Stephan Dion

Beginning of career

Second of five children of the academic Leon Dion, a federalist and a personality respected in the academic world of Quebec, and Denise, a Frenchwoman originating in Paris, Stephan was high in a modest house on the Liégeois boulevard, in the town of Quebec. Teenager, it flirtait with the movement souverainist, making countryside for the Parti Québécois. Dion describes the experiment as follows:

It is there that was the party , explains it. I wanted to defy my father… the way of affirming itself like adult, sometimes, is to contradict his father. I brought each evening a new argument which I had collected on the network of the separatists and my father demolished them all… My father calmly began again to me, respectfully, without me to insult.

Dion tells that its flirt with the movement souverainist ended during a five hours discussion with a couple of federalists, whereas it made door-to-door for the PQ. The journalist Linda Diebel believes that its flirt died out gradually whereas it completed his academic works and that it started his academic career in public administration.

After having obtained a baccalaureat and a control in Political science of the University Laval in 1977 and 1979 respectively, as well as a doctorate in Sociology of the Institute of political studies of Paris, Stephan Dion taught political sciences with the Université of Moncton in 1984 and with the Université of Montreal of 1984 in January 1996. He is a specialist in the study of the public administration and analysis and theory of the organization.

For the same period, Dion was also professor invited to the Laboratory of public saving in Paris, responsible for studies the main thing to the Brookings Institution with Washington, D.C., co-director of the Revue Canadian of political science and responsible for studies to the Canadian Center of management . Between 1987 and 1995, it published a certain number of books and articles treating of political science and administration and public administration.

What led Dion to give an opinion as defender of the federalism was the failure of the Accord of the lake Meech in 1990. It is at this period which the movement souverainist started to affirm that the federalism is not effective for the Inhabitants of Quebec and that it is the cause of duplications and overlappings between the two levels of government. As an expert in public administration, Dion was essential like a figurehead by refuting the arguments of the souverainists publicly. Its appearances with the emission the Point , on television of Radio-Canada, were noticed by Aline Chrétien, which, in the days which followed the short victory of NOT to the referendum, suggested with her husband, the Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, to recruit Dion.

In addition, Dion is resulting from a very secular family which never took part in the religious celebrations at the time where almost all the French Canadians went to the mass. He liked to listen to the Vie of Bryan of Monty Python, which parodied the Bible. Contrary to Wilfrid Bay-tree, Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, which was all of the catholics practitioners, Dion are the first liberal chief with being openly agnostic.

In an article of The Gazette , his wife revealed that its temperament and its vision of the things were very influenced by its four years stay in France. Of return to Canada, Dion lived a true cultural shock while teaching with the Université of Moncton, when it noted that several students did not distinguish very well max Weber from Karl Marx.

He is member of Bilderberg.

At the federal government

Dion is appointed Liberal party of Canada to the House of Commons, representing the electoral constituency of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville since 1996. Initially elected with the House of Commons at the time of a by-election in 1996 at the same time as Pierre Pettigrew, Stephan Dion was re-elected in 1997, 2000, 2004, and 2006.

In 1996, its assermentation as president of the private Council Minister for the intergovernmental Businesses involved, de facto its entry with the private Conseil of the Queen for Canada (what enables him to affix the letters C.P. with its name) and thus the addition of the term honourable .

As Minister for the intergovernmental businesses in the cabinet of Jean Chrétien, he was considered a federalist pure and hard following its role in the development of the “plan B” and the Loi on the clearness chief clerk, which stipulated in which circumstances Quebec could separate from the remainder of Canada. It had a significant role in the events leading to the Opinion of the Supreme court of Canada on the unilateral secession of Quebec, returned on August 20th, 1998, and on the Law on the clearness of the 15 March 2000.

After the election of Paul Martin as chief of the liberal party of Canada, Dion was isolated cabinet, especially because of his association with the outgoing chief Jean Chrétien. Indeed, Dion was unpopular near certain factions of the Liberal party in Quebec, and the rumor wanted that Paul Martin would refuse to sign her form of nomination for the election of 2004. It was however not the case and, the shortly after the Scandale of the mixed liability companies and the poor performance of Jean Lapierre as lieutenant of Quebec, Martin recalled Dion so that it gives a knack to the liberal countryside in Quebec. Although the liberals lost ground in the province as a whole, the efforts of Dion were recognized when several counties were gained of accuracy against the Québécois Bloc. Consequently, it was brought back on the benches of the Canadian Parliament before July 20th, 2004, with its nomination as minister of environment.

Open letters

As Minister for the intergovernmental Businesses in the government of Jean Chrétien, Dion was charged to answer the arguments of the souverainists of Quebec much more vigorously than what had been the case during the time pre-chief clerk. Following the open letter of Lucien Bouchard to the Minister of New Brunswick Frank McKenna in 1997 defendant the legality of a unilateral Secession, Dion wrote the first of three open letters to the souverainists chiefs.

