SOCIAL: PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES/ PUBLIC SERVICES QUEBEC

SUBJECT:  PUBLIC SERVICES QUEBEC

PURPOSE:  This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to the administration of public services.

ISSUE:  There is not enough action to provide a smooth transition from public services in Quebec to the rest of Canada and vice versa.

Background:

The following are some criteria for being a resident in Quebec, “one of the parents resides in Quebec” and the person in question “holds a “Certificat de selection du Quebec,”” amongst others.  Quebec is a city in Canada that has its own legal system. The legal framework for the laws in Quebec is based on civil law.  This means that the province of Quebec has a bijuridical legal system.  French law regulates civil matters.  In 1663, the legal system of Quebec was enacted from the foundations of New France.  The fact that Quebec has its own legal system and that it has to consider federal legislations means that it nevertheless still operates its provincial matters according to the s92 of the Canadian Constitution.  However, the rest of Canada operates under common law, despite this all federal programs are actioned under s91.  This means that services that are federal must be inclusive of the province of Quebec despite the civil law system enacted in the province.  The problem with actioning of s91 is that there is not a bridge program for those who want to move to Quebec and those that want to move to other provinces.  This means that services rendered under s91 need a connector in the event that residents want to move to other provinces.  For example, receiving income assistance in British Columbia is done through the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, while in Quebec social assistance is offered through the Ministere de l’Emploi et de la Solidarite sociale and in the Yukon it provides social assistance via the Department of Health and Social Services.  The fact that these similar services are all provided under s92 of the Canadian Constitution means that the provinces have the jurisdiction to create their services as according to the demands of their province.  Regardless, if an individual wants to move to say Quebec from the Yukon, he or she will have to reapply for social support in that province via the Ministere de l’Emploi et de la Solidarite sociale.  What is striking to note here is that such Ministries and Departments of the government do not have the mentioned bridging program so that the government services can be streamlined for the Canadian citizen.  Another example includes student loans.  In British Columbia student loans are offered through Studentaidbc via the Ministry of Advance Education while in Quebec Aide financiere aux etudes via the Ministere de l’Education et de l’Enseignement superieur and in Alberta, student loans are provided via Student Aid via Alberta Advanced Education.  There is another issue specifically with relation to Quebec and the rest of Canada.  In the rest of Canada, the pension plan and employment insurance is offered through Service Canada however in Quebec pension is offered through the Quebec Pension Plan from Retraite Quebec.  Further, employment insurance in the rest of Canada is offered through Service Canada while in Quebec it is done through Revenu Quebec.  The fact that these services are all offered via different Ministries and Departments causes an issue with the mandate of the Canadian government in ensuring that Canadian citizens are receiving their services per the Constitution. 

Considerations:

There are two main issues to government service delivery in Canada and it is rooted to the Canadian Constitution.  The first issue is federal and provincial while the second issue involves Quebec’s civil law system and the common law system of the rest of Canada.  The solution for these issues is the fact that a bridging program needs to be created in order to ensure that the mandate of the Canadian government to its citizens is met.  To discuss the second issue in detail, the Constitution ensures that federal programs are offered through the Government of Canada which has bureaucratic offices such as Employment and Social Development Canada (Service Canada) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.  Such programs are then reworked in Quebec to remit its services to them such as Ministere de l’Emploi et de la Solidarite sociale, Revenu Quebec and Immigration- Quebec, per s91 of the Constitution.  For example, in the case of employment insurance, a federal matter under the Constitution s91 2A, The Quebec Parental Insurance Plan under the Revenu Quebec remits its deductions from Quebec citizens to Canada Revenue and Service Canada.  Quebec works with the federal government to deliver the insurance program with consideration that Quebec has a civil law system while the rest of Canada is operating under common law.  As for the first problem.  It involves s91 of the Canadian Constitution.  Provinces deliver its services independent from other provinces and this causes programs such as student loans and income assistance to be confusing for those that want to move to other provinces.  As mentioned, student loans are offered in British Columbia per the Ministry of Advance Education under Studentaidbc while in Alberta a similar service Student Aid is provided under Alberta Advance Education also known as the Ministry of Education.  The underlying issue here is the governments mandate and the palpability of service delivery.  Are the services provided by the various governments in Canada being received as intended as is the case with those that decide to move from province to province?  For example, income assistance in British Columbia is an urgent payment to reintegrate the citizen to the society.  Any welfare is an urgent payment.  If that citizen from British Columbia moves to a place like Alberta, the mentioned citizen must navigate through the bureaucracy all over again thus negating the initial premise of the “urgency” of the welfare payment henceforth the mandate that the government acts on in ensuring that services are delivered inappropriately lack integrity.  The stakeholders for this matter are the government of Canada, the provincial governments and the citizens. 

Options: 

Option 1:  Bridging program for government services.

This is a feasible option however it would require a lot of cooperation with the federal and provincial government.  This option would give citizens equity as they would be able to receive the services of the government as per its mandate.  “Urgent” supplements such as welfare can be handed to citizens in a prompt matter without having to reapply through bureaucracy.  This option is sustainable as it aims to provide the citizen with a peace of mind that wherever they may go in Canada, that services are available to support them.  From a security perspective, this option is the best.  It would ensure that the government service is streamlined and that citizens are always given the information that they need to avail of services. 

Option 2:  Status quo.

This is the most feasible option.  However, it is the option that does not promote equity.  By selecting this option, the government services that are federal and provincial will persist in being fragmented thus the possibility that some citizens won’t receive the urgent assistance they require.  This henceforth does not bode well for security.  From a sustainability perspective, this option would not benefit it and as a matter of fact, leaving the system fragmented without a bridge would essentially decay the system gradually and would press a more urgent update to the system in the future.

Recommendation:

Option one is recommended.