Bill 101... 40 Years of Hate

There's a bit of a media hoopla over the 40th anniversary of the infamous Bill 101 language law, which placed restrictions on the use of English in Quebec and led to the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Anglophones from the province.

A lot has been written and a lot has been said by proponents and opponents of the bill but few on either side are willing to admit the truth, that Bill 101 was an instrument of ethnic cleansing, not language protection.

The author of the law, Camille Laurin, was an Anglophobe extraordinaire, a man who believed that the independence of Quebec could not happen as long as the Quebec English community thrived. Bill 101 by his own admission was an attempt not only to regulate language but an attempt to break the Quebec English community as a political force, once and for all.

And so Bill 101 was not conceived primarily as a language law, meant to redress language issues as much as it was an attempt at ethnic cleansing. The law would put the hated Anglos in their place and hopefully 'convince' them that Quebec was no longer hospitable and that for those who stayed, a promise of second class citizenship.
Laurin filled the Bill with outrageously restrictive clauses that he knew were clearly unconstitutional because he intended to provoke a fight, understanding that every inevitable defeat in the Supreme Court would be characterized as a humiliation, fuel for the separatist movement.
Every time I  think of the hateful Camille Laurin I imagine him conducting a Quebecois version of the Wannsee conference, deciding rather coldly how the destruction of the Quebec Anglo community would proceed.

 René Levesque, Premier and leader of the PQ at the time, never supported Bill 101 as it was written, believing it was too restrictive and vindictive. But his cabinet secretary Louis Bernard, aligned with Laurin, rallied the cabinet to the hard line, leaving Levesque with no other option but to support the bill. That being said, Levesque walked out of the National Assembly when Laurin tabled his bill, a snub that Laurin never forgave.
The PQ understood exactly what Bill 101 would do to the English community and in an interview years later, Louis Bernard admitted that an Anglo exodus in reaction to Bill 101 was a price that the PQ was willing to pay. What he didn't say or wouldn't admit is that this result was exactly what the PQ planned.

Still today, language militants continue to propagate the myth that Bill 101 was 'torpedoed' or 'butchered' by Ottawa instead of admitting that the constitutional challenges that led to the invalidation of many of the punitive aspects of the law were always part of the game plan. They continue to sell the big lie that Bill 101 was the innocent victim of a federalist plot to reduce Quebec's power.

But in both respects, Bill 101 was a rousing success, it chased hundreds of thousands of Anglos out of the province and elevated French to a position of domination over English in public life. It effectively broke the English community's back and when the rest of Canada decided to accept Bill 101 as the cost of keeping Canada together, the appeasement sealed the fate of the English community in Quebec.

I wonder how all the leftist Liberal and NDPers who supported this idea of indulging the separatists in order to preserve the country, would react to Israel creating a law that restricted Arabic?

Israel and Quebec both share some commonalities, they are about the same population and have a linguistic minority. Both are surrounded by neighbouring countries which speak a hostile language. Hebrew is as much at risk in Israel as French is in Quebec.
So what if Israel proclaimed that the only valid language and culture is Hebrew and that public life would henceforth be conducted in Hebrew only.
What would be if Israel enacted a Bill 101 of its own? I'm not talking about occupied territories, but Israel proper. That law might prescribe that Arabic signs could not be erected without a Hebrew equivalent, which would be obliged to be of bigger characters than the Arabic. This would apply all over Israel even in towns and villages that are predominantly Arabic, the same as in Quebec where towns like Hampstead which are 80-90% English must also post French signs according to the law. What if some public services were mandated to be offered in Hebrew only and what if restrictions would be placed on Arabic education.
What bloody Hell would break loose at the United Nations where nation after nation would lambaste Israel as racist, with Canada's NDP and Liberals front and center in the criticism.

Today separatists lament that perhaps Bill 101 was too successful because it addressed the perceived  linguistic grievance, and thus the impetus for sovereignty was forestalled. Boo hoo....

