Thursday, March 16, 2006

The Best Argument...

...for denying Quebec a voice at UNESCO, comes from Gilles Duceppe, of all people:

Speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill, where he was taking part in a meeting of the Bloc caucus, Mr. Duceppe said the more independence Quebec receives at world bodies such as UNESCO, the Paris-based cultural wing of the United Nations, the easier it will be to argue for full independence.

"If he delivers and Quebec has a voice, let's say at UNESCO, that [would be] good for a sovereign Quebec in the future. All the sovereigntists are supporting the fact Quebec is having an international presence in the francophone summit. This is a plus not only for the sovereigntists, but for Quebec. It's preparing us for the day [when] we'll be a sovereign country and be present everywhere. So the more we're present, the better it is, so we'll support that."

Harper's playing a dangerous game in Quebec. Never mind what will happen when he fails to "solve" the fiscal imbalance...


  • CG,

    I can't believe you get suckered in by Gilles Duceppe. The man is desperate to survive the next election. Everything is going to be "good for sovereignty" because, right now, nothing is.

    Dangerous game in Quebec? Liberals can't be saying that with a straight face. You know what a dangerous game was: implementing a strategy to give federalists a single party choice in federal elections.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 11:51 a.m.  

  • I suppose if French were still the language of commerce, I'd see more truth to the statement.

    Since virtually every French speaking nation except France is a third world nation, with little or no clout on an international scale, I don't see organizations such as UNESCO being the launching pad to a declaration of support for recognition in the middle of the UN.

    A dollar here, a dollar there, and they'd all support English Canada in keeping the house intact. The French almost always end up following the money.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 11:53 a.m.  

  • Duceppe's comments are a non sequitur from an increasingly desparate man. He should stick to his knitting.

    As for Harper's dangerous games, I believe exceeding electoral expectation in Quebec by a whopping margin should be all the evidence one needs to render judgement on his performance in the area of national unity thus far.

    As for dangerous games, we've seen what liberal games have done to buttress national disunity.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:54 a.m.  

  • Duceppe's statement is so far off it's laughable. Bid deal, let Quebec send a representative to a UN conference, just one step closer to independence.

    As for the fiscal imbalance even if it isn't fully "solved" it's better to attempt a partial solution than completely ignore the problem.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:58 a.m.  

  • "Harper's playing a dangerous game in Quebec"

    ...and federalism was working so well under the Liberals eh. Give your head a shake.

    By Blogger M. K. Braaten, at 12:13 p.m.  

  • I still fail to understand what exactly is wrong with Quebec leaving Canada. Wouldn't Canada be better off without Quebec?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:14 p.m.  

  • You didn't realize your mistake, obviously, CG, but thank goodness for you that so many Conservatives read your site and can put you straight. You see, you didn't realize that it doesn't matter how badly Harper screws up unity - or anything for that matter: ethics, accountability, foreign policy, cities agenda - because Martin was doing a worse job of it.

    Even though you were one of the many Liberals criticizing Martin, shame on you for expecting good government. The only thing that matters is that he does the smallest bit less bad than Martin.

    And so any criticism of Harper will only be valid if he starts performing worse.


    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 12:20 p.m.  

  • Whoa... did Ted just say that. You gotta cold or something Ted? Or is the CPC gaining a convert.:)

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 12:27 p.m.  

  • There will never be a separate Quebec. Most hardcore seps are whiney hippies, old and young, who share some weird hallucination that they can exist as a nation in some variation of the Euro model.
    It is impractical and goes against the grain of globalization.

    By Blogger tablogloid, at 12:30 p.m.  

  • Ted (cerberus),

    we are used to you making a point.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 12:34 p.m.  

  • Yes, the Liberals did a lot of bad in Quebec for National Unity but I think Cerberus handled that point nicely (even if it was over most people's heads).

    The fact is, the hard core separatists will never be satisfied with anything less than separatism, so I doubt the UNESCO seat will do much to appease them. And, as history has generally told us, appeasement rarely works.

