LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

As the back-and-forth over the budget implementation bill raged between the Senate and House of Commons last week, tempers flared over slights both real and imagined, but through it all, something unexpected happened that may have made Leader of the Government in the Senate err, "government representative" Peter Harder's position untenable going forward.

Backing up to last Wednesday, the House of Commons sent their message saying that they disagreed with the Senate's proposed amendment to delete the escalator clause on the excise tax on beer and wine (the reasons for which ranging from a dislike of new taxes period, to the principle by which an automatic escalator means that the government didn't have to come back to Parliament every year to increase taxes which amounted to a breach of the principle of no taxation without representation).  There were two problems with it, however.  The first was the boilerplate language in the rejection, insisting that it infringed upon the rights and privileges of the House something that the Senate was already terse about after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's statements in the days leading up to the vote that the Senate didn't have a right to amend money bills (when clearly they do under the constitution they simply can't initiate them).  The other problem was that rejection of the Senate's proposed amendments were not spoken to by the Minister of Finance, nor debated in any way they were part of an omnibus motion that the Government House Leader, Bardish Chagger, moved as part of a housekeeping motion to ensure that the Commons rose for the summer that night.

The off-hand dismissal of the Senate's amendments was considered by many senators to be a slap in the face, and is part of that ham-fisted style of legislative management that Chagger has come to exemplify.  And when the message was received by the Senate, Harder moved that they deal with the motion immediately something that he got pushback on because the normal course of the Senate is that things are dealt with the following day unless they get consent to do so.  A vote was called with a one-hour bell, with the intention that if Harder got the go-ahead to deal with it right away, he would move a motion that the Senate not insist on its amendments, passing the budget bill so that it could go for royal assent (and MPs could go home for the summer without worrying about it).

During that hour, as senators filtered into the Chamber, there was a sour mood in the air at the manner in which the Commons responded to the Senate, and Senate Liberal leader Joseph Day began circulating a proposed amendment to Harder's motion, that he planned to move if the vote went ahead.  Harder saw that he had a problem because he didn't want to deal with Day's amendment.  Harder ended up voting against his own motion, along with all of the independent senators, and which pushed off debate on the Commons' rejection of the Senate amendments until the following day, buying Harder more time.

The various Senate groups began working on their own motion which would affirm the Senate's ability to amend any bill it likes given its constitutional powers to do so, and all groups were in on the discussion.  The plan was for this to be an amendment to Harder's motion to let the budget pass the next day, but over the course of the discussions into the next morning, Harder had gotten wind of the plan and proposed a new motion that would add the new language that while the Senate was not going insist on their amendments, they would remind the Commons that the Senate has the right to amend bills.  That the Leader of the Government would send this message to his own government was unprecedented, and is hugely problematic.  (This motion passed, with the Conservatives dissenting as well they should as the Official Opposition).

This puts Harder into a particular bind.  If he had been thinking things through properly, he should have allowed the other groups to put forward their amendment that he could have either voted against or abstained from voting owing to his responsibility to the government, let the amendment to his motion be added, and then vote for the amended motion in the end thereby giving himself some distance and political cover.  But by trying to play the hero and insisting that this message to the Commons be part of his own motion, Harder created a particular break in his role as the Government Leader, as his thumbing his nose at the very government he represents is a very provocative action.  It also exposes the government.

The situation that Harder has created for himself is quite possibly untenable going forward, and makes things awkward for the government in the House of Commons.  Which party there gets to raise this as an issue?  The Conservative Senators were the ones trying to move amendments, and the NDP doesn't believe in the Senate period, and because Chagger's ham-fisted motion being voted in unanimously by all of the other parties, everyone wears the initial provocation.

If anything, this is one more mark in the column of how poor of an idea it was the whole time to have Harder acting as a supposed "independent" representing the government in the Senate (which is an oxymoron to be certain), rather than his being an actual cabinet minister like the Leader of the Government is supposed to be.  This faux independence, combined with Harder's lack of experience with the rules of the Chamber, helped to create this mess.  That this was almost certainly part of his quest to be seen as the leader of the "independent" Senate writ large, flexing his muscles in protecting its rights and privileges against the government, makes him unable to actually represent the government in a serious capacity going forward.  More than that, it shows that Trudeau's attempted reform of the Chamber continues to have some fundamental flaws in its execution.

