(Quebec) The leader of the Parti Québécois (PQ), Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, has failed to convince the Legault government that the adoption of a motion stipulating that elected officials do not have to take the oath to the monarchy would suffice to abolish this obligation provided for in the constitution.
Posted at 1:39 p.m.
Simon Jolin-Barrette, who was parliamentary leader of the government during the last legislature, confirmed on Tuesday that the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) favored the adoption of a law to abolish the oath to King Charles III.
“It gives us no more pleasure than anyone to take the oath to Charles III, but it is currently provided for by the constitution. […] We are open to passing a bill precisely to end the oath of allegiance to royalty, to the British monarchy, ”he said.
“What is necessary, if we want to modify the oath which is provided for in the constitution, is that the National Assembly decides by legislative means. […] A motion does not have the force of law to change the Constitution Act of 1867 “, he added.
On Tuesday, all elected CAQ members will therefore take an oath to the King of England, as well as to the people of Quebec, as provided for respectively by the Constitution Act of 1867 and the National Assembly Act. Mr. Jolin-Barrette invites all elected members to do the same, until a law abolishing the oath is adopted.
However, the CAQ government does not intend to table a law on this subject as a priority. Mr. Jolin-Barrette recalled that his party had pledged during the election campaign that the first law tabled when parliamentary work resumed was to limit the increase in government tariffs and to send new checks to Quebecers as of December, due to inflation.
Monday, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon reiterated that he would not take the oath to the king, during his swearing-in scheduled for Friday. The consequence of this gesture could be to prevent him from sitting in the Blue Room, until a law repealing the oath to the monarchy is adopted. At the time of publication, the PQ leader had not reacted to the government’s refusal to table a motion which, according to him, would have allowed him to sit despite everything.