In Montreal French-speakers are still second class
In Montreal, the second largest French-speaking city of the world, French-speakers are still second class citizens.
Le Journal de Montréal, the city’s most read newspaper, sent out a reporter to look for a job in downtown Montreal with an English only resume and a single word of French: “Bonjour”. In 14 days, the reporter got 15 jobs.
In Montreal, speaking French is apparently not a job requirement. Not even for a customer service job.
That means that in Montreal, 62% of the population is apparently not entitled to services and information in it’s own language. Considering that Montreal is Québec’s economic and commercial core, it’s 85% of Quebecers who are still treated as foreigners in the heart of their metropolis.
When she asked what to do about customers who wanted service in French the reporter was told by one of her new employers not to worry about them and that they were ‘pains in the ass’. The French term was chiâleux.
In the 1970’s, Pierre Bourgault wrote in the magazine Point de Mire about being kicked out of a downtown Montreal disco for ordering his beer in French. The owner told him she didn’t want any politics in her establishment. “In Montreal, in 1970, it’s a political act to order a beer in French.”
Apparently it still is in 2008.
Of course they won’t kick you out of the store anymore. They might kick you out of an airplane, though.
Last march Jules Léger, president of the Acadian Federation of Nova Scotia, was refused on board of a Ottawa-bound flight in Halifax for demanding service in French and videotaping the carrier’s inability to provide it.
Air Canada is headquartered in Montreal and as a former crown corporation is required by law to provide services in both of Canada’s official languages. Air Canada openly ignores this obligation despite being the all time complaints champion Official Languages Commissioner office in Ottawa.
French-speakers are not only second class citizens’s in Montreal, they are also second class in their country’s capital, but that we already knew.
AngryFrenchGuy 
Allophone’s invocation of the Algonquin and Iroquois is intriguing…not so much because she points out that AngryFrenchGuy’s ancestors “massacred them with guns and diseases” but because whereever his ancestors landed on the shores of Quebec those many centuries ago, an aboriginal language was the majority language spoken.
And guess what?
Those aboriginal languages weren’t respected. The Europeans from France instead insisted upon speaking their minority language.
Tony Kondaks
February 4, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ah the Anglo joker. Anytime they’re stuck in a corner the Anglos will pull it out. “Anyway, you guys massacred the Indians, so…”
And What about the English, Spanish, Dutch, Ukrainian, Welsh, Scot, German settlers? “(…)aboriginal languages weren’t respected. The Europeans from France instead insisted upon speaking their minority language.” So it’s France’s fault that in 2008 99% of North America Natives are English-speaking??
And where is this argument supposed to lead anyway? “Your ancestors massacred the Indians, so…”
So what? So French-Canadians are lesser North Americans? Their culture does not deserve respect? The Spanish massacred the Aztecs so we don’t have to respect Mexican culture either? The Jews killed Jesus Christ so… are you sure you don’t want to change your answer?
For the record, I’ve never killed a Native American. I’m sure none of you have lynched a black slave or a Manitoba Metis recently either…
Unless of course you mean we should all abandon our European languages and teach our kids Mohawk and Innu?
It’s an idea. Still, I don’t remember Brent Tyler, Alliance Québec or any other so-called “language rights” activist fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to put their kids in Inuktitut or Cree schools…
angryfrenchguy
February 4, 2008 at 7:18 pm
The point, AngryFrenchGuy, is not that others didn’t respect aboriginal languages any more than your ancestors did but that you are demanding respect for your language now. What makes your language more special than any other language?
My point in bringing up aboriginal languages is that you seem to feel that French deserves special treatment because a majority speaks it; I tried to point out to you that other majority languages once existed in Quebec and yet that principle was not adhered to for those languages.
The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms lists “language” as a prohibited basis of discrimination. Thus, each individual is equal when it comes to the language that they speak.
Language is speech, which is part of freedom of expression and all individuals are guaranteed to freely choose the language they speak. And what two individuals speak together is freedom of association.
Yet you demand “respect” for your particular language when you go to a store simply on the basis of it being spoken by the majority of the population within the boundaries of the province of Quebec.
You write “So French-Canadians are lesser North Americans? Their culture does not deserve respect?”
The respect it deserves is that individuals should be free to speak it as equally as everyone else’s right to speak whatever language they want. Why do you feel your particular language should get special treatment when the law specifically says that no one gets special treatment based upon language?
