Bill 391 inserts a new entitlement into Quebec’s Education Act that requires educational services delivered as part of special school projects — explicitly including concentration programs — to be provided free to eligible Québec residents, subject to a $5,000 annual limit per student. The measure also declares that administrative charges (selection, file opening and examination fees) and staff training fees connected to those projects must be free “in all cases,” language that appears to remove any dollar cap for those specific items.
Separately, the bill amends facility rules to restrict a school with a special project from being provided more than one immovable (site or building) by its school service centre unless the sites are within 250 metres of one another. Together these provisions change both the financing model for selective or enhanced programs and how school service centres can distribute program locations — with immediate implications for budgets, admissions logistics and facility planning.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a paragraph to section 3 of the Education Act creating a statutory right to free services for special school projects up to $5,000 per year and expressly makes certain administrative and staff training fees free regardless of amount. It also adds a paragraph to section 39 prohibiting a school service centre from placing more than one immovable at the disposal of a school with a special project unless the properties lie within 250 metres.
Who It Affects
Primary duty-bearers are school service centres and schools that run special projects or concentration programs; the direct beneficiaries are Québec residents eligible under section 1 (students and their families). The change also implicates provincial funding authorities because service centres will need resources to cover fees previously charged to families.
Why It Matters
The bill converts commonly charged program fees into statutory entitlements and narrows the geographic flexibility of multi-site program delivery. That shift alters financial flows (who pays for selection processes and training), enrolment logistics for selective programs, and where centres can locate program sites — all of which matter to compliance officers, finance directors, and planners in the education system.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 391 changes two parts of the Education Act that govern enhanced or selective programming in Quebec schools. First, it makes educational services provided under special school projects — the bill names concentration programs explicitly — a right for eligible Québec residents and bars charging families for those services up to an annual cap of $5,000.
The bill goes further by stating that administrative fees tied to those projects (selection, file-opening and examination) and staff training fees are free in all cases. The text does not define those terms beyond the examples provided, but it places them inside section 3’s framework for who is entitled to educational services.
Second, the bill inserts a geographic constraint into the property rules for schools with special projects. Under the new language added to section 39, a school service centre may not assign more than one immovable — a legal term for a distinct piece of real property — to a school running a special project unless the properties are within 250 metres of each other.
That distance limit is absolute in the text; the bill does not provide for relief, exceptions, or a measurement methodology.Taken together, the provisions remove or reframe revenue sources that schools and service centres have used to fund selective programming and impose a clear limit on dispersing a single program across multiple sites. Operational consequences include the need for school service centres to find budgetary offsets for waived fees, potential changes to admissions and selection processes that relied on fee-funded activities, and re-evaluation of where and how concentration programs can be located to serve students without breaching the 250‑metre rule.The bill also makes two technical deletions in section 3 (it removes the fourth paragraph and edits the fifth paragraph to eliminate a cross-reference to the deleted text).
Those deletions suggest the drafters intend to resolve inconsistencies between existing eligibility language and the newly expressed right to free special-project services. The Act takes effect on the day of assent, so once enacted there is no delayed transition period specified in the bill itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new paragraph to section 3 of the Education Act establishing a statutory right to free educational services for special school projects (including concentration programs) up to $5,000 per year per eligible student.
It explicitly makes administrative charges — selection, file-opening and examination fees — and staff training fees connected to those projects free “in all cases,” language that does not include a monetary cap for those items.
The bill removes the Education Act’s existing fourth paragraph in section 3 and edits the fifth paragraph to delete a prior cross-reference, altering the Act’s current internal structure and potentially removing a conflicting exception.
Section 39 is amended to prohibit a school service centre from placing more than one immovable at the disposal of a school with a special project unless the immovables are situated not more than 250 metres apart.
The Act comes into force on the date of assent — the bill contains no delayed commencement or phased implementation rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a right to free special-school project services and specifies covered fees
This provision inserts a new paragraph immediately after the first paragraph of section 3. It does two things: it sets a $5,000 per-student annual cap on the cost of educational services offered under special school projects, and it separately states that certain administrative and staff training fees must be provided free "in all cases." Practically, compliance teams will need to identify which charges schools have historically billed to families that now fall within these categories and how to account for them in budgets.
Deletes a prior paragraph and removes a cross-reference
The bill strikes out the fourth paragraph of section 3 and removes the phrase "Despite the fourth paragraph," from the fifth paragraph. Those edits remove an existing textual relationship that may have previously limited or qualified entitlements in section 3. The deletion is mechanical in the text but could have substantive effect by eliminating a prior exception or condition; administrators should compare the old and new texts to determine how eligibility and exceptions are now framed.
Restricts multi-site allocation for schools with special projects
This new paragraph to section 39 prevents a school service centre from placing more than one immovable at the disposal of a school that has a special project unless the immovables are within 250 metres of each other. The rule targets multi-site program delivery: satellite campuses, leased annexes, or otherwise dispersed facilities used by a single program could be barred unless tightly co-located. The bill does not define how distance is measured (property line to property line, building centroid, or pedestrian route), nor does it create exceptions for pedagogical or geographic needs.
Immediate commencement on assent
The final provision states the Act comes into force on the date of assent. There is no phased roll‑out, transitional funding provision, or compliance timeline for school service centres and schools to adapt admissions, fee schedules, or facility arrangements — meaning affected bodies will need to plan for immediate effect upon enactment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Québec residents eligible under section 1 (students and their families): They receive statutory protection against program fees for special school projects up to $5,000 annually and a guarantee that listed administrative charges and staff‑training fees will not be billed.
- Low‑income families: By removing direct fees for selection and administrative processes, the bill lowers upfront cost barriers that can deter applications to concentration or selective programs.
- Students seeking concentration programs: Reduced financial barriers and standardized fee rules may widen access to selective curricular offerings that previously relied on family-paid fees.
- Local communities where schools are located: The 250‑metre rule favors co-located facilities, which can concentrate resources and reduce the footprint of multi-site program models in neighbourhoods.
Who Bears the Cost
- School service centres: They must absorb costs formerly recovered through parental fees (selection, file processing, examinations and related training fees) and may need to reallocate budget lines or request additional provincial funding.
- Provincial education funders: If service centres cannot absorb these costs, the Ministère de l'Éducation will face pressure to provide replacement funding, creating a fiscal obligation not spelled out in the bill.
- Operators of special projects that charged fees: Programs and private partners that used fee revenue to pay for selection processes, administrative overhead or training will lose a revenue source and must find alternative funding.
- Students outside the local area and their families: The 250‑metre limitation can reduce the ability of a program to operate across dispersed sites, potentially reducing access for students who relied on satellite locations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against one another: expanding equitable access by eliminating fees for selective or enhanced programs, versus the fiscal and operational realities that school service centres and the province must absorb when those fees disappear and program sites are constrained. Solving one problem — affordability and standardization — may meaningfully worsen another — funding shortfalls, reduced program capacity, or loss of geographic reach.
The bill raises immediate implementation questions that the text does not resolve. First, the interplay between the $5,000 cap and the separate requirement that administrative and staff training fees be free "in all cases" is ambiguous: administrators will need legal guidance to determine whether the uncapped phrase means those specific fees are exempt from the $5,000 limit or whether the $5,000 ceiling still functions as an overall cap inclusive of all project-related costs.
That interpretation matters for budgeting: if administrative and training costs are uncapped, school service centres could face materially larger obligations than the statutory cap alone suggests.
Second, the 250‑metre immovable rule is terse and technical. The bill does not define what qualifies as an immovable for this purpose beyond the statutory meaning, nor does it specify a measurement method, carve out exceptions (for rural districts, program scale, or emergency arrangements), or provide transition rules for programs already operating on multiple sites.
Practically, the rule could force consolidation, reduce geographic reach, or push service centres to restructure leases and facility use — all with little procedural guidance in the statute.
Finally, the bill omits any funding mechanism, reporting requirement, or administrative route for dispute resolution. It enshrines entitlements and facility limits but leaves open how costs will be covered, how admissions processes should be adjusted when selection fees are removed, and how compliance will be monitored.
Those gaps create risks of litigation, budget shortfalls, or uneven implementation across service centres unless regulators or the legislature provide clarifying regulations or appropriations.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.