Sunday, January 16, 2011

Quebec Ethnics Destroy the Separatist Dream

The battle for Quebec sovereignty kicked off in earnest with the election of Quebec's first separatist government in 1976.
The newly elected Part Quebecois government, while giddy with its success at the polls was no less realistic that its dream of sovereignty was a goal that under the then, present circumstances, notwithstanding the election victory, was far from realizable.

Elected on the platform of good government first, and perhaps sovereignty later, the Parti Quebecois swept to an overwhelming victory in terms of parliamentary seats, but still only garnered 41% of the popular vote.
Getting the population to move from that percentage, to the 50% plus one support needed in an eventual referendum, was a problem that the new government was determined to tackle head on.

The first order of business was to transform the mindset of Quebeckers from comfortable Canadians, to that of paranoid Quebeckers, which was to be accomplished by heightening and focusing on the differences between the French and English elements of society through manufactured conflict, reminding us of the proverb that tells us that  "In danger, there is opportunity"

The demonization of the English, already a popular theme among the militants, would be brought to the mainstream, so that an US versus THEM mentality could be created and exploited in order to sell the political agenda of separation, through the artificial fear that the English were out to destroy Francophone culture and the French language.

And so it was decided to come down hard on Quebec's English population, the demonization would be subtle, yet substantial.
Quebec Francophones would be introduced to the big lie that living among the English was a toxic formula for assimilation, notwithstanding the fact that French has thrived under just such conditions for the 250 year period of the so-called 'colonial occupation'

A year after the election of the PQ, chief language hardliner Dr. Camille Laurin, drafted Bill 101, Quebec's infamous language law, an instrument of division, meant not only to promote French over English, but to establish English speakers as second class citizens.

When René Levesque first saw a draft of Bill 101, he almost choked, pointing out to the good doctor that many of its provisions were clearly anti-constitutional and could never withstand any sort of court challenge. The wholesale stripping of language rights seemed to the newly elected Premier overly harsh and cruel, something that he admitted, deeply humiliated him. But the cabinet backed the hard line and Bill 110 became law.
Dr. Laurin happily admitted that his law was unconstitutional and that portions would surely be struck down in the Supreme Court, especially those parts making French the only official language of the courts and Parliament, something expressly forbidden in the BNA act.
To Doctor Laurin the inevitable reversals in court could be manipulated to amplify the theme of French humiliation and victimization that would bolster the cause of sovereignty by proving to the ordinary man in the street that Ottawa was determined to undermine the legitimate defence of the French language.

The effect of Bill 101 was electrifying.
Not only did it reset the historical direction of language relations in the province, it served to terrify many Anglophones into leaving the province in a historic Exodus, a migration of epic proportion, not seen in this country since the displacement of the United Empire Loyalists after the American War of Independence.

The law also had the effect of chasing the head offices of much of the big business establishment out of Montreal, where they once represented over 70% of all corporate power in Canada, to Toronto and parts west. The departure of the mighty SUN LIFE insurance company set off the stampede that represented the final nail in the coffin of Montreal as Canada's leading city.

Driving the highly mobile Anglos out of the province was a dream come true for the separatists who were rubbing their hands in glee as this secondary gift of Bill 101 proved even more satisfactory than could have been imagined.
The loss of the business establishment and sizable portion of the English community was deemed to be what today we call 'acceptable collateral damage,' a dose of painful medicine, necessary if Quebec was to find its own path to sovereignty.

In spite of these 'successes' the first referendum loss in 1980 was not unexpected, but not particularly disheartening to separatist forces in general and the Parti Quebecois in particular. The numbers were such that the separatists could reasonably look forward to another kick at the can at a later date, once the full force of the English retreat was realized, coupled with the gradual upward acceptance of sovereignty by the francophone majority as a result of the various Parti Quebecois programs and the effect of Bill 101.

The separatists were not troubled by the fact that the minorities had voted massively against sovereignty in that first referendum.
It was understood that since these 'outsiders' had already been assimilated in the greater English community, due largely to the fact that they were educated in the English education system, it was natural that they would align themselves on the NO side.
Up until that time, Muslims, Jews, Greeks and other non-Catholics had been denied entry into Quebec's French schools which was then run by the Catholic Church. These minorities were forced into the province's Protestant system, which was run in exclusively in English.  Even the Italians, themselves Catholic, attended their own separate English schools. The desire of the Catholic church to isolate French Quebeckers from the influence of the immigrant 'heathens' would have an incalculable impact on the future of the sovereignty question.

