The third and final French‑language leaders’ debate in Quebec’s 2026 provincial campaign descended into a heated exchange on Wednesday, 23 September, as the five principal party chiefs squared off over the prospect of a new referendum, the province’s fiscal health and the escalating cost of living. Parti Québécois (PQ) leader Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon repeatedly urged Quebecers not to shy away from a sovereignty vote, while his rivals – Éric Duhaime of the Conservative Party, Charles Milliard of the Liberals, Christine Fréchette of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) and Ruba Ghazal of Québec solidaire – argued that such a move would be reckless or unnecessary. The two‑hour televised confrontation, moderated by Radio‑Canada journalist Patrice Roy, also highlighted longstanding grievances about healthcare delays, broken promises on doctor access and the looming spectre of public‑sector cutbacks. With the election slated for 5 October, the debate underscored a tightly contested race where a minority government appears increasingly likely.
PQ Leader Defends Referendum Plan
St‑Pierre Plamondon opened the evening by reaffirming his pledge to hold a sovereignty referendum within the first term of a PQ government, a promise that would see the vote take place after U.S. President Donald Trump leaves office. “It’s (former Quebec premier) Jacques Parizeau who said this, but don’t be afraid of your democracy, don’t be afraid of going to the polls, don’t be afraid to think about our future,” he declared, framing the issue as a fundamental exercise in popular liberty. He argued that the prospect of independence should be embraced rather than feared, describing it as a democratic right that belongs to the people of Quebec. The PQ leader’s stance provoked an immediate retort from Éric Duhaime, who warned that sending Quebec “into a wall” would be disastrous. Duhaime, whose party has vowed to block any referendum should it win power, urged St‑Pierre Plamondon to listen to the 70 % of Quebecers who, according to recent polls, oppose a new vote on sovereignty. The exchange set the tone for the evening’s broader discussion on the direction of the province.
Federalists and Sovereigntists Square Off
Liberal leader Charles Milliard positioned himself as the sole federalist in the room, drawing attention to the voting records of his opponents. He pointed out that both Duhaime and CAQ leader Christine Fréchette had voted “yes” in the 1995 referendum, while Québec solidaire’s Ruba Ghazal also advocated for independence, albeit with a broader inclusive vision. “I see you as four shades of yes,” Milliard said, seeking to paint a picture of a landscape where most parties favour separation, leaving his own platform as the clear alternative. Ghazal, in turn, defended her party’s sovereigntist stance, emphasising that independence would be built on a consensus that incorporates Indigenous peoples, immigrants and anglophones. “For me, it’s a fundamentally democratic project, Quebec independence,” she asserted, promising a process that would be both inclusive and transparent. Fréchette, for her part, deflected criticism of the CAQ’s governance record, highlighting achievements such as increased surgical capacity and the recruitment of hundreds of thousands of Quebecers into family‑doctor groups. However, she faced sharp rebukes from both Milliard and St‑Pierre Plamondon over unfulfilled promises regarding emergency‑room wait times and universal doctor access, which critics described as a betrayal of public trust.
Campaign Focus Turns to Healthcare and Finances
The debate’s segment on public services quickly devolved into a clash over the CAQ’s performance in office. Milliard accused the incumbent government of breaking promises on emergency‑room congestion and guaranteeing a doctor for every Quebecer, labeling the latter pledge “disrespectful of people’s intelligence.” St‑Pierre Plamondon echoed this sentiment, arguing that the broken promises undermined confidence in the healthcare system. Fréchette defended her party’s record, acknowledging that “there was a lot of work to do” but highlighting improvements in surgical volumes and primary‑care recruitment. She also pointed to the challenges posed by the pandemic’s lingering effects and the strain on resources.
The financial discourse was equally contentious. St‑Pierre Plamondon’s proposal to trim public‑sector salary spending by 2.5 % over three years – equating to roughly $1.6 billion annually – drew scrutiny. “Who are these people … who will lose their jobs on Oct. 6?” Milliard pressed, seeking clarification on the human impact of the cuts. The PQ leader responded that his party would preserve frontline services, targeting instead what he termed the “explosion” of bureaucracy under the CAQ. Ghazal offered a contrasting view, declaring that her party was the only one not promising austerity. “When we look at the financial frameworks of all the other parties, what they want is to cut a little, a lot or very passionately,” she observed, positioning Québec solidaire as the steward of fiscal responsibility without severe cuts.
The Race Heats Up with Minor Parties and Unforeseen Alliances
Beyond the main five parties, the debate’s final question prompted each leader to outline how they would collaborate post‑election, should no single party secure a majority. Duhaime, Fréchette and Milliard used their closing seconds to reiterate opposition to a referendum, while St‑Pierre Plamondon urged Quebecers to consider the possibility of a “stable” government regardless of the outcome. The evening’s backdrop included a raucous crowd outside the CBC/Radio‑Canada building, comprising striking paramedics, pro‑Palestinian activists and environmental groups, reflecting the broader societal tensions influencing the election. Recent polling data from Qc125 indicates that the PQ remains the front‑runner, though a minority parliament is projected as the most probable result. With 40 % of voters still undecided just 13 days before polling day, the final debate’s impact on voter perception will be pivotal.
Why it Matters
The outcome of this election will shape Quebec’s trajectory for years to come, determining whether the province moves toward sovereignty or remains within the Canadian federation. The debate’s focus on healthcare delivery, fiscal prudence and the cost of living reflects the everyday concerns of Quebecers, whose trust in government promises has been tested by broken commitments and rising expenses. Moreover, the potential for a minority government introduces the possibility of unprecedented coalitions, which could either stabilise the province’s political landscape or lead to gridlock. As the campaign enters its final stretch, the choices voters make will influence not only Quebec’s internal policies but also the broader dynamics of Canadian federalism, especially given the heightened tensions surrounding U.S. trade policies and Arctic sovereignty discussions. The election’s result will therefore have far‑reaching implications for both provincial autonomy and the future of the nation as a whole.