Tony Kondaks
February 4, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Tony, Toni, Toné.
You’re lying to us. Worse, your lying to yourself.
1. Nothing in Québec’s language legislation limits the rights of citizens to use any language they want in any situation. It only establishes that French-speakers have a right to work, live and receive services in French.
Only the sign law forbade the use of other languages for commercial signs, but the French-only restriction was removed 15 years ago by those darn separatist.
2. If you truly believe what you just wrote. If you truly believe that all languages are absolutely equal and that no special treatment should be given to any language, then you would support my right to move to, say, Arizona, and to obtain a completely free taxpayer-financed public education in French for my children, wouldn’t you?
If English-speakers get public schools for their kids then there is no reason French-speakers, Spanish-speakers, Chinese and Arabic-speakers shouldn’t get theirs, right? No language gets special treatment, right?
And if you truly believed that and considered it a matter of principle, rights and democracy, then Québec, as the only State in North America to have, not one, but two government-funded, kindergarten-to-PhD language school systems would have to be considered the free-est, most advanced and most liberal place on the continent, wouldn’t it?
But then the world’s hypocrites would have to find someplace else to pick on…
angryfrenchguy
February 4, 2008 at 11:51 pm
1) I know you’re “angry, AngryFrenchGuy, but I don’t appreciate it when you write that I am “lying”. This is insulting to me.
If you disagree with something I say, fine, show me the errors of my ways through reasoned debate here on this forum, not by insulting me. If you truly believe I am lying, then SHOW me and your readers I am lying. Let us come to that conclusion by the facts, not by insulting me.
We can disagree yet still have reasoned debate.
2) AngryFrenchGuy wrote: “Nothing in Québec’s language legislation limits the rights of citizens to use any language they want in any situation. It only establishes that French-speakers have a right to work, live and receive services in French.”
If I have a corner store selling Coke and you have a “right”, as you say above, to receive service from me in French, then that would require me to use a language — French — that I may not want to use. So your so-called “right to work, live and receive services in French” infringes upon my right to speak any language that I want to speak in a situation. So, I disagree with you when you say that “nothing in Québec’s language legislation limits the rights of citizens to use any language they want in any situation” because it clearly does in the example that I give above.
The preamble to Bill 101 says quite clearly that the intention of the law is to “…make French the …the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business.” (see http://tinyurl.com/2jbrpn ) I believe this to be an incredibly injurious violation of human rights.
As for the French-only restriction on the language of commercial signs, you say that this was removed by “those darn separatist” (sic). If by “separatists” you mean the PQ, then this is incorrect. It was removed by the then Liberal government of Robert Bourassa. I believe it was Bill 86. And although I don’t have the voting tally from Bill 86 in front of me, if memory serves me correctly, the PQ members voted against the bill.
Of course, if you believe that Robert Bourassa and the Liberal Party of the day were, indeed, separatists, well that certainly is open to debate. Do you believe that they were separatists?
But the real story of Bill 86 is that the Liberals only amended Bill 101 because the United Nations Human Rights Commission had ruled against the sign law and Bourassa was embarrassed into changing it.
3) You wrote that I believe that “all languages are absolutely equal and that no special treatment should be given to any language”. But that is NOT what I wrote and certainly not what I believe. What I wrote was that INDIVIDUALS cannot be discriminated against on the basis of the language that they speak. That means that I have the right to use whatever language whereever I want to. That’s the law. Quebec law.
But we have something called “official languages” in Quebec and Canada. That means that ON THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES that those who receive those services have the right to receive them in the official language(s) of their choice. In Quebec, on the provincial level, the official language is French only, with certain exceptions for the English language, such as the right to use it in courts, the National Assembly, and to have schools in English.
Anything OUTSIDE of governmental services and the ruling criteria for what languages one may use are therefore governed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of association.
4) If you want to come to Arizona and open up a French school you have every right to do that…you just won’t get public funds for it.
Tony Kondaks
February 5, 2008 at 1:22 am
Angryfrenchguy, if you’re going to attack my reasoning, please read it through, I said:
“IF you want to follow that line of thought, you should probably return Quebec to the Algonquin and Iroquois your ancestors massacred with guns and diseases.”
And then I also discredited that argument much like you did by saying, immediately afterwards:
“But that kind of thinking never gets anyone anywhere, you should know that.”
