An American in Québec: Marie-Blanche’s Grandson Comes Back Home
I don’t think I have any mistakes I am trying to leave behind by moving to Quebec and living in French. The idea came to me while I was working in Mauritania (2004-2006), where I used French as my principle language and became more and more interested in perfecting it, as I felt that it was useless to only speak enough French to “get by” as many say.
Then I got to thinking about how the French language was portrayed in the United States (and probably all over the world). It had always seemed to me that it was almost completely Euro-centric, as if France was all there was to La Francophonie. French was almost always associated with something far away and European, not American. I am North American and I’ve never really felt any attachement or pull to be French. However, using the French language adds to my identity as a North American. I want for the French language to be percieved as an American language just as much as Spanish and English are. There are smaller examples, such as the Antilles, Haiti, and Guyane, but Quebec is the biggest example of how French demonstrates itself as an American language. I want to be a part of that. I want to be North American, live in North America, and live/function in one of North America’s three languages.
People need to remember that French does not only belong to France. It is as American as English is; as Spanish is.
Manitoba was once a French-speaking province and many of those original French-speaking settlers eventually spread out accross the Prairies, in North Dakota and even Minnesota as evidenced by town names like Baudette, Roseau and Saint-Vincent. Is that part of your heritage? Is this why you got interested in French-speaking North America?
Yes, it is part of my heritage, but I only found all of that out in the last few years. My maternal grandmother was from a farm in North Dakota, had 15 brothers and sisters, was very devoutly Catholic, and grew up speaking French as a little girl. I began studying French again in 2001 after some travels and in 2002, when she was on her deathbed, my aunts casually mentioned that Grandma used to say her prayers in French. So I asked her, in French, when she could barely talk and was days away from her death, if she spoke French. She barely got out a “oui.”
I realize a lot of the towns around where I grew up and in Minnesota/Wisconsin are of Québécois origin (Racine, Mille Lacs, St-Jean Baptiste . . .) but they are completely anglicized now and nobody even knows that they were once francophone. I like that there is a “patrie” in North America for French. And I want it keep it. That is why, much more so than any family heritage, that I want to move there. I feel the family heritage thing is over rated. People always run around talking about how they are Irish, but know absolutely nothing about Ireland. So it’s just a coincidence that my grandmother was francophone as a child. Growing up, I never heard her speak French. Now that I am older and have become more interested in all of this, it makes sense that her name was Marie-Blanche and her sisters had names like Georgette and Ernestine.
So now you’ve got your papers and you’re moving to Montreal. You get a nice little 3 1/2 (you’ll figure out what the 1/2 is once you get here…) and start looking for a job. As you go around speaking French with an American accent you notice people switch over to English to speak to you, even when you insist on speaking French. More likely than not, given your background, you get a job that involves speaking a lot of English. No matter how much you insist on living in French, Francos treat you as an Anglo and Anglos as a turncoat or collaborator. Have you truly considered how coming to Montreal to live in French is not as straightforward as moving to Paris or Brussels?
Yes, I have given this a lot of thought—that it is less straight forward to speak French in Montréal than in Paris or Brussels. This is a big problem in Montréal because, as of now, too many people think of it as a bilingual city and not a French speaking city. That confuses the hell out of a lot of people who go there, as they don’t know which language to speak and get different reactions from different people. And because a lot of people like to stress how bilingual Montréal is, many go there thinking that English is enough.
In my experience, I found that in my earlier days of learning French, whenever I had gone to Montréal, I had a hard time speaking with people and improving because so few of them forced me to speak French and did that damn switch. So, in all honesty, to a novice French speaker, Montréal is not the best place to go—as wrong as I believe that to be. Why shouldn’t North America’s francophone metropolis be an ideal place to learn French? I hope that changes in the coming years.
What I found the last time I was in Montreal (in 2007), and this was after I had a good to excellent command of the French language, after living for two years in francophone West Africa, people were more willing to speak to me in French.
I suspected that I would probably be using English a lot in my work, expecially in the first few years. Professionally, I am a technical writer and that will most likely be the career path I will follow in Montréal, and while I am comfortable writing and reading in French, I don’t think that profession is usually done unless the person is native or excellent.
