Guess who holds the balance of power this time. It’s the Bloc Quebecois.

Guess who bought into the Conservative’s promise of power transfers and money transfers to correct the fiscal imbalance. It was Quebec.

Guess who brought the Conservatives to Ottawa. It was Quebec with a little help from Ontario.

Ten seats moved from the Liberals and the Bloc to the Conservatives, enough to replace a Liberal minority with a Conservative minority.

I want to congratulate Stephen Harper and his strategists. They ran a superb campaign. They outflanked the Liberals with policy and managed to engage Quebec in the process. They even gave Harper a personality.

I also want to congratulate Paul Martin. His concession of defeat and retirement announcement was classy. It revealed the Paul Martin who has been hidden from the public for years, a sincere man with strong personal convictions and a genuine sense of humour. It also revealed a weakness in Martin who allowed his Earnscliffe commandos to overthrow a sitting prime minister and then retained them as his political strategists in government and through two elections.

So now the fun begins.

Stephen Harper has to form a government. He has to choose a cabinet that almost certainly will include some rednecks from the West, some Mike Harris cabinet ministers and a Quebec lieutenant.

Gilles Duceppe has put him on notice that he expects Harper to deliver on his promise to transfer money and powers to the provinces. Ralph Klein has served notice that he’s looking for a better deal from the federal government on health care and a realignment of federal and provincial responsibilities.

Ontario didn’t quite buy into the Harper model leaving a majority of its seats (54) with the Liberals, nor did the Country’s major cities that declined Harper groupie status – not one Conservative seat in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.

The first major test for Harper will be budget. Can he keep his promise to reduce the GST, expand the military, provide monthly cheques of $100 to parents with children under the age of six and balance the budget?

The second test will be in personality. Will he be able to maintain the softer, warmer persona that he presented to the electorate through 56 days of campaigning and underlined early Tuesday morning in his acceptance speech or will he revert to form? His third challenge will be to keep George W. Bush and his right wing conservatives at bay.

On the other side of the page, there is a leadership vacuum. There is no obvious successor to Paul Martin in the elected Liberal caucus, with the possible exception of Ken Dryden. Outsider John Manley has taken himself out of the race. Martin Cauchon, former Minister of Justice could resurface. Allan Rock, Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations could also resurface and then there are the new boys on the block.

Michael Ignatieff, Harvard Professor of Human Rights and newly elected Member of Parliament from Etobicoke-Lakeshore could be a challenger even though he is untested in parliament. Former Conservatives Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach could be players and then of course there is the obvious media choice Frank McKenna, Canada’s Ambassador to the United States who offered his resignation to Stephen Harper earlier this week.

I think Frank would be an excellent candidate for leadership of the Liberal Party. He’s a former provincial premier. He served as director on the boards of a dozen or more national and international companies. He’s widely connected in both Canada and the United States and he would be a breath of fresh air for a Liberal Party that has recently been preoccupied with the follies of another era.

The problem for Frank will be in finding a way to contrast himself with Stephen Harper. Harper’s past paints him as a right wing conservative. McKenna’s past paints him as a right of centre liberal. Could the contrast with Harper become sharp enough to win the day for McKenna?

The other consideration is the Liberal Party itself. Traditionally, there have been two Liberal Parties, a small “c” conservative party and a small “l” liberal party. The small “l” wing of the party has enjoyed electoral success. The small “c” wing of the party has not – witness John Turner and Paul Martin. Frank could not abandon his fiscal conservatism but he would have to offer visions that would align with the Party’s slightly left of centre traditions.

McKenna would also have to be concerned about a media crowning. Canada’s first media creation was Pierre Ellliot Trudeau. He set the standard. John Turner was virtually coronated by the media in 1984. In spring 1993, Kim Campbell had her turn and then prior to the election of 2000, national media tried to make Stockwell Day a prime minister in waiting.

In 2003, they crowned Paul Martin and then weeks later, they turned on him. Two weeks ago, a week before the federal election, the media crowned Stephen Harper as Martin’s successor. The problem with media coronations is that media eats its own. Fascination turns to attack. The honeymoon may last a bit longer for Harper because he’ll make news for the next few months.

The new Liberal leader will have to reach out to both Chrétien and Martin supporters and find a way to re-engage Quebec. To do that, he or she will have to set the Earnscliffe boys adrift. Liberals want a positive leadership race that debates visions rather than strong-arm tactics.

