This is a silly old prejudice about the French spoken in Canada. I would have thought you should know better, but at least one of us does.
Canadian French draws on a wider linguistic palette that hails back to colonial days where settlers came from different regions of France that had yet to be subject to the steamroller of Napoleon's imperial standardisations. Still today it has a richer more varied vocabulary than post-Napoleonic French.
Also, Canadian French has only recently in its history been given the chance to serve as the language of command, the language of governance, the language of refined society. French Canadians until the Quiet Revolution were expected to be good little workers with no ambitions but to pay their tithes to the parasitic church. As a result of that local tyranny, and of its best speakers being kept out of the limelight by the sort of fussy anglo prejudices you now display, the common register of French in Canada skews toward the lower-working-class speech typical in any unequal country, with the same very broad range between the basilect and acrolect that you'd notice between cockney and RP, a span less prominent in countries with less of a legacy of class stratification. But that cycle was broken more or less definitively in the 1960's, and the capacity of Canadian French to be spoken beautifully is finally unrestrained.
Anyway the point is many educated speakers of the most prestigious and literary strains of French, spoken within earshot of l'Académie française, are suitably impressed and delighted to hear well-spoken québécois French, at least that was the case with my French professors in university, who were happy to teach me a cross-section of the language from franco-manitobain to Swiss French to français de France to the colonial French of the Congo belge (from speakers with both European and African roots), français d'Indochine, to Breton-inflected French, to québecois. This idea that québécois is nothing more than some kind of second-rate ersatz French is beyond silly.