Bill C-31 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act
An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 1, 2010
- Debated in principleSept. 24, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 18, 2010
- Passed the second chamberDec. 12, 2010
- Became lawDec. 14, 2010
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Judith SeidmanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Ed Komarnickiexplains and defends the bill's purpose of suspending benefits for prisoners
- Judy Sgrostates agreement with the minister and desire to pass the bill speedily
- Mr. Michael SavageStates explicitly that Liberals supported the bill at committee and continue to support it.
- Brent RathgeberHe praises the bill as important for fairness, taxpayers and victims with no objections raised.
- Shawn Murphyagrees with the principle and states the bill as drafted should pass
- Dave MacKenzieStresses the need to focus on ending entitlements for prisoners as the bill intends.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 1 June 2010, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development introduced Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-31 amends the Old Age Security Act to preclude payment of Old Age Security (OAS) benefits to convicted criminals.while maintaining entitlement to benefits for, and avoiding a reduction in the amounts payable to, their spouse or common-law partner under this Act.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
68% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,029 words introduced, 1,774 passed). A committee amended it.
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with its core purpose intact: stopping OAS payments to prisoners while protecting benefits for their spouses. Minor wording changes allowed release notifications before or after the event and added a data-sharing clause with corrections officials.
- Allowed written notice of release to be given before or after the event rather than only after.
Before: “only after they notify the Minister in writing of their release.”
After: “only after they notify the Minister in writing before or after their release.”
- Added authority for Correctional Service of Canada to share personal information with the Minister for OAS administration.
After: “(b.1) the Commissioner of Corrections or staff members of the Correctional Service of Canada may make available to the Minister or a public officer of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development any personal information that was obtained in the administration of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, if the information is necessary for the administration of this Act;”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill uses exact sentence lengths, prison types, and one-month exclusions to cut off OAS payments during incarceration and restart them only after written notice of release. Ministerial discretion over investigations and what counts as necessary information introduces some subjective elements.
Open to argument
“if the Minister is satisfied that, at any time during the preceding month”
Turns on the Minister's personal satisfaction rather than an objective fact.
Clear-cut
“exclusive of the first month of that period”
Creates a bright-line cutoff that applies uniformly.“that exceeds 90 days and is to be served in a prison, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Prisons and Reformatories Act”
Cross-references a statutory definition and a numeric threshold.“but only after they notify the Minister in writing before or after their release”
Requires a specific written act as the sole trigger for resumption.
Discretion. The Minister may launch any investigation deemed necessary, decide whether information is necessary for disclosure, and issue or cancel directions about spousal status based on personal satisfaction.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as 'considers necessary' and 'is satisfied' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person can readily dispute application by showing the sentence was not served in a penitentiary, lasted 90 days or less, or that written notice of release was given.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.