Platform of the Parti Québec Légitime

Version 1.1 — October 28, 2026

This is a translation. In case of discrepancy, the French version prevails.

The Parti Québec Légitime proposes a sovereign Québec that relies on energy, artificial intelligence and robotics rather than immigration to secure its prosperity. The state would be made lighter through automation, funded by consumption rather than by income tax, and subject more often to the will of the people.

The platform has ten pillars. Sovereignty comes first, because currency, taxation and immigration depend on it. Every measure follows the same template: the objective, the means, the cost and how it is funded, the timeline, then the risks and the objections we answer in advance.

Amounts marked “approximate” are orders of magnitude to be validated before publication. The main directions are settled; the parameters still open, especially in health care, and the data to be validated are listed at the end.

Pillar 0 — Sovereignty

0.1 Making Québec a country

Objective

Make Québec a recognized country during the first term, on the strength of a clear electoral mandate: a majority of the votes declared valid in the general election.

Means

• The referendum election. Before the vote, the party announces that the election is about independence. If its candidates win more than 50% of the votes declared valid, counted across all of Québec, the National Assembly begins the accession to independence. A majority of seats is not enough.
• Rejecting the 1982 Constitution. It was adopted without the consent of the National Assembly, and no Québec government has endorsed it since. The vote is therefore not about leaving a pact Québec signed, but about rejecting a constitutional order imposed on it. The argument is political: the Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that this constitution applies to Québec, and the party does not challenge it in the courts.
• A Québec constitution, adopted by the National Assembly within three months of the election, within Québec’s current powers. It becomes the fundamental law of the country at independence (see 7.1).
• Negotiation with Ottawa: debt and assets, the border, trade, citizenship, and an agreement to share asylum seekers (see 2.1).
• Québec takes on a share of the federal debt equal to its share of the population on the day of independence, in exchange for its share of federal assets (buildings, reserves, Crown corporations) on the same basis.
• Steps toward international recognition and membership in the United Nations.
• Bringing federal departments home: taxation, customs, pensions, employment insurance, defence.

Cost and funding

In 2024, Ottawa collected $84.4 billion in Québec and spent $111.1 billion there, including $11.0 billion of interest on the federal debt attributed to Québec (Statistics Canada). The gap is $26.6 billion, or $15.7 billion without interest. The calculation is disputed: with the shares used by the Parti Québécois (18.1% of federal revenue and 18.2% of program spending), the same calculation gives about $16 billion, interest included. 2024 was also a year of large federal deficit: the gap was $16.2 billion in 2022. Québec must therefore cover $16 billion to $27 billion a year, interest included (approximate). Its share of the federal debt, in proportion to population, is about $280 billion (approximate); its interest is already counted in this gap. Savings from ending duplication should reduce it.

Timeline

The general election serves as the referendum. A Québec constitution within three months of the election, negotiation with Ottawa from the election onward, transition over two to four years. Without a majority of the votes, the government applies the first-term measures and the question returns at the next election.

Risks and objections

• The population-based key is the most costly one for Québec. Our answer: it is the simplest and the most credible for the markets, and it is tied to our share of the assets.
• The reaction of financial markets and credit-rating agencies during the transition.
• Recognition by Canada and the United States, on which trade depends.
• “You want independence with 40% of the vote.” Our answer: the threshold is a majority of the votes declared valid, not of seats. Below 50%, no accession process begins, and the government applies the first-term measures (see the First term section).
• “An election is not a referendum: people vote for a government, not on a question.” Our answer: the stakes are announced before the vote and written into the platform. Nobody votes for the party without knowing they are voting for independence.
• “Ottawa will refuse to negotiate: the Clarity Act only provides for a referendum.” Our answer: Québec’s Bill 99 (2000) provides that the people of Québec alone choose, through their own institutions, how they make their decision. International recognition depends on a clear popular will, and a majority of the vote expresses it.
• “Québec never signed, so what? The Supreme Court has ruled.” Our answer: we are asking nothing of the courts. Forty-four years later, no Québec government, federalist or sovereigntist, has accepted this constitution. That is a political fact, which the election allows us to settle.
• “A constitution adopted in three months will be rushed.” Our answer: the draft constitution is published with the platform, before the election. The Assembly adopts it; it does not write it.

This pillar is the condition for measures 2.1 (immigration), 2.2 (Bitcoin endowment), 4.1 (taxation), 4.2 (currency), 4.3 (free university), 6.1 (health cheque), 8.1 (carbon market) and 9.1 (national service), as well as part of 3.5 (the Old Harry deposit) and of 7.1 (the end of the legislative bilingualism imposed by section 133).

Comment on measure 0.1

Pillar 1 — Democracy and institutions

1.1 A verifiable referendum platform

Objective

A vote that any citizen can verify, without having to trust the government.

Means

• A blockchain register run by independent nodes (Élections Québec, each represented party, universities), where every ballot is recorded encrypted and anonymous.
• Every voter can check that their ballot was counted, without being able to prove to anyone else how they voted.
• Remote voting is limited to consultations and the collection of signatures.
• Binding referendums are voted at the polling station, on paper or on a public terminal; every ballot is recorded in the register for a public count in real time.
• Referendums initiated by the government and by citizens, triggered by 130,000 signatures gathered within 18 months, or about 2% of voters, on the Swiss model.
• Three subjects are excluded: the fundamental rights of the Charter; essential international commitments, such as the non-refoulement of refugees; and tax measures without replacement funding, since a tax initiative must provide for how the lost revenue is made up.
• The source code is public and audited by independent experts before every vote.

Cost and funding

To be costed. The automated count reduces the cost of each vote.

Timeline

A pilot project on non-binding consultations, then binding referendums.

Risks and objections

The security of personal devices, hence voting at the polling station for binding votes; low turnout on technical subjects.

Comment on measure 1.1

1.2 Performance-based pay for elected officials

Objective

Tie the pay of government members to the results achieved for the population, by law.

Means

• The measure covers all members of the party or parties forming the government, including in a coalition or a minority government.
• Opposition and independent members receive the standard salary, with no variable portion.
• Base salary: 80% of the standard salary. Variable portion: 0% to 40% of the standard salary. A government member thus earns between 80% and 120% of the standard salary.
• Five equally weighted indicators:
  1. Debt-to-GDP ratio
  2. Growth in GDP per capita
  3. Health care wait times (emergency rooms and surgery)
  4. Purchasing power of the median household
  5. Public satisfaction, measured by an annual ISQ survey
• The indicators are written into the law. The targets are set before each election by an independent committee made up of the Institut de la statistique du Québec (ISQ) and the Auditor General, and cannot be changed during the term.
• Results are measured by the ISQ, never by the government.
• The variable portion is paid after the term, based on results over its whole length.

Cost and funding

Neutral or low. The average salary of a government member stays equal to the standard salary if the targets are half met.

Timeline

Law adopted in the first year; it applies from the first full term after its adoption.

Risks and objections

• The law is voted by the very officials it covers. Our answer: the targets are set by an independent committee, not by the Assembly.
• Poorly chosen indicators push toward short-term decisions. Our answer: paying after the term rewards lasting results.
• Factors beyond the government’s control, such as a global recession, weigh on results. Our answer: the committee can adjust the targets after a recognized external shock, under rules set in the law.

Comment on measure 1.2

1.3 Protecting the vote of incapacitated persons

Objective

Prevent a vote from being cast in the name of a person who is no longer able to make a choice, for example with Alzheimer’s disease or advanced dementia.