    As for the fiscal imbalance, I tend to think it doesn't exist. And if you concede that it exists and promise to fix it, you've raised expectations to the point where people will expect it to be fixed. Since Harper doesn't have the money to do this, it's going to give separatists something to rally around and another example of English Canada turning their back on them. Remember Meech?

    High expectations and promises he could never keep were one of the things that did Martin in. If Harper can't solve the non-existent fiscal imabalance, he's going to undo a lot of the good he did for national unity in the last election.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:02 p.m.  

  • CG,

    yes, Ted is over my head on that one.

    Here in Quebec, we know never to try and win hardcore separatists. There isn't much to do with them. They are in la-la-land. Witness the debate within the PQ now raging over Montenegro.

    The point is: we aren't trying to appease hard-core separatists.

    We are going after the 75% of Quebec that isn't in that camp and is growing mighty tired of the lunacy they bring to politics.

    It is frustrating to see Liberals playing to the separatist tune. Not every setback is "turning your back on Quebec."

    Its kind of a chauvinists position - you know, us Quebeckers are so simple-minded and hot-headed that we want to separate everytime things don't go our way. Maybe we aren't as irrational as you think?

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 1:12 p.m.  

  • Yo Cerberus. It's one thing for CG to post this on his site. It's quite another to place it under the banner, "The Best Arguement..."

    I wouldn't be surprised if CG put this out to bait us though. If so, he sure sucked a few of us in. After all, if you're a grit in Calgary, you've gotta have a sense of humour, or a crack addiction.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:12 p.m.  

  • Maybe we should give New Brunswick a voice in UNESCO too. After all, they are the lone billingual province.

    And, since Alberta has Canada's strongest economy, can we give them a voice at the WTO?

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:16 p.m.  

  • Thanks, CG. I'll try to be a little more direct for the others: The goal should not be to just try to do a bit better than a failed government. It was a failed government.

    The goal is to keep the united and Harper is producing the worst of what he (and many of us) criticized in Martin's Liberals: policies meant to out politic the other side for perceived electoral gain rather than do what is best for the country. Pandering to separatness - i.e. we are special and separate and deserve special and separate treatment - is not in the interest of unity or the nation.

    Just because our guy was mucking things up, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't expect the next guy to do better. So far, he's not.

    There, is that clearer for you folks?


    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 1:19 p.m.  

  • No, its not.

    "pandering to the separatists" -

    you are calling a whole whack of people separatists who aren't separatists.

    its applying a negative label to people who are as good citizens in this country as you and CG.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 1:23 p.m.  

  • Personally,

    I'd say NB could have a seat at UNESCO and in the francophonie.

    In fact, it would be excellent: Quebec is distinct. But it isn't distinct in being distinct!

    Equating Unesco with the WTO is like comparing the senate to the military.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 1:25 p.m.  

  • Maybe the answer is Ottawa could sponsor various events in Quebec designed to promote federalism. We could also establish an elaborate kickback scheme to funnel money back to federlist political parties. If I were Prime Minister that's what I'd do.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:30 p.m.  

  • Harper is an "accidental" Prime Minister:

    Lot of post-election urban mythmaking taking place in New Tory ranks right now.
    Liberals should not buy into these myths, including the one which says Harper's New Tories are set to become a majority government in the next election.

    A few reality checks for those deluded folks:

    1. Very few voters voted for the New Tories because they liked or agreed with their policies.
    2. Most registered a vote against the Liberals (voting for change or for a time out for the LPC).
    3. Therefore, Harper does not really have a meaningful vote for most of his policies.
    4. As a result, should he try to implement any of the major changes, he will be sent packing in the next election.

    The facts? This survey:

    The recent national survey of Canadians conducted by SES Research23/02/2006 shows that a surprising 12% of voters made their decision in the voting booth while another 19% made it on the Saturday or Sunday preceding Election Day.

    Canadian voters in the 2006 federal election were also asked to identify the main reason for the Conservative win. Almost one in two Canadian voters (46%) said that Stephen Harper was elected because it was time for a change. Another one in four Canadian voters (25%) said it was due to the fact that the Liberals needed a “time out.” Eleven percent said that the Conservatives had the best platform while 6% said Stephen Harper was the best federal leader.