Of course I would prefer to do it all in French, that’s why I am going there, but that may not be the reality and I have to earn my living. So, in a way, I will compromise a little, at least in the beginning, about language at work. I don’t know if I’ll have the right as an outsider to be insisting on French if the work language is a mix or even predominately English. When I am more established in Québec, I will be more adamant and belligerent about the predominance of the French language in my work.
So I may find myself confronted by that sort of thing, but ultimately, I think that I will integrate well, because I am comfortable, willing, able, and wanting to use French in Québec, where I think many others are not. I know that I am in the minority, but for me, Thomas Dean Nordlum, I think I’ll have an easier time than other Anglophones who are less passionate about this.
So anyway welcome to Québec and let’s hope you find fame and fortune here. But before we go, there’s a question I know is on everyone’s mind: Do you support Québec’s independence?
I am a little apprehensive about writing my opinion that will be published on your site because I am in the process of applying for my Permanent Residence and maybe they do background checks on the internet and find this and think “whoa!!! He’s going to try to break up the federation!” Or am I being too paranoid?
My reasons for why I do are very much the same as yours. More control over the educational system, immigration, international recognition as a francophone state and not “that french part in an Anglophone Canada,” etc. I would say that Quebec sovereignty is the best way to protect the French language here in North America and allow it to continue to thrive.
Some might argue that what I am saying is all very tra-la-la and gradiose, but the bottom line is money. I am not an economist, so I cannot, at this point, cite hard facts that would support an argument that Quebec would NOT collapse economically if they separated. But why should they? Other countries with smaller populations do well. Why can’t Quebec? I know these are not facts, just impressions, but I don’t believe sovereignty would be the end of the world economically for Quebec.
I’ve been wondering a lot about identity. I haven’t come to any conclusions. A friend of mine told me that maybe I am attracted to places that have a general air of protecting their way or life/culture/language/whatever you want to call it.
Peut-être je trouverai ma place et identité en tant qu’américain la-bas?
Nice retort, Rory :-)
Jasmin, for all I’ve said above and beyond regarding Canada, even I wouldn’t agree with your statement.
First off, you have to judge people by who they are : not where they come from. And I wouldn’t make Thomas a representative of all of America’s culture.
But especially, I believe it’s a profound mistake to make broad, general statements about any people, claiming that any group is morally superior to another.
Raman
November 12, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Raman:
> Any survey of cultural attitudes throughout the World will show that
> peoples always describe who they are in great part by comparing themselves
> positively to their neighbors, regardless of whether what they think
> of the latter is founded or not.
> I personally believe that Canada is not exempt of that : especially since
> it has been in full “nation building” mode, roughly since WWI.
> I also think that Canadian nation building is done, in its “negative”
> aspects, mostly in opposition to Americans and the Québécois.
> Regarding us, the ROC entertains a convenient paradigm in which Quebec
> is depicted as everything Canada likes to think it is not.
> -For example, no matter if violent racism is much more present in Toronto
> and Vancouver than it is in Montreal, people from the ROC can always
> comfort themselves in thinking that racism is only inherent to Quebec
> culture.
Interesting comment, Raman. I’ve wondered at some point if the reason why English Canadians are still overwhelmingly in favour of Canadian unity even though they seem to distrust Quebec is because Quebec is a convenient scapegoat for Canada’s failures, but I didn’t feel it made much sense. But what you’re doing here, placing this as a part of the same nation-building process every other nation (including Quebec) undergoes makes much more sense. There’s no denying that English Canadians define their identity in large part in opposition to Americans’. They also define their regional identity in opposition to the other Canadian regional identities, and Quebec, as an obvious “distinct society”, is a target for this. This can explain Canadians’ distrust both of the US and of Quebec.
Now, of course, francophone Quebecers also define their identity in opposition to English Canada (mostly) and also to the US second and to France third. So my question would be, why is Quebec’s attitude toward English Canada different from English Canada’s attitude toward Quebec? It clearly is; this is what we’re discussing here. While Quebecers may be critical of English Canadian influence in Quebec, they don’t have any interest in trying to criticize the way English Canadians govern themselves.
ABP:
> Acajack, please, you cannot be serious in telling that the whole purpose
> of ROC media critcizing Quebec is to make it lose its confidence. If that
> is the purpose, would they not have seen by now that it is not working?
I’ve said earlier that traditionally, francophone Quebecers considered themselves inferior to their anglophone neighbours and to other world nations, notably the French. Sure, it’s not as bad as it used to be, but I think that even today we’re not as confident in our possibilities as you apparently think we are.
