Funding of Quebec fete sparks debate about relative worth

[Leafless]

The Quebec capital, marking the 400th anniversary of its founding by Samuel de Champlain, has already been granted $40 million from the Department of Canadian Heritage to pay for birthday festivities, with an additional $70 million in federal money for infrastructure upgrades, including restoration of historical sites.

Meanwhile British Columbia, commemorating the 150th anniversary of its establishment as a British Crown colony, has yet to be promised a penny from the federal government.

Quebec City, 110 million; British Columbia, zero

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...6881628&p=1

I don't really know what Quebec is actually celebrating when France who lost on the 'Plains of Abraham', abandoned all North American territory with the 'Treaty of Paris'.

Most Quebecers should know that since that treaty was inacted, they became British with No legal entity concerning the country of France and eventually became Canadian citizens. This in effect disassociates Quebecers with any claims made by Champlain

If they want to celebrate, let them celebrate the Queens birthday as it was the British Monarchy that gave them the 'Quebec Act' which allowed them certian rights including the right to use their French language.

All provinces should be treated equally as far as funding goes as their would be no funding period if Canada were Not a federation.

[guyser]

They may not be treated fairly from coast to coast, but that is hardly new.

Federal contribution: Alberta: $3.5 million (celebrations); $60 million (infrastructure)

Alberta recd $63.5 M and they have half the population that Quebec does. Besides it seems from your article that BC hasnt filled out the detailed report yet

Officials from Heritage Minister Josée Verner's office declined an interview request, but sent an e-mail via the Heritage Department, saying the department will consider funding the B.C. celebrations once it receives a detailed request.

Mr. Parkinson said he intended to send the detailed request this week.

Welcome back, still po'd at your brothers I take it?

[seabee]

Nobody in Québec cares a hoot about the inconsequential battle of the Heights of Abraham Martin during this year"s celebration, which is not about France or Britain but about the foundation of the city. period. Next year there will be some commemoration of the incident on the Heights. That is another story.

The conquest changes nothing to the fact that Samuel Champlain founded Québec 400 years ago.

Québécois are much less interested in what happens in France as they are to what happens in the U.S. The celebrations are not meant to remember a possible attachement to France. Nevertheless, that country will officially participate.

And neither the Treaty of Paris, nor the Royal Proclamations nor the act of Québec makes any mention of French or of any language. None of these documents changed anything to the language situation.

In fact, particularly at the time of the Act of Québec, the Brits did not want the Canadiens to learn English. The rise of the separatist movement in the British colonies in America was quite worrisome, and the Brits certainly did not want their freshly conquered preys to be influenced by it.

[Leafless]

Nobody in Québec cares a hoot about the inconsequential battle of the Heights of Abraham Martin during this year"s celebration, which is not about France or Britain but about the foundation of the city. period.

If you are as naive to believe France is not a key player and a country of importance in the eyes of Quebecers, as a country of their origin, you better think again.

Quebec is part of Canada and that is what is important and celebrations should focus on Canada as a federation and not drag in troublesome inconsequential ancient political history that does nothing in the name of unity but only agitates and causes conflict between English/French divisions.

Next year there will be some commemoration of the incident on the Heights. That is another story.

The conquest changes nothing to the fact that Samuel Champlain founded Québec 400 years ago.

Québécois are much less interested in what happens in France as they are to what happens in the U.S. The celebrations are not meant to remember a possible attachement to France. Nevertheless, that country will officially participate.

With France participating rekindles emotional attachment relating to Samuel Champlain which is not in Canada's interest if you know your history.

And neither the Treaty of Paris, nor the Royal Proclamations nor the act of Québec makes any mention of French or of any language. None of these documents changed anything to the language situation.

Don't be foolish.

Quebecers had no legal rights to their French language prior to the Quebec Act.

n fact, particularly at the time of the Act of Québec, the Brits did not want the Canadiens to learn English. The rise of the separatist movement in the British colonies in America was quite worrisome, and the Brits certainly did not want their freshly conquered preys to be influenced by it.

If that is your opinion fine, but IMO without the Quebec Act Quebec could have become another Louisiana. Britain did very well want Quebec to be fully assimilated.

There are other factors including slow immigration from Britain as reason for the delay in assimilating Quebecers which resulted in not enough time for this to be accomplished, relating to problems with the colonies.