I think you have continuously misunderstood my point throughout this exchange. I want the same thing that you do, to preserve the uniqueness that is Montreal and the Province of Quebec that I have come to love. Perhaps even more so because I am an immigrant and I can truly appreciate all that I have received here, and yes, I am grateful, and yes, I also pay taxes.
I tried to explain to you the point of view (not necessarily mine) of a fresh immigrant to whom French is complicated to learn and may seem unnecessary. Such an immigrant did not go to school here, has not experienced integration and cannot appreciate the input French culture has had into making this society so distinct. My point was that there are too many un-integrated immigrants and that they are a bigger threat to your cultural heritage than Anglophones, who, like it or not, are a part of your history and always will be.
Allophone
February 5, 2008 at 10:27 am
Mea culpa. Law 86 was voted by the Liberals. Although they initially promised to scrap it, the “separatists” upheld the right to put other languages on commercial signs along with French for the subsequent 8 or something years they were in power.
That said.
Lying:
“(…)individuals should be free to speak it as equally as everyone else’s right to speak whatever language they want. ”
“Language is speech, which is part of freedom of expression and all individuals are guaranteed to freely choose the language they speak. And what two individuals speak together is freedom of association.”
The insinuation, although you don’t have the balls to say it, is that Québec’s language laws dictate what languages individuals use with each other. It doesn’t do any of that. That’s a lie.
I understand your argument that government shouldn’t have anything to say at all about the language used in commerce and that pure free-market forces should apply. Francophones should demand service in French and refuse to patronize businesses unable to provide it. Many aren’t doing it and that is why French is declining in Montreal. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
With or without a legal recourse free-market forces are already at work.
I also thank you for a very good argument against any protection of Québec’s Anglophones right to trials, education and health care in English. Next time someone tells me he has a “right” to an English-language education I can just quote the great Tony Kondaks:
“Why do you feel your particular language should get special treatment when the law specifically says that no one gets special treatment based upon language?”
“(…)you are demanding respect for your language now. What makes your language more special than any other language?”
Peace
angryfrenchguy
February 5, 2008 at 11:32 am
Allophone.
I apologize and sincerely regret using the “why don’t you just go live somewhere else” line. I took the care to add that I didn’t actually mean it, which only made it more pointless to write it.
You kind of used the same device with your line about the Indians. Let’s call it even.
96% of the kids at my High School were born outside Canada so although I can’t say I shared their experience, I certainly became quite familiar with the difficulties they were experiencing.
One of the biggest difficulties they had was that they couldn’t understand why they were forced to go to French Schools when English seemed like a more universal and practical language.
One of the reasons they had that impression was the economic inequalities between Francophones and Anglophones and a Federal government that is required by law to grossly over-finance Anglophones institutions in order to maintain the illusion that Canada is a “bilingual” country where you freely choose French or English.
Think about it. If Montreal Anglos had, based on their demographic weight, only 20% of the radio stations, 20% of the TV stations, 20% of the Universities and CEGEPS, 20% of the Hospitals and clinics and owned only about 20% of the businesses, newcomers would feel there was anything unusual about having to learn French.
That is why I believe that the problem is not immigrants or Anglos and that the solution is not language laws.
It is only when Québec leaves the Canadian federation and is free to present itself to the world as it actually is: French-speaking multicultural country in North America, that Montreal will be able to properly attract and integrate immigrants interested in living in what is not, as you so justly said: “a boring, rolled-off-the-assembly-line North American city”.
Thanks for caring.
angryfrenchguy
February 5, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Angryfrenchguy,
I actually agree with you about separation. Had I been old enough to vote in ’95, I probably would not have been one of (Jacques Parizeau’s? I can’t remember who coined that memorable phrase) “maudits immigrants”. I probably would have voted yes because as you say, and my experiences in the rest of Canada confirm it, Quebec is a different place altogether. But mostly, I can’t for the life of me figure out why any country would want to forcibly keep a province against its will.
That said, I think that in terms of economic viability, a united Canada is more sustainable. It comes down to whether you vote with your heart or with your wallet, remember the first time around there was separation talk.
That would also suddenly put the shoe on the other foot in terms of who’s a minority in who’s country. Quebecers would be hypocritical to deny language rights to a minority in their country of origin. It’s a slippery slope to the Sovereign Nation of the West Island :)
Also, other than the obvious problem of the PQ’s current leader being a cokehead and alienating the party’s base, have you actually ever heard a coherent plan for what to do once said separation is obtained? The only thing keeping the PQ together is this idea of separation, they diverge wildly when it comes to social policy.
