The Habs Discriminate Against French-Speakers
Canada has always been preoccupied with preventing French-speaking people from handling numbers. Until well into the 20th century, the Minister of Finance’s job in the Québec government could only be given to an English-speaking gentleman and when francophones in Québec demanded the end of dicriminatory practices and their share Montréal’s many high finance and management jobs in the 1960’s and 70’s, English-Canada’s very prudent and rational reaction was to move Canada’s entire financial sector 300 miles west to Toronto.
It’s still going on today with the slow but steady purge of anyone who’s ever been associated with la Bourse de Montréal from the new “merged” Stock Exchange.
Sure, there are very good reasons for this. Business and Management are English words, aren’t they? And isn’t it a man who got his MBA at Québec’s City’s Université Laval who is responsible for the near-collapse of capitalism we just went through?
But no. The truth is much more sinister. French-speakers are kept away from the numbers because if they took a closer look, they would discover that French-speaking hockey players in the NHL are undervalued and underpaid!
This is the dark secret uncovered by Marc Lavoie, an economist at the University of Ottawa. Using rigorous statistical analysis, the scientist discovered that francophone players systematically scored 10 more points per season compared with English-speaking players drafted in the same round, which either means that there is discrimination against Francos or that participation really is more important than winning…
Mr. Lavoie also established that francophone defencemen earn 25% less than Anglophones with comparable statistics.
What’s even more interesting is that Le Canadien de Montréal, that venerable institution that turned the mythology of a scrappy band of French farm boys with only third grade education but big hearts into one of the most valuable sports franchise in the world, did not – repeat not – do a better job of hiring francophones. Even the Nordiques systematically gave Franco’s the shaft.
But then, Mr. Lavoie is a francophone. For sure he got his math all wrong.
UPDATE: Prof Lavoie kindly sent the AngryFrenchPeerReviewMob a copy of the study:
https://angryfrenchguy.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ajes-drafthockey-2003.pdf
Enjoy.
AngryFrenchGuy 
“I like people who speak *within their knowledge*, regardless of their positions on things”
“I just have a short fuse for charlatans, is all. You know, the Rakoffs, the Wongs, the Simpsons, the Prattes, the Richlers, etc.”
“And it’s still out there and flourishing. In the leading dailies of my “volk”, in the mouthshit of their idiot insignifiant politicians”
“But this is a strawdog you’re mounting here. It’s a canard”
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
(…)
In particular, narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, in the same category as histrionic, antisocial and borderline personality disorders. Narcissistic personality disorder treatment is centered around psychotherapy.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652
allophone
June 2, 2009 at 9:58 am
“You’re right. But… uh… where did I ever mention that this was an argument against sovereignty?”
You may not have, Vinster, but Quebec’s “dirty laundry” such as the examples found on this forum is/are often used by many people to question Quebecers’ ability to govern themselves, be it as a hypothetical independent country or even as a part of Canada but with enhanced autonomy.
The underlying message of all the negativity and finger-pointing is that Quebecers can’t be trusted with too much power, and that their innate shortcomings somehow have to counterbalanced by the English-speaking majority within the Canadian political sphere, which is deemed much more “trustable”.
If one looks back to the debate over the Meech Lake Accord in the ROC, a common thread was that Quebec could not be trusted with the distinct society clause powers, and that putting that into the hands of the Quebec National Assembly could lead to frightening tyranny and God-knows-what.
For example, during the Meech debate, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NACSW) expressed much concern over the distinct society (which had to promoted and preserved) because it feared that Quebec might use it to force its women to have more babies than they wished in order to “preserve and promote” the said distinct society. I guess they had all read Margaret Atwood’s book “The Handmaid’s Tale” while on LSD…
The Quebec subgroup within the NACSW, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, which was in favour of Meech, basically told the NACSW: “phew… well, umm, thanks for your genuine concern ladies, but it’s probably better if we handled this one ourselves”, and promptly withdrew from the pan-Canadian organization as it became apparent it was impossible to have a rational, respectful discussion on the subject with their fellow feminists from the other provinces.
Just one of many examples.
Acajack
June 2, 2009 at 11:39 am
Just a tad mixed up.