However,  the separatists were confident that this would change once all the immigrant students were forced into French schools as per Bill 101, which was thought to be, the ultimate assimilator.

They believed that while the first generation of immigrants would remain aligned with the English, the second and certainly the third generation, educated in French, would assimilate into the French community.

The referendum results of 1995 proved this theory as flawed as the Maginot Line.

'Allophones' as they became to be known, even those educated in French, voted massively in favour of Canada.
For separatists, losing the referendum by the slimmest of margins was difficult enough to digest, but the realization that Allophones had made the difference, felt like a knife through a heart. While they always expected the remaining English community to vote NO, the rejection of the sovereignty option by the allophones in such a massive proportion,  fuelled a bitter sense of betrayal.


It boiled over in Jacque Parizeau's raging post-referendum concession speech, where he specifically pointed the finger at the allophones as the cause of the defeat.

The grand demographic plan of getting rid of a significant proportion of Anglos and replacing them with assimilated immigrants has blown up miserably.

The separatists had inadvertently opened a Pandora's box, and the sheer numbers of immigrants that continue to come to Quebec makes sovereignty a virtual impossibility, as long as second, third and forth generation immigrants continue the voting pattern of their parents.

All this is not lost on hardliners.... and they are not pleased. In fact they are enraged. Watching sovereignty go up in smoke is a dish hard to digest.

And so the backlash has begun. Although Parizeau was the first to unload on the ethnics, it was left to pompous and insufferable Yves Michaud, another PQ hardliner to enunciate the new mantra of nationalists, that the Ethnics betrayed the 'real Quebeckers" by voting massively for Canada.
His subsequent censure for racism in Quebec's Parliament is the story that rages on today as militants defend his honour and hold him up as a martyr to the cause.

This rage has morphed into an unprecedented racist attack on all Quebec minorities. Born in the pages of nationalist websites, this campaign of hate has crossed over into mainstream media.

Allophones have now become "Les Ethnies," a term that is nothing more than a pejorative for these 'outsiders' who have replaced the English as the enemy of nationalist Quebeckers.

For those who think I'm exaggerating, read my next few posts for a shocking exposé of the open demonization of Quebec's ethnic communities and their portrayal as a threat to the cultural and linguistic 'purity' of the Quebecois 'pure laine'.
It isn't pretty.

Tomorrow- The extremist websites racist attacks on Ethnics.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Housekeeping 101

Here's just a couple of notes to make your blogging experience, as well as the experience of other readers of No Dogs or Anglophones more worthwhile.

Even if you don't comment very often, please use an alias, when you do. It takes just a moment to personalize your comment with an 'alias' or 'handle'.
It does not affect your anonymity!
Here's how;

It's that easy!
Now people can refer to you and can follow your thoughts easily.

A note about comments
I try to edit all comments within two hours (during the daytime) but sometimes it isn't possible.
I then open comments without pre-screening. Later, when I review them, if something deserves to be removed it will be.
You'll see this message.;
 If you are deeply offended by a comment or believe it to be overly offensive or threatening please email me privately- anglomontreal@gmail.com.

If you are a lurker1, try offering an opinion just once, it will enhance your experience.

I like to think that this blog is a place where people can express their opinions freely and even rant when they want to. The Comments section is more interesting than my post which is designed to spur
discussion. Get involved!

Comments in French continue to be accepted. Although this may represent a hardship to unilingual Anglos, the benefits to open debate outweigh that handicap.

We have a lot of francophone readers (which I appreciate a lot) and so I'll often include a link that will provide an explanation to an idiom or phrase.
Many of these words and phrases are not that familiar, even to the most bilingual.

Here's an example; "lurker1

 In the above case, the link will take you to a definition of the word 'lurker' on the Urban Dictionary website. I've added a superscript to denote which dictionary definition is being referred to, in this case, the first one.;


Anyone with suggestions to make this website better please feel free to email me. If you have any suggestions for articles or see an interesting story on the web please don't be shy.

If you have a personal anecdote to share or know of something that would be of interest to our readers please drop me a line.

I get many of these types of suggestions and they all start by saying "I bet you've already seen this...." but most of the time, I haven't!
Contact me at anglomontreal@gmail.com.

