stand up for canada!/changeons pour vrai!

Before AC went on vacation (no, I have no idea when he’s coming back, sorry. Yes, we’re all hoping it is soon…), he wrote that he was against the idea of a deputy PM, and even more against the idea of a deputy PM from Quebec. His reasoning was that, apart from the position being constitutionally non-existent, appointing a Quebecer as deputy PM would simply reinforce the unfortunate deux nations view of the country.

I agreed at the time with AC that deputy Prime Minister is a position we can happily do without, though I think that, given precedents such as Baldwin/Lafontaine and Macdonald/Cartier, it is a bit late in the game to start worrying about entrenching a bi-national view of the country.

At any rate, as Globe and Mail reports today, “less than a month into office, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is planning his third meeting with Quebec Premier Jean Charest as part of a strategy that points to the converging political agendas of both leaders.” Apparently they are going to meet to talk about the usual agenda items (Fiscal Imbalance, UNESCO) designed to weaken the federal government and smooth Quebec’s emergence onto the world stage as a de facto sovereign government. (How, pray tell, is Canada supposed to ever refuse to recognize a Quebec declaration of sovereignty if we first petition the United Nations to do so at UNESCO? Good strategy there guys.)

Blah blah blah, my question is pretty simple: What does more damage to Canadian unity: 1) The practice of appointing a Quebecer as deputy PM, and thereby entrenching Quebec’s representation within the federal Cabinet, or 2) the Prime Minister repeatedly engaging the premier ministre of Quebec, égal à égal in quasi-secret negotiations that effectively the province as an independent sovereignty?