Excitedly, the elected PQ members puffed their chests, trumpeted that they would not take the Oath of the King and demanded “full and complete” recognition as a faction.
Reality is now catching up with the Parti Québécois. If the formation managed to avoid disaster last month, it was still reduced to the weakest representation in its history with just three MPs. Their balance of power vis-à-vis the other political parties in the National Assembly has been weakened, as evidenced by the stalemate in ongoing negotiations over the allocation of budgets and speaking time in Parliament.
It is of course difficult to comment on the proposal currently under consideration. The Parti Québécois chose to break the confidentiality that surrounded exchanges between parliament leaders to better denounce their opponents’ stance. However, their figures have been questioned by other political groups, who themselves refuse to be more specific.
The PQ explains that of the 35 opposition MPs elected in the last election, three were elected under its banner, giving it – within the opposition – a relative weight of around 9%. However, he denounces, the other parties are only offering him 7% of the available budgets and 5% of the speaking time in question.
The discrepancy stems from the fact that the official opposition has always been given a certain preponderance. However, the Parti Québécois argue that in addition to their three MNAs, they still received more votes than the Liberal Party in absolute terms and almost as many as Québec solidaire.
Heavy precedents
The problem is that the National Assembly’s decisions on work organization are based on tradition. They are also, with some exceptions, based on the number of elected members of each party and not on the results of the elections.
In an interview on Thursday, MP Joël Arseneau attacked his opponents who refused to change the institution towards a multi-party system, in which there is essentially a triple equality between opposition parties.
The modernization of democratic institutions is certainly desirable in order to better reflect the new political situation. However, one may wonder whether post-election negotiations, with each political group defending its immediate interests, provide the best forum for discussing further structural reforms. For this reason, the Conservative Party should also be granted funds without delay, as its leader has repeatedly demanded.
The proposal to the Parti Québécois undoubtedly has room for improvement, but at the level of the National Assembly, where practices are slow to develop, the mere fact of granting formal recognition to its leader is already a step forward. In 2014, the three Québec Solidaire MPs didn’t deserve as much respect.
A risky bet
Negotiations are still ongoing and a compromise is still possible before Parliament starts on November 29th. However, one may wonder what would happen if the Parti Québécois refused to sign the final agreement. Would the other parties be willing to proceed without him, or would they make unanimity an essential condition of their own signature?
It is often repeated that unanimous approval is required to change the Assembly’s rules of procedure, but this is not entirely true. As we learn from the book Laprocedure Parlementaire du Québec, the rules have been changed several times without the support of any political party represented in the National Assembly, or the approval of the official opposition. The coalition avenir Québec, the Liberal Party and Québec solidaire could therefore choose to proceed without the Parti Québécois.
In the absence of a unanimous agreement, the government could also start parliamentary work on the basis of the current rules and let the negotiations run in parallel. However, this would have many disadvantages for the members of the Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire, who would then be considered independent and could not receive the promised budgets.
Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, elected for the first time in the last ballot, certainly intended to upset the established order, but his refusal to take the oath to the king already put him in an awkward position. The fact that he does not sign an agreement that would be joined by the other political parties could make his position even more precarious. This does not take into account that by disclosing the content of the ongoing negotiations, it also runs the risk of alienating itself from other political parties.