    “With three of ten voters making their voting decision in the last three days of the campaign – the election was really up for grabs. A minority of voters cast their ballot based on the Conservative platform (11%) and on Stephen Harper himself (6%). Change and the need for a Liberal ‘time out’ drove support in the federal election. Polling clearly shows that the Harper mandate is founded on change and punishing the Liberals.”

    -Nik Nanos, President, SES Research

    Nuff said.

    Harper's New Tories will be a shooting-star government, joining that of Joe Clark as a footnote in Canada's history of accidental Prime Ministers. The Bloc might prop him up for a while in the House in order to wring changes from him, but the voters of all of Canada will pass judgment on Harper and his neocons come the next election.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:44 p.m.  

  • Curiosity is right.

    The Tories winning the election was actually proof that the Liberals won the election.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 1:53 p.m.  

  • Ha... he might be accidentally PM, but he'll be purposefully a PM with a majority in the next election.

    Ted, your arguements don't hold at all, Harpers yet to prove himself worse than Martin. Hell, he'd have to work really, really hard to prove himself worse than Harper.

    So far, Harpers been extremely astute in his time in office.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, come the sitting of the house, it's going to be one piece of conservative business after another, and all the screaming in the world to try and distract Harper from his agenda won't work.

    He did nothing wrong with Emerson, and the Liberals, with the exception of that idiot Easter, know it. No debate, no censure, no milage long term.

    The Liberals, as announced by the leader, Bill Graham, were the ones to make the decision to go on the offensive in Afghanistan. No debate, time for debate 6 months past, no milage long term for the Liberals.

    Thanks to Emerson, the NDP are completely useless in the house now. No love for Layton.

    Duceppe can't afford to lose what little he has in seats, cause there's a lotta luvin for Stephen in La Belle province right now.

    The Liberals... well they are just going to do whatever they are told to do until they have a leader capable of rallying all the troops... No Love, no money, no prospects for love, no prospects for a leader, yet.

    Oh yeah... It's the Stephen Harper Hour for the next 2 years, and then on to a majority.

    Meanwhile it will be criminal charges, lawsuits, and general bad cess for the Liberals.

    The CPC to the Liberals "I'll trade you conspiracy charges on (place name here), for 30 votes on this.


    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 2:01 p.m.  

  • What happens if the change we voted for is something we like? Do you think Canadians will just go back to the Liberals just because they are the Liberals.

    That is exactly why they are on the time out bench and the campaign was horrible, the Liberals thought their name would win the day. They then tried to play catch-up to a Harper team that looked ready to take the top job.

    It takes a long time to win back trust, something Harper is building on everyday he is in office.

    Harper can build a lasting coalition on increased Provincial autonomy, think about it.

    By Blogger Derek Richards, at 2:05 p.m.  

  • The Nation Post

    The Decima poll, conducted March 9-13, suggests the Conservatives had the support of 37 per cent of decided voters, up slightly from the 36 per cent of the vote they won on election day. The Liberals had the support of 28 per cent, down from 30 per cent on election night.

    The New Democrats were up to 19 per cent after taking 18 per cent of the January vote, and the Bloc Quebecois had 10 per cent, down from 11 per cent.

    "In this week's poll, the Conservatives have more support than the Liberals in every part of the country except for Ontario, where they trail by only three percentage points," said Bruce Anderson, Decima's chief executive officer.

    Harper has come under some sharp political criticism for a couple of controversial cabinet appointments.

    David Emerson changed parties to join the Tory cabinet just two weeks after being elected as a Liberal. And Michael Fortier, who didn't run in the election, accepted a Senate appointment to take the public works portfolio.

    But that does not seem to have shaken public support.

    "While not enjoying an extraordinary honeymoon, the Conservatives are certainly not losing ground in their early weeks in office," Anderson said.

    He also said the Tories seem to be gaining ground among younger people and women "as anxiety about the social policy agenda may be dissipating."

    Hail to the chief baby, hail to the chief.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 2:23 p.m.  

  • "And so any criticism of Harper will only be valid if he starts performing worse." - Ceberus

    I agree, to a point.

