Bill C-36 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 27, 2006
- Debated in principleJan. 30, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 19, 2007
- Passed the second chamberApril 30, 2007
- Became lawMay 3, 2007
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
- W. David AngusSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Lynne YelichCalls the bill an important proposal and defends its changes for fiscal prudence and support to disabled people.
- Paul SzaboHe states that the parties are supportive of the amendments in the bill.
- Tom Lukiwskipresents the bill as fulfilling government commitments to improve seniors' retirement income security.
- Monte SolbergMoves the bill, thanks opposition parties for support, and states it enjoys broad support.
- Lui TemelkovskiNotes the bill makes changes and credits prior Liberal fixes to CPP viability.
- Christian OuelletCalls it important to implement the legislation for fair and equitable guaranteed income.
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
How it changed on the way
79% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (13,580 words introduced, 8,314 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core amendments on electronic documents, contribution rules, division of benefits, interest recovery, and administrative penalties but replaced incomplete or partial wording with fuller provisions on penalty rescission. Several French-language clauses and garnishment rules were also adjusted or completed during passage.
- French version of debt deduction subsection was replaced with updated wording.
Before: “(2.1) Le montant de la créance peut en outre être déduit, de la façon réglementaire, des sommes à payer au débiteur ou à sa succession en vertu de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi dont l'application incombe au ministre ou au titre de tout programme dont la gestion lui est confiée.”
After: “(2.1) Le montant de la créance peut en outre être déduit, de la façon réglementaire, des sommes à payer au débiteur ou à sa succession en vertu de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi dont l'application incombe au ministre ou au titre de tout programme dont la gestion lui est confiée.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact numerical rules and detailed lists with several subjective tests that turn on ministerial satisfaction. This creates clear black-letter requirements in places but leaves room for argument over discretion and hardship.
Open to argument
“on being satisfied that the penalty cannot be collected within the reasonably foresee”
Relies on an imprecise temporal judgment left to the Minister.“The purpose of the penalty is to promote compliance with this Act and not to punish”
States a purpose without an objective test for distinguishing compliance from punishment.
Clear-cut
“for at least 25 calendar years included either wholly or partly in the contributor's contributory period, of which at least three are in the last six calendar years”
Supplies fixed numbers and a clear counting rule.
Discretion. Ministers receive wide power to set electronic formats, signatures, interest rates, waiver conditions, and to rescind or reduce penalties on broad grounds including new facts or undue hardship.
Challenging the law itself. The text contains no obvious overbreadth targeting Charter-protected expression or liberty interests, and the vagueness doctrine would face the administrative context and defined regulation-making powers.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing a penalty could dispute the Minister’s factual findings on hardship or foreseeability, but the detailed contribution-year counts and time limits are straightforward to apply.
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.