By Daniel Béland

October 23, 2025

Speaking to journalists earlier this week, Liberal Party of Quebec (LPQ) leader Pablo Rodriguez said he hoped that one day Quebec would sign the Canadian Constitution “when Quebec’s demands [are] accepted”.

When pressed about the nature of those demands, he stated that he would not “go below” the conditions laid out by former premier Robert Bourassa at the time of the 1987 Lake Meech Accord. Parti Québécois (PQ) leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon reacted strongly to Rodiguez’s statements, claiming that “The federal system is an illegitimate system. It was born out of a purely colonial British law in 1867, without the democratic consent of Quebecers. It was reformed in 1982, a repatriation in which, clearly, Quebec was taken in and did not sign, and therefore did not consent.”

This remark takes a particularly clear historical and political meaning because Plamondon, despite a stark warning from former PQ premier Lucien Bouchard to change course, supports the organization of a new referendum on Quebec’s independence by 2030, if his party wins the next provincial elections in early October 2026.

Interestingly, this discussion about the Constitution and a possible third independence referendum is taking place as Quebeckers are reflecting on the 30th anniversary of the 1995 referendum. Like most Quebeckers who voted on October 30 of that year, I remember this moment extremely well.

On that day, the tension was palpable and there was a long line in front of the school where I voted in Laval, just north of Montreal. Yet, no political violence took place in Quebec that day, even if the final outcome was extremely close, and even if, later that night, Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau declared that his camp’s victory was stolen because of “money and ethnic votes.”

At the time, because the “no” camp won by such a tiny margin, there was a sense that a third referendum could take place sooner rather than later, especially because the PQ remained in power until 2003. This did not happen but, soon after, the sponsorship scandal and the related Gomery Inquiry considerably boosted support for sovereignty in Quebec.

By then, however, Jean Charest and the LPQ were in power, guaranteeing no referendum would take place under their rule. When the PQ finally returned to power in 2012 under the leadership of Pauline Marois, they only had a minority government and they focused their attention on the “Quebec Charter of Values,” which they hoped could help them secure enough votes to win a majority of seats at the next provincial election.

Beyond the question of whether and when a referendum should take place, only 35 percent of respondents would vote ‘yes,’ which is bad news for the PQ.

In the end, it was the PLC under Philippe Couillard that won a majority of seats in 2014. This would once again make a new referendum on Quebec’s sovereignly impossible. Yet, the Couillard government did try to reignite constitutional discussions with the Ottawa after Justin Trudeau became prime minister, but the latter answered very quickly that he would not “open the constitution,” something federal politicians have generally stayed away from since the defeats of Meech and the Charlottetown Accord back in 1992.

In 2018, rejecting the idea of any new independence referendum in the province was a key aspect of the Coalition Avenir Quebec’s (CAQ) approach. Instead of focusing on broad sovereignty and grand constitutional debates, the Legault government in power since late 2018 decided to emphasize greater policy autonomy for Quebec in areas such as immigration.

Partly because that strategy proved largely unsuccessful and partly because the CAQ is now doing very poorly in the polls, earlier this month the Legault government tabled a Quebec Constitutional Bill 2025 with the aim of creating a new Quebec constitution, a nationalistic initiative criticized as being overly partisan and divisive in nature.

Regardless of what one thinks of this initiative, what is clear is that, exactly three decades after the 1995 referendum, politicians in the province still talk about constitutional reform and, in the case of the PQ leader, holding a third independence referendum. Yet is it what most voters are really interested in? Based on available polling data, the answer is “No”.

For instance, according to a recent Léger poll, only 28 percent of respondents would like to see an independence referendum take place in the province, compared to 59 of respondents who are against this scenario. Beyond the question of whether and when a referendum should take place, only 35 percent of respondents would vote “yes,” which is bad news for the PQ. This poll also suggests that, in contrast to a Léger poll conducted in June, support for sovereignty among younger people, while significantly higher than last year, is not suddenly surging.

This points to the need to carefully analyze public opinion data over the long run before drawing conclusions about the evolution of support for sovereignty among specific demographics. Finally, it is worth noting that the existence of Québec Solidaire, a left-wing party supporting independence, creates a clear ideological division within the sovereigntist camp that could also complicate the task of the PQ if and when they seek to organize a third referendum.

Overall, 30 years after the 1995 referendum, most Quebeckers, including francophones, still oppose independence and would vote “no” at a referendum if one took place now. Still, the fact that the PQ keeps advocating for a third referendum and that the leader of the LPQ muses about Quebec finally signing the Canadian Constitution suggest that the institutional and political future of the province withing Canada remains an open question.

Today, the national unity question still lingers, three decades after a highly divisive if strikingly peaceful referendum came so close to breaking-up Canada.

Daniel Béland is professor of political science and director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University. He thanks Professor André Lecours from the University of Ottawa for his prompt feedback.