I’ve been talking a lot about politics lately. It’s cyclic. Last year it was about the elections, so don’t worry, everything will go back to normal soon.

People tend to perceive me as a supporter of Stephen Harper. This isn’t entirely false. In fact, for the last federal elections, I had no idea who to vote for. I wasn’t going to vote for the Bloc Québécois because I’m convinced they serve no real purpose in Ottawa, and furthermore, my nationalist flame is rather cold since I married a vancouverite. I wasn’t going to vote for Paul Martin’s Liberals either since the sponsorship scandal made me sick of this political organisation. I had the firm intention not to encourage them. I didn’t want to vote for the Conservsatives either because I didn’t share their opinion on many topics, especially the environment and social issues. I voted NDP, by elimination, also because the Green party didn’t seem very serious to me.

There, all that to tell you I voted like many others to punish the Liberals, but in fact, my personal values are much closer to Liberal values than Conservative ones. That being said, Mr. Harper surprised me in a good way on a matter often typical of politicians: integrity. Or lack thereof. Have it as you may, he respected his promises, and quickly. With him, we know what we are leading towards. If only other political organisations would follow this example.

This gives you a context in which I forged my opinion.

This week-end, the Liberal party of Canada, or rather, its delegates elected the leader of the party, the next leader for the next federal election. The potential next prime minister.

After a day of voting filled with surprises, the majority of the delegates rallied behind the candidacy of Stéphane Dion. His rival, Michael Ignatieff having plateaued since the second ballot.

Stéphane Dion wasn’t a bad candidate, far from it. He has experience in federal politics, knows his issues well, especially those concerning environment, and he’s a man of convictions.

Unfortunalty, his experience in federal politics is as much an asset as it is a burden.

Stéphane Dion represents for Quebecers the rigidity of Canadian federalism. For many, he’s still perceived as the snobby intellectual and Jean Chrétien’s protégé, who defended the law on clarity, which doesn’t make unanimity in Québec. But most of all, he represents the Trudeauist continuity of centralising politicians like Trudeau, Chrétien and Martin. It’s mostly this last label that stick to his skin and is not an asset for him if he wishes one day to become prime minister.

The Liberal delegates missed an occasion to break this continuity and rebuild the party from scratch with new blood. In that sense, Michael Ignatieff was perceived as having a open mind towards Québec’s demands. It’s unfortunate that the delegates were scared of change.

I believe that the future of Canada and the solution to appease Québec nationalism is to decentralise powers. We’ve seen it with the Conservative motion that cut the grass from under the Bloc’s feet. Of course, if the recognition of a nation doesn’t come with the advantages that it should, it’s not really a solution, but the idea is there.

We have to give Stéphane Dion his chance to prove he can reinvent himself, but I’m afraid his well anchored convictions will prevent him to do so.

We see now with the surveys made since his elections at the head of the party, indeed, the Liberal party made gains in some provinces, but in Québec, it’s the fatidic status quo. And without Québec, the Liberal party is not a uniting party and cannot hope to have a clear majority

The two solitudes are well illustrated in this week-end’s scenario, in the fact that we didn’t realise amongst english Canada delegates that to elect Stéphane Dion was probably the worst choice to secure the election of a Liberal government for the next elections. To ignore Québec in the equation when electing a leader is sending a message of intransigence. It is very awkward. And it’s rather ironic that the choice of a Quebec born leader be a bad thing for this same province. The ignorance of this fact is well perceived when we hear comments from english-speaking delegates to the effect that the election of a leader from Québec is a good thing since Quebecers like to elect one of their own. This line of thought is simplistic and laughable. Should this be true, Dion would still not be popular in Québec, because although its his native province, Quebecers perceive him as more Canadian than Quebecer, thus he’s not “one of them”. I realise it’s comforting for people in english Canada that a leader be in favour of a hard line towards Québec, but it is not this way that Canada will be re-united.

Good luck anyway to the new leader.

Personally, for the next elections, I predict a repeat of the results of last elections for Québec. The choice of Ontarians will probably be critical and will lean towards a minority Liberal government. Time will tell.

brem