Stephen Harper underwent a significant makeover during the election campaign. If he’s able to sustain it, he may be around for awhile. His acceptance speech was impressive, if you ignored what he was saying. He looked and sounded prime ministerial.

To prevail, he’ll have to hold his rednecks in check and create compromise between his western conservative ideology and eastern Canadian liberalism.

His University of Alberta brain trust may have trouble with that concept.

Over the last few months and particularly in the last few weeks, I have been concerned with Quebec’s apparent disengagement from Canada and more recently from this Federal election.

Recent polls suggest that Quebec voters are beginning to engage in this election. Support for the Conservatives in Quebec has jumped from single digit numbers to something ranging between 20 and 30%. That’s not enough to win more than a few seats but it’s enough to start a groundswell in a province that traditionally votes in a block.

What’s pushing the Conservative numbers? Some would say it’s the sponsorship issue. There is truth to that speculation but I would suggest there is more.

In my view, Quebecers are seriously looking at Stephen Harper.

• He has promised a smaller, weaker federal government.
• He has promised to transfer federal tax dollars to the provinces and he has promised Quebec international recognition and participation in matters affecting trade, culture and the environment.
• He has promised that provinces will have the right to opt out of new cost-sharing programs with compensation.

If Harper wins a majority, expect the largest downloading of federal powers to the provinces we have ever seen. The “winning conditions” for the incremental separation of Quebec (and Alberta) from Canada will be in place.

The irony is that if Quebec chooses to embrace Stephen Harper, the Province could end up holding the balance of power in a Conservative majority government. That seems like an absurd proposition three days before the election but if the idea jells over the weekend, forget the polls.

For those of you, who think I might be smoking something, consider this.

On Thursday of this week, two days ago, tracking polls showed the Conservative vote in Quebec at 28%, enough to project five Conservative seats in that province. Now what if that number jumped by 10 percentage points by Monday and the increase came primarily from the Bloc. That could put another 25 seats into play for the Conservatives.

Based on current seat projections for the rest of Canada, 25 Quebec seats could be enough to give the Conservatives a small majority.

Picture this on election night – the possibility of a leader with no experience in government, beholden to his deeply conservative roots and a Quebec caucus that has bought into Harper’s vision of a decentralized and diminished Canada. Now that is scary!

This is the guy who told the media on Tuesday not to worry if he’s elected because the Conservatives would be held in check by a civil service beholden to the Liberals, a judiciary that has been appointed by Liberals and a Senate controlled by the Liberals. In other words, those of us who are concerned about the impact of a Harper government should be consoled by the fact that people who worked with and/or were appointed by Liberals would hold him in check.

Harper impugns the integrity of these institutions and the professionals who work within them. He also implies that we should be concerned that left unchecked, he would pursue a series of actions that would not be popular with Canadians.

The implication is real because this guy is a total chameleon.

• He’s an angry young man who appears to have been on Valium for the last six weeks.
• This is the guy who for years wanted to kill off ACOA but now recognizes its value.
• This is the guy who at the founding convention of the Reform Party in 1987 declared that “centralized handout economics” is part of the rot that’s eating away at confederation.
• This man is a right wing conservative in the mould of George Bush.

The values of his University of Alberta brain trust have been characterized as closer to those of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney than mainstream Canadians. His dream is to shrink government, dramatically reduce its role in public life, hack away at federal transfers and privatize as much of government as possible, including the delivery of healthcare services.

"I don't think my fundamental beliefs have changed in a decade," he said last week. His plans for a new Canada are visible in his platform.

Harper wants a U.S.-style two-chamber Parliament, in which the Commons would have a more powerful legislative rival in an elected Senate. And, like U.S. conservatives, he favours a less progressive Supreme Court, one that would not, for example, affirm same-sex marriage rights.

This is the guy who would replace Canada’s Early Learning and Childcare program with tax payments to parents. This is the guy who would scarp the Kyoto Accord. This is the guy who would cancel a national agreement with Aboriginal peoples. This is a guy who believes that people should be left to fend for themselves, no matter what their circumstance.

Historically, the Liberals have stood for progressive, activist government and social policy. They gave us Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security. Martin honoured that tradition by introducing the first new social programs in a generation, a $5 billion child-care program, a major investment in healthcare and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Martin deserves credit for 12 years of sound fiscal stewardship, which rescued Canada from a $43 billion Conservative deficit and put the Country into a surplus position that allows today’s investments in social programs and tax-cuts.

Stephen Harper’s incrementalism, if allowed to take hold would profoundly change the nature of Canada.