To be honest, I did take everyone’s advice and I did move to Florida to finish University, but that only makes me miss Montreal more, there really is no other city in the world like it…
Allophone
February 5, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I’m surprised someone as articulated and informed as you hasn’t heard. André Boisclair resigned a long time ago and Pauline Marois is the new PQ leader.
angryfrenchguy
February 5, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Oh, that is really good news, I am sorry, I have been out of the loop for a bit, as I said, I moved to Florida for school and so I’ve been keeping up with primaries and such. The mainstream media here hardly ever reports on Canada, let alone provincial politics.
I’m not being confrontational, I actually haven’t heard anything about what should happen after separation, should it occur. What kind of country would Quebec be, what is your vision?
I find it difficult to have conversations with separatists and understand their points of view because most of the time, they are rather angry and respond in slogans or stereotypical remarks (calling me racist, telling me to move somewhere else ;) ). I’m not saying that they have no reason to be angry, but it is often very difficult to get past the rhetoric and have a meaningful conversation.
This is another reason why assimilation is important, if you attack someone who has a loose grasp of a language as complex as French with angry statements about an unfamiliar history, that person instinctively goes towards the calmer side regardless of right and wrong. Also, most immigrants came to Canada to escape political instability and separation implies instability.
Allophone
February 5, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The independence movement is a vast coalition of very different people covering the entire political spectrum for the far left to the far right.
That’s one of the reasons it is not able to articulate a very coherent vision of what an independent Québec will be. Different people are hoping for a different country.
I know exactly the type of dogmatic people you mean. They’re on all sides, confusing countries with sport teams, ideology with reality and flags with peoples.
Personally the country I dream of is, in the words of Pierre Bourgault:
“I dream that Québec, free at last, would become the first country in the world to have no flag or national anthem. I dream of seeing our liberty itself serve as our standard and our fraternity our identification to the human race.”
angryfrenchguy
February 5, 2008 at 9:41 pm
You’re too idealistic. You need a serious reality check.
Anonymous
February 6, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I have to go with Anonymous here and although desirable in an ideal world, that outcome seems highly unlikely. I think autonomy within the federation is a more practical goal in a world where everything is merging and becoming bigger.
It is a beautiful dream though
Allophone
February 7, 2008 at 10:11 am
“I think autonomy within the federation is a more practical goal in a world where everything is merging and becoming bigger.”
I agree. I’m a fan what Europe is trying to do.
However I believe that the Canadian federation is not a good starting point. They’ve had 130 years to make us a deal and today 50% of the population still wants out.
We have to look much further than Manitoba and Saskatchewan towards Arizona and Mexico.
We have to consider different levels of integration for different countries the same way that in Europe some have the Euro, some don’t. The way that a Polish man can legally live and work his entire life Italy without it meaning that the Italian government has to make Polish an official language and build polish language schools for his kids.
An independent Québec would be in a good position to negotiate greater integration with ANY partner. Unlike other Canadians, most Quebecers would not spit on some sort of arrangement with the US.
angryfrenchguy
February 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm
An arrangement with the US?!?
The country that spends more than the rest of the world combined on defense? The country which ignores the UN and its own citizens when deciding to go to war? The country that carelessly lets its most disadvantaged rot in the streets with no health care and no social support while the wealthiest compete in wasting their money? The country in which you are always one serious disease away from bankruptcy because health insurance is a joke? A society can be judged by how well it cares for its elderly and poor, and the outlook here is not good.
I live in the US, the South, granted, but the US nonetheless and the values are just hopelessly different. Quebec is based on catholic values of loving thy neighbor and being charitable. Its social policies reflect that… I can’t think of any arrangement, other than what we currently have, that will not infringe on Quebec’s freedom the way that the federal government does.
Besides, the US has enough second language problems without adding a third, they still see themselves as a melting pot, they will not respond kindly to being asked to respect Quebec’s uniqueness, they certainly don’t now.
