Constitutional Act of 2025 on Quebec

Summary#

Bill No. 1, titled Constitutional Act of 2025 on Quebec, aims to establish a Constitution for Quebec and to strengthen Quebec's constitutional autonomy within Canada.

It would create three new laws:

• the Constitution of Quebec;
• the Act on the Constitutional Autonomy of Quebec;
• the Act on the Constitutional Council.

The proposed Constitution would notably declare that:

• Quebec forms a nation;
• French is its only common language and its only official language;
• Quebec is a secular state with a civil law tradition;
• the model of integration is integration into the Quebec nation, rather than Canadian multiculturalism;
• the collective rights of the Quebec nation are part of the constitutional framework;
• equality between women and men, women's freedom to access abortion, and fundamental linguistic rights are protected;
• the Quebec people can freely choose the political and legal status of Quebec.

The text also affirms the primacy of this Constitution over any incompatible legal rule. It recognizes the existing, ancestral, or treaty-based rights of the Indigenous nations of Quebec, within the limits of Quebec's constitutional competencies.

The bill would replace several references to the lieutenant-governor with "Officer of Quebec" and to the Executive Council with "Council of Ministers." The Prime Minister would designate the person they wish to see hold the position of Officer of Quebec.

The Act on the Constitutional Autonomy of Quebec would impose a ten-year government strategy. It would also give the government means to respond to federal initiatives that it considers an intrusion into Quebec's competencies. These means could include the refusal of federal funds or the suspension of certain agreements.

The bill would also provide for:

• annual special sessions of the National Assembly on constitutional issues;
• proposed participation by Quebec in the appointment of senators and Quebec judges to the Supreme Court of Canada;
• mandatory notice to the Quebec government in certain cases of property sales to a federal institution;
• the possibility for Quebec to exercise a right of first refusal on certain properties.

A Constitutional Council of five members would provide advice to the government or the National Assembly on the Constitution of Quebec and the effects of federal initiatives.

The bill would also amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the event of a conflict between equality between women and men and freedom of religion, equality would take precedence. Courts would also have to apply stricter rules before temporarily suspending a contested Quebec law.

The text provides for a general coming into force on the date of its assent for several provisions. The Constitution would come into force on June 24, 2026, or earlier if the government decides so. However, several elements would require regulations or a government decision before taking effect.

What This Means for You#

The bill would not have the same immediate effect on all individuals. It would mainly modify the rules governing the Quebec state, its relations with Ottawa, and the interpretation of laws.

For the population:

• French, secularism, civil law tradition, and national integration would receive constitutional recognition in Quebec;
• courts would have to take into greater account the collective rights of the Quebec nation in the interpretation of certain individual rights;
• judicial challenges to certain Quebec laws could become more difficult or lengthy;
• access to federal funds or programs could be affected if the government refused a federal initiative;
• certain property sales to a federal institution could require notice to the government and be subject to a right of first refusal.

For public organizations, municipalities, educational institutions, professional orders, and several crown corporations, government directives on relations with Ottawa could apply.

However, the concrete effects would depend on the adoption of the bill, subsequent regulations, and its interpretation by the courts.

Costs#

No detailed financial estimate is presented in the provided material.

The establishment of a Constitutional Council, the preparation of a ten-year strategy, and the administration of new procedures could incur costs for the state.

Additional costs or delays could also affect property owners, public organizations, and businesses concerned by property sale notices or new constitutional challenges.

The refusal of certain federal funds or programs could also have financial consequences for Quebec or for organizations that depend on these agreements.

Supporters' Viewpoint#

Supporters might argue that the bill:

• clearly affirms the national existence and unique characteristics of Quebec;
• better protects French, Quebec culture, and secularism;
• gives Quebec tools to defend its competencies against federal encroachments;
• strengthens the role of the National Assembly as the democratic expression of the Quebec people;
• improves Quebec's representation in federal institutions;
• recognizes the capacity of the Quebec people to determine their political future;
• adapts the interpretation of rights and freedoms to the Quebec context.

They might also present the bill as a way to increase Quebec's autonomy without immediately changing its status within Canada.

Opponents' Viewpoint#

Opponents might argue that Quebec cannot, through a provincial law, unilaterally establish a Constitution that takes precedence over the Canadian Constitution. They could challenge the actual legal scope of several provisions.

They might also fear that:

• individual rights could be weakened in favor of collective rights defined by the state;
• freedom of religion could be further limited;
• judicial challenges to Quebec laws could become more difficult;
• the independence of the courts could be indirectly reduced by the emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty;
• the government could refuse federal funds or suspend agreements to the detriment of public services;
• the rules regarding property sales could create uncertainty for property owners;
• the Constitutional Council could be perceived as too close to the government, as its members would be proposed by the Prime Minister and the responsible ministers.

Indigenous nations, English-speaking communities, and other groups could also seek clarification on how their rights and institutions would be protected within this new framework.