Bill 101 remains the same hateful hammer, a mean-spirited and evil concoction meant to intimidate and punish the English community with the hopeful outcome of keeping English in check.

Whenever I argue with those who say that Bill 101 has nothing to do with hate, retribution or domination, I remind them of the rule that forces an English speaking immigrant student from Jamaica, New York or London, whose mother tongue is English and someone who speaks nothing but English into the French schooling system.
Nothing could be more stupid or cruel, the argument that these people must be integrated into the French side of the language equation utterly laughable and unattainable.
Forcing Anglophones into French schools is the height of vindictiveness, an overt action of hate and aggression, meant only to punish.

Bill 101 was more about destroying the English community than protecting the French language.
It was and remains a vindictive law that successfully persecutes Anglophones for political motives, all with the quiet acquiescence of the cowardly rest of Canada.

Haitian Border Jumpers- Your Tax Dollars at Work!

Border crossers lining up for Quebec welfare payments

There are two types of Canadians, those who believe that a border is a border and potential immigrants
or refugees must go through a process to be admitted to Canada. Then there are those who despite understanding that Haitian border jumpers are breaking the law, remain sympathetic and want Canada to turn a wilful blind eye to the situation and let them in.
It's hard to reconcile the two divergent opinions and the hard and soft positions make for a lively political discussion in Parliament, the media and even across the family dinner table.

So let us examine a few things that are not in dispute or subject to subjective opinion.

Almost all these border jumpers are ineligible for consideration as immigrants, or for that matter refugees.
These people are economic migrants who seek a better home than the squalid conditions in Haiti, which is not a criterion for consideration. Almost half of the men crossing the border have criminal records, an automatic disqualification for entry under any circumstances.

But no matter, the Trudeau government, like the German government under Angela Merkel has sent signals that Canada is open, willing and able to accept those who cross the border illegally and hence the trickle of border jumpers has turned into a torrent. Who could blame those Haitians from taking their chance given their limited options and the very real fear that Trump will finally boot them out of America.

This week the Quebec government has announced that it will give these border-jumpers monthly welfare checks of $623 and more for families.
So far this year 10,000 people, mostly Haitians have crossed illegally into Canada, the vast majority through Quebec. Although the government is reluctant to give hard numbers, it is believed that up to  250 people a day are making the crossing. In July alone over 3,000 crossed into Quebec.

In the end, almost none will be ruled eligible for admission, but it isn't likely that many will be returned to Haiti. After a lengthy immigration process that will include interminable appeals that will stretch out into years, most will go underground rather than return home willingly.

So how much will the ongoing fiasco cost?
It's hard to say, given that we aren't being told how many will ultimately be let in. The potential number of those wishing to come to Canada is staggering and the situation cannot be allowed to continue, even for Trudeau's Liberals who will face a building backlash that will culminate near the next general election.

But let's crunch some numbers for the fun of it, even though it is probably an exercise in futility given that we just don't have enough information, nor can we predict how many will come over the border in the near and far future.

So let us start where we are, with 10,000 already crossed, of which 4,000 individuals and families will receive welfare payments starting at $623 per month. Interestingly, the Quebec government has cleverly omitted telling the truth about the payments to families, who make up the majority of the border-jumpers. Welfare payments for couples run about $1,000 a month and those with children increase those benefits by a couple of hundred dollars.

Now a straight calculation of what the Quebec government has led us to believe is that it will spend  $623 x 4,000 = $2.5 million dollars a month, or $30 million a year and that isn't even adding in the cost of free medicare.

But given that families are being paid more than the minimum, it is safe to say that the real amount being shelled out is much higher and since we don't know that number, let us take a guess.

