Crowdsourcing: It appears a drafting error was created in the OAS Act. A defeated gov amendment to BIA C-30 at report stage to restore clause 158 resulted in all subsequent clauses being offset by -1. Does this cause an error in whether the $500 payment is income for the OAS Act?
For example, is the $500 one time payment for seniors 75+ is no longer exempt income for the OAS act as s.268 of the BIA 2021 now accidentaly refers to the Public Service Employment Act by referencing s.276 rather than s.275? 
The OAS Act itself is strange as the definition of income under s.2 (c)(i.1) refers to s.276 of the BIA 2021, No.1 but the related provision refers to s.275. Not sure how to resolve the inconsistency laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/o-9/F…
I am not a Tax guy so I am trying to understand the consequences of the $500 OAS payment not being exempted income under the OAS Act. Does this impact the OAS Clawback or the GIS benefit calculation? Is the drafting error is simply ignored?
It looks like the drafters correctly modified the coming into force provisions of the act between report stage and 3rd reading in the Commons. Not sure if there are any other drafting errors.
The error can be corrected via retroactive legislation passed by Parliament. Perhaps it is in scope of the Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act to fix typos but it does change the substance of the enactment?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