Means

• When a tutorship to an adult is opened or a protection mandate is homologated, the court also rules on the person’s capacity to make an electoral choice, based on the medical assessment already required.
• No separate procedure: the decision is part of the same judgment and is reviewed along with the protective supervision. The court notifies Élections Québec.
• Exclusion is never automatic on the basis of a diagnosis, and it can be challenged.
• Voting in seniors’ residences and in long-term care centres (CHSLD) takes place in the presence of an Élections Québec officer. Assistance with voting is prohibited without authorization, and fraudulent voting is punished.

Cost and funding

Negligible. The measure relies on assessments and judgments that already exist.

Timeline

To be set.

Risks and objections

A possible challenge under the Québec Charter and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Our answer: case-by-case judicial review protects against arbitrary decisions.

Comment on measure 1.3

Pillar 2 — Population

2.1 End of permanent immigration

Objective

No new permanent admissions. All new entries are under temporary status. Labour needs are met with temporary permits and with automation (pillar 3).

Means

• Workers: temporary permits limited to sectors with shortages, with no path to citizenship.
• Students: study permits limited to the length of the program.
• Asylum seekers: temporary protection reviewed every two years, with return once the country of origin is safe, on the Danish model and in compliance with the Refugee Convention. Fast processing and quick removal for unfounded claims. A sharing agreement with Canada negotiated during the transition, in proportion to population.
• Spouses of citizens: a permit renewable every five years. Citizenship possible after 14 years of proven life together in Québec.
• Citizenship by descent: a child is a citizen if at least one parent is a Québec citizen.
• Acquired rights: permanent residents admitted before independence keep their status.

Cost and funding

To be costed. The effect on the workforce must be offset by the productivity gains of pillar 3.

Timeline

From independence. Before then, within the limits of Québec’s current powers over the selection of immigrants.

Risks and objections

• The aging population and the labour shortage, especially in care (see 5.2). Our answer: temporary permits fill the gap measured every year by the ISQ, and only decrease at the pace of the automation actually delivered (see 3.3).
• Workers without a path to residence are easier to exploit and harder to keep. Stronger labour protections are needed.
• The 14-year wait for spouses is among the longest in the world and could be challenged under the right to family life. Our answer: the path exists; it is simply demanding.

Comment on measure 2.1

2.2 A Bitcoin endowment for every newborn

Objective

Give every child born a Québec citizen starting capital in Bitcoin, and encourage births.

Means

• Every year, the state buys about $476 of Bitcoin in the name of every child born a Québec citizen, from birth to age 21, for a total of $10,000, not indexed.
• Purchases are made every week on a public schedule, to smooth the price and avoid being front-run by the markets.
• At 21, the child receives their bitcoins in their own wallet, or their value in cash, as they choose.
• Purchases stop when the child dies (the bitcoins go to their estate) or loses their citizenship (they return to the fund).
• Offline multi-signature custody, split among several institutions (central bank, Auditor General, Élections Québec).
• Published addresses: any citizen can verify in real time that the funds of each cohort exist.

Cost and funding

About $38 million in the first year, rising gradually to about $800 million a year in the 21st year, based on about 80,000 births (approximate, to be validated with the ISQ). No future liability: the state does not guarantee the value. Funding: the interest on the bonds held by the currency board (4.2), about $1 billion a year depending on rates (approximate), which covers the endowment even at maturity. The consumption tax makes up the difference if interest rates fall.

Timeline

At independence, once the currency board (4.2) is in place; first cohort the following year.

Risks and objections

• The value at 21 may be lower than what was put in. Our answer: the child receives an asset, not a promise.
• The amount is not indexed. Our answer: the endowment is paid in Bitcoin precisely because its supply is limited; it is the asset that protects against inflation, not a bigger budget.
• The central bank also holds Bitcoin as an excess reserve (4.2): the state’s exposure to this asset is consistent from one measure to the other.

Comment on measure 2.2

Pillar 3 — The economy of the future

3.1 Energy and data centres

Objective

Make Québec a hub of computing power running on clean electricity.

Means

• Public and private data centres, preferably near Hydro-Québec’s major facilities.
• New electricity generation, since the current surpluses are disappearing, in a three-step sequence detailed below.
• Electricity is sold to data centres at the marginal cost of new generation, not at the heritage rate.
• Mandatory interruptible contracts: data centres cut their consumption during winter peaks.
• Mandatory recovery of server heat for greenhouses and district heating.

The energy sequence

No new source costs as little as the heritage rate inherited from the great dams. The platform says so frankly and ranks the sources by what they deliver, and when.

Québec therefore restarts the study of a new large dam and assesses the Gentilly site, without promising to build either before the numbers are in. A study commissioned by Hydro-Québec concludes that no major barrier prevents restarting Gentilly-2, closed in 2012.

Cost and funding

To be costed, largely through private investment and electricity rates.

Timeline

To be set according to Hydro-Québec’s generation plan.

Risks and objections

Electricity sold to data centres does not go to households or industry, and these centres create few jobs per megawatt. The local benefits must be shown: jobs, revenue, digital sovereignty.

• A new dam requires the consent of the nations that signed the James Bay Agreement, must take the decline of the caribou into account, and needs hundreds of kilometres of roads and lines. Fifteen years passed between the announcement and the full commissioning of the Romaine.
• Nuclear power remains costly, its waste has no permanent solution in Canada, and the specialized workforce has scattered since 2012. An independent Québec would also have to create its own nuclear safety commission, join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, sign a safeguards agreement with the IAEA and negotiate its uranium supply (see 0.1).
• Selling electricity below the cost of new generation would mean households pay the difference, through their bill or through a lower dividend paid to the state.

Comment on measure 3.1

3.2 Artificial intelligence, quantum computing and the automated state

Objective

Automate 80% of the state’s administrative tasks and build national expertise in AI and quantum computing.

Means

• A national research institute in AI and quantum computing.
• Automation of administrative services: processing applications, permits, payments, collecting the tax.
• Fewer positions through attrition: retirements not replaced, then retraining.
• Public annual automation targets.
• Human oversight kept on decisions that affect citizens’ rights.

Cost and funding

The initial investment is to be costed; payroll savings fund it in the medium term.

Timeline

Over ten years or more, in measured steps.

Risks and objections

Job losses, which require a transition plan; public service collective agreements; AI errors in administrative decisions.

Comment on measure 3.2

3.3 Robotics and automation

Objective

Offset the shrinking workforce and raise productivity in agriculture, manufacturing, the battery and electric vehicle sector, and care.

Means

• A national centre for robot research and production.
• Subsidies to businesses that automate their production, tied to measured productivity gains, with a stream dedicated to small and medium-sized businesses.
• A stream for assistance and care robots, linked to 5.2.
• Replacement in stages, from the simplest to the most complex, at a pace measured every year by the ISQ.

Every year, the ISQ measures labour needs by sector and the positions actually filled through automation. Temporary work permits (2.1) fill the remaining gap, sector by sector, and their number decreases as automation progresses, never before. No worker is withdrawn from a sector before the machine is in place.

Cost and funding

To be costed.

Timeline

To be set.

Risks and objections

• Subsidies may mostly benefit large businesses. Clear criteria are needed.
• “You are cutting immigration before the robots exist.” Our answer: temporary permits follow the gap measured every year and only decrease at the pace of the automation actually delivered.

Comment on measure 3.3

3.4 Tokenized real assets and land registry

Objective

Record real estate ownership in a tamper-proof state register, reduce transaction costs and delays, and open a path to ownership for tenants.

