Health and Welfare
Attorney General of Quebec commencing action seeking declaratory judgment concerning Canada’s refusal to share, under Canada Assistance Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-1 (CAP), cost to Quebec of (1) services provided to juvenile delinquents, (2) social services provided in schools and (3) support services provided to adults with disability living in residential resources—Regarding services provided to juvenile delinquents (item 1), Parliament’s intention in “youth” component of CAP clearly to target youth at risk rather than youth who might be in trouble with law—Moreover, Supreme Court has always refused to equate treatment methods, even those furthest removed from traditional punitive methods of criminal law, with child protection, welfare measures—Cost of services provided to juvenile delinquents therefore not within scope of CAP—This interpretation of CAP confirmed and reinforced, to some extent, by exclusions arising out of definitions of “home for special care” and “welfare services” in CAP, s. 2 under which correctional institutions and services not within scope of CAP—As well, ordinary meaning of term “correctional” going well beyond idea of punishment, and concept of “correctional institutions” has in fact been interpreted by courts as including institutions whose mandate is not (or not only) to punish but rather (or also) to rehabilitate and reform those staying there—Regarding social services provided in schools (item 2), such services also not “welfare services” for purposes of CAP—Evidence showing social services in schools designed to complement education, having nothing to do with CAP’s anti-poverty objectives—Such services also expressly excluded from definition in s. 2 in that related wholly or mainly to education—By choosing word “education” in English version (“enseignement” in French), Parliament clearly opting for open-ended concept of education encompassing both idea of traditional learning and more open-ended idea involving broader vision based on complete development of child—This interpretation more consistent with framework of Act in which used—Regarding support services provided to adults with disability living in residential resources (item 3), coming into force of Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, S.C. 1976-77, c. 10, changing rules for sharing of services provided to persons in need and adults with disability living in “homes for special care”, adding new financing method for, inter alia, “adult residential care service”—Concept of “institution” in Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Regulations, 1977, SOR/78-587, s. 24(1) equated with definition of “home for special care” in Canada Assistance Plan Regulations, i.e. institution primary purpose of which is to provide residents thereof with supervisory, personal or nursing care or to rehabilitate them—Evidence showing services provided to persons with disability in residential resources much more similar to services described in 1977 Regulations, s. 24(2)(b) than to welfare services as defined in CAP, s. 2—Clear from reading CAP, 1977 Act and regulations thereunder that concepts of “home for special care” and “institution” referring to nature of services provided—Support services provided to adults with disability living in residential resources therefore covered by 1977 Act and excluded from CAP under s. 5(2)(c) ( precluding sharing of costs that Canada required to share pursuant to any other Act of Parliament)—Action dismissed.
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (T-2834-96, 2008 FC 713, de Montigny J., judgment dated June 6, 2008, 256 pp.)