Bill C-25 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act
An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 17, 2011
- Debated in principleFeb. 1, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 12, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 25, 2012
- Became lawJune 27, 2012
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
- David TkachukSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Joe PrestonSpeaks positively about the bill helping small businesses and retirement security.
- Joy SmithDefends the government's record and approach to retirement security without criticism.
- Pierre PoilievreDefends the government's approach to retirement security in the context of this bill.
- Deepak Obhraipraises the bill as very well accepted and a sound plan after broad consultations
- Mark AdlerExplicitly states rising to speak in favour of Bill C-25.
- Mike Wallacecalls bill important after extensive pension study
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 17 November 2011, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts (Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-25 provides a legal framework for the establishment and administration of pooled registered pension plans that will be accessible to employees and self-employed persons and that will pool the funds in members’ accounts to achieve lower costs in relation to investment management and plan administration. Provincial enabling legislation will need to be introduced for the framework to become fully operational.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2012-01-31 · Passed
How it changed on the way
60% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (14,423 words introduced, 13,188 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core legal framework for pooled registered pension plans stayed intact from introduction to royal assent. A few provisions on the Superintendent's information powers and approvals were expanded.
- Expanded the list of bodies that may receive disclosed information.
Before: “(b) disclose information collected under paragraph (a) or any of subsection 12(2) and sections 13 and 58 to any government agency or regula”
After: “(b) disclose information collected under paragraph (a) or any of subsection 12(2) and sections 13 and 58 to any government agency or regulatory body;”
- Added authority for the Superintendent to attach terms and conditions to approvals.
After: “(3) Any approval, authorization, consent or permission of the Superintendent given under this Act may be subject to terms and conditions.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies many exact definitions and fixed numbers but repeatedly uses subjective phrases and broad regulatory powers. This mix creates clear rules in some areas while leaving wide room for argument in others.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the Superintendent”
This subjective standard appears multiple times and lets one official decide what counts as unsafe practices or non-compliance.“a reasonably prudent person would exercise”
The prudent-person test is an objective-sounding but open-ended standard that invites debate over what conduct meets it.“appropriate for retirement savings”
The word 'appropriate' is undefined and depends on individual judgment rather than a fixed test.“might be prejudicial to the interests of the members”
This forward-looking and value-laden phrase gives the Superintendent wide latitude to shorten procedural rights.
Clear-cut
“having so cohabited for a period of at least one year”
A clear numerical threshold removes ambiguity about who qualifies as a common-law partner.“fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months”
Exact maximum penalties leave no doubt about the upper limit of punishment.“not more than 15 days”
A fixed short duration limits how long an ex-parte direction can operate.
Discretion. The Superintendent may issue directions based on his or her opinion, the Minister may choose any means of publication he or she considers appropriate, and most operational details are left to regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed definitions and procedural safeguards make a successful vagueness or overbreadth claim under s. 7 of the Charter difficult.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can argue that the Superintendent's opinion was unreasonable or that conduct met the prudent-person standard, but the due-diligence defence and fixed penalties limit the scope of such disputes.
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.