[Lazarus]

I'm from BC and when I read this in the Province today, I thought what an f'ing bunch of whiners we have here. So we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of its establishment as a British Crown colony? Big haired arsed deal. To be honest this was the first I heard of BC anniversary. But still, whining about getting nothing from Ottawa for an anniversary the majority of BC'er don't know about, an anniversary that our own Provincial Government is pretty mum on, is just Ottawa bashing at its lowest. Now if were the bi-centennial or the 250th anniversary, then we would have something to really bitch about.

[Leafless]

They may not be treated fairly from coast to coast, but that is hardly new.

Alberta recd $63.5 M and they have half the population that Quebec does.

That is correct, $3.5M for celebrations and $60M for infrastructure from your own quote, unlike Quebec though:

Quebec City 400th celebrations, 2008 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City by Samuel de Champlain.

- Government of the day: Stephen Harper's Conservatives

- Federal contribution: $40 million party time (celebrations); $70 million (infrastructure)

This Quebec celebration mocks Canada's birthday as a country in respect to the founding of Quebec by Champlain, as Quebec as a (country) as many nationalistic Quebecers see it this way.

Anyways, funding of provincial celebrations should be a provincial responsibility and nothing to do with federal support as it can be seen from this article the divisive issues that arise from this sort of federal funding.

IMO the federal government is acting irresponsibly.

[rbacon]

Another scam. Anyone who knows anything about Canadian history knows that St. John's NFLD. Is older than Quebec by about 100 years..........Quebec oldest city in Canada: St. John's Mayor begs to differ

Kate Jaimet And Marianne White, CanWest News Service

Published: Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Story Tools

-+ Change font size

Print this story

E-Mail this story

Share This Story

Facebook

Digg

Del.icio.us

More

The Mayor of St. John's has fired a shot across the bow of Canadian Heritage Minister Josee Verner over the claim that Quebec City is the oldest city in Canada.

Official literature from the Department of Canadian Heritage repeatedly claims that Quebec, founded by Samuel de Champlain in 1608, is "Canada's oldest city."

But St. John's Mayor Andy Wells says that honour belongs to the capital of Newfoundland and Labrador. "I think that there's a little bit of historic revisionism being undertaken here," he said.

"I think that St. John's is kind of being erased from the official record if you want to make an argument about what city is the oldest," Mr. Wells said yesterday in a phone interview from his office in St. John's.

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, Quebec City was founded on July 3, 1608, when Champlain chose the site to build a wooden "habitation" -- a structure part-fort and part-village.

In a speech last September, Ms. Verner referred to Quebec City as "the first Canadian city."

Her predecessor in the Heritage minister's post, Bev Oda, called Quebec "Canada's oldest urban settlement," while the department's 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities named Quebec City "Canada's oldest city."

Yet historical records show that European ships frequented the St. John's harbour a hundred years before the founding of Quebec City. And according to the Canadian Encyclopedia, Europeans had already begun to settle around the harbour by 1583, when Sir Humphrey Gilbert went ashore to claim the island for the British Crown.

By the time Quebec City was founded 25 years later, St. John's was already a bustling little community, said Paul O'Neill, past president of the Newfoundland Historical Society and author of the book The Oldest City: the Story of St. John's, Newfoundland. "It would have been a port into which ships came and there would have been a scattering of dwellings here," said Mr. O'Neill in an interview.

Canadian historian Jack Granatstein agreed that St. John's is "unquestionably" an older settlement than Quebec City.

But that is not the only historical tussle Quebec City is battling these days:Historians are also clashing over who the city's real founder is.

A growing number of scholars in Quebec and France are arguing that Champlain should not get the credit for founding Kebek -- the Algonquin word for where the river narrows --but rather it should go to his fellow French explorer Pierre Dugua de Mons (also spelled Du Gua de Monts).

Champlain's role in establishing the first permanent French settlement in North America on July 3, 1608, is widely covered in history books.

But what the history books have not said, according to maverick Quebec historian Marcel Trudel, is that Champlain did not go to Quebec on his own initiative. He was the lieutenant of Dugua de Mons and was paid to return to New France to establish a habitation and a trading post.

Dugua de Mons, who was King Henri IV's lieutenant-governor in New France, was too old at about 52 years in 1608 to travel again so he sent Champlain. Dugua de Mons had travelled before to the new land and founded in 1604 St. Croix Island, located along what is now the border in New Brunswick between Canada and the United States, one of the first settlements in North America.

But historian Gaston Deschenes does not agree with Mr. Trudel and thinks that Champlain is facing a posthumous humiliation.

"It's simply unbelievable. Come on. Champlain is the one who came here to establish a settlement. He did over 20 trips back and forth between Quebec and France and spent 13 winters in Quebec City."

Close