Note: I do not believe criticism of Quebec is consciously intended to make Quebecers lose confidence in themselves and “stay in their place”. However, it could have this effect.
Acajack:
> These are the people who hold up something like Hérouxville (though
> not pretty, it was admittedly relatively innocuous)
The Hérouxville affair was indeed quite innocuous, especially compared to what we see in many other Western countries. Not to mention that I think it told us less about Quebec and more about the changing times in the Western world in general. While the authors of the Hérouxville code of conduct were careful never to say so directly, it’s obvious their intention was to send a message specifically about Islam. Why are they (and many people in all Western countries) afraid of Islam and Muslims? Because in a modern liberal society like Quebec, many find it disturbing to see an influx of immigrants arriving here holding less liberal values, especially regarding the equality of men and women and tolerance of criticism.
For example, a lot has been said, both in Quebec and in the rest of the Western world, about the Muslim custom of women wearing head coverings. (By the way, it was “banned” by Hérouxville.) The opposition to this custom comes down to one argument: it’s a sexist practice, and in many (most?) cases the women don’t have the choice to wear it or not since their husband/father/brother makes them do it. Honestly, I think that’s a pretty liberal and un-racist reason to oppose this custom, even though it’s been spinned as bigotry.
The solution to this problem is twofold: first, integrate our immigrants to our values (I think we’re doing a relatively decent job at this), and second, educate our citizens to the diversity of the world. For example, in the head covering example, it’s worth knowing that many Muslim women wear it by choice, as a reminder of their covenant with God, and not by fear. This should be one of the main goals of the new religious education classes that have been introduced in Quebec schools. So if I may tie this to the current Quebec election, I think Mario Dumont is a damn fool to oppose these classes without reservation. They are the solution, not the problem. We may debate how we should teach our children about religion, what we should teach them, what place we should reserve to Quebec’s Catholic heritage, but not teaching them about world religions at all? That’s ridiculous.
If I’m allowed this hijack, seriously, what’s wrong with Mario Dumont? A few years ago (three and a half to be more precise), in an Internet discussion, I suggested his name as a possible future federal Conservative leader to someone who thought Stephen Harper wouldn’t be able to make gains in Quebec and the Conservatives should select a new leader from Quebec. I thought he was a very interesting moderate conservative (fiscally and socially) politician; my only worry was that his support for the Yes side in the 1995 referendum would cost him votes in English Canada. Today I wouldn’t vote for him as dogcatcher. Christmas trees? Gimme a break. His party’s been given a excellent chance by the voters last year and they haven’t done squat. How long until the neoliberal/libertarian wing of the ADQ force him out?
Marc
November 13, 2008 at 2:31 am
“ACJ, reads a lot of newspapers from his admission..Hmmm…perhaps he is working for CSIS or perhaps another independent intelligence agency? Just a thought! :) Your comment ACJ, is always interesting and draws comments for sure.”
Media coverage analysis work is not always as interesting as it might seem at first glance.
Anyway, I don’t think this is blog should be about speculating how I earn my living, so… this message will self-destruct in 30 seconds!
Acajack
November 13, 2008 at 9:06 am
“But what you’re doing here, placing this as a part of the same nation-building process every other nation (including Quebec) undergoes makes much more sense. There’s no denying that English Canadians define their identity in large part in opposition to Americans’. They also define their regional identity in opposition to the other Canadian regional identities, and Quebec, as an obvious “distinct society”, is a target for this. This can explain Canadians’ distrust both of the US and of Quebec.”
I have noticed all of this as well. As accurately pointed out, all peoples do this. But the phenomenon is quite a bit more intense in English-speaking Canada than elsewhere in the world because of the extremely high level of cultural commonality that is shared with the American juggernaut, which almost always overshadows anything that is uniquely Canadian.
We see this quite clearly in the hugely popular I Am Canadian ads from Molson that I referred to in another thread, or in TV shows (on the CBC no less) like Rick Mercer’s Talking to Americans, where the goal of the show is actually to make Americans look stupid by asking them banal questions about Canada. Totally lost on the producers of the show is the fact that one could evidently produce this type of show right here in Canada, ask passersby in Calgary and Toronto questions about, say, Quebec culture (or even Newfoundland culture), and make Albertans and Ontarians look like total morons in the process.