Means

• A land registry on blockchain. Titles, mortgages and servitudes are recorded in a state register that anyone can verify. A transfer takes minutes rather than weeks, and title fraud becomes impossible. Georgia and Dubai have already done it.
• Gradual access to ownership. Each month, the tenant acquires a fraction of their home, recorded in the register, until they own it. The contract is standardized and carried out automatically. Tenants become owners without any state subsidy.
• Project financing. A developer can finance a building by issuing tokens backed by the asset, under the supervision of the securities regulator, rather than depending only on bank credit.
• Holding is reserved for Québec citizens and permanent residents, checked at registration. No foreign capital can acquire fractions of Québec’s housing stock.
• Eligible buildings: rental and commercial. Houses and condominiums used as a residence are excluded, except for gradual ownership by their own occupant.
• A holding cap per investor and per building, to prevent large anonymous landlords from re-forming.
• A registry developed as free software, through a public call for tenders, with declarations of interest from the elected officials and managers responsible for the project.

Cost and funding

To be costed. The registry replaces processes that already exist at the Québec Land Registry and lowers transaction costs for citizens.

Timeline

The land registry from the first term, since it falls within Québec’s current powers. The other two streams follow the adoption of the regulatory framework.

Risks and objections

• Tokenization can financialize housing and push prices up. Our answer: holding is reserved for citizens and permanent residents, residences are excluded and holdings are capped.
• Losing a key or having it stolen must never mean losing a title: the state register remains the final authority, and a court remedy can restore ownership.
• A token backed by a building is a security, with the disclosure obligations that come with it.
• The appearance of a conflict of interest for anyone in the party who works on tamper-proof registers. The safeguard is free software, the public call for tenders and the declaration of interests.

Comment on measure 3.4

3.5 Natural resources and sovereign fund

Objective

Draw from each natural resource everything it can yield, and keep its value for a hundred years. Deposits run out; the fund they feed remains.

Means

• A sovereign fund. All royalties on non-renewable resources (mines, oil, gas) are paid into it. The capital is never touched: only the expected real return is paid into the state budget each year, on the Norwegian model. The spending rule is written into the Québec constitution (0.1).
• High royalties, with no state operator. Companies invest, operate and bear the risk; the state collects a royalty on the value extracted. It does not finance mines.
• Mandatory Indigenous co-ownership. Every major project on a territory covered by a convention or an agreement (James Bay, Nunavik, Innu) is carried out with the nation concerned, which co-owns it, as with the large wind farms.
• Oil and gas reopened. The 2022 law banning hydrocarbon exploration and production is repealed. Onshore deposits (Utica, Gaspésie) are opened to exploration and production. The Old Harry offshore deposit, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, is shared with Newfoundland and is negotiated at independence.
• Critical minerals processed here. Lithium, graphite, rare earths, phosphate, vanadium: industrial blocks of electricity are allocated project by project, comparing the jobs, royalties and revenue of each project, whether it processes ore or powers a data centre (3.1). A block granted to a mining project requires the resource to be processed in Québec rather than exported as concentrate.
• Forests harvested to their capacity. About 52% of the sustainable harvest volume was cut in 2024 (approximate). The harvest increases in forest already opened up, especially private forest, and residues are turned into biomass and green chemistry.
• Northern infrastructure. Roads, rail, ports and high-voltage lines north of the 49th parallel, built with the nations concerned and reserved first for projects that pay royalties.
• Fresh water is not exported in bulk. It serves hydroelectricity, industry and the cooling of data centres (3.1).

Cost and funding

To be costed. Northern infrastructure is the main expense; royalties feed the fund. Royalty rates remain to be set.

Timeline

From the first term for the fund, royalties, Indigenous co-ownership, onshore hydrocarbons and forests, which already fall under Québec. At independence for Old Harry and the Gulf.

Risks and objections

• “Reopening oil and gas betrays Québec’s climate commitments.” Our answer: Québec burns oil and gas every day, and imports all of it. Producing them here keeps the jobs and royalties at home.
• “Utica gas runs under farmland and villages.” Our answer: every project goes through the BAPE environmental review, and farmland remains protected by the CPTAQ.
• “Indigenous co-ownership slows projects down.” Our answer: without it, projects get bogged down in the courts. The wind farms show that it moves them forward.
• “The next government will empty the fund.” Our answer: the spending rule is in the constitution, not in an ordinary law.
• “You are sacrificing the caribou and protected areas.” Our answer: areas already protected stay protected. The harvest increases in forest already opened up, where nearly half the capacity is not cut.
• Metal prices are volatile, and China dominates the refining of graphite and rare earths. Our answer: the state does not bear this risk, it collects a royalty; that is the lesson of Nemaska Lithium.
• “Every block of electricity given to mines is missing for data centres, and vice versa.” Our answer: that is why each block is allocated project by project, according to its benefits, rather than by a priority set in advance.

Comment on measure 3.5

Pillar 4 — Taxation and currency

4.1 Abolishing income tax and a consumption tax

Objective

Abolish income tax for individuals and for businesses with revenue under $1 billion, and fund the state with a single consumption tax. Each household gets back the tax paid on its basic spending, according to its makeup: $12,000 per adult, $20,000 per child and $2,000 more per full-time student, food being included in these amounts, measured at the price paid, tax included. Beyond that, it pays the full rate.

Means

• A single tax on all goods and services, with no categories.
• A universal credit paid every month, equal to the tax paid on a fixed basket, with no tracking of purchases and no receipts: about $7,200 a year per adult ($600 a month), $12,000 per child under 18 ($999 a month) and $1,200 more per full-time student ($100 a month). A family of two adults and two children receives about $38,400 a year ($3,200 a month). The credit replaces Québec’s Family Allowance and the Canada Child Benefit.
• A supplement for low-income adults. About $11,600 a year, paid every month with the universal credit and gradually reduced as income rises. No tax return: Revenu Québec calculates it from the income that employers, pension funds, Retraite Québec and the Ministère de la Solidarité sociale already report to it for contributions and benefits. Citizens dispute it online if there is an error. The supplement replaces the GST credit and the solidarity tax credit.
• A 15% minimum tax on profits earned in Québec by groups whose consolidated revenue exceeds $1 billion. This threshold is lower than the OECD’s (€750 million) at the current exchange rate: every group covered by the global minimum tax is subject to it, as well as large Québec businesses with no operations abroad. Below $1 billion, a business pays no income tax. It is designed as a qualified domestic minimum top-up tax: Québec collects the global minimum tax itself instead of letting the multinationals’ home countries collect it. Its revenue goes first to the universal credit.
• A stabilization fund, fed by the surpluses of good years, which keeps the credit stable during a recession.
• Food remains taxed, groceries and restaurants alike, with no category to define: the universal credit basket was raised to cover it. At equal cost, a credit paid per person helps modest households more than a tax exemption that mostly benefits those who spend the most on food. Zero-rated are prescription drugs, medical devices and care covered by the basic basket (6.1). Zero-rated, not exempt: pharmacies, clinics and suppliers recover the tax paid on their purchases, so no tax is hidden in the price or in the cost of the health cheque. Over-the-counter drugs, natural health products and cosmetic care remain taxed. The general rule: what the state already funds, or what a professional prescribes, is zero-rated. No tax on housing: neither on buying a home, new or existing, nor on rent. Residential rents are zero-rated rather than exempt, the landlord recovering through credits the tax paid on construction, maintenance and renovations, so no tax is hidden in the rent. Municipalities keep their property taxes and land transfer duties, which remain their main source of revenue.
• The tax on vehicles is collected by the SAAQ at registration, not only at the dealership: a vehicle bought outside Québec or imported pays the tax before it gets its plate. Used vehicles are taxed at the full rate, including between individuals, as the QST is today.
• Businesses deduct the tax paid on their purchases from the tax they collect on their sales, and remit only the difference to the state. Deductible, subject to the solidarity contribution: raw materials, merchandise, equipment, commercial rents, energy, professional services, and the construction and maintenance of rental buildings.
• The business solidarity contribution. Every registered business deducts 97% of the tax paid on its purchases, instead of 100%. The non-deductible portion, about $15 billion a year, funds the supplement for low-income adults and the $12,000 adult basket. Purchases used for exports remain 100% deductible. No return to file: electronic invoicing calculates everything.
• Mixed-use goods are deductible in proportion to their business use, passenger vehicles up to a price ceiling. Meals, entertainment expenses and any personal purchase are not: at this rate, they would become private consumption subsidized by the state.
• Exports are zero-rated; imports are taxed at the border.
• The final buyer, who therefore pays the tax, is: the individual; the business, for the portion not tied to its production, such as meals or personal use of a vehicle; the state, municipalities, hospitals and schools on their purchases; non-profit organizations outside their commercial activities.
• The registration threshold for self-employed workers is lowered: otherwise, an unregistered electrician pays the tax on materials and passes it on to the customer, which recreates a cascade.
• Electronic invoicing is mandatory: every invoice goes through Revenu Québec in real time, as in Italy and Brazil. No deduction is granted on an invoice that does not exist in the system. Below the self-assessment threshold, the return is pre-filled from these invoices: the business fills in no form, it approves a statement, as in Chile and Brazil.
• Between registered businesses, no tax is charged above a threshold per invoice, for example $5,000: this is self-assessment (the reverse charge), already used in Europe in high-risk sectors. The buyer provides its registration number, validated in real time. Nothing is paid, so there is nothing to report or refund, and credit fraud disappears by design.

