Bill C-3 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 3, 2002
- Debated in principleOct. 29, 2002
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 25, 2003
- Passed the second chamberMarch 31, 2003
- Became lawApril 3, 2003
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
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.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
71% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (6,210 words introduced, 3,652 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill gained its assent date and several incomplete provisions were finished or expanded during passage. Core rules on transfers, securities, and board duties stayed in place but with added detail on redemptions.
- Added a new subsection on how to calculate present value for redemptions.
After: “Calculation of present value (7) For the purposes of subparagraph (6)(b)(iii), the present value shall be calcu- lated by”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many defined terms, fixed dates, day counts and market-value calculations that make core mechanics clear. Ministerial discretion over amounts, agreements and what counts as necessary introduces subjective elements that can spark argument.
Open to argument
“any amount necessary to offset amounts charged”
Uses an open-ended necessity test rather than a fixed formula.“any amount that the Minister considers necessary”
Ties the amount to the Minister's subjective opinion.“on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Minis”
Leaves the content of agreements to ministerial satisfaction without objective criteria.
Clear-cut
“at least 30 days before the date of maturity”
Supplies a clear, objective deadline.“within 45 days after the end of the three-month period”
Fixes exact reporting timelines.“the present value of the remaining instalments of principal being redeemed and interest on that principal”
States a specific, calculable redemption amount.
Discretion. Ministers of Finance and Human Resources Development retain wide latitude to set amounts, enter administration agreements on any satisfactory terms, determine market rates, and decide when transfers occur.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions are financial and administrative; they engage no obvious Charter rights and the vagueness is not so broad as to support a successful vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. A person or province could dispute whether an amount was truly 'necessary' or whether an agreement term was 'satisfactory,' but the many numeric rules and defined terms limit the scope of such arguments.
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.