A political dilemma is brewing in the Quebec legislature as some MNAs are refusing to swear an oath to King Charles III during their swearing-in ceremony.
The most vocal opponent to the tradition of pledging allegiance to the Crown is Parti Québécois (PQ) leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, whose party members are set to be sworn in on Friday. The rules state members of Quebec's National Assembly cannot take their seats unless they do it.
The PQ leader sat down with CTV News Montreal anchor Maya Johnson on Wednesday to discuss his party's position on the matter and what's next since the national assembly has rejected his request.
Watch the video above for the full interview.
CTV: Quebec solidaire is on your side on the oath debate, but it's still unclear what happens next and if you can even be called an MNA at this point. Are you prepared to give up sitting in the legislature to keep fighting this fight?
St-Pierre Plamondon: There are many possibilities before us and it's indeed not clear at this point. What's clear is my undertaking not to take that oath for personal reasons, and for honesty, integrity reasons. With that said, we have many professors of law from different universities who say that in reality if the National Assembly decides that one of the two oaths is sufficient to be sitting in the Salon bleu, then the law will change through the new practice. And there's potentially no consequence at all. At least the Constitution doesn't foresee any specific consequence so there is a grey zone.
But there is also a genuine debate that is beyond partisan interests, beyond traditional differences in our points of view. I think Quebecers, in general, agree that we shouldn't be taking an oath to the King of England.
CTV: A Leger survey did show that a majority of Canadians oppose this tradition, but you wrote to the secretary general of the National Assembly and he was very clear: he has to apply the rules that are currently in place and he, alone, doesn't have the power to exempt MNAs from the rules. He cannot independently modify the 1867 Canadian Constitution. What do you say to that?
St-Pierre Plamondon: He's correct. He also says an act of the National Assembly and an intention from the elected members of the assembly could change the state of the law. So basically, he says he's not the elected member but if the elected members of parliament believe that — whether or not you take the oath to the King — you should be allowed to do your work and sit in the Salon bleu. I will follow that evolution of the interpretation we have of the constitution.
So, then again, there's space for evolution, there's space for finding solutions and it's very clear from that letter.
CTV: There might be a lack of clarity, but the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) says it won't just be a matter of introducing a motion to change the rules — there would need to be a bill to change the law. With the new session of the legislature starting on Nov. 29, what do you think will happen between now and then that would allow you to sit in the Salon bleu?
St-Pierre Plamondon: They are being contradicted by several professors of law and we have many weeks in front of us to negotiate, to find a solution, and I'm confident that in the end the fact that we have a very large consensus in the population and the fact that a majority of specialists in constitutional law that agree that there should be a solution to modify the constitution. All those factors tell me that we're going to find a solution.
CTV: So you believe you'll be able to take your seat on Nov. 29?
St-Pierre Plamondon: There are fives weeks and many actors who are yet to speak and the very vast support in the population -- so we've been talking about it much more than I expected, to be honest. So, once we said everything we could on that topic, can we please solve the issue and go further?
CTV: On that note, there has been criticism that this discussion is taking up too much space and that there are other priorities to deal with, such as health care, the labour shortage, inflation. As soon as you were elected, you brought the oath issue to the forefront. Why is this your number one fight?
St-Pierre Plamondon: Because it's my number one thing in my agenda. It's the first step I need to take and my promise was very clear. And it's also the fact that the CAQ doesn't believe it's urgent to be sitting. They put the date to go back to work on the 29th of November and that should be the topic.
If we have so many issues to deal with and if we've debated in all possible ways in the campaign, why are we not working? Why are are not sitting? Why is the CAQ not very motivated to go to work and move forward on all those topics? The fact that I have this will not to take an oath has nothing to do with the fact that the CAQ is not moving forward on any of those topics.
This article has been edited for clarity and length.