Why businesses deduct the tax

They are not getting a gift: they are keeping an account. A business collects the tax on its sales, deducts the tax it paid on its purchases and remits the difference, which is the tax on the value it added. It is a collector, not a taxpayer. The credit paid to individuals, on the other hand, is redistribution: money leaving the state. The only exception: the solidarity contribution, which leaves 3% of the tax non-deductible, except on what is used for exports.

Without deduction, the tax would tax itself. Take a chain where a farmer sells $100 of wheat, a baker adds $100 of value and a grocer $100 more:

Three consequences if the deduction were removed: a large integrated business, which counts only one stage, would sell the same product at half the price of a chain of three small businesses; an imported product, with only one taxable stage in Québec, would beat the product made here; and our exports would go abroad with a tax hidden in their price. That is the flaw Canada corrected in 1991 by replacing the manufacturers’ sales tax with the GST.

Cost and funding

About $117 billion of income tax and $35.7 billion of GST and QST to replace (Statistics Canada, 2024), a $27 billion gap with Ottawa at the high end of the 0.1 range, about $73 billion of universal credit, of which $9.6 billion replaces the Family Allowance and the Canada Child Benefit, about $18.6 billion of supplement for low-income adults, of which $3.7 billion replaces the GST credit and the solidarity tax credit, and $1 billion to $2 billion for free university (4.3). They are funded by the tax on large groups, about $10 billion, by the business solidarity contribution, about $15 billion, and by the consumption tax, at about 60.0% of the final price (about 150% added to the pre-tax price).

In concrete terms: on a product priced at $100 before tax, the price paid is $250, of which $150 is tax. The tax therefore makes up 60% of the price paid. Today, the GST and QST make up 13% of the price paid: $115 for a $100 product. The full calculation for a family, which takes into account the credit, the abolished income tax and the replaced allowances, is detailed below.

Simulated rate by basket size (approximate)

Assumptions: consumer spending by Québec households is around $289 billion a year (ISQ, 2026), or about $252 billion excluding GST and QST. The taxable base used is 85% of that, after excluding owners’ imputed rent and financial services, minus about $17 billion of residential rents and $13 billion of zero-rated drugs, medical devices and care. Avoidance (purchases outside Québec, undeclared work) reduces the base by a further 15% at the simulated rates, which is the ceiling used by the model. The solidarity contribution raises pre-tax prices by about 2.2%; the family example takes this into account. Population: about 7.4 million adults, 1.6 million children and 375,000 full-time students.

Checking the baskets: the baskets are expressed at the price paid, tax included. Measured at today’s prices, they are worth about $5,400 of purchases per adult and $9,000 per child. The adult basket therefore covers about 17% of the spending of an average adult, who consumes about $32,000 a year; low-income adults also receive the supplement. The child basket covers most of the child’s own spending (food, clothing, supplies), housing being counted in the parents’ basket.

Taking housing out of the tax costs about 2.3 points, zero-rating drugs, medical devices and care about 1.9 points more, raising the basket to cover food about 1.2 points, bringing the child basket to $20,000 about 1.5 points, and adding the supplement for low-income adults, funded largely by the business solidarity contribution, about 0.4 points: the rate goes from about 52.7% to about 60.0% of the final price. That is the price of taxing neither rent nor the purchase of a house. Housing remains taxed by municipalities, whose property taxes bring in $15.0 billion a year and land transfer duties $1.3 billion (2024).

Example: a couple with two children

They receive about $3,200 a month, or $38,400 a year, whatever they spend. To compare with their current situation, their taxable purchases are measured at today’s prices, GST and QST included. The calculation has four steps: remove the GST and QST (divide by 1.14975) to get the pre-tax price; raise that price by about 2.2% for the effect of the solidarity contribution; apply the new 150% tax; subtract the credit. Housing is not part of this calculation, since it is not taxed.

But the family no longer pays income tax, and it no longer receives the Family Allowance or the Canada Child Benefit, which the credit replaces. The overall result therefore depends on its income:

Approximate calculation: 2025 federal and Québec income tax for a couple whose employment income is split 60 / 40, and 2025-2026 allowances for two children aged 6 to 17. To be validated with the official simulators.

Timeline

After independence, in stages.

Risks and objections

• A very high rate displayed at the checkout. Our answer: the credit refunds the tax on the basic spending of each member of the household, and nobody pays any tax on their salary anymore.
• Households whose spending exceeds the basket will pay more than today. That is the platform’s deliberate choice: tax consumption rather than work.
• Cars are where avoidance would pay the most: a $40,000 car would go to $100,000. Our answer: collecting at registration makes buying outside Québec pointless, since no vehicle drives without a plate. Taxing used vehicles too prevents the market from shifting to barely driven “demonstrators.”
• “Retirees will pay twice.” Our answer: pension income, RRSP withdrawals and the QPP are no longer taxed, retirees receive the same credit as everyone else, and those with low incomes also receive the supplement. As with other households, those who spend a lot will pay more than today (see the family example).
• Avoidance: shopping in Ontario and the United States, parcels, undeclared work. Tight control of imports, including small parcels, and collection agreements with the large online platforms.
• Tax credit fraud by fake businesses: at this rate, a fictitious $1 million invoice is worth nearly $600,000 claimed from the state. Our defences: real-time electronic invoicing, stronger auditing by Revenu Québec and self-assessment between businesses above $5,000, which removes any refund to be paid. Self-assessment does, however, shift the risk to the last business in the chain, which collects the whole tax at once: electronic invoicing makes its disappearance detectable within a few days.
• Why small and medium-sized businesses and businesses under $1 billion are exempt: with no tax on salaries, their owners would convert their profits into deductible salaries, and the tax would disappear while creating a great deal of paperwork.
• “A $900 million business pays nothing, a $1.1 billion one pays 15%.” Our answer: the threshold is measured at the level of the consolidated group, and the tax applies only to profits earned in Québec. It cannot be avoided by splitting the business.
• Why not rates by product: luxury goods weigh too little in consumption, categories create disputes, and the federal luxury tax brought in only about $390 million a year for all of Canada.
• “Housing escapes the tax even though it is households’ largest expense.” Our answer: it remains taxed by municipalities, through property taxes and land transfer duties. Taking it out of the consumption tax protects tenants and first-time buyers first.
• “Modest families lose their allowances.” Our answer: the credit pays $12,000 per child per year, more than the highest current allowances, which reach about $9,800 for a child aged 6 to 17.
• “Low-income single people lose out.” Our answer: with the adult credit and the supplement, a single person who makes $15,000 of purchases a year at today’s prices pays about $1,200 of net tax, compared with about $2,000 of GST and QST today.
• “The supplement forces the state to monitor incomes.” Our answer: nobody files a return. The supplement is calculated from the income the state already receives for contributions and benefits.
• “The solidarity contribution recreates the cascade.” Our answer: in exchange, businesses with revenue under $1 billion no longer pay any tax on their profits. Corporations paid $26.4 billion of income tax in Québec in 2024 (Statistics Canada); under the platform, they pay about $10 billion of minimum tax for large groups and $15 billion of contribution, with no return to file. The non-deductible portion is limited to 3%, and exports are exempt from it: the cascade is about thirty times smaller than without deduction.
• “Businesses will pass it on in their prices.” Partly, yes: pre-tax prices would rise by about 2.2%. Our answer: businesses with revenue under $1 billion no longer pay tax on their profits, which leaves them room to absorb part of the contribution. The platform says so, and the family example takes it into account.