In the first open letter, Dion called in question three assertions made by Mr. Bouchard: a unilateral declaration of independence is supported by the International law; a majority of 50% plus one is a threshold sufficient for the secession; and the international law protects the territorial integrity from Quebec following a secession. In answer to the first assertion, Dion rétorqué that the large majority of experts as regards international law think that the right to declare the secession unilaterally is not given to the constituent entities of a democratic country like Canada. In what milked with the argument of the simple majority, Dion believes that the dramatic changes with the life of the Inhabitant of Quebec, resulting from the secession, would make so that a simple majority would grow blurred quickly, as of the first difficulties and would prove to be insufficient to ensure the political legitimacy of the souverainist project. As regards the territorial integrity Quebec, rétorque Dion that there is neither a paragraph nor a line in the international law which protects the territory from Quebec but not that of Canada. The precedents on the international scene show that the borders of entities to the continuation of independence can be questioned, sometimes for reasons based on the democracy.

In the letter in the second place open addressed to Jacques Arm-band, the Minister for the intergovernmental businesses of Quebec, Dion works out more on his arguments against the entirety of the Québécois territory by putting the emphase on the contradiction which would like that Canada would be divisible, but not Quebec. Secondly, Dion affirms that a declaration of unilateral independence which would not be recognized by the government of Canada would be not easily acceptable on the international scene or even by a strong minority of citizens.

In its third open letter addressed to Lucien Bouchard, Dion criticizes the Prime Minister for Quebec which accepts some aspects of the judgment of the Supreme court of Canada on the secession (such as the political obligation for the government of Canada to negotiate the secession after an expression of clear will of the people of Quebec) and not some others (such as the need for absolute majority on a clear question and the unconstitutionality of a declaration of unilateral independence). Following this judgment, Dion goes there from three assertions: the federal government has a role in the choice of the question and the determination of the level of necessary support at the time of the referendum; the secession can only be realized by the negotiation and not by “a declaration of unilateral independence”; and the terms of the negotiation could not be only decided by the government of Quebec.

In the three open letters, Dion maintained that the government of Canada would negotiate the secession of the province of Quebec if an absolute majority of Inhabitant of Quebec expressed their will to do it following a clear and nonambiguous question. This position became the angular stone of the Law on clearness.

Its sights on the federalism and the national unit

Dion is in dissension with several of its contemporaries on the need for bringing constitutional changes in order to satisfy the requests of the nationalist of Quebec. Defender of the Agreement of the lake Meech, Dion disputes the political concentration on the division of the capacities between the federal government and the provinces. Instead of that, Dion discusses that:

I supported that it is the identity, and not the division of the capacities, which is with the source of our problem of unit. The French-speaking Inhabitants of Quebec want to have the insurance that their language and their culture can open out with the support of the other Canadians. They want to feel that this language and this culture are regarded by the other Canadians as an important contribution, and not like an embarrassment. They want the insurance which they can be at the same time Québécois and Canadian, and which they do not have to choose between Quebec and Canada.

Dion was often described like a centralizer like Pierre Elliott Trudeau of with its standpoint in favor of a Canadian Fédéralisme extremely, in particular in its “open letters” with the former Prime Minister for Quebec Lucien Bouchard. However, its position on the federalism is much more moderate.

It would be righter to describe it like a federal separatist. While Dion preaches the co-operation, flexibility and the interdependence in the Canadian federation, he condemns unambiguous any jurisdictional intrusion by declaring that “the Constitution must be respected. It is necessary to proscribe the too easy excuse which wants that such or such governmental initiative meets a too pressing need to be let stop by questions of “jurisdiction”. The encroachments of competences create a harmful confusion with the quality of the public policies. ”

The position of Dion on the rights of the provinces is not only the result of its respect for the constitution of Canada, but it also aims at avoiding “the trap of the common decision” which makes that the capacity of a government to act is limited by the need for approval of the other constitutive governments.

Dion in addition was said opposed to the honourable rehabilitation of the province of Quebec in the constitution of the country: he does not believe that it is about a national priority, being more interested by the environment and the international relations.

The race with the leadership

With the defeat of the liberals to the election 2006, the candidature of Stephan Dion was suggested for the leadership of the Liberal party. February 22nd, 2006, it is named critical Official opposition of the Foreign Minister. In its capacity as criticism, he pled in favor of the mission in Afghanistan, which had been launched by the liberals. He had proposed a little earlier the behavior of a parliamentary debate on the question, but finally decided against the idea.

