Published September 20, 2026 · Équipe Le Québec Vote
**The act has been acknowledged. The accusation of “vote buying” requires additional proof. Between the two lies a verifiable question: was the money authorized, paid and reported in accordance with Quebec’s Election Act?**
Louis-Charles Thouin, the Coalition Avenir Québec candidate in Rousseau and the riding’s outgoing MNA, has acknowledged putting banknotes inside campaign hats and T-shirts handed out at bingo events attended in part by seniors. The episode, first reported by the Journal de Québec on September 17, prompted allegations of vote buying, a reprimand from CAQ leader Christine Fréchette and calls for the candidate’s conduct to be reviewed.
The available information establishes the act itself. It does not, at this stage, establish that a vote was bought or that an offence occurred. That distinction is not cosmetic: Quebec’s Election Act separately regulates campaign expenses and benefits given with the intention of obtaining a vote.
The first question is factual: how many items and banknotes were distributed, on what dates and at which locations? The second is financial: where did the cash come from, who authorized it and how will it appear in the campaign expense return? The third is legal: was there any explicit or implicit connection between the gift and the recipients’ votes?
## What is confirmed
According to Nicolas Lachance’s reporting, witnesses said that at a FADOQ bingo in Sainte-Marie-Salomé on September 8, 2026, prizes handed out by Thouin — hats or shirts in his campaign colours — contained $10 or $20 bills. An organizer quoted by the newspaper confirmed that money was inside the gifts. One witness said the candidate returned to his vehicle to prepare a second cash-containing prize.
The report also alleges that the practice was repeated. One participant said she observed it twice, one week apart, and reported that Thouin had said he had done the same elsewhere. A person operating the bingo machine at a Travail d’amitié event in Saint-Jacques said a similar incident took place on September 14.
These elements do not rest solely on anonymous witnesses. The CAQ provided the media with a statement in which Thouin acknowledged putting money in the items. He apologized if the gesture had been “misinterpreted in the context of the election.” The party also said it would ensure the amounts were included in its campaign expenses.
That admission settles one part of the matter: the story is not a fabricated image or merely a social-media rumour. Cash was placed inside promotional merchandise. However, the total amount, the exact number of winners and the full list of events are not public. The second event was reported by a witness but has not been officially detailed and confirmed by the candidate or party.
## An election expense can be lawful
Handing out a prize at a political event is not automatically prohibited. Élections Québec told the Journal de Québec that a candidate may finance an activity promoting their election, including prizes, provided the rules governing election expenses are followed.
The official [Guide for official agents of political parties and party candidates](https://docs.electionsquebec.qc.ca/PRO/e0ab4d5ae39fd/DGE-251-VF.pdf), issued for the 2026 election in French, explains that the cost of any good or service used during the election period to directly or indirectly promote or oppose a candidate’s election is an election expense. Promotional merchandise and cash added to prizes would logically fall within that framework if they served the campaign.
A campaign cannot spend money however it wishes. Expenses must be made or authorized by the official agent or a properly appointed deputy. They must be paid from the election fund and supported by invoices or other documentary evidence. Cash payments are permitted only through petty cash funded from the election fund and documented under the applicable rules.
The CAQ’s statement that it would “also ensure that the amounts in question are accounted for in our campaign expenses” indicates that the party intends to report them. It does not yet answer whether they were authorized in advance. Recording an amount after the fact may correct an accounting omission, but does not by itself show that the expense was properly authorized when incurred.
Determining compliance requires knowing where the banknotes physically came from. Were they drawn from campaign petty cash? Did the candidate advance personal funds? Is there a log recording the date, amount, purpose and authorization? The official agent’s expense return, generally due within 120 days after polling day, may provide part of the answer, although only in aggregate form if the supporting documents are not disclosed.
## “Buying a vote” involves a separate threshold
Political reactions used more serious language. Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon denounced “petty manoeuvres” and raised the prospect of an attempt to buy votes, while leaving Élections Québec and the Ethics Commissioner to assess the matter. Liberal leader Charles Milliard described it as another example of waste. Christine Fréchette called it a “serious error in judgment,” requested explanations and an apology, but maintained confidence in her candidate.
[Section 558 of Quebec’s Election Act](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/e-3.3) applies, among other situations, when a candidate or another person gives, promises or procures money, an office, employment or another benefit in order to obtain a vote. It also covers a person who accepts such a benefit in exchange for voting or abstaining. A first offence can carry a fine of $5,000 to $20,000.
Intent is the pivotal element. A banknote randomly awarded as a bingo prize during a campaign event may be politically ill-advised while remaining a lawful election expense. To move from an expense to vote buying, evidence would have to show that the benefit was offered to induce the recipients to vote a certain way — through an explicit request, a condition, a promise, targeting or a sufficiently persuasive set of circumstances.
None of the reporting reviewed says that a winner had to promise to vote for Thouin, demonstrate support or perform a partisan act in exchange for the money. The election setting, the campaign-branded items and the candidate’s presence can support a concern about influence. Standing alone, they do not prove the intent required for a vote-buying offence.
That qualification does not minimize the conduct. It avoids turning a political allegation into a legal conclusion. Élections Québec may investigate on its own initiative or after receiving a complaint. As of our research on September 17, no public announcement of a formal investigation had been located.
## Parliamentary ethics or election law?
The matter lies primarily within election law. When the election was called, Thouin was an outgoing MNA and a candidate. At the start of the campaign, the Ethics Commissioner reminded outgoing members that state resources must remain dedicated to constituency functions and that the spirit of the Code continues to guide them. However, no public evidence indicates that National Assembly staff, vehicles or funds were used to purchase the prizes.
Thouin has previously been the subject of two Ethics Commissioner investigations. In 2021, an inquiry concerning his intervention in a Montcalm RCM land-use planning matter found no violation. In 2024, an inquiry involving an invitation to municipal elected officials for a fundraising event likewise found no breach, while noting a “certain blurring of roles” and urging great caution.
Those earlier cases do not support calling him a repeat offender: he was cleared in both. They show only that the boundary between his roles as MNA, partisan and candidate has previously been examined — a distinction that would become relevant again if institutional resources were involved. No public evidence currently establishes that.
## Questions the CAQ should answer
The party’s account confirms the core of the story but leaves several verifiable points unresolved:
1. At how many bingo sessions or other events were cash-containing prizes handed out?
2. How many $10 or $20 bills were distributed, and what was the total?
3. Did the money come from the election fund, authorized petty cash or the candidate’s personal funds?
4. Did the campaign’s official agent authorize the expense before the events?
5. What receipts, logs or other records will support the entry in the expense return?
6. Did the candidate ask the winners, even indirectly, for their electoral support when presenting the prizes?
7. Were the host organizations told that the merchandise contained money?
The first two questions measure the scale of the practice. The next three concern accounting compliance. The final two may help determine intent and context.
## What can be concluded now
The viral post demanding Louis-Charles Thouin’s immediate withdrawal contains a true factual core: the candidate distributed promotional items containing money and acknowledged doing so. The post goes beyond the established facts, however, if it implies that electoral corruption has already been proven or that the law has already settled the question of disqualification.
Calling the items “modest-value prizes” does not eliminate the judgment issue. Giving cash inside partisan merchandise to potential voters during an election predictably creates an appearance of influence and puts community organizations in an uncomfortable position. The CAQ leader’s response itself recognizes the political seriousness of that appearance.
Legality does not turn on the amount alone. It depends on two distinct evidentiary paths: an intent to obtain a vote and compliance with election-expense rules. On the first, the public record is insufficient to conclude that votes were bought. On the second, a promise to report the amounts is not a substitute for showing that they were properly authorized and paid.
The evidence therefore supports neither denial — the act is admitted — nor a premature verdict. The most rigorous answer now lies in the documentary trail and, if warranted, a review by Élections Québec. Until the CAQ discloses the number of distributions, total amount, source of funds and official agent’s authorization, the episode remains an acknowledged error in judgment whose electoral compliance has yet to be demonstrated.