More from L. Ian MacDonald available More fromavailable here

Just as Tom Mulcair and the NDP were cruising along in the polls, they hit a couple of speedbumps on the road last week.

In the latest weekly EKOS poll for iPolitics, the NDP leads nationally by seven points, 34-27 over the Conservatives, with the Liberals trailing badly at 23 per cent. In battleground Quebec, the NDP leads with 35 per cent, with the Conservatives and Liberals at 18 and 16 per cent, and the Bloc Québécois at 21 per cent. In Ontario, with its 121 seats in the new House, EKOS has the NDP at 36 per cent, with the Conservatives and Liberals tied at 26 per cent.

Well, if the NDP are really leading by 10 points in Ontario, they’re poised to win the suburban 905 belt around Toronto. Nobody thinks that’s going to happen. EKOS president Frank Graves issued a cautionary note on his Ontario numbers. “The huge NDP lead in Ontario is new,” he wrote in his poll piece for iPolitics, “and should be treated with caution until we see it confirmed.” But as for Quebec, he noted: “We definitely feel the NDP is in very strong shape there.”

But with the surprise return of Gilles Duceppe as Bloc leader, it may well be that the NDP has now peaked in Quebec, with their Ontario numbers a one-time statistical anomaly.

Senate abolition as a ballot question? It’s not exactly up there with the economy, jobs, health care, day care, climate change or time for a change. Senate abolition as a ballot question? It’s not exactly up there with the economy, jobs, health care, day care, climate change or time for a change.

To the extent that the Bloc vote was a parked one under the leadership of Mario Beaulieu, that was a pool of voters available to the NDP. Their 21 per cent standing in last week’s EKOS poll reflects a bump from the arrival of Pierre-Karl Péladeau as leader of the Parti Québécois, and the week-long saturation coverage in the Quebec media of the passing of separatist icon Jacques Parizeau.

Before Parizeau’s death, Quebec pollster CROP had the Bloc closer to 10 per cent. Beaulieu was a hard line separatist that not even the separatists liked. Down to two members in the House, the Bloc was headed for zero MPs under his leadership. He had no organization, couldn’t attract good candidates, and had no money except for the nearly $2 million left in the party’s coffers from the phased out federal subsidy of parties according to their vote in the previous election.

Duceppe is quite another matter. While he may be past his prime at 67, or rusty after four years out of the game, he comes with huge brand recognition and a solid reputation for defending Quebec’s interests in Ottawa. He also has a history of being excellent in leaders’ debate, in English as in French. The other parties and the hosts of the debates will have to include him in the English debates, or risk it becoming a campaign issue of Quebec being excluded. The Bloc is a party founded on grievance, and Duceppe knows how to play that card very well.

So while Mulcair figured to shine in debates against Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau, he will now have Duceppe to contend with as well, and in both languages.

The NDP are the only party that will take a hit in Quebec as a result of Duceppe’s return. To the extent that the Bloc takes votes away from the NDP, this will actually help the Conservatives in the 418 Quebec City region, where their vote is concentrated. The Liberals will neither benefit nor be damaged by a mild Bloc revival. But les rouges have problems of their own. At fourth place and 16 per cent, they would win only half a dozen or so seats in the Montreal area, including Trudeau’s own riding of Papineau.

It’s useful in doing seat projections to recall the Quebec results in 2011. The NDP with 42 per cent of the vote, won 59 seats in the Orange Wave. The Bloc, with 23 per cent, was reduced to just four seats. The Conservatives, with 16 per cent, won only five seats. The Liberals, with 14 per cent, eked out six seats.

The NDP were heading to 2011 territory, and had definitely become the Anyone But Harper party in Quebec, but that was before Duceppe’s return, reminding us of Robert Bourassa’s favourite quotation, that a week is a long time in politics. If Duceppe is able to move the Bloc into the mid-20s in the popular vote, most of that would come at the expense of the NDP. And at a certain point it would begin to translate into seats.

What if there was a hung Parliament and the Bloc, with 15 or 20 seats, held the balance of power? Even at 12 seats, the Bloc would become a recognized party in the House, with the staff that goes with it, not to mention standing in question period.

Mulcair’s other bump in the road last week was his promise to campaign on abolishing the Senate in the light of the auditor-general’s report on senators’ expenses. Senate abolition, he said, “will be part of our offer to Canadians.”

Senate abolition as a ballot question? It’s not exactly up there with the economy, jobs, health care, day care, climate change or time for a change.

Moreover, as the Supreme Court reminded us in the Senate reference case last year, it requires the unanimous consent of Ottawa and the provinces to abolish the Senate. The premiers of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have already made it clear they’re not prepared to give up their provinces’ Senate seats.

So Mulcair’s pledge to abolish the Senate is a dead letter, constitutionally and politically. But he insists he would work with the provinces to bring it about, as Quebec and Ottawa did in amending the British North America Act in replacing religious denominational school boards in Quebec with linguistic ones. Yes, but that was a bilateral amendment between Ottawa and Quebec. What Mulcair’s talking about on the Senate simply can’t be done. As prime minister, he might also be obliged by the courts to fill vacancies in the Senate—such a case is pending, and if the Supreme Court runs true to form, it will say that the Senate cannot be abolished by attrition.

Mulcair also sounded churlish when he told the CBC’s Rosemary Barton that he’d never known a senator who did good work. “No, I haven’t, never” he said, adding that senators “do nothing of use to the country.”

Really? Michael Kirby’s report on health care was a landmark piece of work. Leo Kolber’s report on large bank mergers set a standard of excellence. Senate committees generally do better work than their counterparts in the House, partly because senators aren’t looking over their shoulders at the voters. And many senators are champions of good causes, as Jim Munson is on behalf of children on the autism spectrum.

Come on, Tom. Lighten up.

—

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94. The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.