Harper to announce deal giving Quebec more formal international role

[Spazito]

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper will announce a deal giving Quebec a greater role on the international stage with a semi-formal presence at a United Nations agency.

He will make the announcement alongside Premier Jean Charest when he visits Quebec City on Friday as part of his ongoing charm offensive in the province.

The deal will see the province gain new privileges at UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization.

One provision of the agreement will give Quebec an official representative within the Canadian UNESCO office in Paris.

more

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f026ed16-6247-44e7-b018-076d60bbc35c&k=50765

(The reaction to this from some of Harper's base could be quite interesting, lol.)

[Minstrel Boy]

1. Actually I think Harper's base will love it,

because it weakens both the role of the federal government and Quebec's bond to the rest of the country. The base has no problem with short-term asymmetry for long-term dissolution.

[Spazito]

2. You have a good point re weakening Quebec's bond

There is a sector of Harper's base that wants Alberta to separate, I wonder if they will be demanding the same rights as Quebec? If so, will they get it?

One thing this announcement does clarify is which opposition party Harper is going to suck up to to keep his government in power and it is not the NDP which reduces the clout Layton was hoping to get, imo.

[MrPrax]

3. Good point...

which reduces the clout Layton was hoping to get, imo.

'Hoping to get'...key meme. One could argue that it was clout that only existed in the minds of the party's insiders as being fourth out of four parties, again in back to back minority gov'ts, with no 'king maker' role and the constant fear that they might say something that would force their 'hand' in a Parliamentary vote that might force an election.

Basically the NDP HAS to check with the other parties to see what they are doing so that they don't get pidgeon-holed.

If anything, I want Layton to shut up so the Tories and their media don't use the weak NDP positions to 'frame' these issues and de-legitimize the debate that goes on outside Parliament.

I find the NDP quite sickening at the moment for personal reasons--I used to be in the NDP in the 80s (all levels and wings) and that was the big strategy under Broadbent--that Broadbent had the popularity to give the party numbers in an eventual minority gov't.

In fact that was the heart of their 'free trade' campaign election (that and the ironically comical 'From Bay Street to MAIN St.), that the NDP HAD to run in all seats because they believed they would be the linchpin in a minority gov't.

Of course many people at the time thought that the NDP was delusional again and their strategy would only deliver a Mulroney majority and Free Trade. Guess who was right?

Now if you notice that under the leadership of Layton and all that strategizing (including going from calling Martin a killer of homeless people to wanting to impose mandatory sentences along with Harper on same sorts of homeless people?) has not only failed to achieve even the 'basics' (kingmaker clout, added support, more money), but absolutely NONE of the issues that these guys have championed have even come close to being adopted EVEN by their Opposition cohorts, let alone the gov't.

If anything, all their actions have gone in the opposition direction...? Hell even the Liberals' crappy childcare, without the NDP additions, would have been better than the Tories 'cashback' fraud.

Am I misreading what happened?

Here's a party that paid lipservice to this non-issue in the first place, only because of the big push by it's union and womens' groups, then the liberals had a basic outline of a plan that was closer to their position...then they weighed in to demand that the liberals do more--they got an agreement in which the NDP then supported a gov't, whose problems, then became the NDP's...then they all lost to the Tories and apparantly the NDP had a opportunity to get that child care package and show to the public that they would be 'trusted' to deal with any gov't without 'radicalism' and could be 'honest brokers'. They decided no and so their child care plan is gone, with no hope in hell of this issue being re-visited under current political conditions...?

If you step back, you would think that the NDP went out of it's way to KILL national childcare..on the one hand this was an issue they felt so bound to a corrupt liberal gov't to support, but on the other, when they got it offered to them a second time--they walk away...to do what: Support the Tories anyway, because they don't have the numbers to do anything else?

Just like free trade.

The only way the NDP can vote against the Budget is the assurance that the BQ is voting FOR it...it's not a principled stand. It's nothing...

Ok...sorry for the rant...

