On August 27, 2026, the Government of Québec called the general election, with voters set to go to the polls on October 5. The election period under the Election Act (CQLR, c. E-3.3) is now underway, and the Act's rules governing election expenses will apply until polling day.
For many organizations, elections result in few changes to their daily operations. Businesses continue to operate, associations continue their advocacy initiatives, and organizations continue to engage on issues affecting their members.
However, the calling of an election can change the legal framework applicable to certain communication activities, including where organizations conduct awareness campaigns, fund studies, publish reports, commission polls, intervene publicly on legislative or regulatory reforms or use various means of communication to influence public debate.
Although these activities are generally legitimate, their legal analysis can become more complex when they are conducted during an election campaign.
A communication campaign that would have raised few concerns a few weeks earlier may, in certain circumstances, raise questions under the election expense rules when disseminated during the election period.
A more restrictive regime than in several other Canadian jurisdictions
National organizations operating in several provinces are sometimes surprised by the particularities of the Quebec regime.
In several Canadian jurisdictions, third parties may generally incur certain advertising expenses during an election campaign, subject to spending limits, registration obligations, or disclosure requirements.
Quebec has historically favoured a different approach.
The Election Act is based on the principle that spending intended to influence the outcome of an election must be closely regulated and centralized within the official campaigns of political parties and candidates. This legislative philosophy is reflected both in the definition of election expenses and in the provisions governing the persons who may incur such expenses.
This difference is important, as several practices that may seem relatively commonplace in an ordinary context or in other jurisdictions may require more in-depth analysis when implemented during an election campaign in Quebec.
A particularly broad definition of the concept of “election expense”
Section 402 of the Election Act defines an election expense as the cost of any good or service used during the election period to:
- “promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate or the candidates of a party;
- propagate or oppose the program or policies of a candidate or party;
- approve or disapprove courses of action advocated or opposed by a candidate or party; or
- approve or disapprove any act done or proposed by a party, a candidate or their supporters.”
The scope of this definition is considerably broader than a simple advertisement explicitly inviting voters to vote for or against a political party.
The Act also captures communications concerning programs, public policies, legislative or regulatory measures, as well as acts performed or proposed by political actors. This is particularly relevant in the current context, where several electoral debates focus more on public policy issues than on the candidates themselves.
A funded campaign aimed at promoting or criticizing a government reform, regulatory initiative or policy direction associated with a party or candidate could therefore raise more questions when disseminated during an election campaign than outside the election period disseminated out of it.
The Real Issue: Who Can Incur Election Expenses?
However, the broad definition in section 402 is only part of the equation.
The element that makes the Quebec system particularly restrictive is found in section 413 of the Election Act, which provides that:
“During an election period, only the official agent of a candidate or of an authorized party or his deputy may incur or authorize election expenses.”
This provision constitutes one of the foundations of the Quebec system.
In other words, when an activity is qualified as an election expense, the issue is not only determining its amount or its method of disclosure. It must also be determined whether this expense can legally be incurred by the organization wishing to undertake it.
Sections 415 and 416 reinforce this logic:
- Section 415 provides that any property or service, all or part of the cost of which constitutes an election expense, may be used during the election period only by the official agent concerned or with their authorization.
- Section 416, for its part, prohibits any person from receiving or executing an order for election expenses that has not been made or authorized by an official agent.
These provisions clearly reflect the intent of the Quebec legislator to concentrate electoral spending within the official political financing system.
The Election Act does, however, provide a limited mechanism permitting certain authorized “private intervenors” to incur restricted expenses to intervene on a matter of public interest. This mechanism is narrow: it is aimed primarily at electors or certain groups of electors, not corporations, incorporated associations or organizations that do not meet the applicable criteria. Even where the mechanism is available, the permitted expenses are very limited. It should therefore not be confused with the more permissive third-party regimes that exist in certain other Canadian jurisdictions.
Why are these rules relevant for businesses and associations?
Most companies and organizations obviously have no intention of participating directly in an election campaign.
Several, however, regularly intervene on issues that risk becoming central themes of the campaign.
Examples include:
- healthcare;
- environment;
- energy;
- natural resources;
- immigration;
- housing;
- taxation;
- economic development;
- infrastructure;
- labour relations;
Furthermore, many organizations devote significant resources to their public communications, government relations, or public affairs activities.
In this context, the calling of an election often justifies a reassessment of certain communication initiatives that would otherwise be considered routine.
A campaign aimed at influencing public opinion regarding an issue that becomes a subject of electoral debate could be subject to a different review than the one it would have received before the election was called.
Certain activities warrant particular attention
While no analysis can be performed in the abstract without considering the circumstances specific to each situation, certain activities generally warrant increased attention during an election campaign.
Examples include:
- traditional advertising campaigns;
- digital campaigns;
- sponsored social media posts;
- billboard campaigns;
- the paid promotion of briefs, reports or studies;
- the dissemination of surveys;
- public mobilization campaigns;
- campaigns aimed at influencing the development of public policies.
Risk does not depend solely on the subject matter. The content of the communication, the political context, the timing of its release, and the expenses incurred to produce, promote or distribute it may all be relevant to the analysis.
Conversely, the mere fact that an organization continues its ordinary activities, communicates directly with its members or publishes non-sponsored content through its usual channels should not automatically be treated as an election expense. The legal analysis becomes more nuanced where a cost is incurred to produce, promote or disseminate a communication that could be perceived as favouring or opposing a party, candidate or policy position associated with them.
Increased caution over the coming weeks
The calling of a general election obviously does not mean that companies, associations and organizations must stop participating in public debate.
It is a reminder, however, that a communication disseminated during an election campaign may be subject to a different legal framework than the one that applies at other times.
Organizations should also distinguish these rules from political financing rules. As a general matter, provincial political contributions in Quebec are reserved for eligible electors. Companies therefore cannot make such contributions to parties or candidates, whether in monetary or non-monetary form.
In a context where several economic, environmental, energy, and social issues are likely to feature prominently in debates over the coming weeks, organizations planning to launch a communication campaign, release a study, promote a survey, or invest in an advertising campaign would be well-advised to carefully review their activities before dissemination.
Conclusion
The Quebec regime for controlling election expenses remains relatively little known outside of specialized election law circles. However, its scope may prove relevant to a wide range of companies, associations, and interest groups that regularly participate in public debate.
The combination of a particularly broad definition of "election expense" and the principle that such expenses are generally reserved for the official agents of parties and candidates distinguishes Quebec from several other Canadian jurisdictions. In this context, organizations wishing to make their voices heard during the election campaign should ensure that their communication activities are analyzed in light of the specific requirements set out in the Election Act.