Comment on measure 4.1

4.2 A Québec dollar under a currency board

Objective

A credible, stable national currency, fully backed by reserves that earn a return.

Means

• A Québec central bank operating as a currency board: every Québec dollar issued is 100% backed by reserves, at a fixed exchange rate.
• 100% backing divided as follows: 45% in U.S. Treasury bonds, 35% in Government of Canada bonds, 10% in euro-area bonds, 5% in British and Japanese bonds, and 5% in gold.
• An excess reserve in Bitcoin equal to 10% of the currency issued, on top of the 100% backing. Total backing thus reaches 110%.
• The initial reserves come from Québec’s share of Canada’s foreign exchange reserves, in proportion to population (see 0.1). The share in Canadian bonds is obtained by converting part of the U.S. dollars inherited, or negotiated with the division of the debt.

Available reserves: Canada’s liquid foreign exchange reserves totalled US$96.5 billion on June 30, 2026, of which US$66.0 billion in U.S. dollars, US$16.0 billion in euros, US$8.3 billion in pounds and US$6.3 billion in yen, with no gold. Québec’s share, about 22%, is about US$21 billion, or about C$29 billion. It covers the banknotes to be replaced: $122 billion of Bank of Canada notes were in circulation on September 30, 2025, of which about $27 billion in Québec based on its share of the population (approximate). Special drawing rights and the IMF position, about US$28 billion, cannot be transferred: they depend on Québec joining the IMF.

Cost and funding

No bond purchases at the outset. Québec’s share of Canada’s liquid foreign exchange reserves, about C$29 billion, covers the roughly $27 billion of banknotes to be replaced. Only gold (about $1.4 billion) and Bitcoin (about $2.7 billion) need to be bought. Interest on the bonds generates revenue for the state, which funds the newborn endowment (2.2). The Bitcoin reserve is bought gradually on a public schedule, as for the endowment (2.2).

Timeline

The Canadian dollar is kept during the transition. The Québec dollar is launched as soon as the reserves are transferred.

Risks and objections

• The central bank cannot lower rates to fight a recession: rates follow those of the basket. The stabilization fund (4.1) serves as a budget shock absorber.
• The transfer of reserves depends on the negotiation with Ottawa.
• The fixed rate must be defended in case of speculation. The 100% backing and the liquidity of the bonds are our defence; Hong Kong has maintained this system since 1983.
• Bitcoin can lose more than half its value within a few months. Our answer: it is held in excess of the 100% backing, never in its place. A drop reduces the cushion, not the guarantee of the currency.
• The IMF and some credit-rating agencies frown on Bitcoin in public reserves, as seen in El Salvador. Our answer: the share is capped and the guarantee rests on the bonds.

Comment on measure 4.2

4.3 Education

Objective

Make sure the consumption tax does not add to the cost of education.

Means

• Free tuition at public universities. CEGEPs already are. A service provided free of charge by the state is not a sale: it is not taxed, with no exception to the single-tax rule.
• International students continue to pay their fees.
• Supplies, clothing and textbooks are covered by the child credit and the student supplement (4.1), with no receipts or list of exempt products.
• Private schools remain taxed: they are a consumer choice beyond the public service.

Cost and funding

$1 billion to $2 billion a year for free university (approximate, to be costed), included in the consumption tax rate (4.1).

Timeline

As soon as income tax is abolished.

Risks and objections

Higher enrolment and pressure on university funding. Places and funding per student must be provided for in the budget.

Comment on measure 4.3

Pillar 5 — Solidarity

5.1 Shelters in abandoned factories

Objective

Provide a roof for homeless and destitute people by reusing vacant industrial buildings.

Means

• An inventory of abandoned factories owned by the state or to be acquired.
• Sites chosen for their proximity to public transit and services.
• Their conversion into shelters and transitional housing, with social and health services on site.

Cost and funding

To be costed. Decontamination and bringing buildings up to code can cost more than new construction.

Timeline

Pilot projects in two or three cities.

Risks and objections

The isolation of the sites and their acceptance by neighbourhoods. The evidence for the “Housing First” approach is stronger than for large shelters.

Comment on measure 5.1

5.2 Seniors’ residences attached to hospitals

Objective

Bring seniors closer to care and free up hospital beds occupied by patients waiting for a place to live.

Means

• Build retirement homes on hospital grounds or connected to them, with shared staff.
• Assistance and care robots (see 3.3).
• Home care to delay moving into a residence.

Cost and funding

To be costed.

Timeline

To be set according to the space available at each hospital.

Risks and objections

• Available land and staff recruitment, two constraints that are already acute in health care.
• Demand will grow: people aged 65 and over made up 20% of the population in 2021 and could make up a quarter as early as 2031. The share of people aged 85 and over could rise from 2.4% to about 5.5% by 2051 (ISQ). Without immigration, the population would age faster.
• A large share of patient attendants come from immigration. With temporary permits only, they will have to be attracted and retained without being offered permanent settlement.
• The number of places to build in each region is reviewed every year according to ISQ projections and the pace of care automation (see 3.3).

Comment on measure 5.2

5.3 A cap on rent increases

Objective

Protect tenants against abusive increases, by making the rate that the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL, Québec’s housing tribunal) calculates every year mandatory. About 40% of Québec households rent: the homeownership rate was 59.9% in 2021 (Statistics Canada).

Means

• The TAL rate becomes a cap. Today, it is only a reference: the parties are free to agree, and a tenant who accepts a larger increase pays it. For a lease beginning between April 2, 2026 and April 1, 2027, this rate is 3.1% for the base rent.
• The formula remains the TAL’s, in force since January 1, 2026: average inflation over the last three years, the increase in property taxes and insurance premiums, and major work. The TAL calculates and publishes it every year.
• Above the cap, the Tribunal’s authorization, on proof of real costs. A larger increase without authorization is void, and the overpayment is refunded.
• When a tenant changes, the rent is frozen for one year. The new tenant pays the rent of the last lease signed during the first year of their lease. Pushing a tenant out to raise the rent no longer pays.
• A mortgage is never a reason to raise rent. A paid-off building and a mortgaged building follow the same cap: the owner with no debt, who has no new costs to claim, is limited to the base rate.
• The same rule for all rental housing: new buildings from their first rental and housing co-operatives, which ends both exceptions in article 1955 of the Civil Code, as well as plexes lived in by their owner.
• The starting rent of a new unit remains freely set; only the following increases are capped.

Cost and funding

Low. The formula exists and the TAL already calculates it. Requests for authorization above the cap add cases at the Tribunal: to be costed.

