The financial managers of political parties are very revealing of their respective positioning on the left-right axis. Their ideological leanings can even be quantified.
Posted at 6:30 a.m.
To achieve this, I took two angles of comparison: the budgetary commitments of the parties — essentially state expenditure — and the level of transfers to individuals1.
Results ? In the dark left corner, Québec solidaire (QS) promises to spend $13.2 billion more per year, at the end of a possible mandate. At the other end of the spectrum, the Conservative Party of Quebec (PCQ) plans to spend only… 345 million. The gap is abysmal.
Between the two, there are in particular the two parties reputed to be rather centrist—the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) and the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ)—, which plan to spend almost the same annual sum with their promises (2 billion) when they would be fully in force in 2026-2027.
With Québec solidaire, there will be a massive injection of new annual funds for all social causes: gender equality (140 million), additional vacations (190 million), reduced tuition fees (260 million), social housing (490 million), dental insurance (790 million), anything goes. Added to this is the ecological transition and public transport at half price (2 billion).
Grand total for the year 2026-2027 alone: 13.2 billion.
The Parti Québécois (PQ) also has a plethora of new spending ($10.4 billion for 2026-2027), but two-thirds are concentrated in three projects: home care for the elderly ($3 billion), green transition (2.9 billion) and social housing (926 million).
The CAQ and the PLQ present certain expenditures similar to the others, but with more modest means. For example, the two parties would devote an additional 200 million and 350 million respectively to social or affordable housing in 2026-2027, i.e. two to three times less than the PQ and QS. And all of their measures are close to 2 billion per year.
At the other end of the spectrum, the only new expenditures that find favor in the eyes of the PCQ — which wants to lighten the presence of the state — are for the hiring of police officers (81 million) and the addition of doctors and nurses (165 million), essentially.
Now, what about transfers to individuals, my second angle for determining the position of parties on the left-right axis? In the dark right corner is the Conservative Party, which plans to give back $8.1 billion a year to individuals after a possible term ends, in 2026-2027.
In the left corner, the PQ and QS each return approximately 2 billion to taxpayers, in 2026-2027.
The PCQ provides for tax cuts ($6.1 billion), which would proportionally affect the middle class more, but also an increase in the tax credit for experienced workers ($1.2 billion), among others.
Dominique Anglade’s party is not far behind, with a total of 6.4 billion transfers per year (estimate for 2026-2027). One third goes to tax cuts for the middle class, another third goes to seniors and the rest to various measures. The CAQ is essentially targeting the same clientele, but at a lower level (3.5 billion).
For its part, the PQ targets workers aged 60 and over (1.6 billion), essentially, and QS wants to increase social assistance above all (1.3 billion).
Sleights of hand
At first glance, the parties do not show large deficits resulting from their promises. In fact, it is often otherwise.
Why ? Because the political parties have found ingenious ways of recording income or deducting expenses that embellish the picture.
Disappearing provisions for economic risks (PQ, PLQ, CAQ), revenue increased by an inflated GDP (PCQ, CAQ) and indirect effects of the measures (PQ): all these elements make comparisons difficult, especially for the budget balance and the debt.
It is possible that these measures will have real effects, but as they are very uncertain and imprecise, political groups have been asked to avoid such maneuvers, which embellish the situation.2.
I corrected these effects to have a clearer portrait3. Following this correction, the PLQ and the PQ have the largest deficits, followed by the CAQ. At the other end of the spectrum comes the Conservative Party, which would have a large surplus of $7.1 billion before payment to the Generations Fund, despite its major tax cuts.
Same observation for the debt: by straightening the financial executives, we see that the gross debt of Quebec will swell, during the mandate, from 54 to 59 billion under the CAQ, the PLQ and the PQ, and from 68 billion under QS. Only the PCQ would maintain an increase in the debt similar to the pre-election report (increase of 22 billion).
By making this fair comparison between the parties, it must be concluded that none of the four political parties would manage to significantly reduce the gross debt below the threshold of 42.1% of GDP on March 31, 2022.
This debt would be 41.8% of GDP in five years under the PLQ and the CAQ, 42.5% under the PQ and 44% under QS. This would be far from the 37% predicted by the pre-election report or by the PCQ.
The surpluses of Éric Duhaime’s party, which allow a major tax cut and a stable debt, are explained by rather radical measures. There is talk of a recurring cut of 1.8 billion in spending, in addition to a reduction in assistance to businesses of 4.4 billion and an abolition of subsidies for electric vehicles (880 million).
In the end, the PCQ’s expenditures would grow by only 17% in five years, barely equal to inflation. As health care costs increase much faster than inflation, due to ageing, tensions are to be expected with the unions. In comparison, the pre-election report predicts a 25% growth in spending, which corresponds to 10.6 billion more.
As for Québec solidaire, the expected surplus of some $500 million in 2026-2027, according to my comparisons, is explained by massive tax increases.
QS would tax the wealthiest (4.5 billion more per year), like businesses (4.6 billion). The debt would increase despite the balanced budget due to the suspension of payments to the Generations Fund ($5.2 billion per year) and an increase in the Quebec Infrastructure Plan.
Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois’ party assured me that it had not overestimated the inflow of funds from tax increases, that it had taken into account the behavior of taxpayers and therefore tax leakage.
But the mystery remains: what would be the combined effect of all these tax increases on tax leakage? What would the wealthiest taxpayers, often the most productive in society, do when they saw that their incomes were taxed at the maximum marginal rate of 57.6% — by far the highest level in industrialized countries — and that the capital gain was taxed at 100%, such as their estate exceeding $1 million (35% tax)?
What would be the effect on companies, knowing that shareholders pay only a portion of the new taxes charged, according to studies, and that most are instead transferred to employees in lower wages or product prices (which could induce customers to buy elsewhere)?
1. I have deducted from the expenses all the elements that bias the assessment of the position of the parties on the left-right axis. For example, three parties deflate their expenses by budgeting uncertain budgetary savings. All the elements used to finance new spending or transfers to individuals have also been cut (tax increases, effect of measures on income, fight against undeclared work, etc.).
2. The request was made by the Chair in Taxation and Public Finance at the University of Sherbrooke and the Association of Quebec Economists.
3. For explanation of adjustments, see notes to various tables and charts.