Tuesday, January 5, 2016

How is immigration in Québec really turning out?

I recently spent a weekend in Montréal with two friends of mine from a South American country. I had met the woman in France while doing a sort of stage in Lyon. Her husband came to visit and, while a very nice guy, conversation was somewhat limited as he spoke solely in Spanish. She spoke French rather fluently and had good English too. All in all, we got along well and kept in touch when our short working stint was over.

A couple of years later, I was living in Montréal and I had the occasion to visit them in their country. I knew that they didn’t want to stay there because so many things were going wrong—what with food shortages for the most basic items, like chicken. I talked about my experience with the Skilled Immigrant paperwork and process for Québec Immigration. I mentioned (to her mostly, as we spoke to one another in French) on numerous occasions that they should consider moving to Québec as skilled immigrants, being that I thought they could easily fit in.

They eventually filled out and sent in the Skilled Workers immigration paperwork, but his language abilities were not up to par. Their dossier was rejected. Later on though, she was accepted into a program at the Université de Montréal and was able to secure for herself a student visa as well as papers for him. So, they came here last summer. I went around with them the first few days, somewhat showing them the city and helping to find an apartment. They ended up choosing one in Côte-des-Neiges. Not the best neighborhood for any meaningful integration—even though large francophone institutions like the university and Sainte-Justine are nearby. But where they decided to live wasn’t my choice.

I had trouble hiding my distaste of the dwelling itself and especially when I saw that the building’s owner was some old-stock anglophone that didn’t speak French and looked at me funny when I spoke to him in French. The woman who collected the rent was some older Portuguese immigrant that only spoke in a broken English with a few words of French. I thought: how are they going to integrate when this is their first impression of Montréal? Yes, she would be a student at the francophone Université de Montréal, but what about him? I then gave them all the information they would need to enroll him for francization classes, offered free of charge by the government. Some of these courses were even being held just a few blocks from where they were going to live.

Anyway, fast-forward a year. He still has not learned to speak one word of French. His English isn’t very good either—maybe functional on a very basic level—but French ought to take priority. They have neighbors from Alberta and plenty of acquaintances who speak Spanish. She told me that her part time job was almost always conducted in English. As for him, he found a job at a sausage-casing factory where there are a handful of Spanish speakers. When he needs to speak to non hispanophones, he may do so in his basic broken English. He complains that jobs here are usually advertised to require knowledge of both languages. Just that in itself is ridiculous—why should someone working in a factory making sausage casings need to have functional English in a supposedly francophone society? But Philippe Couillard, for example, seems to think this kind of bilingualism is oh-so-necessary in case Americans (or Canadians?) ask the workers questions.

When large amounts of immigrants are hired somewhere, to get the ball rolling and getting them to work, those immigrants will usually do whatever is easiest, which usually does not involve using French in the workplace. Anyway, why should the people running these places care about things like community, language, way of life and society? I know that business exists to generate monetary wealth. I get that. People need money and those who are indifferent to the fragility of French in Montréal will merely say that these workers are just adapting themselves to the reality of the situation in order to make ends meet. 

So, he feels a bit stuck. He is not, however, making any effort to learn French.

I told them that it might be better to move to Ontario or somewhere else where the language situation is more straightforward. Still their response was that they like the quality of life in Montréal and want to stay. I then told them that learning French is imperative and that it is generally looked down upon to not know French and continue to live here—except of course by indifferent francophones, anglophones and “allophones” (I really gotta write a new article regarding these allophones in Montréal).

So, if Montréal’s quality of life is what interests them, which can be found nowhere else, isn’t it reasonable, if not obvious, to say it comes from the French factor? It seems to me that what really interests them is a Montreal with a very marginalized and folkloric French language. Why do they stay when paradise on earth is just a few hundred kilometers to the west (or to the east or the south)! Nevertheless, they want to stay in uniquely francophone Québec, a place unlike anywhere else in North America (or in the world really), without contributing to its preservation or helping it thrive. All they’re doing is contributing to Montréal’s anglicization, while finding the whole French thing to be just a cute detail. Can’t they see the contradiction?

Now, I know that my friends are just responding to the current reality of Montréal. The—what many would consider—dead end jobs do not require French and these seem to be the only jobs they can get, so they adapt to the requirements presented. Where is personal initiative? Where is the will to integrate into society? Why don’t they just admit the real reason they came here, as it clearly wasn’t for French Québec. It wasn’t for integrating into this society and trying to help make it better. It was purely for economic reasons as well as believing what they see in Hollywood films, which happens a lot more than most are willing to admit. I know because some of them have actually told me with a straight face that this or that Hollywood film gave them the idea to move to a certain place. Why not just throw darts at the map?