If you see typos or factual errors, please use the above email address to advise me.

I never share any address with anyone and I don't even keep these messages on file, once I've responded.

Happy reading and thanks for the honour of appearing on your screen!

What's Your Version of Linguistic Justice?

This last week Louis Prefontaine put a link up to NoDogsOrAnglophones and described us to his readers as a site where  anglophone extremists mouth off. As you can imagine we've gotten a bit more exposure amongst his readers.

I'm glad that my views and those of our commenters provide a convenient foil. I have not provided a link back to that article as it is no longer my policy to encourage anyone to visit his site. Suffice to say I don't agree with his convoluted views, based on misinformation and faulty math. Preaching to the choir, he and Mario Beaulieu can spout just about anything and have it lapped up by his minion who collectively suffer from anglo-itis.

I did get an email (not a comment) from one of his readers asking me what exactly my version of linguistic justice represents and it occurred to me that it'd make sense to explain my point of view on the subject (and have readers give theirs.)  The emailer pointed out, quite rightly, that I spend a good amount of time bitching and moaning, but never actually enunciate a position.

I've been thinking about it for a few days and it is fit and proper (as they say on The Rock def# 21) to outline my views on the major points of contention vis-a-vis language.

I've saved this piece for the weekend, so that readers can have the time to develop their own responses.

Now when it comes to language in Quebec, there are three basic points of view.

The first is shared by Mr. Prefontaine and his followers, and calls for a blanket rejection of English within Quebec. While some allowances would be made for the 'historic' Anglo minority,(whatever that is) the so-called accommodations are tailored to eliminate  English in Quebec within a generation or two.

The second diametrically opposed view would restore complete and utter freedom of choice, whether that be in education, signage etc. etc.

The third choice is a compromise that lies somewhere between the two above options. Defining this policy is more difficult because there are many versions, depending on ones point of view.

My personal view is based on a personal version of that third way.

You may already have chosen Door number 1 or Door number 2 and so I look forward to reading your comments, but I suspect that most of our readers (on the anglo side) are not the language extremists that we are made out to be and will opt for their own personal version of Door number 3.

My view is based on a compromise, one that respects Quebec's desire to protect its language, which is a legitimate concern, while respecting its Anglophone citizens.

First, I'd like to point out that Francophones are a minority in Canada and a majority in Quebec, while Anglophones are a majority in Canada and a minority in Quebec.
It isn't fair, nor does it make sense to refer to Anglophones in Quebec as a minority without acknowledging their majority position in Canada. It isn't splitting hairs. Francophones who remind us that Quebec is French, refuse to admit that Canada is English.
Like it or not, Quebec remains an element of a country that is by any measure,  mostly English. This fact cannot be ignored.

And so, I won't be referring to any group as a minority or a majority.

The rights of both francophones and anglophones to learn the other official language is of paramount importance, as Anglos living in Quebec cannot function reasonably without speaking French, while francophones cannot function reasonably in this world, without English.

Education
There's little doubt that educations remains the most contentious issue, likely because it is believed by most, that children who attend French school will become assimilated on the French side of the language equation and that children who attend English school will be anglicized.
I don't actually agree with this interpretation and hold that it is the language spoken at home that determines what children will become in later life, but that is a whole other discussion.

The government should provide for both English and French education (as it does.) Anglophones should go to English schools and francophones should be streamed into French schools as policy. It's a reasonable compromise to tell francophones that the government won't pay for their schooling in English .

That being said, citizens who disagree, should have the right to opt out of public schools and attend private schools in the language of their choice. These private schools should  continue to be subsidized by the government, but it is reasonable that a student not eligible for French education in the public system, be refused a subsidy in the private English system.

As for college and university I don't believe the government has an obligation to pay for English education for francophones. If they wish to attend English schools of higher learning they should pay for it.
I know many of you will disagree and this point will be contentious, but I believe that the government has the right to pay for what it wants to and if subsidizing francophones to go to English universities is not something they want to finance, so be it. The government would have to live with the consequences of telling these students that they could attend English universities, but would have to pay more than eligible Anglos to attend.

As the French language defenders point out, it means that only rich francophones could attend English schools, but so what?

There is nothing wrong with the government determining what kind of services it provides to its citizens, but at the same time, those who don't like or don't agree with the level of those services should be free to make their own arrangements.

