The release of the first episodes of Harry & Meghan on Netflix was the media event of the week in Great Britain. The documentary series depicting the suffering of the prince and his American wife within a cold royal family, marked according to Harry by his “unconscious bias” towards people of color, fuels the war already well underway between the king’s sons Charles III, and this, barely three months after the death of the matriarch. A real soap opera, what!
We understand that many Quebecers no longer want to play in this film. The adoption by the National Assembly on Friday of Bill 4 aimed at making the oath to the king optional marks a step towards achieving this objective. The leader of the Parti Québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, is therefore right to congratulate himself on having precipitated this change. His crime of lèse-majesté will have borne fruit.
The abolition of the oath to the king only for the deputies of the National Assembly nevertheless raises many questions. First, because it is not certain that the new Quebec law can survive a constitutional challenge. But also because the refusal of Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon to take the oath to the king constitutes a gesture of rupture with the Canadian constitutional order. Does the leader of the PQ intend to propose other gestures of this kind, challenging François Legault to follow up?
The same dilemma
Failing to enjoy official opposition status in the National Assembly, the three PQ members intend, according to Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon, to present themselves as “the government’s official alternative” when they occupy their seats after the holidays.
Last week, Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon said he hoped that the CAQ government would be inspired by the Alberta Sovereignty Act, which Danielle Smith’s government has just adopted after striking out a provision that would have allowed the Council of ministers to change laws without going through the Assembly. The new law still allows the Alberta government to order non-compliance with federal laws by provincial institutions if it determines them to be “prejudicial” to the interests of the province. Would Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon propose a Quebec version of the Alberta law? How far would he dare to go?
Quebec sovereignist leaders have always faced the same dilemma. Independence activists love gestures of rupture. But international recognition and the legitimacy of the sovereignist approach require respect for the rules of the game. Jacques Parizeau would have flirted with the idea of making a unilateral declaration of independence in the event of a refusal by Ottawa of its offer of sovereignty-partnership after a victory of the “Yes”.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on secession in 1998 would have put an end to such notions once and for all. The independence of Quebec, if ever achieved, would require a duly negotiated amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless, many sovereignists still believe in the legitimacy of a unilateral declaration of independence.
The UK Supreme Court recently relied on the 1998 Canadian reference in a ruling on the Scottish government’s referendum bill. The British court had also determined that Scotland could not hold a referendum on its independence without the prior authorization of the British Parliament at Westminster, authorization which the current Conservative government refuses to grant. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon responded by promising to make the next general election a referendum election. How many PQ militants would like Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon to do the same thing?
In English Canada
Admittedly, the next Quebec election will only take place in four years. The PQ have plenty of time to debate their next election strategy. In the meantime, Law 4 is likely to find itself before the courts. Remember that this law abolishes the oath to the king in the National Assembly by modifying article 128 of the Constitution of 1867 in order to exempt Quebec from it.
In English Canada, voices have been raised to question this unilateral approach by Quebec, which comes after a similar amendment to the Canadian Constitution by the Act respecting the official and common language of Quebec, French, last June.
“When the Constitution is amended by a law from Quebec or by a law from another province, often there are people who will want to come and test it in court, that’s clear,” said the interim leader. of the PLQ, Marc Tanguay, during the tabling of the bill on the abolition of the oath to the king. “But we will work so that it is adopted, then we will see if it holds up in court. »
Who knows ? The Quebec deputies will perhaps not have taken the oath to Charles III for the last time.