The more important questions is this: if Québec wants to not only survive and thrive, how can we afford something around 50,000 economic migrants every year, who are not at all motivated nor inspired by a Québec societal project ? 

And I don’t know what to tell my friends, because they are right when they say that they don’t need to use French for their work, so why bother learning it? She already speaks it and may have a better chance at getting a better job later on. I think they understand that getting a better job in Québec often usually means knowing French (in addition to English), but is that even true? She isn’t deaf and knows her colleagues don’t need French. I’m not saying she has that great of a job (some part-time office job downtown), though when I worked in the Peel/Maisonneuve area and in Ville-St-Laurent, I had what can be considered a good, well-paying job. And while being bilingual French-English was seen as an asset, French really wasn’t necessary. The project was done in English, most of the people with whom I worked were unilingual anglophones—usually 2nd or 3rd generation Greek or Italian anglophones, who tend to be pretty hostile towards French, or the occasional anglicized Chinese/Thai/Filipino person.

I know from my own experience that French wasn’t necessary and even somewhat frowned upon. Aside from the anecdotes I’ve already mentioned in my previous article, another one involved some black girl whose parents were from Nigeria. While talking about protecting French, nationalism and such, she smugly retorted: “Oh, then you must hate me then…” I think in Québec, the word hate, among others, has become a code word for anti-French, anti-nation and anti-Québec. Oh, you must hate me. You must be an idiotic racist, anti-Semitic bigot who can’t speak English. Seriously, do these types of clichéd insults to shut the other person up even work anymore?

Back to the topic at hand, my motivation in moving here comes from my will to help contribute to French Québec and make Montréal and in general Québec as francophone as possible—leading to a real diversity, strong and durable. With this in mind, why should someone coming from a poorer country that doesn’t speak French and doesn’t really want to, why should they go above and beyond just wanting to feed, clothe and entertain themselves with Made in China garbage? If knowing how to speak basic English can provide these vulgar, base-level needs, why bother taking the time to learn French and take part in Québec’s cultural life that they claim to like? Observing this multicultural environment in which we live that promotes mediocrity and citizen-of-the-world bullshit (basically the glamorous lie of a jet-setting anglophone), one can almost understand the actions of the typical immigrant. 

You’ve probably already guessed that I now regret telling them to come here. Even if they are both pleasant and dependable, I shouldn’t have just naïvely thought they would have the same interest for Québec and its North American French language society as I do. That not being the case, like most immigrants, they are leaving behind more difficult conditions in their real country, while not adapting themselves to their new host society. They often don’t speak French and if they speak white, it’s because speaking white means speaking money.

I don’t mean that these immigrants end up being rich, neither that their lives aren’t difficult. I am not saying that I necessarily want them to leave Québec. But I do want them to integrate. I want them to speak French. I want them to contribute to Québec society in ways going beyond just paying their taxes. In a strong and francophone Québec, people from other countries are welcome, provided that they want to help me as well as the rest of us build Québec. Even though we are individuals, I am not interested in extreme individuality, with a fuck all attitude to go with it.

Let the accusations of racism begin! 


  1. Heureux de vous lire, j'espère qu'il existe beaucoup d'immigrants comme vous monsieur.

    1. C'est un québécois de souche...

  2. Damn this is good stuff.

  3. Merci and thank you! I share then exact same feelings about all this. Dont forget the Government (Provincial and Federal) also are contributing to help the immigrant live in English first. People who live in Westmount, born and raise and they dont speak French at all. Justin Trudeau and his damn Multi-culturalism, the Liberal party of Québec who dont see the French language as a priority.... Sérieusement, notre Province est en périlé

  4. I am an immigrant, "allophone", from a sketchy southern country, been living here for +10 yrs, have a Quebec 3rd cycle degree, a great bilingual paying job, own a house with my middle eastern partner, and have friends from all backgrounds... Believe me when i tell you: nobody comes here "dreaming" of enriching the Quebec societal project. They come here dreaming of improving their own lives. I did. Quebec is my home, I speak the language because is expected, but I couldn't care less about a chauvinistic societal project...