By the way, this principle should also apply to Medicare with the government offering the medical services it determines it can afford and citizens free to accept those services or again, make their own arrangements privately.
This is the essence of freedom, which should always include the right to say 'no thank you.'

As for transition schools, where non-eligible students use a one-year ruse to win eligibility to English education, I would support any law that would eliminate the practice. It's sneaky and unfair.
If parents of non-eligible students want their child to go to an English school, the government shouldn't be obliged to pay for it, but on the other hand, parents should be allowed to  send their kids to English schools if they are willing to pay the full ticket.

All Quebec immigrants should be streamed into French schools, but with some notable exceptions.
Immigrants of school age, who speak only English, should be entitled to go to English schools. This would include immigrants from the USA, Great Britain, Ireland, the English Caribbean islands and Australia and New Zealand.
Forcing these children into French school is an affront to good sense. They will never become Francophones no matter what. Remember, this is still Canada, AN ENGLISH SPEAKING NATION. No provincial government should be allowed to tell an English person that he or she must give up English to live in Canada.
Of all the language restrictions this one is by far the meanest and stupidest. As long as it remains on the books it will remain a testament to nastiness.

Public Service & Signage
I have no problem with French-only signage across the province of Quebec, except in bilingual towns where signs should be posted bilingually (without any preponderance of one language over another.) Bilingual towns should offer bilingual services, but cities where there are few anglos could provide French services only.
The provincial government should provide English services in the greater Montreal area, but in the boonies, service could be French only, with the proviso that English service could be arranged upon special request. This includes all government agencies (like the CSST) and crown corporations (like the SAQ)

I don't believe an English person can expect to be treated in English in a hospital in Chicoutimi, nor be served in English in a SAQ in Abitibi. That being said they should have this expectation in a town like Pointe-Claire.

That's my version of language fairness. It's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Nothing above will affect negatively on the protection of the French language, but it will make anglophones feel that they are treated fairly and remain honoured members of society.

Agree. disagree.
If you're a regular reader of this blog, I know you have a strong opinion. You can critique my views or offer your very own perspective.

I'd ask that if you are going to comment in some length, add an ALIAS so people can comment on your opinion without referring to Anonymous@12:01.

Have a wonderful weekend!

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Quebec Could Use a Referendum!

A couple of months ago Michael M. Fortier a former Conservative federal cabinet minister suggested that Quebec hold a referendum on a regular basis and threw out a figure of every fifteen years. LINK fr

The suggestion was roundly rejected by federalists and sovereignists alike, a rare agreement that bears discussion.

Although such an arrangement would cost the taxpayers about 100 million dollars, the real price of a referendum can be measured in the pain and suffering it entails.  

As with the previous two referendums, the fear and angst suffered by NO voters before the referendum was neatly balanced with the humiliation and disappointment suffered by the YES side voters after the referendum losses.
For most voters, a referendum is akin to having ones wisdom teeth pulled, perhaps necessary, but not an experience that one would seek out on a regular basis, even fifteen years apart!

But for rabid separatists the desire for a new referendum is overwhelming. 
Many of the most militant among them, those under 34 years old, haven't had the opportunity to vote for an independent Quebec and the unbearable itch needs to be scratched.
These are the militants that are demanding that the Parti Quebecois make an absolute commitment to hold another referendum should the PQ win the next election, come hell or high water, but for Pauline Marois and other veterans of the party, the idea of a third referendum under less than 'winning conditions' is a case of 'twice bitten, thrice shy.'

Although it could never happen, the very best gift that Premier Charest could give Quebec federalists is another referendum, sometime in the next two years before the Liberals face their inevitable Waterloo at the polls.
Mr. Charest could call a referendum in order to 'clear the air.' He would commit, that in the case of a YES victory, his government would resign and abstain in a vote over the declaration of independence in the National Assembly under the new Parti Quebecois government.

Lunacy? I think not. 
It may be the very best federalist strategy available. The very reason Madame Marois fears a referendum is the very same reason we should hold one.

That's because the YES side will undoubtedly lose again and because any loss will mean that support for the sovereignty option is falling (because of the closeness of the last vote.) 

To put it another way, 'losing conditions' are just about ideal and federalists should play their own hand by demanding Quebeckers vote at a time when federalists fortunes are on a high and a time when they can control the timing and the referendum question.

Federalists wouldn't have to change any of the referendum rules other than the question. To do so would have the separatists crying foul.

All that needs to change is the question itself. In the previous two referendums, the separatist PQ government, in an effort to mislead Quebeckers as to what they were voting for, asking two very convoluted and muddy questions that left much to interpretation.
1980- "The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada? 106 words
1995- "Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" 45 words
 A crystal clear question is in the interests of the NO side. It will leave no illusions as to what is being contemplated and faced with a stark reality, some wafflers will be swayed to vote NO.

"DO YOU WANT QUEBEC TO SECEDE FROM CANADA AND BECOME AN INDEPENDENT NATION" 13 words

To what end you might ask?  
A fair and reasonable question. 


First and foremost it will take the wind out of the movement and put off the next referendum another fifteen years. At current immigration levels, it will mean that by then, close to one million new immigrants will have made Quebec their home and of these one can expect them to vote 90% in favour of Canada, making any chance at all for a referendum win impossible.
Secondly it will strengthen Ottawa's hand vis-a-vis the new Parti Quebecois government that is likely to be elected next time around. A newly elected PQ could not use threats of separation to  blackmail Ottawa. 
The tap dancing would be amusing to watch and all the PQ bluster would be about a threatening as the big bad wolf trying to blow down the brick house!

Hopefully, it will shut up the militants, to some extent anyway. 
The Young Turks of the sovereignty movement will finally taste the agony of defeat, just as their forefathers did before them and that, I have to say somewhat guiltily, pleases me enormously. 
They, like their sovereignist predecessors will inevitably suffer a crisis of confidence and fallibility, much as soldiers who are crushed in a decisive battle. 
Of course, a referendum loss will never make hardliners go away, but it will shut them up for several years until the next gen rises to take their place. 

Finally the Bloc Quebecois will face a true crisis of conscious- stay or leave?
Can the blocheads actually stay on in Ottawa after a humiliating referendum loss and talk about remaining on for another fifteen years until the next referendum?

Perhaps they will, but the merciless beating and humiliation they will face on the floor of the House will be amusing. No doubt professional hecklers, like the ever cruel Marlene Jennings, a Liberal from Montreal or the more idiotic Conservative LaVar Payne, a Conservative form Medicine will viciously remind the BQ that they don't really represent the will of Quebec. 

A referendum loss for sovereignists will be a heaping helping of humble pie. I can't wait for that!

It's weird to say it, but I share the very same dream with the most militant of separatists- a referendum as soon as possible!

Let's get it ON!!

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Quebec Government's Medical Malpractice

When car manufacturers produce cars that nobody wants or needs, it's inevitable that they go out of business, just as the once mighty General Motors went broke ignoring market realities by refusing to adapt to changing demand.

The private market works efficiently at rewarding those companies that provide products and services that customers want and need and punishes mercilessly, those who ignore market reality.

The danger when governments get into business is that these rules don't seem to apply, as they are insulated from the consequences of bad decisions by taxpayers who are forced to underwrite poor business practices and outright incompetence.

And so the Quebec government continues to produce doctors which they themselves have determined that they don't need and cannot use, at an astronomical cost, with no plans in sight to end this overproduction.

The Quebec health care crisis is much more than a lack of resources. The sad state of affairs can be traced to an egregious lack of planning and sound business practices as well as a bureaucratic nightmare that has by some estimates put the number of pencil-pushers in the system equalling the number of those involved in direct medical care, be they doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and ancillary support staff.

Nothing but nothing can better highlight the utter incompetence of those running the system than the debacle that is the production of the most basic and elemental part of the health system, the doctor.

In a closed system as we have here in Quebec (and all the other provinces), the government underwrites the universities which produces the doctors that flow into the health-care system.

It isn't that complicated an affair, the government is free to determine how many doctors are produced and what type of specialties they take up.

Like car company executives, who determine how many cars and what type of vehicles are produced in consideration of market conditions, so too government planners are supposed to produce doctors in direct relation to need.

But somewhere along the line the government of Quebec got things wildly out of whack and continues to produce doctors that it does not want. Incredibly, there is also no plan to fix this problem and like a tap that is left running for no reason, these surplus doctors are being flushed down the drain, at great expense to taxpayers.
"Since 2003, (the government) has doubled the enrolment in medical schools, but it continues to limit the opportunities for employment at the end of the residency training for doctors. ...
"...According to figures provided by the FMRQ, 22 radiation oncologists are projected to complete their residency training by July 2011. But the government only has seven positions available. A total of 44 doctors are expected to complete their cardiology residency training, but there are 21 positions available."  Link
It has been reported in the Press that it costs upwards of $250,000 to produce a doctor, but when all things are considered, the cost of a Quebec-born doctor who leaves the province after his or her medical training is completed, is infinitely higher.

Add to the cost of the actual medical degree, the cost of a lifetime of education, from kindergarten to high school, to cegep and then undergraduate studies in university. Add twenty to twenty five years of free health-care, baby bonus payments and subsidized daycare and the price easily adds up to another $250,000.

A doctor who remains in Quebec can be expected to pay over his or her lifetime, over two million dollars in taxes, aside from the incalculable benefit he or she provides the community in general and patients in particular!

It is an unconscionable loss.

For the past couple of years, certain medical specialists have been subject to a hiring freeze in Quebec.
While medical schools continue to produce these highly trained professionals, they cannot be hired in Quebec because the government has deemed those specialties redundant.

Each year at least one hundred specialists, even francophones, are given no option but to leave.

Read this story: Even francophone medical grads are leaving Quebec
Read this story: Have medical degree, must travel

Each doctor who leaves is a gift to another province or state.

The cost related to this loss, each year, can be compared to the price of two Ferrari automobiles, each with a price tag of $250,000, for each doctor lost.

That is the economic cost of incompetence and it doesn't even start to measure the human price that is a by-product of giving up so many doctors.

Imagine Premier Charest in a telephone conversation with New Jersey Governor Chris Christi
Premier Charest
Hi Chris, How's it going? I hear things are tough down there.

Gov. Christie
Tough isn't the word. I don't know about you guys up there, but we're swimming in a sea of debt. I've just cancelled a big roads projects and I'm going to cut back expenses like crazy. Civil servants, teachers, government employees, entitlements, everything is going to take a hit. The voters are screaming, but what can I do, we are broke. How's it going up there?


Premier Charest:
Can't complain. We've got labour peace and we haven't really made any cutbacks. For us, it's business as usual
Gov. Christie
Lucky Bastard! How do you do it?
Premier Charest:
Oh just sound management, I guess. Listen Chris, the reason I phoned is to ask you if you'd like a Ferrari. We're giving them away.
Gov. Christie
What? You're giving away Ferraris? FOR FREE??? 
Premier Charest:
Yup. For free. 
Gov. Christie
Why? 
Premier Charest:
Because we've got a surplus of them!  
Gov. Christie
Wow I better jump on this fast, it can't last!

Premier Charest:
Nope we do it every year. Maybe you'd like a Bentley next year!! Listen Chris, not to be rude, but I've got to go. I've got another hundred and ninety-nine calls just like this to make!!

Ridiculous? You bet.....

By the way Governor Chris Christie is the most fiscally responsible Governor that I know of, one of the few to face the debt crisis that plagues his state, head on.
If you want to hear a politician dish out a dose of reality, I beg you to watch this inspiring video..... Governor Christie: Day of Reckoning

In Quebec, the ratio between family doctors and specialists is decidedly out of proportion. That isn't to say that we don't need more specialists, it's just that we need family doctors much more.

Over two million Quebeckers don't have and can't get a family doctor. 

It isn't rare to find GP's whose practice services over 6,000 patients and this even on the island of Montreal where the government is refusing to hire more doctors on the basis that the shortage is more acute in the boonies.

It's hard to get a handle on a number like 6,000 patients, but consider that in order to do an annual checkup for each patient, the doctor must see 20 patients each day. Even at fifteen minutes (an average patient visit,) it represents over four hours per day before the doctor can attend to the sick!
The average patient visits his family doctor three times a year, so that means that some doctors are seeing up to 50 or 60 patients a day! Ideally doctors should see no more than 25 patients per day and should work about 210 days a year. LINK
Seeing 6,000 patients a years is unsustainable and leads to burnout as well as inferior treatment.

The reality is that the problem of matching doctors to patient needs is a question of sound management and a commitment to fix what is broken.

A good start would be to tell medical schools to produce doctors that we need, not ones that we don't want.
It's no different from adjusting an ice cream factory production line to produce the right ratio between strawberry and chocolate.

It isn't (pardon the expression) brain surgery.