On October 15, 2026, the National Assembly in Quebec City became the stage for a change that had been more than a decade in the making. The Parti Québécois’s 59 MNAs were sworn in, and party leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon said it marked the first time a governing party did not swear an oath to the monarchy. For many watching, that detail was a symbol of how far the political ground has shifted. A sovereignist party now holds the levers of government in Quebec, even if it does not hold a majority.

The electoral math is worth pausing on. The PQ won 59 of 125 seats with 28% of the popular vote, falling short of the 64 seats needed for a majority. That means roughly seven in ten ballots went to other parties. Under first-past-the-post, however, that 28% translated into the largest bloc in the National Assembly. This is not a criticism of the voters who supported the PQ; it is a reminder that the new government’s mandate is both real and narrow. It will have to negotiate, compromise, and listen to parties that did not share its sovereignty goals.

For those of us who watch politics from the perspective of working people, the list of priorities Plamondon has named matters more than the constitutional debate. He has said his government will tackle homelessness, boost food bank funding, cut spending, address the cost of living, and form a team for trade talks with the United States. These are the issues that show up in kitchen tables and community centre lineups. They are also the issues where the gap between promise and delivery is often widest.

There is an immediate tension in that list. Boosting food bank funding is a response to an emergency. Cutting spending is a promise that often lands on the same public services and programs that keep people from needing food banks in the first place. It is possible to do both in the short term by shifting money around, but the underlying logic is contradictory. A government that genuinely wants to reduce the need for food banks would be talking about income security, housing, and wages. Those words are not in the priorities as reported by CBC News and Global News.

The minority nature of the government adds another layer. With 59 seats, the PQ is five seats short of a majority. It has requested recounts in two ridings that could move it closer to that threshold. That means the exact shape of the government is still in motion. Every vote in the National Assembly will be a negotiation, and the parties that hold the balance of power will have their own demands. This is not necessarily a bad thing for democratic accountability, but it does mean that the PQ’s campaign promises will have to survive contact with other parties’ priorities.

Plamondon is scheduled to unveil his cabinet and formally take office on October 21. That date will be the first real test of his government’s values. Cabinet choices reveal whether a party intends to govern for everyone or for a narrow base. Will the ministers responsible for housing, social services, and labour come from communities that have experienced homelessness and precarious work? Will the trade team include voices from labour unions and manufacturing workers, or only business leaders? The answers will tell us a lot about who carries the cost of the ‘cutting spending’ promise.

The constitutional dimension is impossible to ignore. A sovereignist government in Quebec introduces a new period of federal-provincial tension over independence, the monarchy, and constitutional reform. The decision not to swear an oath to the monarchy is a break with tradition that will be felt in Ottawa. It is also a sign that the PQ intends to use every available lever to advance its constitutional agenda. But for the people who are watching their rents rise and their paycheques shrink, the constitutional fight is not the main event. They will judge this government on whether their daily lives improve.

Plamondon has pledged to hold a referendum on sovereignty after 2029, once U.S. President Donald Trump leaves office. That is a long horizon. It pushes the most divisive question to a later date, which may be an attempt to focus first on governing. It also means the possibility of a referendum will hang over every federal-provincial meeting for years. The pledge is not a plan to hold a referendum tomorrow; it is a statement of direction. In the meantime, the government has to pass budgets, manage public services, and respond to crises.

The trade dispute with the United States is already here, and it is not abstract. Quebec workers in trade-exposed industries are the ones who will feel tariffs and border disruptions first. Plamondon has said he will form a team for trade talks with the United States. That is a sensible first step. But the team’s mandate matters. If it is focused only on protecting corporate profits, it will miss the point. Trade policy is also labour policy. It decides whether a plant stays open, whether a union has leverage, and whether a family can plan for next year.

The broader Canadian context is tense. Alberta is facing its own separation referendum, and the federal government is managing a trade dispute with the United States. A sovereignist government in Quebec City adds another layer of strain. The country is, in effect, being pulled in multiple directions. For workers, these constitutional battles can feel like a distraction from the immediate problems of inflation and precarious work. But they also shape the rules of the game. The outcome of these fights will determine who has the power to set labour standards, housing policy, and environmental rules.

It would be easy to write this story only as a sovereignty story. But the people most affected by government decisions are not always the ones in the headlines. The PQ’s promise to tackle homelessness is a recognition that visible homelessness has become a crisis in Quebec’s cities. Boosting food bank funding is a response to the reality that many people cannot afford groceries. These are not abstract policy choices. They are the result of years of underfunding, rising inequality, and a housing market that treats shelter as an investment rather than a right.

Food banks are a symptom, not a solution. A government that is serious about hunger would increase social assistance rates, strengthen the minimum wage, and build public housing. Those are expensive and politically difficult. Cutting spending is the easier headline. But the cost of cutting is paid by the same people who line up at food banks. It is paid by the public-sector workers who deliver services, by the parents who cannot afford child care, and by the tenants who face eviction. The question is not whether the PQ will cut spending; it is whose spending gets cut.

Homelessness is similarly a housing problem. Emergency shelters and food banks are necessary, but they do not end homelessness. Ending homelessness requires a steady supply of deeply affordable housing, rent protections, and support services. That takes years of sustained investment. A minority government with a sovereignist agenda may find it hard to make that long-term commitment, especially if every budget is a negotiation. The risk is that the government will fund emergency measures while the underlying causes remain untouched.

Cost of living is one of the priorities Plamondon has named. But cost of living is not one thing. It is rent, groceries, electricity, gas, child care, and the gap between wages and prices. Addressing it means taking on powerful interests: landlords, grocery chains, and energy companies. It means strengthening collective bargaining and enforcing competition rules. None of that is easy, and none of it happens automatically because a party wins seats.

The recounts in two ridings could change the arithmetic. If the PQ gains seats, it may approach a majority. That would give it more room to act unilaterally, which is not necessarily good news for the opposition parties or for the workers who want checks on power. A government with a stronger majority faces less pressure to compromise. The recounts are a reminder that democracy is not just about election day; it is about the counting, the challenges, and the legitimacy of the result. We should wait for those results before drawing final conclusions about the balance of power.

The swearing-in ceremony itself was a break with tradition. Plamondon said it was the first time a governing party did not swear an oath to the monarchy. That is a significant statement, but it is also a reminder that symbols matter. For many Quebecers, the monarchy is a relic of colonialism. For others, it is a stable part of the constitutional order. The PQ’s decision to skip the oath will be read as a challenge to Ottawa. It may also open a conversation about what it means to be a democracy in the 21st century, when the head of state is a foreign monarch.

This article is based on early reporting from CBC News and Global News, and the details of the new government are still taking shape. The cabinet has not been unveiled. The recounts have not been resolved. The referendum is years away. What we know is that the PQ has 59 seats, a minority government, and a list of priorities that includes both spending increases and spending cuts. What we do not know is how those priorities will be reconciled, or who will be asked to sacrifice. Those answers will come in the weeks and months ahead.

The real test of the Plamondon government will not be the oath, the referendum date, or the trade team. It will be whether the people who are struggling to pay rent, feed their families, and find stable work are better off a year from now. That is a test that no amount of constitutional symbolism can pass. It requires budgets, laws, and enforcement. It requires listening to the people who are most affected. The PQ has returned to government after more than a decade in opposition. The question is whether it will use that return to serve the people who need government most, or to chase a dream that has been deferred for generations. We will be watching.