It would provide Quebec with defacto nationhood and a form of sovereignty association. Don’t be surprised if Quebec wakes up to this prospect but don’t be surprised either if Ontario puts on the brakes and stops Harper in his tracks.

Fasten your seat-belts folks, we could be in for a rough ride on Monday night.

National polls suggest the possibility of change in this month’s federal election.

Change could be a minority Conservative government or it could even be a majority Conservative government.

How could that be?

We have a prospering economy. Employment is up, unemployment is down.

We live in a country where most people are better off than a huge majority of the world’s population. We have decent, if not perfect social programs. We have a government-funded healthcare system where everyone has access, although not always on a timely basis.

We have an education system that is decent but not perfect. We have an aging population which will soon demand more from our government.

We have natural resources. We have energy resources. We have farm-land and forests and fish in our oceans. Our taxes are high but not unmanageable. We’re not at war.

We don’t have George Bush as president. We don’t spy on our people. We don’t have Texas lobbyists running our federal government.

A combination of Gomery, political rhetoric and media hype has blind-sided us. We’re convinced that corruption is the issue in this election.

The corruption of a tiny group of individuals may be an issue but it is not, nor should it be the defining issue of this election. The real issue is that we are not debating the merits of fundamental policy difference between our national parties.

The real issue is that people, especially our young people have disengaged from the discussion because they don’t believe it is relevant to them or because they don’t believe they can make a difference in the outcome. The real issue is that collectively, we have allowed Quebec to remove itself from national debate. A 50% plus win by the Bloc could resurrect the “S” word.

We have an election that screams about corruption and accountability. We have an election that creates difference between tax-cuts and early childhood learning. We have an election that fails to argue the values of a consumption tax versus an income tax.

We have an election where one party has a history of protecting the fiscal equality of provinces and the other would set them adrift to fend for themselves. We have an election where one party opposes collaboration with the United States in missile defense and the other is open to an offer from the President. We have an election where no one questions the judgment of those who would turn surplus into deficit.

Some people tell me that they can’t vote Liberal because of the Quebec sponsorship issue.

Others tell me they can’t vote Conservative because they are scared of Stephen Harper. Still others tell me they will vote NDP or even the Green Party because they can’t bring themselves to vote for either the Liberals or the new Conservative Party (child of the Reform and Alliance parties).

The issue with Stephen Harper appears to be a combination of public perception and his views, as expressed in public statements over the last dozen or more years. Harper claims exemption from past musings on the basis of time-redemption and/or intellectual evolution but one has to wonder whether a human, like an animal can change colour or behavior on the basis of time or convenience.

It’s instructive, in this regard to refer to U.S. Senate hearings on the appointment of Samuel A. Alito Jr. as a U.S. Supreme Court Judge. Mr. Alito's record from 15 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals is an essential part of the Senate’s consideration in his appointment. His academic, judicial and other qualifications are not in question.

The Senate is concerned with his past views and behaviors because they consider them relevant to how he might behave in the future and how he might bring judgment to Court matters such as abortion and/or the use of Presidential powers. In my view, Canadians should be no less diligent in their judgment of potential leaders for their Country.

I’m struck by the fact that young people are not involved in this election debate. A colleague told me recently that her son will not be voting because he doesn’t feel he has enough education to vote.

A graduate student from Mount Allison University told me that she doesn’t know anything about government, so why vote. My daughter, who is in her early twenties, a university graduate and the product of a quasi-political family, has barely taken an interest in politics, politicians, political parties or elections.

So what is it about politics and government that allows these young people to disassociate from the future of their country?

In part, the answer has to do with life-stage priorities but it also has to do with the fact that election-generated policies and/or platforms have become tactical rather than visionary. Young people tend to be idealistic and visionary and most of them don’t see the connection between their visions and political rhetoric. Politicians who speak to them in tactical terms (tuition costs and job opportunities) miss the vision thing.

The media’s thirst for instant news aborts the discussion and debate process. The ten second news-clip magnifies the need for ill-considered response. Bureaucracy and the red-tape of government grow in response to media sensationalism while television hungers for partisan message spinners who stifle debate with their scripted yelping.

There are fundamental differences in values, philosophy and ideology in this election that need to be explored. We need to get beyond the indiscretions of another era to the realities of the 21st century and what will be good for Canadians in the next five, ten twenty years.

We need to consider the economic implications of an aging population that will soon contain more seniors than young people. We need to consider change in the context of need.

We need to make certain that the change we get is the change we need.