  5. Thank you for blog...I found it very interesting and agree with your observations...however....I would be very careful criticizing "newer" arrivals(because in my books, if you arrived here 400,300,200,100,50 or 10 years, we are all arrivals...no one invited us here!)...one has to appreciate how difficult it is to immigrate, and i am not referring to ex-pats, who immigrate because of their work...Most immigrants come from poor backgrounds without an education.There are also those immigrants that get here with an education, only to find out that their qualifications gained in their country does not mean much here...

    I would be very careful criticizing these "new" arrivals of not appreciating the social/political situation in Quebec, while I have met many Canadiens Francais who have no idea about their own history....I have had the unfortunate experience, while undertaking the Quebec government's Francisation course, our teacher, pass the message to the class that all the provinces in canada sign the repatriation act(1982)!!! I was in shock...I could not respond...The next day I put the question to the teacher.."Did all the provinces sign the act?"..the answer was then no, as the teacher understood that he/she was caught out. To my amazement, the teacher did not indicate which province/s did not sign. So. I came with back with second question, "Which province did not sign?" The answer, Quebec... Now the rest of my classmates did not have a clue why this was so significant, why should they? And why should they be concerned with the whole situation in Quebec, especially when a Quebecois/e de souche gives them false information like this...Anyone that understands anything about Quebec would quickly appreciate how crucial this piece of historical information is...

    Finally, I have met many Canadiens Francais who have no clue who Lionel Groulx,Pierre Pierrault,Gaston Miron,Jean Talon were..but more importantly they do not care...I have met many Quebecois de souche who could not even name not even one Patriotes from 1838...I can go on and on with the history of Quebec that people have no knowledge about...the only reason they speak French is because their parents spoke it...the reason why Quebec is not a country is because the Canadiens Francais as a people are not there yet!

    So how do you expect all these newer arrivals to participate in this nation building project of Quebec, when most of the "locals" have no idea?

    1. vagelis montreal « no one invited us here! »

      Speak for you. As for my nation, the real Canadiens, the French were invited, indeed, by the local Natives to settle and stay.


    2. C'est vrai, les amérindiens faisaient le commerce avec les « canadiens » et savaient qu'ils avaient besoin de cette alliance afin de résister aux anglais. C'est un fait méconnu car les gens ne lisent pas.

  6. I am truly astounded by views of settler societies..."founding people", "created infrastructure with the Amerindians'.... Wow!!!

    When I have conversations with non-settler people around the world about social experiments like canada,australia,us...yes, initially they refer to how nice the infrastructure,geography and way of life is in these places, HOWEVER, there has never been a conversation about these places, I say never,where, the concluding idea and words are the same..."yes, but they killed all of the original inhabitants..."

    Look, the whole world knows...Now, putting smallpox in blankets and offering it as a gift( we know this to be true because Lord Amherst refers to it in his diaries), taking their children away from them, taking their lands away....i do not think this qualifies as "creating infrastructures with the Amerindians"

    Finally, please stop the lies, these old imperialistic myths about "founding peoples building infrastructures" are lies...When people exist in a certain place for thousands of years, they must have in place social,economic and political structures to function and exist, just because the conqueror wants to erase this history, it does not mean that there were no infrastructures there to begin with. The legal fiction of "Terra Nullius" went out the window many decades ago. The reason some persons arrived from France,Ireland,England,Scotland,Basque country,Ukraine many decades ago, are the same reason people from Vietnam,Italy,Albania,Mexico come today....it is always the poor people that live the consequences of power. No one ever chooses to leave their village,town or country, they are forced, unless God gives you the responsibility of civilizing the world!!!

    1. The French worked with the Amerindians. Must less so the English and Spanish. There are tons of books on this (like those by Serge Bouchard, among others). I've heard that the smallpox blankets stories were not even true, but I haven't verified it from the horse's mouth (like the diary you mention, have you verified a reliable copy ?), but if they were true, they were, again, commited by English folks like Amherst, the francophones were never numerous enough to annihilate the Amerindians. Look at what the francophones did in the Red River Valley ? They created a new people, the Métis, who were then persecuted and pretty much wiped out and assimilated by the English. Look at the story of Louis Riel.

      If the founding people nation theory is a lie, then who built what we have today ? Do you think that the people who came to New France to take advantage of the beaver trade, which was happening rather peacefully between Amerindians and Canadiens did not navigate, build and sustain commerce and thus create wealth, a new nation and the start of what we now have ? There was not welfare state, roads, infrastructure, etc.. when the first colons came over.

      The real lies are the ones what say that the Amerindians were some peaceful, in touch with nature, running around barefoot and singing koumbaia. They, like all peoples, had violent histories and were interested in commerce. It's really too bad they are so few today, but that is no argument against preserving French Québec.

      Thanks your your replies anyway.

  7. No way was this text written by a native speaker. Propaganda at its best.

  8. Please do not insult our intelligence...you cannot have a "founding people" when people existed in a place for thousands of years....What do you think all these peoples did for thousands of years? Or do people not exist until some north european "discovers: them? In other words if north europeans did not discover you, you did not exist? As Samian mentioned on Tout Le Monde en Parle in May, 2010, "My language has existed here for over five thousand years..."

    I have not addressed your issue about the numbers of immigrants coming here because it absolutely absurd. Firstly, its a joke to have this discussion when everyone here is an immigrant except for the sovereign peoples of the land that have been here for thousands of years. So, what are you telling me, the ones like ourselves that are here now will decide who comes or not? Are we not lucky that the sovereign peoples of these lands did not have these attitudes, otherwise none of us would be here today? But more importantly, you have to be joking that the size of Quebec with eight million people cannot continue taking fifty-five thousand every year? Greater London of uk has ten million people! France, on third the size of Quebec has sixty-two million people!

    Please, tell me about mismanagement of the economy, corruption, changing the banking system, like issuing zero debt for infrastructure,like the bank of canada did, before that criminal trudeau(the father, not that the son is any better!)) succumbed to the bank of international settlements wishes!! Not that Quebec cannot keep taking in fifty-five thousand people per year....Quebec has the number one public utility hydro electric producing corporation in the world.It has ten per cent of the world's drinking water. Natural resources, St Lawrence River and its geopolitical significance. I am going to stop there because, one has to wonder why the French Canadian is so scared to take their seat in the General Assembly in the United Nations as a Nation, with all this wealth? Not to mention their human "capital" as a people! In other words, they are like the rest of us, immigrants....Independence is like breathing, you do not think about breathing, you just do it. Liberty, Freedom and Independence, you do not wait to have a vote about it! Over half of the nations in the United Nations are just little bit bigger than the size of Montreal(if include Laval and South Shore of Montreal).There are peoples like the Western Papuans that are shot at daily by indonesia for raising their flag, and you are going to tell that French Canadians cannot even vote for their liberty? However, as one of my heroes said,"For the Quebecois they do not need guns like they do for the Palestinians..." Pierre Falardeau.


    Anyway. I thank you for the opportunity to participate in your blog, however, if your Quebec continues with the same ways of thinking as canada, what is the point?

    1. Vangelis, I think you have a very «geographical» definition of what is a Nation... This might be why you argue that the «size» of Quebec can accomodate 55 000 imigrants or why we are apparently «all immigrants». I mean, the state, the laws, the economy, the traditions, the culture, language, it's all of that stuff and more that makes a nation, not just a land and it's ressources. And the founding people of all those things in wich we live today, were not the Natives. I'm not saying they did'nt (or still do) have their own culture, traditions, etc. but they reffered to themselves as differents nations, mic mac, athikamek, alguonquin, huron wendat etc. (I know, sorry, these are the french names) but they never considered themselves as québécois, and alot of them still dont, for very understandable reasons. Hurons are the fouding people of the Huron nation, Algonquin founded their own, and so on and so forth. You seem to think that french-canadiens are one of the many peoples living in Quebec, among others, wich is a very «Trudeauesque» way of looking at it... But seriously, relations between frenchs and native (almost all of them, except the Iroquois) were completely different than with the english or spanish. Read english speaking historians if you want to make sure to get an unbias story, and see for yourself. Read about the Great peace treaty or the popular uprising in Montreal when the federal government crushed the Metis in Manitoba, or have a look at what Henry Thoreau had to say about the relations between the french-canadiens and the natives, compared to the englishs. This is not chauvinism at all, it's historical facts. Even the way frenchs and englishs traded with natives were totally different; french went to the native, in their villages and got in contact with their culture, while most english where waiting for them at trade posts... This is why the majority of the «coureur des bois» and the «voyageurs» were french-canadians : because they knew the languages and the ways of many native peoples, and many english did'nt. This is why the Metis are basically half french and half Natives. Marie de l'Incarnation said back in the days, that it was easier to make a «savage» out of a frenchman, than a frenchman out of a «savage»... It says a lot. As for the 55 000 imigrants, it's not about the land, it's about social infrastructures to help them integrate the culture, the workforce, the schools, recognizing their diplomas or help them to get new ones, etc. etc. It could all be fixed with a real political will, but unfortunatelly, the goverment cuts everywhere these days, because, austerity... (wich is b.s...) It's all about being able to welcome them like we should, and not leaving them to wonder helpless in ghettos. If we cant put those infrastructures and efforts in place, we sould'nt wonder why around 55% of them choose english over french... But I have to strongly agree on that one : « one has to wonder why the French Canadian is so scared to take their seat in the General Assembly in the United Nations as a Nation, with all this wealth? » I dont know what the answer is, I wish I did... but Denis Arcand might have said it : « Le confort et l'indiférence...» Thats why they dont need guns... God I miss Falardeau ! Thanks for the link, it has always been one my favorite speech. But even tho we disagree on a few points, we're on the same team :)