Regarding the overarching Canadian identity (of which many francophones are a part, BTW), because of its lack of cultural cohesion, it also has a tendency to refer to basic human qualities found in all peoples of humanity as if they were defining characteristics unique to Canada. For example, when Jean Chrétien was PM he was interviewed for Good Morning America, and in talking about Canada compared to the U.S., he answered: “you know, there-there, Canadians are much more compassionate than Americans. This is a more caring society… blablabla”. How insulting is that? Who is he to say that Americans aren’t compassionate and caring, especially when the average charitable donation in the U.S. is way higher than it is in Canada!
Acajack
November 13, 2008 at 9:25 am
“Who is he to say that Americans aren’t compassionate and caring, especially when the average charitable donation in the U.S. is way higher than it is in Canada!”
I am not sure about this comparison. While true, you also have to factor in the difference in the amount of taxes paid in the 2 countries. If we assume that in a democracy, government policy somewhat reflects the will of the electorate, then the fact that we have a more generous social/health programs means that some of our “charitable donations” are paid through taxes and some through private donations.
AM
November 13, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“…les américains sont plus tolérants que les Canadiens”
Not sure about this, at least when it comes to language. Many a Spanish speaker here, notably, has been told things like, “#%$&@ speak English!! This is America!” Except for newcomers and their kids, the US is basically monolingual.
Even though Spanish is the second language that is most taught in this country, non-Hispanics who can get by in that language here are pretty rare. Hispanics have told me that many Americans who claim to speak Spanish as a second language cannot do so comprehensibly.
I know that francos both inside and outside Québec say the same sorts of things about Canadian anglos’ command of French.
littlerob
November 13, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“I am not sure about this comparison. While true, you also have to factor in the difference in the amount of taxes paid in the 2 countries. If we assume that in a democracy, government policy somewhat reflects the will of the electorate, then the fact that we have a more generous social/health programs means that some of our “charitable donations” are paid through taxes and some through private donations.”
I knew I was going to get an answer on this, so check this out:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-Fraser-Institute-804008.html
“The average U.S. donation was $4,388 US, almost four times more than the average donation in Canada ($1,345 Cdn.).”
The report doesn’t deal with the taxation issue, but if you do a little bit of searching, you will find that low taxes don’t always bring equal donations.
Both Alberta and Wyoming are low-tax jurisdictions in the respective countries, but Top-ranked Wyoming recorded an average charitable donation of $10,066 US, more than five times the average in Alberta ($1,836 Cdn.), Canada’s top-ranked province. Even in Rhode Island, the lowest ranked U.S. state, the average donation ($2,594 US) is nearly $750 more than the average donation in Alberta. (quote)
However, Manitoba is one of the higher taxed provinces in Canada, yet its people donate the most often (though in lesser $ amounts than Albertans). North Dakota is one of the low-tax states, yet people there give less often than almost any other other states. Utah, considered to be a high-tax state, is actually the most generous state in the union.
Comparing income tax rates is of course excruciatingly difficult, but to suggest that Americans pay so little tax that they can afford to make these generous donations is not true. Income tax rates in Alberta, BC and Ontario are comparable to that of many American states and depending on your personal situation may actually be lower than in lots of places stateside.
On the whole, though, Americans are much more likely to make donations, in larger amounts than Canadians are, a situation that can’t just be because of the gap in taxation levels.
Anecdotally, anyone who has spent any significant amount of time with Americans knows that charitable donations, volunteering, etc. are a much bigger part of the culture there than they are in Canada.
Acajack
November 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Marc re Mario Dumont
I guess bringing up the identity issue a second time around is not doing the trick. It’s too bad the ADQ could not make a mark as a credible alternative to the PQ and PLQ. I really liked the fact that they brought up issues that are not usually discussed in Quebec politics. I thought that was very good for the political discourse in the province because the PQ and PLQ govern in a very similar way (I had much hope for Charest in 2003 when he wanted to push through some reforms, but he backed down in the face of protests and has not really tried anything since). It is too bad if the ADQ fades away and we go back to politics as usual, but right now, the ADQ is not providing much credibility.
