THE CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL 鈥� Gilles Duceppe鈥檚 political future and that of his Bloc Quebecois rest on persuading voters to forsake the NDP come election day so it was no surprise the sovereigntist leader鈥檚 sharpest attacks in Thursday鈥檚 debate targeted the federalist party.
Faced with the possibility of the Bloc not even winning as many as the four seats it did in 2011, Duceppe took clear aim at the NDP, which steamrollered through the province four years ago and appears poised to do likewise on Oct. 19.
One of the most heated exchanges in the French-language leaders鈥� debate occurred when Duceppe and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair went toe-to-toe on constitutional issues.
Duceppe zeroed in on the fact that Mulcair was a Liberal member of Quebec鈥檚 national assembly in 1995 at the time of the highly divisive sovereignty referendum.
鈥淢r. Mulcair says he would respect Quebec laws,鈥� Duceppe said. 鈥淚n 1995, the federal side did not respect spending limits.
鈥淵ou were at the national assembly and you participated in the No side and the No side had a spending limit which it did not respect.鈥�
Duceppe accused the NDP leader of being at the massive federalist Montreal love-in that attracted tens of thousands of Canadians from outside Quebec to the city three days before the 1995 referendum, which ended in a narrow victory for the federalist No side.
Those comments angered Mulcair, who defended his credentials as a democrat and pointed out his long-held view that a victory by sovereignty forces in a referendum with a majority of 50 per cent plus one would be sufficient for Quebec to become independent.
鈥淚 was at home and I didn鈥檛 finance anything,鈥� the NDP leader countered. 鈥淪top ascribing things to me that are false.鈥�
In his post-debate news conference, Duceppe accused Mulcair of dancing around pointed questions during the two-hour event.
鈥滻 wasn鈥檛 surprised by the answers given by Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Harper but I thought Mr. Mulcair would have more principles than that and answer very concrete questions and he didn鈥檛 do it,鈥� the Bloc leader said.
Duceppe also touched on the perception among some that Mulcair says one thing in French and another in English.
鈥淚 asked Mr. Mulcair, 鈥橦ow can you be in favour of the oilsands in a declaration made in 2012, while you wrote in a preface in French they were practically a crime against humanity.
鈥淪o clearly, Thomas wrote something in French and Tom said something else in English,鈥� he added in a reference to Mulcair being known as Thomas in French and Tom in English.
The NDP won nearly 60 of Quebec鈥檚 75 seats in 2011 under Jack Layton, reducing the Bloc to the rump of four and some observers have suggested Duceppe鈥檚 party could be shut out in the province 鈥� now with 78 ridings 鈥� on election day.
If it wants to remain relevant, the Bloc has no choice but to woo back its traditional support, which jumped en masse to the NDP four years ago.
Duceppe also used the niqab issue in the debate to try to boost support for his struggling party as he spoke about the consensus among Quebecers on the question.
鈥淲e鈥檙e talking here about a fundamental question 鈥� the equality between men and women in our society,鈥� Duceppe said during an occasionally heated exchange among the five leaders on the controversy over the religious garb.
Duceppe denied accusations his party is practising the politics of division by insisting that women not wear the niqab at citizenship ceremonies 鈥� a polarizing issue that has surged to the forefront of the election campaign as of late.
鈥淲e鈥檙e not dividing, we鈥檙e not dividing,鈥� he insisted. 鈥淲e鈥檙e respecting the basic will among Quebecers that men and women must be equal in society.鈥�
Duceppe came out this week in favour of invoking the constitutional notwithstanding clause to buttress legislation to ban the wearing of niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.
Thursday night鈥檚 debate took place on the very day a poll was released suggesting that 82 per cent of Canadians 鈥� and 93 per cent of Quebecers 鈥� supported the banning of face veils at citizenship ceremonies.
The survey of 3,000 Canadians, conducted for the Privy Council, was taken over 13 days in March.
Mulcair鈥檚 position is that he agrees with the existing rule that states anyone seeking citizenship must uncover their face to identify themselves before swearing the oath.