All 10,000 'refugees' are being covered by 4,000 cheques and so let us hazard a guess and say that of the 4,000 cheques, 2,000 are going to individuals and 2,000 to families of four (adding up to the 10,000.)
So here is a new calculation;
$623 x 2,000 = $1.25 million dollars a month for individuals and $1,200 x 2,000 for families = $2.4 million dollars, making a new grand total of $3.65 million per month or $44 million a year.

Now let us suppose that in the next twelve months, in addition to the 10,000 already arrived, another 15,000 jump the border, which is an ultra-conservative estimate.

That means after all the calculations are done, the so called refugees are costing the Quebec government and its taxpayers over $100 million dollars a year.

In discussing the issue with a friend of mine who supports the open border, he rightly points out that although a $100 million sounds like a big number, it is actually only about 1/10 of one percent of the total Quebec annual budget of $90 billion.
Fair enough.

But $100 million taken by itself is a rather large number and an opposition leader made a very poignant point about what that money can buy.

Earlier this year the government admitted that seniors living in government old age homes (CHSLD) are being given only one bath a week because of the expense.
It seems that a second bath per week would cost $30 million dollars a year, money that the government could not authorize in good conscience because of other 'pressing' needs.

When called out on this fact by Jean-François Lisée, the Premier bristled and said that it is sad the leader of the PQ would dare to make such an association.
I actually think that it was a very good argument, one that brings the value of money spent down to a level where average citizens can understand the real cost of the refugee program.

And that gentle readers is the long and the short of it.
In the end (if there is one) Quebec can expect to dole out over $300 million dollars over the next three years and when the migrants ultimately land, either returned to Haiti, granted official refugee status or gone underground, the cost will ultimately be much higher.

Can Things Get Worse for the Parti Québécois?

It seems that ever since Jean-François Lisée took over the Parti Québécois the fortunes of the party have gone from bad to worse.
Trailing both the Liberals and the CAQ, with just 22% support in the polls, each passing month sees more of its base dying off. With collapsing support in its youth wing, its hard to see the party renewing itself and with about 70% of Quebecers rejecting sovereignty, the raison d'etre of the party, it is hard to see where the PQ can go.
It occurs to me that if a poll was conducted over Quebec sovereignty in the ROC, a higher percentage of Canadians would support Quebec leaving Canada than the percentage of Quebecers wishing to do so.
Its gotten that absurd.

With sovereignty off the table, the PQ tried to harness Quebec's natural xenophobia, in proposing the Charter of Values, but overestimated the pushback. In that effort, the PQ tried to face-off the Montreal region with the rest of Quebec and surprisingly (or not so) the effort turned into a calamity, chasing the PQ from power and ushering in the current Liberal era of Philippe Couillard.

The latest humiliation comes courtesy of Statistics Canada which reported that the number of Quebecers having English as their first language in Quebec has had a meteoric rise since the last census.
This was of course fresh fodder for the hapless Lisée, a man and a party searching for some relevancy and so the "bad news," of the rise of the anglophone community is 'good news' for a PQ in desperate need of an issue.
The spectre of the evil anglophone community growing at a breakneck pace is a gift-wrapped issue for those who believe that Quebec is being attacked relentlessly by an English horde of barbarians at the gate.

And so like Chicken Little, Lisée has gone to town, declaring that the linguistic sky is falling by characterizing the notion that a growing English community is an existential threat to the preservation of French in Quebec.
He has proposed all sorts of changes calling for a new Bill 201 that would turn the thumbscrews on all aspects of English. He has demanded that no immigrant be allowed into Quebec if they cannot speak French and that a student cannot graduate an English CEGEP without mastering French. He wants to force federal agencies and companies to comply with Bill 101 (they are now exempt by federal statute) and he wants small business' to be subject to language laws.

It was a couple of good days for Lisée, spewing his tough new stance on English on every news channel and radio station that would have him, and there were plenty of takers.

But this all came crashing down today when after complaints by Anglo activists that the numbers Stascan published were nonsense.