Allophone
February 7, 2008 at 6:02 pm
If the 8 000 000 Québecois had voted in the 2000 US presidential election there would’ve been:
-No George W. Bush presidency
-No Republican Congress or Senate
-No war in Irak
-No Afghanistan
-Kyoto would’ve been ratified by the US
-A public health care plan would have 8 000 000 extra supporters
-Immigration reform would’ve had a lot more support (Mexican and Latino immigrants are among those who integrate easiest in Québec society)
And are you sure the southerners, although they don’t have the same values as Quebecers, would not welcome another decentralising force and ally for States Rights in the Union?
No, there’s no perfect solution. Be we deserve the right to look at all options…
angryfrenchguy
February 7, 2008 at 7:07 pm
We should consider all options and Southerners may be sympathetic to the extent of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” (besides, are you going to leave Canada to come pick a fight with the US?) but they are not the most tolerant bunch and as I said, the values are irremediably different. I once had the misfortune of being a tourist guide to some people from Georgia and they nearly had a stroke when they saw a nude magazine in a dep window, it’s a good thing I didn’t take them along Ste-Catherine… They certainly don’t look kindly on ANY immigrants and vehemently oppose “amnesty” for illegals.
Also, if the population of Quebec is roughly 8 000 000, not everyone is eligible or old enough to vote and they would not all vote the same way. 8 million is a lot to the Canadian 30 million, but it is not that significant a fraction of 300 million.
I think if any Canadian province is well-suited to leave the “Federation de cons “(a clever pun on Confederation), it’s Alberta.
The problem with a public health care plan here is that private insurance companies have way too much power, there is no plausible future arrangement that would not include them. The best that can ever be hoped for is a two-tiered system, much like the ADQ was proposing a while back, but that just goes against the Quebec values that everyone should receive the same care regardless of income.
Bush and the war happened for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy or majority votes, but rather the corruption in US politics, I’m afraid that it was probably unavoidable.
Allophone
February 8, 2008 at 10:34 am
1) AngryFrenchGuy, I am glad that we have actually found a point of agreement: that the French language in Quebec would be well served if the marketplace were left on its own to determine what languages is being used in particular situations.
2) As for trials and education being in English, these are government services and are constitutionally guaranteed to be in English in Quebec, so I really don’t understand the point you’re making about me saying that they shouldn’t be. Indeed, it has been the stated policy of the PQ in the past (they may have changed it since I read official PQ policy in this area but I doubt it) that in an independent Quebec these rights would be assured.
That being said…
3) AngryFrenchGuy wrote: “The insinuation, although you don’t have the balls to say it, is that Québec’s language laws dictate what languages individuals use with each other. It doesn’t do any of that. That’s a lie.”
Please reread what I wrote. I responding to what YOU said was your “right” to receive service in French; I wasn’t responding to what is in Bill 101 (I’ll get to what Bill 101 says in a minute). Using YOUR words, I was responding to what YOU claim it is your right to service in French (assuming that it was law) that would require me to speak French against my will. I provided an example for you (the person selling Coke in a store…didn’t you read that?) demonstrating that that would indeed require me to speak French against my will.
As for what Bill 101 has to say on the subject of forcing me to speak French, have you actually read Bill 101?
If you have, you would know that Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, most definitely dictates what languages individuals use with each other.
Please concede that you are incorrect on this point as well and that I am right…or else I will have to go to the trouble of trotting out the actual wording from Bill 101, Quebec and Canadian court decisions on Bill 101, I will show you that Bill 101 does, indeed, dicatate what languages indivudals use with each other.
Will you please save me the trouble?
Tony Kondaks
February 9, 2008 at 9:14 am
AngryFrenchGuy wrote:
“That is why I believe that the problem is not immigrants or Anglos and that the solution is not language laws.
“It is only when Québec leaves the Canadian federation and is free to present itself to the world as it actually is: French-speaking multicultural country in North America, that Montreal will be able to properly attract and integrate immigrants interested in living in what is not, as you so justly said: ‘a boring, rolled-off-the-assembly-line North American city’. ”
You seem to be saying that an independent Quebec will, by virtue of having control over its own borders and ALL legislation (what is currently in sections both 91 and 92 of the BNA Act which divides the powers between the provinces and the federal government), that there will be no language legislation. That is, with the natural protection that the boundaries of an independent nation will provide the French language and culture, Bill 101 will not be necessary. I am understanding you correctly?
