Der Oberste Gerichtshof entscheidet, dass der Ausschluss von Asylsuchenden in subventionierten Kindertagesstätten in Quebec diskriminierend ist
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-asylum-seekers-subsidized-daycare-ruling-9.7117175
Der Oberste Gerichtshof entscheidet, dass der Ausschluss von Asylsuchenden in subventionierten Kindertagesstätten in Quebec diskriminierend ist
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-asylum-seekers-subsidized-daycare-ruling-9.7117175
6 Kommentare
Canadians want asylum seekers to work. This is reasonable. Asylum seekers have young kids, and may have to choose between working or staying home to look after the kids. Giving them options to have access to childcare ensures they can work and contribute to Canadian society, not just straining our social safety nets that they’re often criticized for.
Subsidized childcare is a great idea that benefits Canadian families. It is not perfect. We need to adequately fund it and expand it, as well as get provincial premiers to pay their fair share. But keeping asylum seekers out of it just creates more problems than it solves.
> The Quebec government had challenged two previous court rulings in the woman’s favour, arguing the province’s daycare system does not have the capacity to accommodate so many asylum seekers as there are already lengthy waitlists to get in.
Why did they try such a pointless argument? Capacity has never been a reason to deny a right. It may be a reason why people have less ability to exercise their rights, but it’s never been a legal argument against granting them.
> It argued the service should be reserved for those with a deeper connection to the province.
That sounds like a more plausible justification. It’s one I totally disagree with, as someone claiming asylum is looking for that deeper connection, but has more merit in my mind than the lack of capacity.
Bottom line, universal programs are universal to people residing in the jurisdiction granting that program.
Just wanna point out Quebec has had to take care of 80% of asylum seekers for thw whole country, and has demanded the federal government spread them across the country more fairly as this causes a very big strain on public services. The federal ignores this demand and keeps piling people.
I get that capacity isn’t a valid argument according to the Court, but in practice we can all understand that it is an argument. And I hope the federal government does its part because this is mathematically unfair to Quebecois tax payers.
Of note, Wagner CJ, in his concurring opinion, would have recognized asylum claimant status as an analogue ground and found the regulation to be in breach of it and sex.
The majority rejected the section 1 claim at the rational connection stage, and did not analyse the two further steps. Justices Rowe and Wagner would have found rational connection but rejected it at the proportionality stage.
Justice Cote would have allowed the appeal.
“Canada’s highest court says all refugee claimants who are parents should have access to the subsidized daycare system — work permit or not.” Huh? Why would parents who don’t have a work permit need subsidized childcare? If they can’t work, cant they watch their own children?
This decision will have huge ripple effects in a lot of areas.. the key idea is not limited to asylum seekers. This is essentially an expansion (or, at minimum, a strong reiteration) of the „substantive equality“ approach to s.15(1) that the court developed in *Fraser*. The reasoning here is a lot clearer than that in *Fraser* too.