    2. I also miss his voice!!! I really miss him!!!

      "Leve la tete, mon frere!, Hommage a Pierre Falardeau"
      Collectif sour la direction de Pierre-Luc Begin et Manon Leriche, Editions du Quebecois,2016.

    3. Would you argue that the Norwegians are not indiginous to Norway as well (since the Sami/Lapon are up north) ?

      As far as absorbing the 55 000 newcomers every year, well the numbers speak for themselves.

      Those reading this will decide in whose words the credibility lies.

      Listen, I don't want to fight with you about these things. If you're for Québec sovereignty, I consider you alright, even if we don't agree on other, important details.

  9. I don't get why you're so hell bent on accusing him of being Québécois (like that changes the facts he presents) instead of commenting what the ARTICLE IS ABOOT! I've read all these comments and what you're doing is borderline harassment. And stop nitpicking how he writes. In the USA we don't all talk write the same way and we have different accents and in general, our English isn't very refined... Comment what the text is about, and stop being racist to French speaking Québécois! (I hate the word quebecker it sounds retarded) Their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's!!

    1. I think we should on the contrary use "Quebecker" more, because in English they tend to use Québécois to ethnicize us and Quebecer to say they live in Québec but are not "French". I dislike this distinction because the word Québécois in French does not imply anything as such.

    2. ThoMiCroN. I agree that we should use the term Quebecer more, even if it's not a very nice sounding world. The word Québécois is usually used as an ethnic and often pejorative term in English. Or Anglos born in Montréal will say "I'm from here, but I'm not québécois..." usually they don't mean it in a mean way, but still, it implies that the proper noun for francophones is an ethnically charged term, which is usually frowned upon these days, for better or for worse. Thanks for reading !

  10. Thomicron, when I say Québécois I'm referring to someone who is born in Québec. Do what you please, but It doesn't flow well and sounds awkward. In French class we were taught Québécois (Ontarien, Néo-Brunswickois, Terre-neuvien, Manitobain, Canadien, etc.)

    By the way, I've never heard anyone in English or French say Quebecker culture, Quebecker language, Quebecker cuisine, Quebecker mentality. It is easier and more logical to say Québécois. It's not hard to pronounce. I also say Québec in French when speaking about it to others and they know what I'm talking about.

    You may disagree but esthetically speaking, Québécois sounds better and is a more logical choice.

    1. I agree it's more pretty but that's not good enough. Québécois is used as an ethnic term in English meanwhile it's not an ethnic term in French. In so-called spanish (castillan), I say quebequés, quebequenses ; I use the language's way to say it. In English, it's important to do it too because they want to restrict the Quebec identity to a single ethnicity and not whoever chooses to become part of our society.

    2. But that's a generalization.. I've spoken to a lot of people in French about Québec and we always use the word québécois(e)(s). I don't usually ever talk about Québec in English because...there's hardly anyone to talk about it to.

      And there are cultural Québécois and technical Québécois (a lot of whom I wouldn't consider Québécois because they don't share this culture). Some that refuse to speak French, others that look down on the Québécois (which is really offensive to me because I have many friends and close friends and even a few best friends that I've made over the years that I would consider sisters). The invectives that they launch towards them is frankly appalling. You can't generalize a whole group of people like that. There's nice people and mean people here that's life but I would hate to be lumped in with American Blacks and have people assume I'm a democrat or a thug because I happen to be a Black American. I'm comfortable saying Québécois and do not want to buy into some anti-Québec mentality by referring to my friends here as something I've never referred to them as by people that are against them!

