Quebec Election 2026: Blind Bidding Ban, Commission Cap and Capital Gains Proposals for Sellers

Most campaign promises speak to buyers. Three Québec solidaire proposals, reported by Radio-Canada on September 16, 2026, do the opposite: they bear on the rules of a sale and on what the seller keeps. This article reads them one by one, without judging them. The second one touches the base used to calculate commission; for the current rule, see our article on how broker commission is calculated and split in Quebec.

Three proposals aimed at the transaction, not the buyer

According to the wording reported by Radio-Canada on September 16, 2026, Québec solidaire proposes to « interdire les enchères à l'aveugle », that is, ban blind bidding; to « plafonner le calcul des commissions de courtage au prix de vente affiché », cap the calculation of brokerage commissions at the listed sale price; and to « imposer 100 % du gain en capital immobilier », tax 100% of real estate capital gains. An exception comes with the third: owners who agree to sell to non-profits (OBNL) or to housing offices would see their capital gain taxed at 25%.

None of these measures pays anything to anyone. The first changes how the price is formed when several buyers compete. The second changes the base on which the broker's fee is calculated. The third changes the tax the seller pays on the gain.

For each, three questions: what happens today, what the wording would change mechanically, and what it leaves unanswered. We work from the wording as reported, not from legislation, which does not exist at this stage. This article passes no judgment on these proposals and makes no voting recommendation.

Banning blind bidding: the practice in question

Today, when several buyers submit a promise to purchase on the same property, each does so without knowing the amounts of the competing offers. The offers are not disclosed to the other buyers, and the seller chooses among them. That is what blind bidding means.

What a ban would change mechanically: a buyer would no longer write an offer in complete ignorance of where the others stand. On the seller's side, what changes is the way the final price takes shape. The effect on the level of that price is not mechanical: a buyer who knows the highest offer can top it by an amount of their choosing, or walk away.

What the reported wording does not specify: what would replace the undisclosed offer, whether disclosure of amounts, an open auction or some other process; who would disclose what, and when; what happens to an offer already submitted; and the penalty for non-compliance. Yet it is the chosen format that would decide the real effect on a sale.

Capping commission at the listing price: what leaves the base

Today, a broker's commission is calculated on the sale price, as the article linked above explains. A higher price than expected therefore widens the calculation base, and the commission with it, at the same rate.

The reported wording would cap that calculation at the listed sale price. Mechanically, the base would become the lower of two values: the price obtained, or the listing price. When a property sells at or below its listing price, nothing changes, since the base is already the price obtained. When it sells above, the gap between the price obtained and the listing price would drop out of the base: commission would stop at the listing price.

So the effect only applies in one situation, the sale above asking, typically seen when several offers compete. In that situation, and only there, the commission paid by the seller would be lower than under the current rule, at the same rate. The first two proposals meet at exactly this point: both bear on the contested sale.

What the commission cap leaves unanswered

The wording does not say which listing price would serve as the reference when that price was changed during marketing: the first one, or the last. It does not say whether it would cover brokerage contracts already signed or only new ones, nor how it would apply to a fee set as a flat amount rather than a percentage. It says nothing about the split between brokers, or about the effective date.

As reported, it does not touch the rate itself either: no commission rate is imposed today, and the proposal bears on the calculation base, not on the percentage negotiated between a seller and their broker. To see what a given rate means on your own price, the CourtiConnect calculator runs the numbers.

Taxing 100% of real estate capital gains

Today, a capital gain is not included in full in taxable income. And the sale of a principal residence benefits, under current tax law, from an exemption whose conditions are covered in our article on the principal residence exemption.

The reported wording, taxing 100% of real estate capital gains, would mechanically bring the taxable share of the gain on the sale of a property to its full amount. For a seller who benefits from no exemption, the owner of a rental building for example, the tax due on the sale would rise, for the same gain.

What the wording leaves out is decisive here: it does not say whether the principal residence exemption would remain. Depending on the answer, the proposal would mainly concern sellers of properties that are not a principal residence, or a much larger share of owners who sell. Nor does it say from what date the new treatment would apply, or what happens to a sale closed before it takes effect.

Selling to a non-profit or housing office: the 25% exception

According to the reported wording, « les propriétaires qui acceptent de vendre à des OBNL ou à des offices d'habitation verraient leur gain en capital imposé à 25 % ». Mechanically, the tax treatment of a sale would then depend on who the buyer is. Under the 100% rule, selling at the same price to a non-profit housing organization or a housing office would leave the seller with higher net proceeds than selling to another buyer.

The phrase contains an ambiguity that only drafted legislation would settle: « imposé à 25 % » can mean the share of the gain subject to tax, or a tax rate applied to the gain. The two readings do not produce the same tax. The wording also does not specify which organizations would qualify, or whether any condition on price or on the use of the housing would apply.

What a seller can do with these proposals today

None of the above applies to a sale concluded today: these are campaign proposals, reported without legal text. Their real scope will depend on details they do not yet give, and a seller who plans a sale around an unwritten rule is planning around an assumption.

What can be done now depends on none of them: placing your property against real sales in your area, and reading your brokerage contract where it sets the commission base. Tax questions specific to your situation, principal residence or rental building, belong with a tax professional.