In the race to find fault with the English, nobody in the francophone media looked at the Statscan numbers with an ounce of scepticism, a curious case of journalistic laziness. The numbers were so clearly in error that Anglo activists questioned the accuracy almost immediately.

"Are there almost five times as many English-speakers in Dolbeau-Mistassini, in the Lac-St-Jean region? Has Quebec City gained 6,000 residents whose mother tongue is English since 2011?
So say the results released last week from the 2016 census.
But some researchers who study Quebec’s anglophone minority aren’t buying it.
“It defies logic,” said Jack Jedwab, the executive vice-president of the Association for Canadian Studies. On Wednesday, Jedwab wrote to Statistics Canada questioning the accuracy of the findings on language in Quebec."  Link

Today StatsCan admitted that the entire 60,000 increase in the Anglophone community was an error, plain and simple. They botched the calculations.
The Anglo upsurge was but a figment of imagination, an error that not only humiliates StasCan but bleeds all over the PQ and Lisée who built a whole new election platform on a false premise.

What fun!

I don't know how Lisée can spin this. Does he retract the anti-English platform based on the fact it was built on a lie, or does he brazen it out and tell us that just the same, the policy is one that the party will continue to support.

Gender Parity in Parliament is a Bad Idea

I've heard complaints from women, not just feminists, that the number of bathroom stalls accorded to the ladies room in many venues, especially older facilities built when women participated less in public society, is unfair when compared to the facilities in the mens' room. They rightly complain that physiology and indeed other factors like clothing and social mores contribute to the fact that women spend twice as long as men in the bathroom and facilities should be built or retro-fitted to reflect this reality in order to reduce wait times in the ladies' room to equal that of the men's room.
Fair enough, I agree wholeheartedly.

But the argument actually underlines the fact that although supposedly equal, men and women are different, a fact feminists want us to ignore.

Much has been made of the fact that women earn on average 72 cents for every dollar earned by men, a dubious fact that feminists trot out as proof that women are discriminated against in the work place.
But putting aside the veracity of that fact (which is highly disputed,) the correlation between pay and gender is not ipso facto a result of discrimination.
It is like saying the fact that our prison population is 90% male is proof that our justice system discriminates against men.
Perhaps we can better deduce that men by nature are more likely to break the law than women. Take your pick

Yes, dear feminists, men and women are different, equal but decidedly different. It is when feminists ignore this glaring fact that we get into the absurdities of the gender equality movement.

A great example of this is the controversy launched by tennis star Novak Djokovic who complained that the politically correct trend of offering women equal prize-money in major tournaments like the US Open or Wimbledon is unfair since men are responsible for generating much more revenue.

In a convoluted rebuttal in Money magazine writer Kerry Close's number one argument for equal pay is that;

 "Female tennis players work just as hard as men."

Really?
According to this train of thought, an artist who works as hard and expends as much effort as Michelangelo should command the same price for the sale of his or her paintings. Hmmm....
She then goes on to say;

 "Female tennis players....already realize that both genders should receive equal pay for equal work."

The equal pay for equal work is a valid argument when the product of the work is equal, not the case in men's and women's tennis.
Two employees who shuck oysters may work equally long and hard, but if one shucks double the amount of oysters in the same shift as compared to the other, he or she deserves higher pay.
But that isn't even the case in women's versus men's tennis where men spend considerably more hours at work.
At Wimbledon in 2015, Novak Djokovic spent 16 hours on the court to win the championship, while his counterpart on the female side, Serena Williams needed only 10.6 hours to win her championship.

And finally  the author makes this argument;

"It's a myth that fans are always more interested in men's tennis." 

Alas, also not true. The author cleverly alludes to several rare exceptions that essentially prove the rule. Women's tennis generally attracts about half as much fan interest as men's tennis.
At Wimbledon this year, a tournament that offers equal prize money for men and women, viewership for the men's final was 9.2 million, while that for the women was 4.3 million.  Link
And so any argument for equal pay for women's tennis players is not based on economics, but rather irrational feminism where reality is always tempered by flights of discrimination.

There are actual domains where women make considerably more than men, the fashion industry a good example where the top male models make a fraction of what top women models make.
Is it discrimination or economics?

And so too is ridiculous the complaint that women pay more for dry cleaning or hair cuts because of discrimination. Unfortunately, few are willing to confront this feminist nonsense.
Women pay more for dry cleaning and haircuts because they want to. They are much more particular about quality than men and thus pay a premium.
If women were as price driven as men, certainly somebody, perhaps a smart woman, would open a dry-cleaning business and charge women the same as men, with the resulting avalanche of business from disgruntled women assuring that the enterprise would become a rousing success, leading other dry cleaners to follow suit or lose customers.  How come it isn't so?

If women earn just 72% of what men earn, why wouldn't a smart boss hire only those women and ignore the overpaid men. If the women produce as much as the men, then the company would have an astounding competitive advantage and profits would soar!

As for hair salons, nobody but nobody will disagree that women are generally much more concerned with their hairdo than men and willingly pay more for the right result. Otherwise, low-cost women's hair salons would flourish. Let us remember that most women's salons are owned and operated by women, so any perceived discrimination is self-imposed.
Now there are a few salons across the country that now charge by the length of hair, not by gender, but they are few and far between, making my point that choice isn't always about price, especially among women.
And by the way, should not those long-haired individuals complain about discrimination by virtue of their long hair being charged more?
Should fat hungry people pay more at the lunch buffet and if so, should not women pay less because they consume less food?
Isn't it age discrimination when children and seniors pay less at the movies?
What about happy hour where women pay less at night clubs that give out free drinks to women to encourage them to come?
All discrimination....

We live in a free enterprise society where businesses can and do easily jump in when opportunity presents. If women are over-charged or underpaid, there are simple market remedies that present. When bars want to increase the number of female patrons, they offer incentives. Theatres understand that kids and seniors have less disposable income and so offer discounts.
Markets generally regulate themselves, unless subject to monopolistic conditions. Barbershop and dry-cleaning prices aren't controlled by an anti-women cabal, they are a result of market forces.
It is too easy to blame perceived inequalities between men and women on discrimination when other factors are really at play.

Now to the idea of gender equality in Parliament, an idea that every feminist holds sacrosanct.
Regardless of what feminists say, political parties are bending over backwards to recruit women and visible minority candidates, even to the point of encouraging and promoting the under-qualified.
One only has to look at Justin Trudeau's gender equal cabinet that has led to the promotion of under-qualified women, two of whom which have flamed out spectacularly with others floundering in inexperience or incompetence.
The Liberals have elected 30% of its sitting members as women, yet offer them 50% of cabinet positions. This is a clear case of discrimination, or as feminists like to put it, affirmative action.
Clearly more competent men were left out to satisfy Trudeau's feminist fantasy where quality takes a back seat to gender politics.
Now let me preface all this with the opinion that women make equal or better politicians than men. If anything they are generally more honest and involved in corruption but a fraction of the time men are.

But there will always be fewer women than men in Parliament unless the numbers are goosed unfairly by idiots like Justin Trudeau who view perception as more important than substance.

There are a variety of reasons that women see being a Parliamentarian as less compatible and desirable than men do.
Parliament means long hours away from family and members cannot take maternity leave in good conscious, leaving constituents without representation. Unlike the office accountant who goes off on maternity leave and is replaced with a temp, women Parliamentarians cannot be replaced temporarily, and so face the difficult decision of having a career or a family.
Generally, women choose work that keeps them close to home and family to a higher degree than men, a fact which is a result of choice.

To blame society for the lack of gender equality in Parliament is to ignore reality, the withering fact is that for some very good reasons, women in a much higher proportion don't see the job as desirable. That is called choice and free will.