  11. This sort of response to francization is sad. I myself cam there (on a student visa) precisely to learn french. Sadly, international undergrads aren't allowed to register (i have a work permit and have tried to enrol thrice). Nevertheless, I'm taking classes at YMCA.

  12. Why can't students learn French ? Why is it not a requirement for all students ?
    The current government wants to encourage students to stay after they finish their studies. Do they not want to invest in French, the language which most facilitates their attachment to Quebec ?

  13. J'aimerais dépasser la division entre « Québécois » et les autres. Nous sommes tous « Québécois » dès notre naissance ici, dès une an de résidence au Québec pour les citoyens canadiens et dès le moment qu'un immigrant résident ici devient citoyen.

    I would like to go beyond the division between « Québécois » and the others. We are all « Québécois » from our moment of birth in Québec, after one year's residence for Canadian citizens, and once a resident immigrant becomes a citizen.

    1. Duncan,

      C'est pas tout le monde qui a cette conception de ce qui fait de quelqu'un un Québécois. Ta définition est très géographique ou légale (ex : untel est né ou vit au Québec donc untel est québécois). Moi et d'autres personnes avons une définition plus affective ou culturelle de ce qui est québécois ou pas.

      Mais comme les Québécois sont loin d'être un peuple homogène, il s'avère être difficile de les catégoriser ou d'en faire des généralisations. Pour moi, il est question de marqueurs culturels comme certains accents, des façons de parler ou de se comporter, un
      humour quelconque, etc. Bref, ça se ressent..

      Ces marqueurs jouent un rôle dans mon estimation personnelle de ce qui est québécois ou pas. D'autres personnes pourraient voir les choses différemment et j'en suis pleinement conscient.

  14. Vagelis Montréal
    Vous avez présenté des questions fondamentales pour tout pays de culture « coloniale ». Quel était notre rapport avec les peuples autochtones. ? Quel est le rapport actuel ? Où aimerions-nous diriger les rapports futurs ?

    Nos rapports historiques pendant le temps de la Nouvelle France et même après était mieux qu'ailleurs aux Amériques. Même après l'indépendance des États-Unis il y avait une coalition tribus « américains », sous le chef shawnee Tecumseh, qui se sont alliés avec les Britanniques pendant la guerre de 1812.

    Depuis ce temps, en 1983, le Québec a reconnu que «les peuples aborigènes du Québec sont des nations distinctes qui ont droit à leur culture, à leur langue, à leurs coutumes et traditions ainsi que le droit d'orienter elles-mêmes le développement de cette identité propre. »

    Beaucoup croit comme moi que nous avons intérêt d'approfondir ces liens entre les autochtones et les autres Québécois. Personnellement je crois que cela serait facilité par l'élaboration d'une constitution propre au Québec.

  15. Hi. Thanks for your response. I agree that immigrating is difficult, however, I do not consider those who came here 400 years ago as immigrants. They are the founding people. They created the infrastructure and the trading postes/routes all over North America with the Amerindians. All groups, including the English/Irish/Scottish, benefited from this already existing infrastructure. The idea of reducing the founding people to just another ethnic minority serves only to justify what I am denouncing in this article.

    Yes, there are plenty of Quebecers who either don’t care and say anything, or else they drank the federalist kool-aid and truly believe that it is in their interest to stay in the artificially created Canada. Montréal would become again a great metroplis with it’s own stock exchange (stolen/moved to Toronto, the Canadian metropolis) and all the huge salaries that go with it. The St. Lawrence would benefit us instead of being pass through for free by everyone. Quebec City’s status as a real capital would dramatically change for the better. Seriously, Anglophones and Immmigrants have everything to gain from Québec independence.

    I know people don’t know their own history. This is true everywhere. People in Canada don’t know it, neither do the majority of Americans. They all might know general, vague myths, like Marie in France or Paul Revere or Johnny Appleseed in the US, but they don’t know their history because A, it’s so befuddled with junk and hard to separate the facts from the lies, and B, they must use their energy to find this and the truth is that most people just want to do the bare minimum to get by. They don’t care about going beyond their vulgar, base needs.

    The real reason I criticize immigration is because Québec cannot absorb the current number of 55,000 per year. This is something like two or three times more than a country like France. It’s crazy.

  16. There are pretty horrible English people in Quebec violating all kinds of Human rights.Avoid the English hospitals. They are so descriminatory.

  17. It's really annoying hearing anglos rant and rave about being descriminated because they are English when they themselves descriminate.