Bill 693 inserts a single new section into Quebec’s Individual and Family Assistance Act to let recipients of the Social Solidarity Program keep annual employment income up to an amount equal to the income made available under the province’s Basic Income Program without that employment income reducing their Social Solidarity benefit. The exemption applies only to employment income and is expressed as an annual threshold tied to the Basic Income Program amount.
This change targets a classic policy problem: work disincentives created by sharp benefit clawbacks. If implemented as written, the measure lowers the immediate financial penalty for taking on paid work for Social Solidarity recipients, potentially increasing labour-market participation.
At the same time the provision raises practical questions about measurement, interaction with other income sources and programs, and the fiscal cost to the province because the bill supplies no implementing details or administrative rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds section 71.1 to the Individual and Family Assistance Act to exempt from benefit reduction a recipient’s annual employment income up to an amount equal to the income available under the Basic Income Program. The exemption is expressed as an annual figure tied to that Basic Income amount.
Who It Affects
Directly affects recipients of Quebec’s Social Solidarity Program and the Ministry that administers it; indirectly affects employers and community organizations that place or support recipients into paid work and provincial budget officials who will account for the fiscal impact.
Why It Matters
It changes benefit-calculation incentives by creating an earnings ‘protected band’ for work income, which could increase take-up of employment among recipients while shifting costs and administrative duties onto the province unless regulations clarify measurement and coordination with other programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 693 is narrowly focused: it adds a single new provision to Quebec’s Individual and Family Assistance Act that prevents a Social Solidarity recipient’s benefit from being reduced when the recipient earns employment income up to a yearly limit equal to the income available under the Basic Income Program. The protection applies only to income from employment and is framed as an annual amount rather than a monthly or per-paycheck exemption.
The statute does not define operational details. It does not say how the Basic Income Program amount is to be determined for this calculation, how family composition or household income will affect the threshold, whether the exemption is pro rata for partial-year earnings, or how monthly benefit payments will be reconciled with an annualized earnings rule.
The bill also does not mention non‑employment income (for example, investment income, spousal support, or lump-sum payments) so those likely remain subject to existing rules unless regulations say otherwise.Because the text is minimalist, implementation will require administrative guidance and likely regulatory or operational changes by the ministry that runs Social Solidarity. Key practical tasks include establishing reporting and verification processes for employment income, setting the timing of reconciliations (monthly vs. annual), and specifying interactions with other provincial or federal programs.
In short, the statute changes the legal floor for employment earnings treatment but leaves the how-to to implementing authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts section 71.1 into the Individual and Family Assistance Act to create the new exemption.
A recipient’s annual employment income up to an amount equal to the income available under the Basic Income Program will not reduce their Social Solidarity benefit.
The exemption is limited to employment income and is denominated on an annual basis; the bill does not address other income types.
The text contains no definitions or procedural rules—measurement, reporting, household treatment, and reconciliation are left unprescribed.
The provision comes into force on the date of royal assent (the bill specifies assent as the commencement trigger).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Purpose: encourage active contribution
Section 1 states the Act’s purpose: to reinforce the active contribution to society of Social Solidarity recipients. Practically, this is a framing clause that signals the policy intent behind the operational change introduced later; it carries no operative rule but will inform how administrators and courts construe the exemption when regulations or practices are developed.
Employment-income exemption linked to Basic Income amount
This is the operative provision. It prevents reduction of a Social Solidarity benefit for employment income up to the annual amount ‘‘equivalent to the income available to the recipient under the Basic Income Program.’’ The text establishes an earnings-protection band tied to another program’s amount rather than specifying a fixed dollar figure, which creates a direct legal link between the two programs and delegates calibration to the Basic Income Program’s parameters. The provision speaks only to benefit reduction; it does not change eligibility rules for the Social Solidarity Program or state whether recipients must report earnings monthly or will reconcile annually.
Commencement on assent
Section 3 makes the new rule effective on the date of assent. There is no transitional language protecting recipients who earn income in a calendar year spanning assent, nor is there a delayed implementation window to allow the ministry to draft procedures—both items administrators will likely need to address operationally before applying the change.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Social Solidarity recipients who take paid work — They can earn up to the Basic Income-linked threshold annually without immediate benefit clawback, improving the net gain from employment and reducing short‑term work disincentives.
- Employers and placement agencies — Lowered effective marginal cost for hiring certain recipients may increase employer willingness to offer entry-level or part-time jobs supported by placement services.
- Social service organizations that support employment — The exemption simplifies messaging about work incentives and may boost program participation in employment programs they run.
Who Bears the Cost
- Quebec government / provincial treasury — The province will absorb the fiscal cost of benefits that are not reduced when recipients earn up to the exempted amount; higher employment among recipients does not eliminate the immediate benefit outlay.
- Ministry administering Social Solidarity — The ministry must design reporting, verification and reconciliation systems and could face increased administrative complexity and operating costs.
- Caseworkers and local offices — Front-line staff will manage more complex income reporting interactions and may need training and additional resources to handle reconciliations and disputes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—improving work incentives for Social Solidarity recipients versus preserving the fiscal targeting and simplicity of a means-tested program; enhancing the former by exempting earnings makes work more attractive but shifts cost and administrative complexity onto the province, leaving policymakers to choose between generosity and administrative and fiscal control.
The bill delivers a clear policy signal but leaves most implementation choices unanswered. The statute ties the exemption to the ‘‘income available under the Basic Income Program’’ without defining whether that figure is per adult, per household, or adjusted for household composition; those choices materially affect how generous the exemption will be in practice.
The annual framing raises operational questions: will the administration allow monthly advances against an annual exemption, require monthly reporting and hold back benefits, or permit a year-end reconciliation that could produce retroactive overpayments or underpayments?
There are also coordination challenges with other income-tested transfers and tax-administered programs. The provision covers only employment income; recipients with mixed income sources may still face cliff effects from other supports.
Finally, the fiscal trade-off is real: exempting earnings increases the program’s work incentive but reduces immediate clawback revenues, producing a budgetary cost that must be weighed against any longer-term reductions in benefit dependence resulting from increased employment. Administrative design will determine whether the policy produces smooth work transitions or new compliance frictions and errors.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.