Timeline

From the first term. Leases and the TAL fall under Québec’s Civil Code.

Risks and objections

• “Rent control holds back construction and maintenance.” This is the most serious objection, and many studies support it. Our answer: the cap is not a freeze. It follows inflation, taxes and insurance, major work remains recognized, and the starting rent of a new building remains free. At independence, rental income is no longer taxed (4.1). The effect on housing starts must still be monitored.
• “Landlords will let their buildings deteriorate.” Our answer: major work is recognized in the formula, and tenants keep their recourse before the TAL for a poorly maintained unit.
• “You are punishing the small owner who lives in their plex.” Our answer: their tax and insurance increases are passed on within the cap. An exemption would be sidestepped by large landlords, who would move into one of their own units.
• “Without the five-year exemption, developers will stop building.” Our answer: since 2024, the owner of a new building must already write into the lease the maximum rent for the first five years. They set the starting rent freely; only the following increases are regulated.
• “Landlords will raise the rent between two tenants.” Our answer: when a tenant changes, the rent stays at that of the last lease for one year. Major work done between two tenants requires the Tribunal’s authorization, as for a sitting tenant.
• “Co-operatives are run by their members: the state has no business setting their rents.” Our answer: the cap does not set the rent, it limits the increase. A co-operative remains free to raise rents by less, and its major work goes through the Tribunal like anywhere else.

Comment on measure 5.3

Pillar 6 — Health

Health spending in Québec reaches about $81 billion a year, of which $59 billion is public money (2024). It is the state’s largest expense. The Canada Health Act today imposes five conditions on Québec, under threat of cutting its transfers; it no longer applies at independence, which opens the choice of model, as in Switzerland, the Netherlands or Germany.

6.1 Universal health cheque

Objective

Replace the public insurance monopoly with mandatory basic insurance, funded by an identical cheque for every citizen, so that competition focuses on wait times and quality of service.

Means

• Every citizen receives a health cheque of the same amount, about $6,500 a year, paid directly to the insurer they choose. No income test, no tax return, no threshold: the same logic as the universal credit in 4.1.
• Basic insurance is mandatory and its basket of care is defined by law, so that every policy covers the same essential care.
• One premium for all: an insurer cannot refuse anyone or charge more to a person who is ill, elderly or disabled.
• A risk-equalization fund compensates insurers that take on the heaviest patients. Without this fund, the single premium does not hold.
• Insurers negotiate with hospitals, clinics and doctors. Competition is on wait times, the network and quality, never on selecting customers.
• Supplementary coverage, such as a private room or care outside the basket, remains optional and at each person’s own expense.
• The amount of the cheque is set by law and reviewed annually according to the real cost of the basket, measured by the ISQ.

Cost and funding

About $59 billion a year, the current cost of the public system. It is not new spending but a substitution: the money that funds the RAMQ (Québec’s health insurance board) and health facilities today funds the cheque. No effect on the consumption tax rate.

Timeline

After independence, since the Canada Health Act prohibits it today. A transition over at least five years, with a period during which public coverage continues in parallel.

Risks and objections

• “You are privatizing health care.” Our answer: funding remains public and universal; what changes is the management of insurance and the pressure on wait times. Nobody pays a premium out of pocket for the basic basket.
• Private administration costs 15% to 25% in some countries, against a few percent at the RAMQ. The standardized basket, the ban on selecting customers and the cap on administrative costs are our safeguard, and the cost must be calculated before publication.
• Changing insurers does not create a single nurse: the bottleneck is capacity, not the payer. That is why this measure is worthless without 6.3 and 6.5.
• Switzerland and the Netherlands spend more per capita than Canada. Cost control comes through the basket defined in law and the negotiation of fees.
• The transition is irreversible: it requires a framework law, an insurance regulator and a break-in period before the public plan is withdrawn.

Comment on measure 6.1

6.2 Access to front-line care

Objective

A point of entry for every person, a family doctor or a nurse practitioner, and an end to hours of waiting for a common problem.

Means

• A wider scope of practice for nurse practitioners, pharmacists and paramedics, for everything they are trained to do.
• Clinics for common care open in the evening and on weekends, for cases that do not belong in the emergency room.
• Triage assisted by artificial intelligence, which directs people to the right service rather than to the emergency room by default, with a final human decision.
• Home care and residences attached to hospitals (5.2) to free up beds occupied by patients waiting for a place to live.

Timeline

From the first term, within Québec’s current powers.

Risks and objections

Resistance from professional orders to wider scopes of practice, and the risk of error in automated triage, hence the final human decision.

Comment on measure 6.2

6.3 Less paperwork through artificial intelligence

Objective

Give clinical time back to caregivers without hiring, by automating paperwork rather than care.

Means

• A single, interoperable patient record, accessible anywhere in Québec, replacing siloed systems.
• Automated clinical documentation: the note is drafted by the machine and validated by the professional.
• Automation of appointments, referrals, authorizations and billing (applying 3.2 to the health system).
• Public annual targets for administrative time saved per professional.

Timeline

From the first term.

Risks and objections

The protection of health information, transcription errors and dependence on a single supplier. The record remains the property of the state and the patient, in open formats.

Comment on measure 6.3

6.4 Transparent results

Objective

Make real wait times public, by facility, in real time.

Means

• Continuous publication of emergency, surgery and front-line access wait times, facility by facility, in a public register that nobody can alter after the fact.
• The same data serve as the health indicator for the pay of elected officials (1.2) and as a basis for comparing insurers (6.1).
• Measured and published by the ISQ, never by the department or by the facilities themselves.

Timeline

From the first term.

Risks and objections

The temptation to classify cases differently to improve the figures. Definitions set by law and verification by the Auditor General.

Comment on measure 6.4

6.5 Health care workforce

Objective

Train and retain staff, since reinforcements will no longer come from permanent immigration (2.1).

Means

• More training places in nursing, for patient attendants and in medicine, with guaranteed internship places.
• An end to dependence on private staffing agencies, whose hourly cost exceeds that of the system’s own staff.
• Staff-to-patient ratios set for each facility, published with the wait times (6.4).
• Temporary work permits to fill the gap measured every year, decreasing at the pace of the automation delivered (3.3).
• No salary or working condition is reduced by the move to the health cheque: collective agreements follow the facilities.

Timeline

From the first term.

Risks and objections

Training takes three to ten years depending on the profession. It is the hardest constraint in the platform and it must be stated frankly.

Comment on measure 6.5

6.6 Prevention

Objective

Reduce the demand for care rather than endlessly increasing the supply.

Means

• Systematic screening according to age and risk factors, offered free of charge in the basic basket.
• Physical activity and independence programs for seniors, linked to 5.2.
• Vaccination and occupational health.

Cost and funding

To be costed; it is the only health expense that lowers others.

Timeline

From the first term.

Risks and objections

• “Prevention costs money now and only pays off in ten years.” Our answer: that is why screening is written into the basic basket, rather than left to the budgets of facilities, where emergencies always come first. Results are published with the wait times (6.4).
• “Systematic screening leads to overdiagnosis and unnecessary tests.” Our answer: screening follows age and risk factors, according to the recommendations of the INESSS (Québec’s health technology assessment institute), not a test for everyone.

Comment on measure 6.6

Pillar 7 — Language

French is the reason for the national project. The Charter of the French Language is limited today by section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which imposes bilingual laws and courts, and by section 23 of the Canadian Charter, which governs access to English schools. A sovereign Québec sets these rules itself in its own constitution.

7.1 French, the sole official language

Objective

Make French the language of the state, of work, of commerce and of public space, and write it into Québec’s constitution.