AM
November 13, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Pour AGF, voir `LE QUEBEC, PARADIS FISCAL POUR LES FAMILLES, La Presse 6 nov 2008 par francis Vailles:
C’est la fin du mythe qu’on est les plus taxes en amerique du nord….
midnightjack
November 13, 2008 at 4:48 pm
As long the americans don’t want to pay a penny for social programs, they need to give charitable donations in order to avoid anarchy and death: and also
they probably, for the religious ones, think than god
will give them a receipt..
midnightjack
November 13, 2008 at 7:51 pm
“think than god
will give them a receipt..”
Not really, they have a social concience which is one of benevolence as the figures suggest. In Canada it is forced by taxes. So then, which is the better system…voluntary out of good nature and concern for others or enforced as in this country through a system of taxation. At least they get a choice of cause they wish to place their charitable donation.
ABP
ABP
November 13, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I agree with you and i don’t blame them: it is just a society choice..
midnightjack
November 13, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Also, the services available are different depending the state. In Vermont, for example, it seems there is a healthcare program for children.
midnightjack
November 13, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Bonjour littlerob,
“I know that francos both inside and outside Québec say the same sorts of things about Canadian anglos’ command of French.”
Je m’exuse littlerob, mais il y a plusieurs anglophones qui sont bilingue et qui sont capables de leur exprimer en français dans un manière compréhensible. Je suis anglophone et quand je m’exprime en français tout le monde me comprends.
AQ
November 13, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Je ne sais pas avec ca (vermont).mais..je penser ca le amerique gens sont tres bien avec leur generousite. C’est le possible plus a nous.
ABP
ABP
November 14, 2008 at 12:20 am
AQ–Vous avez raison. Il y a des tas d’anglos qui s’expriment tres bien en français dans l’Amerique du nord, surtout au Québec. Ce que j’ai ecrit, c’est seulement qu’il y a des francos qui *disent* qu’il y a des anglos qui pretendent pouvoir parler français, mais qui ne peuvent que baragouiner la langue. Voir par exemple les commentaires d’Antonio, ou bien de Tym Machine, sur les autres billets de cette blogue.
Moi, quand je parle français, tout le monde me comprend aussi. Mais, je suis loin d’avoir maitrisé la langue! Dans mes commentaires en français ici, vous verrez des fautes de grammaire, des genres incorrects, etc. Je suppose qu’on me considerait “bilingue” au Québec, mais je ne le suis pas parfaitement, c’est sur.
littlerob
November 14, 2008 at 6:01 am
“Last I checked Canada is an English country”
Oh, wow, you must be stuck in pre-1969. The Official Languages Act made Canada officially bilingual in English and French. To say Canada is an English country would be like saying Sri Lanka is a Tamil country.
P.S. I put appropriate accents on Montreal and Quebec when I can (obviously my keyboard isn’t cooperating at the moment, but it does on word, so if I’m doing something there). And I NEVER say “kwee-beck” or “kwuh-beck. Ever. Bet you’ll never guess where I’m from.
BC
November 15, 2008 at 2:19 am
“Bet you’ll never guess where I’m from.”
I’m gonna go with Colombie-Britannique?
RoryBellows
November 15, 2008 at 7:45 am
“Oh, wow, you must be stuck in pre-1969. The Official Languages Act made Canada officially bilingual in English and French.”
Yeah, right! Alberta is a very bilingual society and in USA everybody can become President….
You mix facts with wishfull thinking.
Kriss
November 15, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Is anyone here familiar with the work of a writer called Richard Joy who used the term “bilingual belt” to describe the areas of northern and eastern Ontario, southwest Québec, and northern and eastern NB that are genuinely bilingual–i.e. where French and English both coexist and thrive and where many people speak both languages? Mr. Joy’s argument seems to be that French is in trouble in the anglophone areas outside the “belt” and that English is disappearing in Québec except for Montréal and the areas near the riviere des Outaouais.
littlerob
November 16, 2008 at 8:14 am
“Is anyone here familiar with the work of a writer called Richard Joy who used the term “bilingual belt” to describe the areas of northern and eastern Ontario, southwest Québec, and northern and eastern NB that are genuinely bilingual–i.e. where French and English both coexist and thrive and where many people speak both languages? Mr. Joy’s argument seems to be that French is in trouble in the anglophone areas outside the “belt” and that English is disappearing in Québec except for Montréal and the areas near the riviere des Outaouais.”
I read Richard Joy’s book Languages in Conflict a few years ago. It was written in the 60s but is still relevant today some 40 years later, though it is very difficult to find.
