Why Quebec’s Incoming Premier Rejects the King’s Oath
Alberta Radio | October 8, 2026
Quebec premier-designate Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s rejection of allegiance to King Charles III is part of a wider effort to reduce the Crown’s role in Quebec’s political institutions. Following the Parti Québécois election victory, he is seeking legal advice on keeping the lieutenant-governor out of his swearing-in ceremony, according to The Canadian Press’s October 6 report.
There is an important distinction behind the headlines: Quebec’s National Assembly already removed its requirement for MNAs to swear allegiance to the monarch in December 2022. The incoming government’s latest proposals reach beyond that legislative oath.
Why he rejects the King’s oath
St-Pierre Plamondon’s position is that political loyalty should be directed toward Quebec’s people. During the September campaign, he described monarchy-related symbolism as a reminder of historical domination and argued against spending public money to maintain it, The Canadian Press reported on September 30.
For a leader whose party seeks Quebec independence, allegiance to a hereditary sovereign conflicts with that political outlook. His objection brings together national identity, democratic accountability and opposition to institutions he associates with British rule. It is a longstanding position, rather than an objection that began after this election.
What Quebec changed in 2022
The National Assembly’s official history records that St-Pierre Plamondon requested permission to serve without the Crown oath in October 2022. PQ members subsequently took the oath to Quebec’s people but declined the monarch’s oath. They were initially prevented from taking their seats.
Bill 4 was adopted and received assent on December 9, 2022. The Assembly now identifies loyalty to Quebec’s people as the sole mandatory oath for its members. That oath also commits MNAs to perform their duties honestly and justly while respecting Quebec’s constitution. Rejecting the royal oath therefore does not mean rejecting every oath of office.
The new dispute goes beyond taking an oath
TVA Nouvelles reported on October 6 that St-Pierre Plamondon wants legal advice on breaking with the monarchy and abolishing the lieutenant-governor’s function before the new parliamentary session opens. He also objects to the King’s representative formally opening the legislature’s proceedings.
The Canadian Press reported that he considers the Crown’s involvement inappropriate even if it is described as symbolic. He has pledged to redirect funding from the lieutenant-governor’s office toward homelessness, while making a homelessness summit an early priority. These remain announced intentions; the reporting does not establish that the office has already been abolished.
Why the constitutional question matters
Changing an MNA’s oath and abolishing a lieutenant-governor’s office raise different constitutional issues. Section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 places amendments concerning the monarch, governor general and provincial lieutenant-governors under the unanimous-consent procedure.
That provision requires authorization from Parliament and every provincial legislature, subject to the Constitution’s rules governing the Senate’s role. It creates a substantial hurdle for any attempt to abolish the office unilaterally. Changes to funding or ceremonial arrangements would need to be assessed on their own terms; a political announcement alone does not settle their validity.
What Alberta readers should watch
The issue offers a concrete example of the distinction between rejecting a political symbol and changing the constitutional institution behind it. The next developments to watch are the legal advice, the arrangements for the incoming government’s ceremonies and any legislation it introduces. Alberta Radio will follow those steps as Quebec’s debate over allegiance and the Crown develops.