Means

• French is the sole official language: the language of legislation, the courts, the administration, commerce and signage.
• Knowledge of French is required to obtain Québec citizenship, through an exam, as in France, Germany and Denmark. The rule applies to the path set out in 2.1.
• English, a recognized language. The constitution recognizes English as the language of the historic English-speaking community. It guarantees its schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, as well as access in English to health and social services. An ordinary law cannot touch them.
• State services are offered in English to anyone who asks, and laws are translated into English. Only the French version is official.
• International obligations regarding minorities are respected, since their respect is scrutinized when a new state is recognized (see 0.1).

Cost and funding

Low. The measure is legislative and constitutional.

Timeline

French as the sole official language, English as a recognized language and the guarantees for its institutions go into the constitution adopted three months after the election (0.1). At independence, the end of the legislative bilingualism imposed by section 133 is added.

Risks and objections

• “You are trampling on the English-speaking minority.” Our answer: its institutions and services are guaranteed by the constitution; what changes is the language of the state, not the rights of individuals.
• A court challenge before independence, since section 133 imposes legislative bilingualism.
• “This is bilingualism in disguise.” Our answer: French remains the sole official language. The state works, legislates and judges in French; English is recognized as the language of a historic community, not as a language of the state.
• “This is not enough: English must be an official language.” Our answer: the rights of English speakers will be better protected than today, because they will be in the constitution, beyond the reach of an ordinary law.

Comment on measure 7.1

7.2 Language of work and simpler procedures

Objective

Work in French in every business, without weighing down small and medium-sized businesses.

Means

• The obligation to operate in French extends to all businesses, whatever their size.
• English is the language of business with the world outside Québec. It is presumed necessary, without further proof, for positions tied to exports and international trade, to dealings with customers, suppliers or related companies outside Québec, and to research. For any other position, requiring English at hiring remains prohibited without demonstrated necessity, the burden of proof resting on the employer. Labour relations, internal communications and service to Québec consumers take place in French.
• In exchange, procedures are simplified: a single window, guaranteed processing times, templates provided by the state to small and medium-sized businesses, and an end to redundant requirements on internal technical documentation.

Cost and funding

To be costed; the single window and the templates replace case-by-case checks.

Timeline

From the first term.

Risks and objections

The burden on small businesses, hence the templates and the single window; the difficulty of drawing the line of “demonstrated necessity” for English.

• “You are opening the door to English at work.” Our answer: the list of positions is closed and set by law. Inside Québec, people work and serve customers in French.
• “Employers will classify all their positions as international.” Our answer: the Office québécois de la langue française checks the classification, and a misclassified position falls back under the general rule.

Comment on measure 7.2

7.3 French for temporary workers

Objective

Make sure the temporary immigration provided for in 2.1 does not weaken French.

Means

• French courses offered free of charge and given during working hours, the cost being shared between the employer and the state.
• A level of French is required when the permit is renewed, after three years, and not on entry: you can enter without French, you cannot renew without French.
• An exemption for stays of less than twelve months and for humanitarian cases.

Cost and funding

To be costed, according to the number of permits in force.

Timeline

From the first term for the parts Québec already controls, fully at independence.

Risks and objections

Requiring French on entry would dry up the pool of attendants and caregivers on which 5.2 and 6.5 depend. That is why the requirement applies at renewal.

Comment on measure 7.3

7.4 Education: French, and English as a second language

Objective

Study in French, and finish high school truly able to work in English.

Means

• CEGEP is in French, except for those with the right to English-language education.
• A goal of functional bilingualism at the end of high school, with the hours and teachers that go with it.
• French-language training places for adults, in every region.

Cost and funding

To be costed; strengthening English as a second language is the most expensive part.

Timeline

From the first term.

Risks and objections

• An unpopular measure among English speakers, speakers of other languages and some French-speaking parents. Our answer: French to study, English to work with the world, taught seriously rather than by default.
• Part of the nationalist movement will oppose strengthening English as a second language. It is a deliberate choice: a French-speaking Québec that speaks English to the world, rather than a Québec that protects itself by isolating itself.
• The real long-term effect of CEGEP on the language people use is debated among researchers. The platform must not overstate it.

Comment on measure 7.4

7.5 French online

Objective

Make French a technological asset rather than a constraint, using the energy and expertise of pillar 3.

Means

• Artificial intelligence models trained in French by the national institute (3.2), hosted in Québec data centres (3.1).
• A public corpus of Québec French, built with cultural institutions, available to researchers and businesses here.
• Digital public services in French by default, and interfaces of products sold in Québec offered in French.
• Discoverability of Québec content on the major platforms.

Cost and funding

Included in the national institute (3.2).

Timeline

From the first term.

Risks and objections

Competition from the large English-language models, with resources beyond comparison. Our answer: the target market is the French-speaking world, more than 300 million speakers, where Québec has a lead in research.

Comment on measure 7.5

7.6 Public measure of the state of French

Objective

Steer language policy with public data rather than impressions.

Means

• The platform relies on the dashboard of the Ministère de la Langue française, which tracks more than twenty indicators from a survey of 44,634 respondents conducted between November 2024 and July 2025, rather than inventing its own measures.
• Annual publication, multi-year targets and accountability before the Assembly.
• The data are produced by the Institut de la statistique du Québec and the Office québécois de la langue française, never by the minister’s office.

Cost and funding

Negligible; the surveys already exist.

Timeline

From the first term.

Risks and objections

Self-reported data and differences in method from the census make comparisons tricky. Definitions must be set before the targets are published.

Comment on measure 7.6

Pillar 8 — Environment

Québec emitted 78.0 Mt CO2 eq. in 2023, out of 57,100 Mt worldwide: about 0.14% of global emissions. China emits 30% and the United States 11%. Its electricity, almost entirely hydroelectric, is already among the cleanest in the world. What Québec does alone does not change the climate; what it imposes on itself alone weighs on its businesses and households.

8.1 Leaving the carbon market and the reciprocity rule

Objective

Never impose on Quebecers a climate constraint heavier than that of the major emitters they trade with.

Means

• Leaving the carbon market. The cap-and-trade system for emission allowances (SPEDE), linked with California since 2014, is abolished. Its cost disappears from the price of gasoline, diesel and heating oil.
• The reciprocity rule. Québec imposes on its businesses and households no climate constraint heavier than that of the United States, Québec’s largest customer and the world’s second-largest emitter. If the United States adopts a national carbon price, Québec aligns with it, without exceeding it.
• The Paris Agreement. The new country joins it, with a contribution based on its already clean electricity. Québec’s current target, 37.5% below the 1990 level in 2030, is replaced by a target set according to the reciprocity rule.
• The Electrification and Climate Change Fund loses its source of revenue. Its programs are reviewed: those that are kept move to the general budget.

Cost and funding

The state gives up the revenue from the carbon market, $1.3 billion in 2024-2025 and $1.5 billion the year before. The same amount stays in the pockets of households and businesses. Emission allowances already bought by businesses must be refunded or bought back: amount to be costed.

Timeline

At independence. Before then, abolishing the market would subject Québec industry to the federal carbon pricing system.

Risks and objections

• “Québec emits more per capita than the world average.” Our answer: 8.8 t per capita against 6.6 t worldwide, but 11 t in China and 18 t in the United States. The least costly effort, clean electricity, Québec has already made.
• “Europe will tax our exports at the border.” That is true for steel, aluminum and a few other products, since 2026. Our answer: Europe buys about 11% of Québec’s international exports (see 4.2); exporters who sell there will pay the European tax like their American competitors.
• “China has a carbon market too.” Our answer: it mostly targets its coal power plants, at a price far below that of the Québec-California market. The reciprocity rule is measured against our largest customer, the United States.
• “You are betraying California and Québec’s green image.” Our answer: Québec stays in the Paris Agreement, and its electricity stays clean. It simply stops paying more than its competitors.
• Electrification programs funded by the Fund, such as rebates for buying electric vehicles, lose their funding. Each will have to be justified in the general budget.
• A unilateral exit has a costly precedent: Ontario in 2018, challenged in court by businesses holding allowances. Hence the buyback of allowances included in the cost.

