Dion's "advanced federative form"

I've decided to take my own advice and weigh in some of the competing federal visions of leadership contenders. After fruitless hours trying to dig up anything on Gerard Kennedy, I fell back on a less ambitious project: Stephane Dion.

Few contendors have been as outspoken on issues of federalism. He is popularly considered a "hard-line federalist". It is important to understand, however, that this is hard-line federalism of the Quebecois acamdemic variety (i.e. in the sense of a separatism vs. federalism dichotomy).

He earned national credentials writing on the realistic potential of separatism. His Impossible Secession argues that the weight of economic fallout and social disunity would crush any secession attempt in its earliest stages (after a "yes" vote). Separatism is thus not only unwanted, but completely unworkable, unsustainable, and destined for immediate failure.

On the federal vs. provincial debate, however, Dion lands soundly in another camp. Here he departs from the Chretienites that brought him into the fold.

From an Intergovernmental Affairs press release:

"Our decentralized federation, based on solidarity of its citizens and cooperation among its governments, is perfectly equipped to take on the issues of globalization."

The Minister refuted arguments in favour of centralization, which depict the power of the provincial governments as excessive. "In the 1960s, in the heyday of the Keynesian movement," he noted, "it was said that provincial autonomy was preventing rational economic planning." Today, he continued, globalization is the concept in fashion fuelling calls for Canada to centralize... But these arguments in favour of centralization will be proved as wrong in the future as they have been in the past


From another:
Minsiter Dion argues...the decentralized nature of our federation, which is striking in comparison with other federations, is a good thing and well serves the interests of Canadians: "Such a large and diversified country as Canada could not function other than under a very advanced federative form. It is a good thing that we have strong provinces."

From an HOC debate:
"Are we too decentralized? I do not think so. Can the decentralization process be improved? I think so. But this so-called centralized federation is a chimera that only today's independentist leaders are trying to sell people; that term is inaccurate."

My feeling is that this provincialist outlook will be a centerpiece to his bid, should he make it. But who will offer the alternative?