We can accept that Parliament will always have a disproportionate amount of men versus women because that is what women want.
Or we can promote from the lower ranks of the unqualified to fill the imaginary gap and suffer the consequences.

Fewer women in Parliament is not discrimination, but more women in Parliament certainly is discrimination.

Foolish Quebec Government To Open Racism Inquiry

"Saguenay is a White City"

Perhaps the modern equivalent of the mythical Pandora's Box is the very real IED, an improvised explosive device that once trifled with, releases nothing but pain and something that you wouldn't want to touch with that proverbial ten-foot pole.
It is that analogy in mind that I consider the utter foolishness of the Quebec's government's plan to hold a public inquiry into racism in Quebec society, a recipe for humiliation and embarrassment if I ever saw one, a political blunder that will no doubt explode in our collective faces.
What on Earth were they thinking?

"Quebec's upcoming public consultation on systemic discrimination and racism will seek concrete and permanent solutions, says Kathleen Weil, the province's minister of immigration, diversity and inclusion.
Weil unveiled the details of the public consultation, which will begin in September and continue through the fall, at a news conference Thursday.
"The fight against racism and discrimination is a continual priority in open, inclusive and democratic societies like Quebec.  It's a collective responsibility," she said. Link

I wonder if the politicians remember the humiliating fiasco that was the Bouchard-Taylor public consultations, the commission that looked into religious accommodations that degenerated into an embarrassing combination of racism and idiocy.

Click on CC button for subtitles

Whenever people ask me if Quebec is more racist than other provinces I always tell them that the answer is YES and NO, because Quebec is really two provinces, the largely bilingual, urban Greater Montreal region that includes the suburbs north and south of the island and which makes up almost half of Quebec's population. Ninety percent of of Muslims and other religious minorities including Sikhs and Jews live here and racism is a problem no different that in other large cities across Canada.

BUT....
Outside this regions lies the hinterland of the great unwashed, the unilingual rural and small town francophones that live in a French/Caucasian/nominally-Catholic bubble. Some of the ridings boast 98% Quebecois purity, where seldom is seen a black or brown face and where Asians are as rare as a hen's tooth.

There's a lot of under-the water tension in this part of Quebec over Muslims and their place in Quebec society. The recent cemetery fiasco underlines that fact, and this Quebec reality is not reflected by our politicians or represented by the media and press which propagate the myth that Quebec is tolerant and open to minorities.
This is especially true in regards to religious minorities that openly display their observance through religious dress, such as Muslims, Sikhs and Hassidic Jews.
This 'other' Quebec cannot be described as strictly rural because included is many towns and cities like Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Trois Rivières and Saguenay.
Common among those who have a distinct fear and loathing of Muslims is surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, French unilingualism where people live in a closed and insular social order, where strangers are not welcome. With little or no contact with religious or visible minorities, it is easy to fear the unknown.

How deep is this fear and loathing?
A lot deeper than anyone would imagine and a lot deeper than politicians would admit. It borders on the hysterical.
In this context we can understand the referendum rejection of the Muslim cemetery in Saint-Apollinaire last week, where a door-to-door campaign led by an outside anti-Muslim group called 'Le Meute' (The Pack) warned voters that the cemetery would breed an influx of Muslims, then a mosque and then radicalism.  And so it goes.

The anti-Muslim hysteria sometimes borders on the sadly hilarious such as in Rimouski where a panic set in as an email campaign warned residents of a Muslim invasion.

"The email in question (or rather spam), which has been circulating for at least two years, describes an urban legend which says that Rimouski has gone from 4 Muslim families in 2004 to more than 1,000 families "of this kind" in 2011. "It's scary," says the message that people of "this kind" even got from the city a new street "in the name of their high Islamic priest". Link{Fr}

Of course the utter nonsense of it all is that some idiot residents believed that among the 50,000 Rimouski population were thousand of Muslims, when in reality there were but 130 making up just ⅓ of one percent of the population. The 'new' Muslim street name wasn't new at all and was named after oceanographer Mohammed El-Sabh, who made his mark in Rimouski and happened to be Muslim .