He announced his candidature on April 7th for the Palais of the congresses of Montreal, the day of the official launch of the race and the advertisement by Michael Ignatieff. The countryside with the leadership of Stephan Dion is based on the approach of three pillars: social justice, economic prosperity and environmental durability. A combination which should bring, according to Dion, Canada of full foot in the 21e century. He declared that its countryside would concentrate on the sustainable development of the economy and the formation of a Canadian labor “hyper-educated” in order to compete with the China. At this time, Dion received the support of three factions of the party, with Don Boudria, former minister under Jean Chrétien, Mark Marissen, former campaign director for Paul Martin for the Colombia-British and Herb Metcalfe, the former campaign director of John Manley who agreed all to join his countryside.

Stephan Dion, John Godfrey (who withdrew themselves from the race) and Michael Ignatieff received press the nickname of the “three academics” since they have all three summer of the professors of university before starting a political career.

December 2nd, he is elected with the fourth turn in front of Michael Ignatieff with 54,7% of the votes of the delegates. Its victory is largely due to the support which it received on behalf of the clan of Gerald Kennedy.

Chief of the Liberal party

Double citizenship

Stephan Dion, his/her three brothers and his sister are French citizens as well as Canadian, thanks to their mother, a Frenchwoman born with Paris. However, Dion does not have a French passport and forever voted in a French election

Shortly after the choice of Dion as chief of the liberal party, certain preserving commentators, like several personalities of the NDP (whose chief, Jack Layton, and Pat Martin) stressed that its double citizenship could cause a possible conflict of interest; Gilles Duceppe, of the Québécois Block, as for him swept the business of the reverse of the hand. However, of criticisms quickly announced that Dion is far from being the only politician having a double citizenship: certain members of the preserving cabinet like Tony Clement and that members of the preserving caucus like Myron Thompson just like of the members of caucus NDP like Libby Davies and Olivia Chow have double citizenships. Questioned about its citizenship, Dion answered that “one should see multiple identities like an asset, not a threat. Multiple identities do not pose any problem. The hearts of people are also large to accept various identities. ” . It nevertheless maintained its honesty is to “100% for Canada initially”.

Dion-May business

Because of its political alliance with the director of the green Party, Dion caused the critics of the Toronto Star, which most faithful is however combined Liberals. As much the Greens which the Liberals saw there a bad strategy.

Liberal team

December 18th, Stephan Dion names her rival Michael Ignatieff as an assistant chief of the Liberal party. He also intends to give a role of importance to Bob Rae in the preparation of the election platform of the party, and to Gerald Kennedy. He thus seeks to make a demonstration of the unit of the party.

In spring 2007, it is revealed that several liberal seasoned veterans take their retirement, of which Lucienne Robillard. Marc Garneau wishes to be again candidate, but Dion is in dissension with him. Moreover, it is revealed that Dion circumvented the electoral commission to make name Marc-Boris Saint-Maurice, the former chief of the Block Pot.

Justin Trudeau, wire of EP Trudeau, becomes candidate in Papineau. He makes a speech discussed against the Bilinguisme in New Brunswick, which goes against the opinion of its chief and his party.

In May 2007, of the information delivered to the written press imply that Mr. Dion tried to subject one of his collaborator close relations to have preferred an adversary to him

Jean Lapierre thus supported that Dion was in danger to have kept its too close enemies. The newspaper the Press went until supporting that it was in a situation similar to André Boisclair. For several, it is about a prolongation of the conflict of the Christian-Martin clans.

He suffers from a serious unpopularity in Quebec with only 12% of supports. September 17th, 2007, its candidate Jocelyn Coulon east has demolished by Thomas Mulcair in Outremont, a liberal fortress for 90 years, which brings interrogations in connection with its leadership.

Declarations on Afghanistan and Kyoto

The New Democratic party criticized Dion because of its contradictory declarations in connection with the Afghan war. March 14th, 2006, he said that the Canadian mission was important and that the Liberal party strongly supported it. However, on November 22nd, 2006, he declared with the Victoria Times that he was opposed to maintains troops until 2009.

Moreover, the observers were questioned a long time with knowing why Mr. Dion had not put the Kyoto plan into practice whereas he was the minister of environment. According to the preserving strategists, the failure of the liberal governments would make impossible the fast application of the protocol of Kyoto.

Reform senate

In June 2007, the Liberal party deployed energetic forces to cancel the senatorial and democratic reform wanted by the Conservative party Stephen Harper. As the liberals were for a long time majority in the Senate, they protested in front of their legal advisers to call upon the Supreme court of Canada and before the provincial governments. In the facts, that complicates the process drôlement and makes not easily possible the election of senators in a brought closer future.

Business Jamie Carroll

At the end of the month of September 2007, the managing director of the PLC, Jamie Carroll, makes a discussed declaration. After being itself made say that it should increase the number of inhabitants of Quebec within the party, it answered " Why not more Chinese? ". This declaration caused a grogne in the Québécois federal liberals, several influential deputies, of which Denis Coderre, claiming his resignation openly. October 2nd, 2007, Mr. Carroll declared that he thought of continuing the PLC for slandering.

References

Random links: