Mulcair’s Senate obsession could be Duceppe’s ticket back to Ottawa

Don Lenihan, Canada2020

Gilles Duceppe’s return to national politics began with an impressive surge of support. Subsequent polls suggest this may have been a blip. To make real headway, the Bloc Québécois leader needs an issue that can stoke the nationalist fires. Thomas Mulcair’s fixation on the Senate may be just the ticket.

For months, Mulcair has been promising to make abolition an election issue. Last weekend, Stephen Harper gave him some unexpected help by imposing a moratorium on Senate appointments. In addition, the Duffy trial will ramp up again shortly, throwing yet more fuel on the fire.

But Quebec is a problem. Premier Philippe Couillard has been perfectly clear that without some kind of linkage to the province’s long-standing “constitutional demands,” abolition is a non-starter that undercuts Quebec’s interests.

Mulcair dismisses this, cheerfully insisting that all we need to resolve this impasse is a bit of “hard work.” (Apparently, no one has tried that yet.) His plan is to capitalize on Canadians’ anger by rallying public opinion behind abolition and using this to pressure the premiers into an agreement.

To be fair, there is some hope that this could work in the other nine provinces (more on this below), but in Quebec the plan is either folly or vain. Indeed, for a party whose future hinges on holding onto its soft nationalist vote in Quebec, it looks downright reckless.

Every time Mulcair pokes the stick of abolition in Couillard’s eye, he forces one of the friendliest Quebec premiers in decades a little further offside with the NDP—and the rest of Canada.

It is worth noting that, for his part, Duceppe has been uncharacteristically quiet on this issue. The same goes for Parti Québécois leader Pierre-Karl Péladeau. We should not be surprised. They’re likely praying that Mulcair keeps it up. Why?

The debate in Quebec will be very different from “English Canada.” Couillard, as we’ve seen, has already defined the basic narrative: abolition must be linked to Quebec’s traditional demands. That is not going to change. Rather, the more profile abolition gets, the more insistent this message will become.

As it does, Quebec nationalists will begin circling the wagons to support the Nation’s stance—which, in turn, will be the signal to leaders like Duceppe and PKP to grab their bullhorns and start amplifying Couillard’s concerns a hundred-fold.

They will attack abolition as a massive weakening of Quebec’s power in Ottawa. They will accuse English Canada, once again, of advancing its own agenda at the expense of Quebec. They will remind Quebeckers of the ROC’s steadfast refusal to address Quebec’s constitutional concerns. They will castigate Ottawa for its relentless desire to “put Quebec in its place.”

Mulcair’s history as a senior advisor to Alliance Quebec will be trotted out and they will accuse him of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing whose agenda is now clear. He has gone to Ottawa to do English Canada’s bidding.

Such a “debate” will put Couillard between a rock and a hard place. What can he say? Other leaders, such as Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault or Françoise David of Québec solidaire, will have little choice but to oppose Mulcair or risk landing on the wrong side of the issue.

In short, if Mulcair really thinks he can rally Quebec public opinion behind abolition; and if the past is any guide to the future, he is in for a rude shock. Hard nationalists who have been trying for years to rekindle the national unity debate—believing one more round will finally blow the country apart—will fight furiously to prime the emotional pump and turn this into a Quebec vs. the ROC issue. Mulcair could even find himself facing divisions or defections in his own caucus.

Let’s speak frankly here: Mulcair’s sunny optimism about bringing Couillard on side through “hard work” is a sop to the cameras. He is a seasoned Quebec politician who must know the Quebec government will never support simple abolition.

Presumably, he is pushing this issue so hard because he wants the Rest of Canada to see him as a leader with a national vision who is prepared to buck the trend to do what is right for the country, much as he did with C-51, the security bill. Except this time the strategy may be too clever by half.

If Mulcair succeeds in making abolition an election issue, he risks handing Duceppe a platform to define the ballot question in Quebec around the province’s long-standing, constitutional grievances. If Duceppe succeeds, Mulcair will find himself in opposition to almost every major leader in Quebec.

Right now, Duceppe’s back is against the wall. He appears to have no issue to revive the BQ and, at best, might pick up a half-dozen seats. Whatever benefits Mulcair may think he is wringing from his campaign against the Senate, they pale in comparison to the risk he runs by waving abolition around in front of the sovereigntists.

Finally, let me note that I believe Mulcair is also far too optimistic about his ability to carry Atlantic Canada on this issue. The leaders and people from that part of Canada are keenly aware of their vulnerability to Central and Western Canada. Their willingness to fight for their Senate representation in Ottawa—especially if Quebec leaders start standing up for theirs—might be a further surprise for the NDP chief.

All in all, Mulcair is taking a huge risk for what seem like minimal benefits. I really don’t get it.

`

Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada’s leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. His recent projects include chairing an expert group on citizen engagement for the UN and the OECD; and chairing the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: Don.Lenihan@Canada2020.ca or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan