2003 Quebec general election

Jean Charest and the PLQ focused their campaign upon the issue of health care and reducing waiting lists. The other major parties criticized Charest for planning to invest only in health care and education, while freezing other budgets. Landry argued that money for health care would be available when the fiscal imbalance was solved by sovereignty. He vowed to fight for money from Ottawa until then, as he had done earlier that year (see the "Fiscal Imbalance", below). Charest portrayed Landry as putting sovereignty ahead of health care, and presented his party as the one that would make health care its first priority. He also accused Landry's government of using waiting lists as an administration procedure for hospitals.

The desire for change was considered by the media to be a major deciding factor of the vote. The media were criticized by the PQ and some citizens as "wanting change for the sake of change", since the government had ended its term with an economy doing well and high satisfaction polls for an outgoing administration. Landry reminded voters that, while voting for his party did not change the government right away, the first ideal of the PQ, sovereignty, was "the greatest of changes". At the Leaders' Debate, Charest told viewers that those wanting change should vote for the PLQ since "A vote for the ADQ is a vote for the PQ". At the time, the ADQ was considered to be too low in the polls to be a potential victor. Charest's reminder of the spoiler effect is said to have been partly responsible for his victory on election day. The results on election day appear to have demonstrated the voters' desire for change.

Charest presented a plan of major reduction of income tax, which Landry opposed. Quebec's income taxes are the highest in North America, but its social programs are also relatively generous, and the gap between rich and poor is the lowest of the North American continent. The ADQ presented a flat tax plan in 2002. This proved to be highly unpopular, and contributed to the image of the party as being too conservative. This plan, in its pure form, was dropped in the beginning of 2003. The ADQ claimed that, after further examination, the Quebec government did not have the resources to implement it. This, again, hurt the party further by giving it the image of flip flopping.

The PQ government was criticized by the two other major parties for being too interventionist, maintaining an overly large government, and for practising statism. Dumont spoke of Landry and the PQ's "Social bureaucracy", a pun on the Social democracy the PQ defends. Landry responded to Charest and Dumont that "Quebecers do not want less state, they want better state". Dumont had previously proposed a drastic reduction in the size of the civil service, but this was also softened before the campaign.

The conciliation famille-travail became an important issue of the campaign as a result of Landry's "Four day work-week" plan. This proposal would have required Quebec employers to offer the option of a four-day work week to parents. This was presented by the PQ as a way to enhance family life, lower the stress on parents, and of counteracting the fall in Quebec's birthrate since the Quiet Revolution. The plan was attacked by the PLQ and ADQ as being "improvised" since it was only presented near the beginning of the election. It attracted some interest and support from voters, enough for Charest to declare, days before voting day, that he could consider implementing a four-day week, although the PLQ has not mentioned this since the election.

The theory of a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and Quebec City was maintained and denounced by all major parties. Charest argued that the co-operative approach of a federalist party like the PLQ would be more effective solving the problem. As proof that the PQ would be able to solve the fiscal imbalance, Landry pointed to his success of early 2003, when he, along with the English Canadian Premiers, managed to come to an agreement with Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien for more money to finance health care. He promised to continue the "battle" to solve the imbalance until independence is achieved.

The PQ government, during the premiership of Landry's predecessor Lucien Bouchard, had merged the major cities of Quebec. The government argued that the mergers would allow a better division of the wealth and responsibilities between richer suburban communities and poorer parts of the main cities. The mergers occurred despite widespread opposition in some municipalities. Many Quebecers were still disgruntled, especially in wealthier and anglophone communities. The PLQ proposed to allow referendums on de-amalgamation in communities where there was sufficient support. The PQ and the ADQ strongly opposed the idea.

While the PQ continued to promote sovereignty for Quebec with its usual arguments (dignity, culture, globalization, etc.), it was also presented by the PQ as a way to solve the fiscal imbalance problem. The ADQ made great efforts to avoid taking a position on the subject of independence in order to attract both sides of the National Question spectrum. The ADQ positioned itself as a "third way" to Quebecers between what Dumont called "radical separation" and "knelt down federalism". The ADQ had worked in favour of sovereignty during the 1995 Quebec referendum, but had been equivocal on the subject since then.

The PLQ criticized the PQ for using the politics of confrontation because of its sovereignty position, and argued that a PLQ government would restore Quebec's "leadership role" in the federation. Landry promised a third referendum on independence "in 1000 days", confirming the plan he had set out in the Declaration of Gatineau, with support for independence running very low and support for a referendum running even lower in opinion polls; this did not prove to be a popular position. An argument of Landry for this timetable was that he wanted Quebec to be present at the Summit of the Americas in Buenos Aires in 2005. Representation for Quebec had been denied by Ottawa at the previous summit held in Quebec City, an act that angered many Quebecers. At the same time, Landry kept the door opened to federalist support for the PQ and stated that he would only hold a referendum if he had the "moral assurance" of winning it. This lead Charest to accuse him of having a "hidden agenda", during the Leaders' Debate.

On the day of the leaders' debate, Charest's advisors gave him an article from the website of the Trois-Rivières newspaper Le Nouvelliste that spoke of past PQ leader Jacques Parizeau restating his controversial remarks about "money and the ethnic vote" which he had made in his 1995 referendum concession speech. The truth of the article was later disputed, yet despite the uncertainty surrounding this article, Charest surprised Landry with it during the leaders' debate on live television. This created a new controversy that ran for some days following the debate, and was said to have hurt Landry's campaign. The PQ denounced Charest for launching an "immoral attack" on Parizeau's reputation and dignity, saying that the article was incorrect in concluding that he had repeated his comments, but this method of response was not enough to defuse the controversy. The aftermath of the leaders' debate is thoroughly treated in the À Hauteur d'homme documentary, and became known as the Parizeau Affair.

The "five dollar-a-day child care" program implemented by the PQ government of Lucien Bouchard was one of the most appreciated achievements of the recent PQ administration. Some parents still did not have access to it, however, because of a lack of sufficient places. Landry, who had been Minister of Finance when the plan was implemented, vowed to continue creating more spaces. Charest presented his team as the most capable for this task. He also vowed to keep the price at $5 a day. He broke this promise later that year. See Opposition to the Charest government.

The Action Démocratique insisted that the Government of Quebec should pay down the public debt. The other major leaders did not see it as a priority.

  = open seat

  = turnout is above provincial average

  = winning candidate was in previous Legislature

  = incumbent had switched allegiance

  = previously incumbent in another riding

  = not incumbent; was previously elected to the Legislature

  = incumbency arose from byelection gain

  = other incumbents renominated

  = previously an MP in the House of Commons of Canada

  = multiple candidates