Atwood actually expressed sympathy for the devi- er, the Bloc, during the last federal election campaign. I seriously doubt she did so in anticipation of a hypothetical appearance on TLMEP six months later so she’d get a warmer reception from the seppies there.
Falardeau made his stupid comment (japanouille à barbiche) about Suzuki in a column he writes for the weekly paper ICI, not on TLMEP.
Of course, TLMEP is a polemic show, so it doesn’t shy away from controversy. Remember a few years ago they had controversial radio host and shrink Dr. Pierre Mailloux talking about how scientific studies had proven that black people were less intelligent than whites. He was challenged by other guests (including Mitsou!) and the hosts.
That’s the role of a polemic TV talk show like TLMEP: to put ideas (even unpopular or controversial ones) out there for debate. In the case of Mailloux, it actually served the noble purpose of sparking a broader societal debate, on which the overwhelming consensus was the he was full of bull.
I for one prefer this type of society, where people aren’t even to talk frankly about even the most difficult issues, to what generally prevails in the ROC (where I was born and raised BTW) where the tough issues are always swept under the carpet and people just pretend they don’t exist.
To each his own I guess.
BTW, I can’t view the video allophone cited. Who was the guest and what did Guy A and Dany do to him/her?
Acajack
June 2, 2009 at 12:02 pm
@Vinster,
What are “generalized facts”? I know you’re explaining slowly for my benefit, but I still don’t get that part.
So if your corrective efforts at mental and political hygiene for those who think Québec is “pure and innocent” and an unqualifiedly “happy place” aren’t directed at sovereignists, at whom are they directed? I’m glad to hear it’s not targeting sovereigntists, cuz what would be the point of one wanting independence for Québec if one already thought it was a paradise without contradictions or injustices?
Are the mental and political hygiene efforts directed at certain individuals, like afg? So someone who denounces the lack of ethnic diversity in Québec tv and the lot of migrant workers in Québec and the Montréal civic administration’s failure to sufficiently hire minorities and the disastrous risk-management at the Caisse finds Québec “pure and innocent”? Is that the idea?
I wish it was just a “minority of idiots” in English Canada who think that the Acadians and the Québécois don’t form nations. In fact it’s a crushing majority of the population. Much more of them too think the English language is more in danger in Québec than is the French language in ROC. A majority too came to think that Meech was some big “giveway” to Québec which would open the door to tyranny and injustice. The great paradox here is that as one of your intellectual allies on this discussion board has, er, “shown”, none of this has anything to do with English Canada’s journalistic establishment or its best-selling writers or career politicians. Perhaps it was all transmitted via water cooler conversations. Perhaps it was something just spiked in the water.
So would a dark example of thinking coming from a “minority of idiots” be something like this?:
If Quebec were to separate, we allos and anglos would be screwed regardless of who is head of state. We’d all have to pack up and jet.
Did you ever bring any lucid correctives to this kind of thing when it’s said here, or do you prefer to just work the André Pratte beat keep up morale on the Plantation? Sort of like the way Colin Campbell stays above the fray?
James
June 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm
@ James
Yup, I definitely think you’re head as gone too far up your a$$ for your own benefit. It’s definitely messing up with your judgement since you can’t seem to comprehend properly what it is that people are trying to tell you. Therefore, replying to you is slowly becoming completely useless.
You live in your own little world, James, where everybody is an evil Quebec basher. Have fun with that.
Anonymous
June 2, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Hey Vinster
Merci pour la démonstration d’évaluation de la validité d’une étude scientifique. Sans ironie.
angryfrenchguy
June 2, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Hey Allophone
It just occured to me….
You are an a Québécois who worships, Canada, the United States and the English language. You think american music and anglo culture is the only culture worth anything out there. You are are completely ignorant about the history and demography of North America and not in the least botherd by it. You despise separatists, poor people and leftists. You are also unapologicallly racist and enjoy making fun of immigrants with funny names.
You are Elvis Gratton!
No wonder you hate Falardeau. His entire carreer is about discrediting Québec’s Elvises!
angryfrenchguy
June 2, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Dear Anonymous Vinster,
Wow, what a case of pseudo-aggression. This sounds like a job for Drs. Allophone and Rakoff. (They don’t need to meet the patient to make a diagnosis either).
James
June 2, 2009 at 7:28 pm
AGF..