Earlier this week I started to write about a December 28th newspaper advertisement placed in this newspaper by the Town of Shediac.

It was a public notice of the Town’s intention to amend its Municipal Development Plan and Zoning by-laws. One of the intents in the proposed amendment is to permit the conversion of a near downtown residential property, adjacent to Rotary Park on the south side of Main Street (home of the world’s largest lobster) to a commercial designation that appears to allow the extension of a seasonal trailer park to butt up against Rotary Park.

In my view, the application should be denied.

Maybe I’m a naive romantic but the entrance to Shediac, particularly as you approach the bridge crossing the entrance to the inner Shediac Bay, is one of the most beautiful village or town entrances in the world. It’s a visitor’s first impression of Shediac and the entire Shediac Bay shoreline.

On the north side of Main Street, across from Rotary Park there is a second trailer site, also seasonal. In mid-summer, it becomes a high density tent/trailer city.

It’s a visual eyesore. A rogue wave or a fire at the site could put hundreds of lives at risk. It dishonours Shediac Bay and the entrance to Shediac.

It should be replaced with trees and nicely tailored, cedar-shingle structures that would enhance the property and draw attention to the beauty of its bayside views.

The south side trailer park applicant seeking the expansion permit, has, until now been discreet in its Main Street presence. However, its proposed expansion would push tent and trailer tenants into full view of passers-by and visitors to the lobster park.

In my opinion, neither the north nor the south side parks should be allowed to exist or operate in these locations.

They should be expropriated and the land they situate on should be re-developed as classic Maritime-sights similar to the Tate House, the Belle Court Inn or some of the beautiful residential structures that line Main Street.

Indeed, Shediac zoning laws should be amended to require all new commercial structures or business enterprises on Main Street leading into Shediac to conform to the historic architecture of the Town. What ever happened to town planning?

I admire the initiative and entrepreneurship of these trailer-park developers but I admonish those who permit their location on such beautiful land sights.

I’m jumping here but an editorial this week in the Times & Transcript jerked my mind from Shediac to Canada and I wasn’t able to finish my rant about the beauty of Shediac.

The T&T editorial dismissed ‘national unity’ as a “straw man” and non-issue in the current federal election. In my view, the editorial premise is totally misinformed. This election is about the future of Canada and the future of this region. The Bloc Quebecois is on the verge of winning a majority in Quebec. Their mission is to separate from Canada. That is not a straw man issue to me, to New Brunswick or to Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Québécois and Action Démocratique have been joined in agreement since 1994 with the intent of separation from Canada. On October 30, 1995, Québec voted on the question of sovereignty for Quebec. Support for sovereignty (the YES side) was 49.4% while the NO side obtained 50.6% of the votes, barely enough to turn back the separatists. Voter turnout was 93%.

According to recent polls, Bloc support has passed the 50% mark (ranging from 51% to 55% of Quebecers depending on the day).

In a recent speech in Quebec City, Stephen Harper promised to give Quebec international status in trade and cultural affairs. He promised to eliminate the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces (code for reducing federal government spending power). He wants to push federal taxing powers to the provinces.

His promises if implemented would lead to the defacto separation of Quebec.

The Times & Transcript editorial argues that it is not the Conservatives who have created the problem in Quebec but the Liberals and their sponsorship programs. Implicit in the T&T argument is that attribution of blame is more important than consequence or outcome. I’m not defending the sponsorship program or its handling. My concern is what happens in Quebec after January 23rd.

This newspaper seems to think that Quebec separation is a non-issue, that support for separation has passed and that support for the Bloc is tied exclusively to sponsorship programs.

In my view, that’s incredibly naive. Sponsorship reaction is symbolic of a much deeper problem.

A large segment of Quebec society, perhaps a majority of its population appears to have disengaged from Canada. Neither the Liberal Government, its leaders, its spokespeople or any of its political competitors (except perhaps the Bloc and its leader) appears to understand today’s Quebec, knows what to say to Quebec, has a spokesperson with the credibility to speak to Quebec or to engage with the people of Quebec. That is by far, the scariest circumstance of this election.

For most, if not all of the last century, Canada has had a prime minister or a prime minister’s lieutenant who connected with the people of Quebec, who understood Quebec, who was sensitive to Quebec and/or could speak to Quebec.

Today, this Country is disconnected from that Province.

There is no chance that Stephen Harper or Jack Layton will make that connection. There is little chance that Paul Martin will make that connection unless he finds a way to reach out to those who were once supporters of Quebec’s inclusion in Canada.