Bill C-12 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another Act in consequence
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 21, 2001
- Debated in principleMarch 26, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 6, 2001
- Passed the second chamberMay 28, 2001
- Became lawJune 13, 2001
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
89% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (16,792 words introduced, 12,702 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill received royal assent on 14 June 2001 with no changes to its salary schedules or other provisions. Only the formal assent notation was added to the text.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
Salary formulas and annuity definitions rely on fixed dollar figures, explicit ratios to a base salary, and objective age or timing triggers that leave little room for argument. In contrast, repeated clauses let decision-makers do whatever they consider appropriate or necessary, creating open-ended discretion.
Open to argument
“any other matter that the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this section.”
The clause delegates unlimited power to add rules based on the Governor in Council's own view of necessity.
Clear-cut
“for the period beginning April 1, 2000 and ending March 31, 2001, $254,500,”
A concrete dollar amount tied to a fixed calendar period removes interpretive dispute.
Discretion. The Governor in Council may add any further rules it views as necessary and administrators may take any steps they deem appropriate, leaving substantial latitude outside the fixed salary tables.
Challenging the law itself. The text contains no obvious vagueness that would engage section 7 Charter vagueness doctrine or overbreadth claims.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations are expressed as arithmetic ratios or fixed dollar entitlements that can be verified by simple calculation.
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.