The moderator and author should not be so critical…
Falardeadick is an idiot as he proved again today..
But, I do hope you get your way in the end…and become your own nation…your are costing me a lot of money right now in tax dollars. What is it 13% of the Quebec Provincial budget (not national as Quebec is not a nation, it is still a province) is provided by others.
Ask yourself AGF, are you not a welfare recipient?…how does it feel to face the truth, when the facts are presented.
Would you like some more facts or would you just like to ignore the realities of the situation. You should really look in the mirror and ask yourself. Of course you will just rationilize in your own “petit tete” .
Have a good look and then get back to me of how Quebec has contributed to Canada. With Quebec, the door only swings on way from what I can see,
Please tell me or convince me it is another way. But with facts AGF…not subjectives on culture and other BS you are so good at provocating.
Are you a real loser??
ABP
June 2, 2009 at 10:57 pm
CDP, would be one example.
ABP
June 2, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Lets say the discrimination against French speakers does exist, even if AFG has lamentably failed to back up his claim with pertinent facts, but for argument’s sake lets say he is right. What is his solution ? The same as for every problem in society, Quebec sovereignty !
Please demonstrate for us AFG just how Quebec sovereignty would protect French speakers from discrimination when 29 clubs are in English speaking markets ?
Oh and by the way, if Falardeau’s career is all about denouncing Elvises in Quebec, how copme there are more of them now than when he began? Its like saying Don Cherry’s career is all about denouncing European and Quebec players who are chicken because they wear visors on their helmets. Every year there are more of them, so how does he define success?
Dave
June 3, 2009 at 6:05 am
My computer is brutal for watching video but I finally got it to work.
OK, so here is what I saw:
One of the first things the host asks Falardeau about is his “japanouille” comment. Falardeau says something like: “yeah I suppose that was a bit over the top… I guess he got under my skin. I really hate it when anglos from the ROC like Suzuki tell us Quebecers that we should vote the “right way”.”
Now, after that answer, was there any need for the host to take Falardeau further to task for his “japanouille” slur? Was Falardeau on the show to talk about about “japanouilles” or to talk about other stuff? Would his “japanouille” slur have merited on its own an invitation on Quebec’s most-watched talk show? Would I get invited if I said the same thing? Is there any proof that Falardeau has always had it in for Japanese people and that this therefore merits significant public debate on TV?
Falardeau then goes on about how Suzuki is a brilliant and respected scientist, and that he should stick to science and stay out of politics, like Patrick Roy should stick to talking about hockey.
Then it’s mostly the usual Falardeau-ish rant about how Quebecers need to achieve their freedom through independence, blablabla.
Now, perhaps allophone you think that advocating Quebec’s independence by democratic means is every bit as outrageous as proclaiming the superiority of certain people over others solely based on race (as Doc Mailloux did) or claiming that a teenaged rape victim was a just a slut “who asked for it” (as Gilles Proulx did), but these latter two are more the type of stuff for which you would get raked over the coals at TLMEP. Sorry to say this, allophone, but most people in Quebec, regardless of their political stripes, would not share the view that all three are equally outrageous.
Acajack
June 3, 2009 at 8:51 am
Depends on your definition of “Elvises” I suppose.
Falardeau began his political activism in the late 60s and since then, if you want to use that as a measure, the percentage of the population in favour of Quebec becoming a country has pretty much doubled.
How much of that is Falardeau’s doing is impossible to gauge (probably next to none), but one can’t say that his “cause” hasn’t progressed: between 40% and 50% of the population of part of one of the world’s most successful countries pretty consistently supporting secession is not small feat.
But once again, perhaps you have a different definition of “Elvises” and the political repercussions of their presence?
Acajack
June 3, 2009 at 8:58 am
“You despise separatists, poor people and leftists.”
You probably believe that left wing=defenders of poor people, right wing/centrist=big business/greed. This naïve belief is deeply ingrained in this society. Free healthcare, free day care, free education, free services, free this, free that. Allez-y Gilles et Pauline. Give us a paradise where we don’t have to do anything and have everything for free.
I’m not omniscient, unlike some people on this forum, but my intuition tells me this – nothing in this world is free. You’re paying for things one way or another. Either directly at the cash register, or indirectly by turning over half of your income. Or if you’re not paying for it, someone else is working his ass off to cover it. My neighbor has a sticker on his car that says “Born free, taxed to death”. He understands.