While Quebec City and its mayor purport to be cosmopolitan and friendly to strangers, it is here that not one, but three xenophobic groups La Meute, Atalante and Les Soldats d’Odin, operate openly.

This week, a racist handcrafted sign was placed over the nameplate of a Saguenay cemetery (pictured above) reminding everyone that the Saguenay is "White."
I guess people need reminding that out of the 140,000 residents, 96% are white francophone nominally-Catholics. The rest of the population is made up of 2% natives and one percent anglos. Immigrants make up less than half of one percent. The total Muslim population is about 300 persons, or about one-fifth of one percent, a frightening barbarian invasion to many.

 In 2015 the mayor of the city of Shawinigan admitted to refusing a zoning change to allow a mosque to open in an industrial park because of the anti-Muslim pressure put on the city council by 'concerned' citizens. During the debate, many Muslim families complained of being victims of hate messages. It took the intervention of the sitting member of the National Assembly to finally secure approval.

TABARNAK! I knew this would happen!

I am reminded of an television episode of 'Infoman' a Quebec humourist who put on a full body burqa and visited the small town of Hérouxville, (infamous for publishing it's anti-immigrant 'Code of Life') freaking out the townsfolk.  This screenshot of that episode is one of my favourites, a local's reaction to being greeted by the comedian in a full burqa.
Watch the funny video in French here.

I wish I could say that these are isolated instances, but sadly they are not and while everyone is quick to say that the shooting in a Quebec City mosque that took six lives was a one-off aberrant event, the work of a deranged nutter and nothing to do with Quebec society, I sadly beg to differ.
The palpable anti-Muslim hysteria that exists in areas of Quebec that are practically devoid of Muslims is  staggering and it is ironic, that in these parts of Quebec, the fewer the Muslims in the community, the more they are despised.  Go figure.
There exists an exaggerated toxic fear and loathing of Muslims and indeed foreigners in the ROQ (Rest of Quebec) and no commission of inquiry will dismantle it.

Before calling a public inquiry into racism perhaps the government can look into itself. As the old saying goes.....physician, heal thyself.
The participation of minorities in government and in government-run entities is abysmal. The
public service employs just under 5% of visible minorities less than forty percent of their demographic weight. The SAQ (liquor board) employs just 38 visible minorities out its 6,000 employees and Hydro-Quebec employs 300 visible minority workers out of 20,000. The Sureté du Quebec counts just 24 minority officers out of almost 6,000 police.
There is a government agency that sets guidelines for government and quasi-government organizations in terms of hiring visible minorities and the report card dismal.
Our good friends in the city of Saguenay have but one visible minority out 1,200 city workers and Terrebonne wins the award as the town with the fewest visible minorities with just 3% of their recommended hiring goal..
Of course as to be expected, Montreal does the best job of hiring minorities, with the Jewish General hospital earning the highest mark fulfilling 98% of its hiring goal. But no organization beats Cote-Saint-Luc's Donald Berman Maimonides, a Jewish geriatric centre which counts an astounding 420 of it 's 660 employees being visible minorities. It isn't just anglo or ethnic organizations of Montreal rising to the task. The Commission scolaire de Montréal, and the STM (bus company) also get high marks in visible minority employment.
As I said, there are two worlds in Quebec, Montreal and beyond.

At any rate, in calling the inquiry the government is sending out an invitation to minority and Muslim-bashing hayseeds to come out to bitch and moan in public and believe me, these rubes won't give up their chance to get a few racist things off their chest.

The truth is that the government is setting itself up for a huge fiasco where the true face of Quebec intolerance will be exposed.
Now that the entertaining Sean Spicer news conferences are a thing of the past I can't wait for this Gong show of an inquiry to get going.

It will be epic. Don't miss it.