I wish these guys would go away for chrissakes...they have no public support outside of the elites and lobbyists that run this country already.

[Spazito]

4. I cannot disagree with any of the points within your rant

I don't think Layton is doing the party any favours but, I will be the first to admit, I have an idealistic side and wish most fervently the NDP would go back to their CCF roots and start afresh.

[daleo]

7. Have you read James Laxer's article in The Walrus?

He goes into the situation in some detail, including these historical strategies of the 1980's free trade debate. It is a very interesting article, and covers a lot of the same ground as your post.

I tend to think that if the NDP ever does supplant the Liberals they will have moved to the center anyway. But the country will probably have to suffer under 2 or 3 Conservative regimes in the mean time. So, even if the NDP maintains a bit more of a progressive orientation during the transition it will have to spend a good part of its time and political capital moving policy back to the center from the right where the Conservatives will have moved it. Perhaps there will ultimately be a net gain for progressives, but it becomes difficult to be enthusiastic about such long term strategies as one reaches middle age. I guess it is a dilemma of living in this era.

For the record, I vote NDP about as often as I vote Liberal these days. In my Alberta riding I try to choose the candidate who just might beat the Conservative.

[MrPrax]

9. Yup...

Yup...Laxer makes some points and (yes I know Laxer is really not an NDPer) Broadbent makes some rather sly inferences about the current NDP in his attack on Bob Rae.

I agree...the thing that is stunning is that they could simply take a stand on a whole host of positions, which are free and easy and not attached to current business, that are actually popular, but they don't.

Look at the Afghanistan thing--I saw Jack at a couple of 'war' events prior to the 2004 election...he sounded a whole lot different then, that he does now. They don't seem to have any position on our 'new' combat role being 'pimped' by the 'scary Tories', but the guy wants the anti-war crowd to notice that he cares about the height of flag or a handful of deserters.

Get bent...Jack

Polls indicate that Canadians aren't too comfortable at all with the idea and all the news lines I have been reading seem to indicate more 'US-led war' might be in store--why don't these guys get on the record?

Their own little minions are rushing about tell us all about how Harper is like Bush...well don't tell me, tell the fucking leader of your party.

(not you...but plural you ;-)

[Minstrel Boy]

10. Layton has some Stepford issues

I know what you mean. I saw him in 2003-04 as well, sounding off on the war, and I'm not hearing anything like that now. No indication of passion or core conviction. It's calculating, and ineffectually calculating, which is doubly frustrating.

If things don't change the NDP will be creating a crisis for itself next election. Liberal-lite won't cut it.

[Spazito]

11. You are right on point re the Afghanistan issue, imo

I can't, for the life of me, understand why Layton hasn't grabbed that issue and run with it. The Libs can't touch it as they were the ones who first changed the mission from peacekeeping to combat and Quebecers are anti-war so the Bloc wouldn't be opposing Layton's points. It strikes me as a win/win issue because 1: Canadians are growing more and more unhappy with it and 2: It is the right thing to do.


Edited to correct a poor choice of words in the header.

[AX10]

12. How powerful is the "right wing tory media" in Canada?

"If anything, I want Layton to shut up so the Tories and their media don't use the weak NDP positions to 'frame' these issues and de-legitimize the debate that goes on outside Parliament."

[Swede]

5. Mulroney courted the seperatists back in his day.

It totally backfired and sent the Conservatives into oblivion for a decade.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. Backfired after nine years of majority rule.

And Harper, I think, will be much more inclined to give away the store even if it accelerates Quebec's departure. Mulroney, at least, had a flawed vision of national unity.

[glarius]

8. Remember Harper's anti-Canada...pro-U.S.A speeches in the past?

This may sound tin foil hattish, but it wouldn't surprise me if Harper's long term aim is to make Canada so weak as a federation that it would be easy pickins for take over. I once heard Patrick Buchanan say on a PBS show (several years ago) that if Canada broke up it would be very handy for the U.S.A to grab those parts of the country that would be beneficial to America.