    Yes, this sounds naive, but if we expect the worst from politicians, they'll eventually give us what we 'want': bad politicans, bad politics.

    Of course, if we expect the worst, then we won't be surprised, and while I'm cynical about these things (and I don't like the Emerson fiasco), I believe we *should* still be critical, within reason. If we give Harper free reign until he's *worse* then Martin, then we're as much responsible for a crappy state of government as anyone involved in the sponsorship scandal.

    (I can't really comment on UNESCO, I don't know enough about it to form my own opinion)

    By Blogger Oxfords, at 2:36 p.m.  

  • Con 37 (+2)
    Lib 28
    NDP 19 (-2)

    changes are from decima's last poll

    Not much to see in this but the Liberals have slumped in Ontario. No word on the other provinces.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 2:44 p.m.  

  • CG
    You forget what game Harper is playing, he is not playing the the National Unity game. He is playing the let Quebec leave game. Most of the conservatives really want Quebec to leave, thus Harpers actions.
    Plus I would suggest that even claiming Harper is doing a better Job then Martin or that the Tories are better then the Liberals.
    Proof is in the pudding.
    Harper is appealing, as Chucker admits, to the soft nationalists the 25~30% who waffle in the polls.
    Gee that worked so well for Mulroney. It only gave us the Bloc in the first place.
    The Liberals have succesfully defended Canada twice in Referendums. Sure in the second one it was close and a piss poor campaign was run but both were won.
    The Tories, they gave us the Bloc. Everytime they get in Quebec moves closer to seperation.
    By the way it was not the Liberals who created the one credible federal party in Quebec, again that was the tories by being so bloody incompetent and giving birth to the Bloc. From the conscription crisis to the Manitoba Schools question to Louis Riel it is always the Tories who almost cost us the country and the Liberals who clean up the mess. The Libs HAVE not lost a referendum.
    The Libs did not give birth to the bloc.
    God help the country this time as Harper agian goes after teh same voters that Mulroney did. What will happen this time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:52 p.m.  

  • Both New Brunswick and Quebec already have separate delegations at La Fracophonie.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:55 p.m.  

  • The Harper policy on UNESCO is not all that different from what the Liberals were willing to offfer Quebec, so it's certainly not the slippery slope you suggest that it is. Even if it were, then the Liberals were equally guilty.

    Speaking as a retired diplomat, I find absolutely nothing wrong with having a province involved and present in international meetings that deal with issues where the prvince clearly has jurisdiction. In fact, it only makes sense, since it avoids situations as in the past where the federal government made international commitments only to have the provinces fail to implement them.

    P.M. Harper deserves credit for his open approach. I believe it will result in positive change and enhance, not hurt, the chances for our federalist state to survive.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:21 p.m.  

  • Chucker:

    I did not call you all separatists and I did not use the old canard of saying Harper is pandering to separatists. I said he is pandering to separatness, i.e. that there is Quebec and the rest of Canada, that it is special and must be accorded different treatment than the rest of the provinces. In my view, we are one indivisible nation with 10 equal and provinces. That is the meaning of our federalism. Martin weakened that with his haphazard asymetrical federalism. Harper is weakening that even further.


    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 3:22 p.m.  

  • CG,

    I'm no Liberal but I always read your blog as it contains some intelligent anlysis, this post being a notable exception. Duceppe used to use the argument that Quebec not being represented at forums like UNESCO was proof that Ottawa could never understand or protect our distinctness, which he'd rather still be saying.....but he has to say something. As for the fiscal imbalance, well I just hope that your thinking reflects current Liberal thinking.....get used to opposition.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:37 p.m.  

  • Although it's a bit off-topic, I wouldn't call Harper's win "accidental" by any means. If I had to put money on the next election right now, it'd probably be on Harper...

    The LPC has a lot of work to do.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 3:38 p.m.  

  • Ted (cerberus),

    Good point. You did indeed and the point is valid. (CG confused me with his appeasement talk).

    Call me a post-modern jerk - but I'm not particularly worried about provinces having some voice on the international stage.

    For example, I saw no problem with Manitoba and North Dakota having involvement in the Devil's lake issue.

    I would have no problem with Inuit communities forming international committees under UN auspices with other Inuit communities in other countries.

    The provinces aren't equal, even under Jean Chretien. They have different seat allocations in parliament and the senate. To me, that's appropriate. (Although, I would entertain an equal senate along regional lines.)

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 3:39 p.m.  

  • I suppose that goes hand in hand with your posting from Ig's speech... "we are liberals from ocean to ocean to ocean"... yeah right, except you don't have any seats in Alberta at all, and your about to get your ass' wiped off the Quebec board.

    The Liberals have had roughly 100 years to do something effective about Quebec... Harper certainly can't do worse.

    Besides, Quebec is special, a special pain in the ass.

    Harpers going to give them what they want, soveriegn association, the right to collect their own tax's, the right to stand independent under the umbrella of Canada.

    The right to look after themselves.

    And you watch and see how fast they come running back to daddy when they realize they can't afford their own lifestyle.

    Conversely, if by some wierd quirk of the universe the financial forcasts of the Bloc are right, if they manage to do a better job for themselves, then we should let them.

    * * *

    I spewed coffee laughing at what i just wrote... The Bloc being accurate in their financial models.

    Not enough sleep last night.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 3:39 p.m.  

  • Happeningfish,

    "Harper is appealing, as Chucker admits, to the soft nationalists the 25~30% who waffle in the polls."

    what I said, exactly, was: Harper wants the 75% who aren't hard core separatists.

    But yes, if Harper wants to permanently "federalize" that waffling 25 - 30% - more power to him. I want this too.

    Did it work for Mulroney? No. But Quebec LOVED Mulroney's deal. It was the FAILURE of the deal that turned Quebec off.

    Trudeau's silly ego got in the way and he led the Liberals to the ramparts and the deal fell thanks the another Harper and Clyde Wells (who betrayed his own signature!).

    Trudeau's legacy? 1995 referendum.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 3:42 p.m.  

  • I'm afraid this UNESCO issue is a fairly effective weapon for the separatists and Canada loses either way.

    If Harper gives Quebec recognition at UNESCO, then the seppies will say "this paves the way for our own nation because we are recognized as a distinct culture."

    If Harper refuses, then the seppies will say: "Canada refuses to recognize that Quebec's culture is distinct, therefore it is a slap in the face to all Quebecers and we need an independent state to protect our culture."

    The best option is the tack Harper appears to be taking - a Quebec cultural delegation at UNESCO that is there but still subordinate to the federal govt.

    As a conservative, I'll admit that CG's right, it's appeasement and it won't work - its only real purpose is to get francophone Quebecers to listen to Harper. However, I think it's a good tactic if twinned with a strategy to win Quebec over on a small govt., populist platform to dominate Quebec's small towns. Solving the fiscal imbalance means cutting taxes or transferring tax points.

    Harper's strategy in the end is to turn the Bloc into the NDP in Quebec - a committed union activist base of 20% that holds a few seats in Saguenay and east-end Montreal - but is more a nuisance factor than a political force.

    In any case, it's better than the liberal strategy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:14 p.m.  

  • JoeCalgary,

    I'm afraid you are the special pain in the ass.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:41 p.m.  

  • French eh Josh? Or just a sore Liberal.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 5:55 p.m.  

  • Whoa.. hold the phone here...

    Anonymous... did you just say that New Brunswick and Quebec are already represented in La Francophonie??

    Can anyone confirm that?

    By Blogger Eric, at 5:56 p.m.  

  • Actually, it is. Ontario is listed as well, although it states it's an observer which may join.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 6:09 p.m.  

  • "Whoa.. hold the phone here...

    Anonymous... did you just say that New Brunswick and Quebec are already represented in La Francophonie??"

    They have "subnational status" (as does the so called "French Community" in Belgium) whereas Canada has "national status".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:13 p.m.  

  • Yeah. NB and Quebec get second tier status in La Francophonie which is kind of weird, but has been going on for a while.

    Nothing at UNESCO yet though...

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 6:36 p.m.  