Acajack
November 16, 2008 at 10:45 pm
“Regarding the overarching Canadian identity (of which many francophones are a part, BTW), because of its lack of cultural cohesion, it also has a tendency to refer to basic human qualities found in all peoples of humanity as if they were defining characteristics unique to Canada.”
Interesting article in the National Post today on this very topic:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=965911
Opening line: “Canadians like to think of themselves as more progressive and enlightened than our American neighbours when it comes to the issue of race.”
Acajack
November 17, 2008 at 10:34 am
“As we have written before in this space, Canada has become probably the least racist country in the entire world. Indeed, our laws, disciplinary codes, employee-training programs and classroom teaching materials betray what can only be called an obsession with anti-racism. “…
Wow. That explains all the wealthy and powerful minority business leaders and cabinet ministers in Canada.
This reminds me of the night I went to watch the Sound and lights show on Parliament Hill in Ottawa with a group of German tourists.
After 45 minutes of the grandiose ode to Canada as the greatest country in the history of civilization, they just looked at me with genuine unease and one girl said: “If we tried to show something as nationalistic as this in Germany NATO would be occupying us all over again within 24 hours…”
angryfrenchguy
November 17, 2008 at 11:19 am
If you think than Canada is so open, just read the national post once a week, and be back on earth.
midnightjack
November 17, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“If you think than Canada is so open, just read the national post once a week, and be back on earth.”
Well, it actually was pretty open to me. I came to Canada not speaking a word of English and French, but was able to get the same kind of education and opportunities for work as everybody else. And to top it all off, despite my accent and funny name, most people do accept me as Canadian.
Now I realize that not everyone has the same opportunity as me. Many visible minorities have a much tougher time. But if you compare Canada to most other Western countries (esp. Europe), this place provides a lot more opportunity to the poor, to immigrants and minorities.
AM
November 17, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Thomas: As an American who studies at Concordia University and has been living in Montreal for over three years, I think you’ll find Quebec and Montreal a good place to learn about different cultures and so on. I think you’ll do fine since you’re willing to adapt yourself to be like “the Romans in Rome”.
However, against what AFG has said, I generally get addressed in French when I speak French and it only happens occassionally that I get a person switching to English when I don’t request it. I don’t blame them though. I feel very confortable reading and writing in French as much as in English, but I still speak and listen to it like five year old. It’s improving very slowly… -_-
The reason I prefer Quebec over France because it’s so-so North American and I identify myself better here on my own continent than in Europe. So I feel the same.
RoryBellows: “#
Really? Perhaps we can discuss that theory over a plate of freedom fries.”
I prefer that we do it over a plate of poutine.
JF
November 17, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“Well, it actually was pretty open to me. I came to Canada not speaking a word of English and French, but was able to get the same kind of education and opportunities for work as everybody else. And to top it all off, despite my accent and funny name, most people do accept me as Canadian.
Now I realize that not everyone has the same opportunity as me. Many visible minorities have a much tougher time. But if you compare Canada to most other Western countries (esp. Europe), this place provides a lot more opportunity to the poor, to immigrants and minorities.”
Although there is racism in Camada just like everywhere else (it is an unfortunate trait of some humans no matter where you go in the world) I would tend to agree with AM that Canada is one of the really good places in the world to immigrate to. When he became a Canadian citizen, Rwandan-born singer Corneille, now based in Quebec, said Canada was “the crème de la crème of the Western world”.
However, for the peoples who were already here before the country now known as Canada came into existence, like francophones (perhaps not so much in the past few decades) and aboriginals (still very true today), Canada hasn’t always offered a “crème de la crème” existence.
Acajack
November 18, 2008 at 9:23 am
Wow, this inteview was 9.5/10 on a suckup scale. I trust Mr Nordlum shall do well in Quebec.
FrankD.
November 18, 2008 at 11:26 am
What is “sucking up” about wanting to live harmoniously in your new home?
Acajack
November 19, 2008 at 10:25 am
There are only four bilingual regions in Canada, defined by the federal government of Canada for the purpose of language of work in federal institutions. Those regions are: western townships of Quebec, eastern townships of Ontario), New Brunswick and a part of Manitoba.
How come Canada be called a bilingual country, if the Province of Quebec is unilingual French? English is outlawed by its provincial government, which operates solely and entirely in French and forbids francophone children to attend English schools.
Lisa A.
May 11, 2009 at 4:58 pm