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


A new Mainstreet poll is confirming that the traditional political axis revolving around constitutional battles is a thing of the past in Quebec.  The battlefield is no longer about which country should Quebecers belong to.  The rise of Quebec Solidaire and the continued strength of the Coalition Avenir Québec are the phenomenon to watch as La Belle Province moves towards the October 1st, 2018 election.

Quebec Solidaire is now battling the PQ for third place.  There is no question that the small left wing party has been trending upwards since the arrival of Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois.  Mainstreet pegs QS at 18%, over 10 points higher than in the last provincial election and only 4 points behind the PQ.  This latest surge in support comes after Nadeau-Dubois' victory in the Gouin by-election.  GND is optimistic and ambitious and he is talking openly about becoming Premier of Quebec.

For that to happen, the QS trend upward would have to continue in a major way and start to create some movement outside of the Island of Montreal.  The PQ would also have to collapse completely and even lose the support of "les Purs et Durs."  That is a remote possibility, but there is no question that Jean-François Lisée is worried.  From a highmark of 35% under previous leader Pierre-Karl Péladeau, the PQ has now fallen to 22%.  You can sense that Lisée is concerned he is trying different tactics to reinvent the PQ once again, like bringing in his very own Green Shift.  Furthermore, while the PQ wants to defeat and replace the Liberals, the bulk of their attacks have been recently directed more towards Quebec Solidaire and François Legault's CAQ,

François Legault has been slowly but surely establishing himself as the main alternative to Philippe Couillard, while the PQ, now firmly in third place,with their eyes on QS in its rearview mirror.  Still the third party in the National Assembly, the CAQ is rising in the polls and is now the preferred choice amongst francophone voters, the last Léger pegging its support at 31% support.

But Legault has a few problems to solve in order to consolidate the CAQ position as the main challenger to the governing Liberals.

On the ground, the organisation is weak.  Of the 14 by-elections that were held since the last general election, the Caquistes saw their vote share drop in 10 of them.  The CAQ membership has shrunk by half and now sits only at 11 000 members.  Despite the polls, the CAQ is being out-fundraised significantly by the other three parties.  If it weren't for the generous public financing formula, the CAQ wouldn't have anywhere near the means of its ambition.  Irritated by Legault's statement that the PQ was no longer a concern and that his only opponents are Couillard's Liberals, Jean-François Lisée is reminding anyone about these problems any chance he gets.

Obviously, these are major concerns for the Caquiste strategists.  Of the three main parties, they are the least organized.  In the current landscape, which is basically still a close three-way race with less than 10 points between the front-running Liberals and the lagging Péquistes, they know that they must have a better machine on the ground to give them extra seats.  Hoping for a wave is simply not a sustainable option.

This is why Legault was less present in the National Assembly during the session that just ended.  This is also why you won't see him in the most recent CAQ pre-election ad.  Legault's team understands the need to build up his team, which starts by allowing other members of the party to be more visible and to make themselves known.  In turn, this allows them to grow their own network of support and increase their own team-building capabilities.

A former CEO of Air Transat and one-time PQ ministre, Legault is not a flamboyant Leader.  But he is serious and more and more consistent.  While the government is facing a slumping economy and governance difficulties, namely in Transport and Health, Legault has scored some points and has managed to prevent his climb from being stopped by unprovoked errors.  There has been some, like when Legault goofed on Boeing's chairman salary in the heat of the Bombardier debacle, or when he first defended the ethical lapses of deputy Claude Surprenant as "little errors" before excluding him from his caucus days later.

But Legault didn't pay a heavy price for these mistakes.  That's because Legault and his Caquiste caucus have been focussed on their messaging, steadily defending consumers, patients and taxpayers.  They are on top of the most relevant files while the PQ has been distracted by Alliance negotiations and soul searching.  It is now paying some dividends for the CAQ.

For Legault, CAQ Leader since 2011, the next election is probably his last kick at the can.  He has been patient, he works hard, and he is more and more disciplined.  If he fails to convince Quebecers to throw the Liberals out and replace them with the very first CAQ government, party and caucus members will be looking for a change.  Nobody is organizing officially.  But people around some MNAs, like ADQ veteran Eric Caire, House Leader François Bonnardel and former TV personalities Nathalie Roy and François Paradis, are already thinking about the next steps if Legault fails to become Premier after his third attempt.

Photo Credit: Montreal Gazette

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