The hypocrisy of left wing has no bounds. They pretend to speak for the poor, but live like kings (Pauline Marois and her mansions – case in point)
The truth is probably closer to this: left wing = hypocrisy/big business/greed, right wing = hypocrisy/big business/greed, politics in general = hypocrisy/big business/greed.
“You are also unapologicallly racist and enjoy making fun of immigrants with funny names.”
Do I even need to comment on this?
allophone
June 3, 2009 at 9:39 am
What is CDP?
Acajack
June 3, 2009 at 10:06 am
@ AFG
It occurs to me, AFG, that there are many levels of gray that your eyes are blind to. I’m not saying that to provoke you, but I’m just wondering why it is that anyone not thinking like you is categorized as a ROC-loving NeoCon? Everything isn’t just black or white, you know…
The example Allophone provided is a lot like those examples you like to bring about, and that you use to try to get everybody all stirred up. Yet, the reaction I see here is a lot like what I’ve been trying to describe for a moment : we like to pick up all these provocative remarks coming from the ROC, but we fail to see when we do exactly the same. I’m well aware that Falardeau is an idiot, and we’ve got a bunch of idiots in Québec that are responsible for the majority of derogatory comments. There’s a whole bunch of idiots in the ROC, starting with Don Cherry, and I believe they’re mostly the ones responsible for the examples that you bring about (the ones that are genuine, that is, because Lavoie’s study isn’t convincing at all).
At some times, it seems like you actually can acknowledge that. But at others, you take out the old argumentation : Mr. X has said/done this, he lives in the ROC and therefore everybody in the ROC thinks/acts like him. This is far too simplistic, and I’m pretty sure that you can see that.
Anonymous
June 3, 2009 at 12:08 pm
… and that was me… again, forgetting to put my name in… I’m now waiting for James to make a fuss about it!
Vinster171
June 3, 2009 at 12:08 pm
@ Acajack
“You may not have, Vinster, but Quebec’s “dirty laundry” such as the examples found on this forum is/are often used by many people to question Quebecers’ ability to govern themselves, be it as a hypothetical independent country or even as a part of Canada but with enhanced autonomy.”
And you don’t think that Canada’s “dirty laundry” has been over-exploited as well? My whole point in this discussion is that, although some people do not like to hear it, and although some people do not want to acknowledge it, we do have some dirty laundry of our own. While we can all agree that this dirty laundry isn’t a fair representation of how the majority of Quebeckers sees the ROC, we seem to think that the Canadian dirty laundry is a perfectly reflexion of how they see us! How fair is that reasoning?
“The underlying message of all the negativity and finger-pointing is that Quebecers can’t be trusted with too much power, and that their innate shortcomings somehow have to counterbalanced by the English-speaking majority within the Canadian political sphere, which is deemed much more “trustable”.”
You seem like you’re pretty open-minded and reasonable, Acajack, but you are also very one-sided in your analysis. Our own minority of idiots likes to refer to Anglos as blokes. Our own minority of idiots likes to think that all anglos are stupid NeoCons, and that somehow Quebec is morally superior because of our numerous social measures. Our own minority of idiots still thinks that the anglos of the ROC are hung up on assimilating us. Just like the U.S. were building up the biggest naval army in the world in 1910, a naval army big enough to take on the next two biggest in the world, mainly because they were scared that the British would try to invade them once again!
A lot of people can’t seem to get over 1995, can’t seem to realize that as the years go by, a lot of things are smoothing out on their own. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe in paranoia.
Vinster171
June 3, 2009 at 12:20 pm
@ Acajack
“…the percentage of the population in favour of Quebec becoming a country has pretty much doubled.”
True enough. But I’m thinking that since a couple of years, this percentage has been going down. What were the latest polls saying? 30%? It is true, however, that this number would be likely to go up a bit if we were in the middle of another pre-referendum campaign.
I’m thinking that there’s probably a reason why this number is going down. I’m thinking that there are probably a whole lot of people that are becoming tired of hearing the same old arguments over and over again, and that a lot of these people are thinking that these old arguments are not legitimate. This is the problem with the separatist argumentation : it has failed in renewing itself over the years.
