Bill C-26 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 6, 2016
- Debated in principleNov. 17, 2016
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 30, 2016
- Passed the second chamberDec. 14, 2016
- Became lawDec. 14, 2016
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime 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.
What it set out to do
On 6 October 2016, Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada Pension Plan to, among other things, • increase the amount of the retirement pension, as well as the survivor’s and disability pensions and the post-retirement benefit, subject to the amount of additional contributions made and the number of years over which those contributions are made; • increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% as of 2025; • provide for the making of additional contributions, beginning in 2019; • provide for the creation of the Additional Canada Pension Plan Account and the accounting of funds in relation to it; and • include the additional contributions and increased benefits in the financial review provisions of the Act and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in relation to those provisions. This Part also amends the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to provide for the transfer of funds between the Investment Board and the Additional Canada Pension Plan A…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
29% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (26,218 words introduced, 26,092 passed).
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill's core provisions on enhancing CPP benefits, raising maximum pensionable earnings, and adding contributions stayed the same. Only formatting fixes such as spacing, punctuation, and dates were altered between introduction and royal assent.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The text relies on dozens of defined terms that point to exact calculation sections and fixed percentages or dates, making most obligations mechanical. A few provisions still hand the Minister or Governor in Council power to reduce penalties or approve arrangements, leaving limited room for argument.
Open to argument
“the Minister may reduce the penalty to which the person is liable under this section or may remit the penalty in whole or in part”
Gives the Minister open-ended discretion without stated criteria.“if arrangements satisfactory to the Governor in Council have been made”
Subjective satisfaction test rather than an objective checklist.
Clear-cut
“an amount equal to 8.33% of their first additional monthly pensionable earnings”
Uses a fixed numerical percentage and defined earnings term.“the period commencing on January 1, 2019 or with the month in which the elder of the two spouses or of the two common-law partners reaches 18 years of age, whichever is later”
Anchors the period to a calendar date or an objective age milestone.“liable to a penalty of 5% of the part of the amount of the contributions required to be made by the person for the year”
States an exact percentage and ties it to unpaid contributions already defined elsewhere.
Discretion. The Minister may reduce or remit penalties and the Governor in Council must find arrangements satisfactory before certain payments or adjustments can occur.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions are technical calculations and administrative rules with no obvious vagueness that would engage section 7 Charter vagueness doctrine.
Disputing a charge under it. Liability turns on arithmetic using defined earnings and fixed rates, so disputes would centre on factual inputs rather than interpretive 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.