  • why is it weird, CG?

    the Francophonie can set itself up anyway it wants.

    see, why can't a club be formed the way the members of the club want to form it?

    seems weird to dictate what the Francophonie should be from the sidelines.

    its almost.... dare I say it... American of you! HA!

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 7:23 p.m.  

  • Good point CG,

    If we can't trust Gilles Duceppe's (a political opponent) interpretation of Harper's intentions, gosh darn it, who can we trust?

    I also heard a recently sentenced prisoner comment on the judge's malevolent intentions in sentencing him: again, we should obviously take HIS word for it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:44 p.m.  

  • QC and NB are members of the Francophonie as "participating governments" (my translation), but under the names "Canada Québec" and "Canada Nouveau-Brunswick", while Canada participates in the Francophonie as a "member".

    Furthermore, I would like to point out that it's not like anyone cares about the Francophonie.

    And CG, if Lithuania, Macedonia and Poland are in it, I don't see why Saskatchewan couldn't be a member.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:49 p.m.  

  • Chucker: Trudeau brought about the 1995 referendum? Hunh? The intervening 9 years of Mulroney and Meech Lake and the creation of the Bloc is all Trudeau's fault? I mean, I know he was influential and all but 11 years after he was gone, eh? C'mon, Chucker, I know you're smarter than that. And I know Trudeau is kind of a Conservative's Everymany Bogeyman - good to bring out on any occasion when you want someone to blame for something, anything - but even that's a stretch.


    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 10:20 p.m.  

  • saskatchewan should be.

    au revoir!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:43 a.m.  

  • Ted (Cerberus),

    yeah. I admit, that was just a silly cheap shot. I felt the conversation teetering dangerously close to a real debate, so I thought I'd throw a non-sequiter in and get people giggling.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 10:00 a.m.  

  • "And CG, if Lithuania, Macedonia and Poland are in it, I don't see why Saskatchewan couldn't be a member."

    Except that Lithuania, Macedonia & Poland are countries & Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick are not. As soon as Sask et al get a vote at the UN or get any country on earth to recognise their independence, they can sit as full members of UNESCO or any other agency of the UN.

    As for the issue itself (whether Quebec should be allowed to play a prominent role at UNESCO), it should be acknowledged that the 'new' Tory policy is scarcely a departure from the Martin Liberal policy. That said, the Martin policy was a significant departure from that of the Chretien & Trudeau govts, so it can hardly be said to represent the 'Liberal' position.

    Much as I disagree with Harper's attempt to appease Quebec with UNESCO & other international quasi-recognition, at least there is an intellectual honesty to this approach. As 'dangerous' a game as this may appear, is it any worse than Martin pretending to be a strong federalist while giving the privinces everything on a silver platter?

    The Last Trudeaumaniac

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:56 p.m.  

  • "And CG, if Lithuania, Macedonia and Poland are in it, I don't see why Saskatchewan couldn't be a member."

    Except that Lithuania/Macedonia/Poland are countries while Saskatchewan/Quebec/New Brunswick are not. As soon as Sask et al get a vote at the UN or get any country on earth to recognise their independence, they can sit as full members of UNESCO or any other agency of the UN.

    As for the issue itself (whether Quebec should be allowed to play a prominent role at UNESCO), it should be acknowledged that the 'new' Tory policy is only a slight departure from the Martin Liberal policy. That said, the Martin policy toward Quebec was a significant change from that of previous Liberal govts, so it can hardly be said to represent the 'Liberal' position.

    Much as I disagree with Harper's attempt to appease Quebec with UNESCO & other international quasi-recognition, at least there is an intellectual honesty to this approach. As dangerous a game as this may appear, is it any worse than Martin pretending to be a strong federalist while giving the privinces everything on a silver platter?

    Anyone who thinks soft nationalists can be bought, & hardcore separatists satisfied, with handouts like UNESCO recognition, has failed to understand the very essence of Quebec politics.

    A final point: some anonymous troll wondered whether Canada needs Quebec. The answer is an unequivical yes. Without Quebec there simply is no Canada.

    The Last Trudeaumaniac

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:02 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home