taken the information and I would have realized that maybe the situation is bigger than what I anticipated or is more critical than I had anticipated.

Mme Senay (Cathy) : …the fact that they wanted to abolish… destroy those 18 000 pending files, it was explained in the bill, Bill n° 9.

Mme Anglade : It's two separate things. You have a bill that is suggesting the destruction of those files. But, at the same time, you're taking a political decision before the adoption to not go through those files. You're making the decision before the bill is even adopted. So, it's two different things. The reason why there's an injunction today, it's not because the bill was tabled. It's because he made the decision at the same time to not consider the files. Today, you have people in the Ministry of Immigration… I'm not sure what they're working on, but they're certainly not working on those files. And that's what's not acceptable. And that's why they have an injunction today.

Mme Fletcher (Raquel) : …there are a number of people who would… to differ that it's not acceptable. I'm wondering if you can comment on, because this speaks to a larger global debate that we are having right now about whether governments should… can decide who enters their borders, and under what circumstances, and under what criteria. So, if a government that is… you know, a majority government comes in and says : OK, well, these people who applied under this system, we don't want them anymore, we want only people who applied under this system, is that not their right to do that? Because that's the debate, right?

Mme Anglade : Yes, that's the political decision that he made, that we don't agree with, and that the judge is going to have to say something about. Like, I mean, I'm not a lawyer per se, now, we are in front of the Court, and the Court will have to decide whether it was acceptable or not, and they will have to make the decision on Friday.

Mme Fletcher (Raquel) : And that is going to have repercussions, maybe even globally, with this large debate that we are having about immigration.

Mme Anglade : Well, of course, but we want the debate around immigration to be constructive. We want the debate to be a positive one. But in order to do that, you need to talk about the same base, you need to have the same information, you need to use the right numbers. You cannot just say one thing and the opposite thing the next day. So, if we want to have the right debate, let's have it, but let's make sure that we all have the facts on the table in order to make those decisions. And right now, the Minister has demonstrated over the last few weeks that he doesn't master the information, he doesn't… like, every time you ask a question, he doesn't know the answer and he starts again with his tape, again, and again, and again. At some point in time, you need to answer those questions. And that's the situation we're in.

Mme Johnson (Maya) : Do you see this as a government that wants to deliver on it promises at all costs, regardless…

Mme Anglade : It's not a promise they made. The 18 000 files that they are not going to go through, it's not a promise that they've made.

Mme Johnson (Maya) : But they promised to reform the immigration system and to limit the number of immigrants coming into Québec.

Mme Anglade : Yes, but these are separate things, right? Because reforming immigration… First of all, the new system that they are talking about has been put in place under the Liberal Government, let's be very clear on that, and it has nothing to do with not going through the files of people from the old system. We're all in favor of changing the system from the old to the new, we're absolutely in favor of that. We actually made the change and proposed the new system. So, that's not what's at stake today. What's at stake is the fact that they are making a political decision that is not well advised and that obviously has repercussion on people, and they really underestimated the impact it had on the population in general.

Mme Johnson (Maya) : Would you be willing to speculate on the reasons that motivated what you're describing as a political decision, specifically as it relates to the 18 000 files?

Mme Anglade : Honestly, the more we go through this, the less I can speculate because, honestly, I don't understand why the Minister is just not saying : We will go through the files until the bill is adopted. I don't understand why, because it is the right thing to do from an economic perspective, from a human perspective, from a logical perspective, it is just the right thing to do. And he has the means. At the beginning, he said he didn't have the means, he didn't have… his Ministry could not go through 18 000 files. Well, today we have demonstrated that last year, during an electoral year, the Ministry was able to process 20 000 files. So, what is stopping him? It is just a lack of political will and an obsession with something that, honestly, I don't understand. I really don't.

Mme Fletcher (Raquel) : You mentioned that the government doesn't understand the file, that they are not informed. This morning, the Family Minister had a press conference and actually my colleague in the room here asked the Minister how much it was going to cost to bring in these childcare spaces and the Minister didn't have a ball park figure, didn't have a dollar figure. Is this a trend, do you think?

Mme Anglade : It's more than… well, yes, because when you have more than two, three, four points, you are starting to see a trend. And we have a lot of data showing that they… Je l'ai dit en français déjà : On fait des politiques publiques avec ce gouvernement-là sur un coin de table. Ils décident des affaires que... ce n'est pas ficelé, ils n'ont pas toutes les données pour le faire, et là, ils décident de faire des politiques publiques basées là-dessus. C'est ça qui n'est pas acceptable. C'est le manque de rigueur. C'est brouillon, la manière dont ils approchent les choses.

So, again, today, it is consistent with what we have seen with this government. They say something, but then the numbers are not right, they are challenged, then : OK, the numbers are not right? They change their position. We deserve more in terms of consistency from our government.

Merci.

(Fin à 13 h 17)

Participants


Document(s) Related