Tony Kondaks
February 9, 2008 at 9:25 am
thought i’d stop by and see how far reasoned debate and critical thinking was advancing understanding between the participants. not much i see. still it’s a valiant effort and you have my admiration.
mr. bourgault has my admiration too – for his unfailing promotion of passionately held beliefs and silver tongue – but i must say that none of my heroes have ever shown up at parades to hurl insults, rocks and bottles.
oh, and karl marx is still dead.
johnnyonline
February 13, 2008 at 1:12 am
Cher français enragé
how can you speak (write) with a clear mind when you are so angry at the world ?
You have many unresolved issues, be they from your youth or out of sexual frustrations.
Roxanne
February 19, 2008 at 1:27 am
The article, while provocative, leaves a lot of unanswered questions, which in my mind is not enough to get fuming. Why would any smart business owner in Montreal hire someone who cannot demonstrate a reasonable spoken command of either French or English (but most importantly, French?) The answer must be one the article overlooks: that a significant part of the population has become adroit in both languages, and would rather switch to the other language than watch some bumbling clerk mangle the language they’re trying to be served in.
Case in point: when my husband (an American) and I vacationed in Montreal a few years ago, we went out on the town with the hopes of finding opportunities for him to practice his French (I’m a franco- and anglo- Canadian). At every SINGLE establishment in the downtown core where he attempted to address the clerks or waiters in French, he was greeted with absolutely flawless and courteous service- in English before we could even mutter “Ca n’a pas d’allure!”(yes, his accent is that thick). I have to admit, I probably might have done the same thing; I simply suspect that the business owners who hired the anglo-only staff member are taking for granted (though not necessarily inaccurately) that a lot of Montrealers can easily speak both, and will not openly complain.
Let’s be realistic: does the average French-speaking Jean really have time to (or does he even feel the need to) insist on one language if he can speak both? Policies or not, business and the bottom line have a greater effect on whether a store owner needs to hire someone who can speak both languages. For better or for worse, the store owners in question probably thought hiring an anglo clerk wouldn’t hurt their bottom line. The moment their clientele starts dictating otherwise, I’m sure they’ll change.
Does this mean French is losing its importance in Montreal? It’s hard for me to say, as I don’t live there. But it does mean that, depsite laws put in place to safeguard language, language preference and usage often obeys no policies, and instead conforms to the real-time daily needs of the demographic.
AC
February 22, 2008 at 10:00 am
here’s a writer in ottawa complaining the opposite:
Second-class citizens
Language policies have made English a form of contraband
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/MacAdam_Pat/2008/02/24/4872091-sun.html
at a certain point – you would think that governments would get out of the language business.
johnnyonline
February 24, 2008 at 11:57 pm
English was a form of contraband when I was in high school, my friends and I spoke it just to rebel. The ridiculous thing is that no one would say anything when people spoke Mandarin or Polish or Arabic to each other but if the teachers heard English… I thought it was absurd and unfair.
Yes, I know, Quebec has to preserve its language etc. but what do you think is going to happen when you tell a bunch of hormonally-driven rebellious teenagers “don’t do this”? It’s why abstinence education doesn’t work either.
Allophone
February 25, 2008 at 9:04 am
It saddens me that with all the BS going on in this
world of ours that we still are hung up on who speaks what … be who you are and say what you feel because those who MATTER don’t mind and those that MIND don’t matter …… a little respect goes along way – and I don’t believe we are measured by what language we speak BUT how we genuinely treat one another – ENOUGH with this French/English tete a tete – too many people on BOTH sides have been affected in a severe & negative way over the years – Let’s leave the BS to politicians and let us the PEOPLE be smarter and with Respect-Acceptance-Tolerance we can achieve so much more – PEACE !!
maria
September 29, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I do not know who this angry french guy is but he should call Revenu Quebec for on line help – he will see that they have halted all services sepcifically in English – I have called several times and many speakers cannot speak English. Lobster trap en grande – Quebec has 6 million residents and 222 billion ( la belle dette quebecoise and 20% only of the fed debt – should be 40% re: cost of bilinguisme and $$$ pumped into quebec to reduce risk of sovereignity)
So listen, AFG ( angry french guy ) if you feel that French people are second class in Montrteal, then move to Laval or Rive Sud or Mascouche or Quebec City or..
I know that anglais is regarded as a cancer in some quarters here – I plan on leaving within 10 years for sure and taking my $$$ with me – I have had several quebecoise girlfriends – many are not crazy about having a fat quebecois bidaine as a mate – they have told me so – bonjour
James B
March 11, 2010 at 2:35 pm