Comment on measure 8.1

Pillar 9 — Defence

At independence, Québec inherits defence, until now a federal responsibility (see 0.1). It must protect a territory of about 1.7 million km², with access to the Arctic through Nunavik, and face increasingly frequent disasters: forest fires, floods, ice storms.

9.1 One-year national service

Objective

Make sure every citizen knows how to defend the country and protect the population in a disaster, and comes out of it with a trade.

Means

• One year of service for all. Every citizen, man or woman, does one year of national service, in the year after finishing high school and no later than age 25, on the Norwegian model. Only medical reasons provide an exemption.
• Basic training, then a trade. The year begins with a few months of common basic training. The young person then chooses a trade in one of the three branches:
  1. Combat: defence of the territory and surveillance of land, sea and air borders, from the south to the Arctic, in support of immigration control (see 2.1).
  2. Technical: engineering, mechanics, computing and cyber defence.
  3. Support: health, logistics and civil security (forest fires, floods, ice storms), linked to 5.2 and 6.5.
• A trade that leads to a diploma. The trade learned leads to a recognized diploma, a vocational studies diploma (DEP) or an attestation of college studies (AEC). It can lead to a military or civilian career.
• Conscientious objection. It gives the right to a civilian path of the same length, in the trades of the Support branch, without carrying a weapon.
• A civil security reserve. After their year, former conscripts remain available for mobilization in a disaster for a few years.
• Pay is provided during service.

Cost and funding

To be costed: pay, housing, supervision and equipment for an entire cohort every year. Funded by the defence budget recovered from Ottawa at independence (see 0.1).

Timeline

At independence, once Québec’s forces have been created. First cohort at the end of the transition.

Risks and objections

• “Taking an entire cohort out of the labour market worsens the labour shortage.” Our answer: every young person comes out with a trade and a diploma, often in a sector with shortages, and the Support branch sends young people into care and work with seniors (6.5). The cost to the labour market remains real and must be measured against the needs of 2.1.
• “It is an attack on freedom.” Our answer: nobody is forced to carry a weapon; the civilian path is the same length.
• “A year’s delay in studies.” Our answer: the young person comes out with a vocational diploma, and service can be postponed until age 25.
• “A few months are not enough for a diploma.” Our answer: the trades offered are chosen to fit within the year. For longer diplomas, the hours completed are recognized and the young person finishes by enlisting or after returning to civilian life.
• “Québec does not need a mass army.” Our answer: the service builds a reserve, not a standing army. Most conscripts return to civilian life and remain available for mobilization in a crisis.
• The cost per conscript is high: barracks, supervisors and trainers are needed that do not yet exist. It must be costed before publication.

Comment on measure 9.1

First term: what we deliver within Québec’s current powers

More than half of the platform already falls within Québec’s jurisdiction. A government formed by the party applies it from day one, without waiting for independence. Sovereignty then allows us to go further.

Our message: we deliver from day one, and sovereignty will allow us to go further.

Financial framework

Seven measures now have an estimated cost; the others must be costed before publication. All amounts are approximate.

To be decided and validated before publication

• Have the financial framework validated by an independent simulation before publication (ISQ, a university tax research chair).
• Confirm with the ISQ the annual number of births, the adult population and the number of full-time students.
• 6.1: the fate of Santé Québec — keeping the agency, reforming it, or returning the levers to the facilities.
• 6.1: the scope of the basic basket — whether or not to add dental care and a universal drug plan, each adding several billion dollars.
• 6.1: cost the insurers’ administrative fees and the cap to impose on them.
• 6.5: the number of training places to add by profession.
• 7.3: the level of French required at renewal and the reference scale.
• 7.4: cost the strengthening of English as a second language in high school.
• 7.6: whether or not to add a language indicator to the five indicators of 1.2.
• 3.5: set the royalty rates by resource and the spending rule of the sovereign fund (share of the return paid each year).
• 3.5: the fate of the current Generations Fund, devoted to the debt, alongside the new sovereign fund.
• 3.5: validate the figures for forests, mines and hydrocarbon reserves with the primary sources (MRNF, ISQ, Hydro-Québec).
• 8.1: cost the buyback of emission allowances held by businesses and the effect of leaving on the price of gasoline.
• 8.1: choose the programs of the Electrification and Climate Change Fund kept in the general budget, and measure the effect on the 4.1 rate.
• 8.1: set the target filed under the Paris Agreement according to the reciprocity rule.
• 0.1: the amending procedure of the Québec constitution (a two-thirds majority in the Assembly, a referendum or other). It determines the real protection of the rights of English speakers (7.1) and of the sovereign fund’s spending rule (3.5).
• 9.1: cost the national service per cohort (cohort size with the ISQ, pay, housing, supervision, equipment) and set the length of basic training, the list of trades leading to a diploma in each branch and the length of the civil security reserve.
• 5.3: cost the workload for the TAL of requests to go above the cap.
• 4.1: revalidate the estimate of about $10 billion for the minimum tax with the $1 billion threshold, instead of €750 million.
• 4.1: validate with the official simulators the income tax families pay today, which the platform abolishes, as well as the current family allowances, which serve as the comparison in the family example.
• 4.1: determine with the ISQ the number of adults eligible for the supplement (1.6 million estimated) and its income thresholds; a gradually reduced supplement would cost less than the $18.6 billion estimate.
• 4.1: validate the base of the solidarity contribution (about $340 billion of business purchases excluding exports, estimated from table 36-10-0478 for 2022) and its effect on prices (about 2.2%) with the ISQ’s input-output tables.
• 4.1: the 60.0% rate assumes the high gap of 0.1 ($27 billion); it would be about 58.7% with $16 billion. The model caps avoidance at 15% of the base, and this cap is reached: to be validated by the independent simulation.

Sources

Most sources are in French; their titles are translated here.

• ISQ — Québec economic accounts, first quarter of 2026
• ISQ — An overview of the composition of household spending
• ISQ — International merchandise trade, 2024 highlights
• CORIM — Is Québec really so dependent on the United States?
• Aviseo — Economic study of exports in Québec
• Finance Canada — Official international reserves, July 6, 2026
• Bank of Canada — Quarterly financial report, third quarter of 2025
• Municipal Affairs — Funding and taxation of municipal bodies, June 2026
• L’actualité — Where will Hydro-Québec’s next dams be?
• Radio-Canada — “No major barrier to restarting Gentilly-2”
• Radio-Canada — Nuclear power could “be part of the solution” after 2035
• Gouvernement du Québec — Financial resources of the health and social services system
• Gouvernement du Québec — Dashboard on the language situation
• Agence Science-Presse — Is French declining in Québec?
• Ministère de l’Environnement — Québec greenhouse gas emissions inventory for 2023
• Electrification and Climate Change Fund — Financial statements 2024-2025
• UNEP — Emissions Gap Report 2024
• Statistics Canada — Revenue, expenditure and budgetary balance of general governments, provincial and territorial economic accounts (table 36-10-0450-01)
• Chaire en fiscalité et en finances publiques — Solidarity tax credit
• Statistics Canada — Supply and use tables, detail level, provincial and territorial (table 36-10-0478-01)
• Gouvernement du Québec — Calculating rent adjustments in 2026
• Civil Code of Québec — article 1955
• Statistics Canada — 2021 Census: housing in Canada