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
 

Keep Current with Lyle Skinner

Lyle Skinner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SkinnerLyle

15 Sep
Now let's look at what the government could do using the Public Health Act. 1st is closing down businesses and also placing capacity restrictions. In fact they did exactly that when the original "modern" public Health Act was passed in 1918 to address the Spanish Flu. #nbpoli
The powers under the Public Health Act re notifiable diseases in humans are divided into two areas. Medical Officers of Health have powers (currently being used) & Cabinet has a more general power to make regulations to control of covid or the vaccination of residents"
I am not going to speculate exactly what form this could take as cabinet can make formal regulations "regulations respecting covid-19" to clarify powers of the Chief Medical Officer of Health or there could be a more or subsidiary policy instrument like an Order
Read 14 tweets
15 Sep
With the announcement of possible new public health restrictions being approved by the NB cabinet. let's have a quick look at what the province cannot do without a state of emergency: any matters that do not fall within the purpose of the Public Health Act #nbpoli
Generally if we look at the Mandatory Order, it conferred extraordinary powers to the Minister of Public Safety and cabinet to take additional measures related to addressing an emergency.
Lets use the May 29, 2020 order as an example where it extended the validity of expired licences, registrations, certificates and permits. This has no linkage to Public Health so cabinet cannot use this power outside a state of emergency.
Read 10 tweets
14 Sep
On Nov 14, 1918 the NB Minister of Health lifted public gathering restrictions after shutting the province down on Oct 11. Schools reopened on Nov 18. His letter has commentary that is very relevant for NB in its path living with covid. Let's have a look. /N #nbpoli
In lifting public health restrictions in 1918 the NB Minister stated that "the Department of Health would not wish it to be understood, that it regards the epidemic as completely done and over with. In probably very few parts of the province is this absolutely the case" /2
"Beyond doubt, it will be many weeks before sporadic cases crease to appear, and in some localities mostly in the remotest settlements, and in somewhat isolated communities it is yet in an epidemic stage" /3
Read 11 tweets
13 Sep
A reminder that the Public Health Act gives cabinet the ability to make regulations related to the control of notifiable diseases, & respecting the vaccination of residents of the Province. There is no need to declare a state of emergency to reintroduce certain measures #nbpoli
Whether certain measures are needed should be based on recommendations from Public Health.
These powers are in addition to tools available by medical officers of health or under legislation governing schools & childcare facilities.
Read 5 tweets
20 Aug
I agree with @DominicCardy view that there should be mandatory vaccination in schools. To do so, the Education and Public Health Acts needs to be amended to require mandatory vaccination of any students who can receive the covid-19 vaccine. Why? Let me explain #nbpoli /n
Presently only those students who are entering school for the first time have to show proof of immunization for a list of diseases outlined in Public Health regulations. There is a separate list for childcare operators #nbpoli /2
Currently the information of whether a student is vaccinated can only be requested by the school system if a child is attending for the 1st time. Early Childcare providers have it as a requirement for any children attending the facility /3
Read 17 tweets
18 Aug
Historically New Brunswick had mandatory vaccination laws for all individuals in the province against smallpox. These became more limited to those in high risk employment settings. Depending on the context government isn't required to offer an employment accommodation. #nbpoli
The Moncton Daily Transcript reporting in January 1900 that cabinet authorized a mandatory vaccination order in Campebellton and Moncton to combat a smallpox outbreak. There was a defect in the regulations which was deemed retroactively valid via a 1903 law Image
If the province wishes to require mandatory vaccination of students aged 12 and up against covid as a condition of in person learning, then it will have to amend the Education Act as proof of vaccination is currently only required for students entering school for the 1st time Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(