Commentary
In light of Albertans voting for five of 10 resolutions in their recent referendum and the incoming Parti Québécois (PQ) government moving to bypass Quebec’s constitutional system, the Carney government must defend the constitutional order and the rule of law.
Specifically, it should draw a red line at PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s plan to dismantle monarchical elements and abolish Quebec’s lieutenant-governor’s office, and should have intervened when he skipped the oath of allegiance to the King.
Crucially, one need not be a diehard constitutional monarchist to recognize the danger in Quebec’s actions. Canadian constitutional experts overwhelmingly agree—the PQ cannot legally or unilaterally alter or abolish monarchical elements entrenched in Canada’s Constitution.
Indeed, section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, explicitly requires the unanimous consent of the federal House of Commons, the Senate, and all 10 provincial legislatures for any constitutional amendment regarding the office of the King, the governor general, or a provincial lieutenant-governor. According to constitutional lawyer Frédéric Bérard, Quebec faces a “nearly impossible” barrier because a single province cannot bypass the federal amending formula.
While I personally hold a strong attachment to our constitutional monarchy, even Canadians who favour reform recognize the danger of unilaterally altering or abolishing parts of the Constitution.
Ottawa must reassert this red line immediately because it has already conceded far too much to Quebec. In December 2022, after PQ members threatened to boycott the Quebec legislature, the legislature unanimously passed Bill 4 to make the oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch optional.
Again, regardless of one’s personal feelings about the oath, unilaterally changing it violates the law. Section 128 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1867, explicitly mandates that all elected provincial legislators (which include provincial representatives in Quebec) take an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch (King Charles III) before taking their seats.
Former premier François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government similarly defied constitutional norms with its proposed constitution. This ambitious attempt to codify Quebec’s internal constitutional laws into a single document also sought to unilaterally alter key aspects of the broader Canadian framework—including amending formulas, judicial structures and federal appointments—while quietly slipping in anti-monarchical provisions.
The proposal also sought to sneak in its anti-monarchical agenda under the guise of provincial modernization. By attempting to rename the lieutenant-governor the “Officer of Québec” and grant the premier direct authority over the role, the CAQ tried to dismantle federal oversight without following the required constitutional channels.
These statutory shortcuts establish a dangerous precedent. When provincial leaders bypass constitutional amendments to enact piecemeal reforms, they normalize institutional evasion across the country. Left unchecked, this incremental strategy encourages other provinces to treat fundamental constitutional provisions as flexible preferences rather than binding law.
Ottawa’s silence in the face of these earlier manoeuvres has only signalled to sovereigntist movements that federal authorities lack the resolve to enforce the ground rules of Canadian confederation.
Yet Premier St-Pierre Plamondon ignores a fundamental reality—his government cannot alter these institutions through administrative fiat while evading the hard work of deliberative democracy and honest public engagement. The only legitimate path available to Quebec—or any province seeking structural change—is lawful institutional reform. Regional discontent must flow through established constitutional channels. While Alberta harbours legitimate grievances regarding parliamentary representation, fiscal transfers, and extreme immigration, its proper path lies in changing the system while actively engaging Ottawa and sister provinces.
National polling data from the Aristotle Foundation confirms that most Canadians outside Western Canada remain open to negotiating structural reforms if national unity faces a genuine challenge. Canadians favour structural compromise over provincial fragmentation.
When provincial governments unilaterally alter or ignore provisions of Canada’s founding document, they undermine the entire rule of law. If Ottawa allows Quebec or Alberta to cherry-pick which constitutional obligations they choose to respect, it invites constitutional chaos and signals to every province that national laws are merely optional guidelines.
The federal government can no longer afford a passive “wait-and-see” strategy. Ottawa must reassert its constitutional duty, draw a definitive line in the sand, and actively defend the legal integrity of the federation.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
