QUESTION PERIOD — Finance
Income-Tested Benefits
November 24, 2021
My question is to Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate. The Budget Implementation Act, 2021 contains a drafting error because of a House of Commons amendment made at report stage. The error was not caught by the Senate prior to Royal Assent due to the bill being passed without going to committee and having clause-by-clause review. Under Division 31, entitled Increase to Old Age Security Pension and Payment, section 268 exempts from the calculation of income the $500, one-time Old Age Security payment for seniors aged 75 and above. This means that the benefit should not impact the OAS clawback threshold or income-tested benefits, like the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
However, this section incorrectly references section 276 rather than section 275 for the exemption. Section 275 refers to the $500, one-time payment under the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Section 276 refers to unrelated amendments to the Public Service Employment Act.
Question: Is the government aware of the drafting error and does it intend to introduce legislation to retroactively correct the error prior to the end of the tax year so that it does not impact income-tested benefits for seniors?
Thank you, senator, for the question.
It is my understanding that Finance Canada has previously engaged with the office of the honourable senator in order to try to provide clarification on this matter. I have been assured by the government that there will be no impact on the benefits paid or to be paid to Canadian seniors arising from the issue that had been identified following parliamentary approval of Bill C-30.
I would also point out that Bill C-30 was the subject of a robust Senate pre-study involving six committees and that Division 31 of the bill, dealing with OAS increases, was studied extensively by the Senate’s Social Affairs Committee. The government remains focused on the successful implementation of increases to Old Age Security both in terms of short-term support through one-time payments, followed by the permanent 10% increase to monthly OAS pensions for seniors aged 75 and older beginning in July 2022.
I think a pre-study cannot do justice to a change that’s made during committee stage in the House of Commons. This is one problem with a pre-study as opposed to a Senate committee being able to do a more thorough, clause-by-clause study after the bill has come to us by the House of Commons.
Can I come back to ask: Does this drafting error highlight the usefulness of the Senate undertaking a clause-by-clause review?
I think all senators would agree that under all circumstances, wherever possible, the most rigorous study and review of bills is appropriate.
That said, I can assure the honourable senator that it is the government’s view that the issuance of these payments will be done in accordance with the policy directives announced by the government in Budget 2021 and through the passage of Bill C-30, and seniors — and I address this to any and all who are watching — can be assured that these payments will be done in a correct manner.