Vinster171
June 3, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Y’a pas de quoi… honnêtement, j’ai plutôt l’impression d’avoir perdu pas mal de temps pour finalement ne pas trop pouvoir tirer de conclusions. C’est un peu le cas de plusieurs études scientifiques, finalement, puisque tout le monde essaie de vendre sa salade du mieux qu’il le peut. Publish or Perish.
Vinster171
June 3, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@ ABP
“Have a good look and then get back to me of how Quebec has contributed to Canada.”
You’re not helping your argumentation with comments like these. Way up until the 1950s, there were a lot of anglos that seemed to think Québec had a whole lot to offer financially speaking. They were ruling the financial sector in Montréal, and making sure job advancement was nearly impossible for French Canadian. My grandfather once applied for a promotion within the company he was working in. He was a well-instructed man. Rather than giving him the job, they give it to an anglo, who was previously working in the company’s stables.
Now, I’m not holding grudge for this. This was 60 years ago. But I’m not going to just stay silent if you try to demonstrate that Quebec is not of any use to Canada. If that was the case, I don’t think we’d had witnessed the whole ridiculous “WE LOVE YOU!” parade in 1995.
Vinster171
June 3, 2009 at 2:22 pm
No argument from me on that one Vinster.
Acajack
June 3, 2009 at 2:41 pm
The percentage has been oscillating around an average value in the mid-40’s % since the last referendum actually. Tracked from the dawn of the independence movement support for sovereignty has seen a huge secular growth spanning decades:
http://www.vigile.net/ds-lisee/docs/SouvProbable0504.ppt
And in the last Léger poll (May 25) it was 41%:
Click to access 095251FR.pdf
The 41% it polls now is where it was polling during the ’94 election campaign. A year later 63% of francophones voted for sovereignty and 69% of Montréal francophones. It was polling down at 41% in 2002 as well. By 2005 it was polling over 50%.
James
June 3, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Pardonnez cette parenthese chers amis, je voulais juste attirer l’attention d’AGF et de vous tous, esperant qu’il traite de politique montrealaise dans ses prochains sujets de discussion. Il va se jouer une joute politique tres interessante sur l’ile, et j’anticipe un taux de participation record.Il est plus que temps…
midnightjack
June 4, 2009 at 6:53 am
Oups, je voulais dire AFG, et non AGF.
midnightjack
June 4, 2009 at 6:55 am
“Now, perhaps allophone you think that advocating Quebec’s independence by democratic means is every bit as outrageous as proclaiming the superiority of certain people over others solely based on race (as Doc Mailloux did) or claiming that a teenaged rape victim was a just a slut “who asked for it” (as Gilles Proulx did), but these latter two are more the type of stuff for which you would get raked over the coals at TLMEP”
I assume you inferred this by my frequent references to and my strong support for Doc Mailloux and Gilles Proulx that I voiced over and over and over.
allophone
June 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“… who worships, Canada, the United States and the English language”
This bothers me (I’m not kidding). To say that I worship something or someone. There is no person or thing in the world that I worship. I sure hope you don’t either.
But if you do in fact worship the individual that looks back you when you look in the mirror, let me burst your bubble: he’s not perfect.
“You are are completely ignorant about the history and demography of North America and not in the least botherd by it”
Hint: just because you repeat something over and over and your lap dogs (all 3 of them) agree, won’t necessarily make a fact. You should realize that at this point you saying something like this to anyone is more of an endorsement than critique. I’m not talking about myself, because as you very correctly pointed out, I am not in the least bothered by it. I’m talking about people much nicer than me who are driven off this forum by your “eloquence” the minute you get a whiff that they may disagree with you.
And don’t think that because someone stops responding to you means that you won the argument. It simply means that your paranoid babble needs no comment.
allophone
June 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Elizabeth May\’s priorities:1. Hurt Harper2. Help the Liberals3. Help the Greens.Backwards!!She\’s more of a sialcoist than she is Green. Problem is, we already have a sialcoist party. And not all sialcoist policies are green, and not all green policies are sialcoist.She got them into the debates, and that\’s a great legacy. Time to turn over the reins, and try to tap into the huge youth and protest vote.
Aldo
December 30, 2013 at 8:16 am