(Quebec) The three members of the Parti Québécois were turned away at the entrance to the Blue Room of the National Assembly because they had not taken the oath to King Charles III. The Sergeant-at-Arms denied them access.
“I’m not trying a coup de force, I think we should be let in because I took an oath to the Quebec people and their constitution,” said PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon on his way to the Blue living room.
There was tension in the air at the entrance to the National Assembly Hall, where the deputies deliberate and vote on our laws. Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon and the deputies for Matane-Matapédia, Pascal Bérubé, and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Joël Arseneau, had made it known that they would try to enter this room without having taken an oath to the king.
Dozens of political attachés from all parties waited to see the scene, and the national media were on the lookout. When he arrived, the Chief asked, very quietly, almost in a whisper, to speak to the Sergeant-at-Arms when the special constable in place refused him entry.
The wait – which lasted a few minutes – seemed to go on forever while the three chosen ones waited in front of the front door, surrounded by television cameras.
“I received a clear order,” briefly mentioned the Sergeant-at-Arms to Chief Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who had in hand a missive addressed to the new President of the National Assembly, Nathalie Roy. He argued that he had been duly elected in the October elections.
Roy says no
The three PQ members were trying to force the hand of the new President of the National Assembly, Nathalie Roy. The former president, François Paradis, had already expressed his opposition to the entry of non-sworn deputies last month. However, they questioned his legitimacy, since he was no longer elected.
But it was without success. Mme Roy took up the same refrain as his predecessor: you cannot modify a law by a parliamentary motion, as the Parti Québécois demands, she reiterated. She does not question the decision rendered by Mr. Paradis, even if he was no longer elected. He made this decision to give “predictability” to elected officials.
A few minutes earlier, Prime Minister François Legault had cut short the suspense by arguing that sitting without having taken an oath to the king “could have an impact on the laws we have”.
“Me, the first, I don’t like it, taking an oath to the king. We all agree to abolish this oath. Now, our legal advisers tell us that, to possibly avoid challenges to the laws that we will adopt in the coming weeks, it takes a bill to abolish the oath to the king, ”explained François Legault on his way to the Salon. blue for the first question period of the session.
A bill tabled
Mr. Legault recalled that his government has undertaken to table a bill next week to make the oath to the king optional. “So I think the priority right now is to work to help Quebecers deal with inflation. If for the Parti Québécois, there are other priorities, it is their choice,” he continued.
On the first day of parliamentary proceedings, Québec solidaire tabled its own legislative text aimed at recognizing the oath of MNAs to the people of Québec as the only obligatory oath upon taking office. Solidarity argued that they were prepared not to hold consultations to allow the bill to be passed before the holidays.
On Wednesday, the Liberals also maintained that they would not impose “conditions sine qua non such as the holding of consultations on the adoption of the bill.
A liberal deputy against the monarchy
Is an anti-monarchist wind blowing over Quebec? Liberal MP André Fortin even revealed that he would vote yes in a referendum to break with the monarchy in Canada. ” Personally ? Yes. Personally, I’m ready. I don’t feel any particular allegiance to the King of England. […] I do not speak on behalf of the Liberal Party. You ask me, as an individual, how I would position myself in a referendum on this issue. Well, here is the answer, ”he told the parliamentary press in the morning.
He believes we are “due” to “have a good conversation in Canada about the monarchy.” “I think we’re due for a conversation about the importance we place on it, about the role the monarchy has in our Canadian system. There are other countries that have had this conversation. If Australia is able to have a conversation that leads to a referendum on this issue, I don’t see why Canada would be unable to have such a conversation, ”he said.