Bill C-17 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts in relation to courts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 31, 2006
- Debated in principleNov. 7, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 21, 2006
- Passed the second chamberDec. 12, 2006
- Became lawDec. 14, 2006
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
- Pierre Claude NolinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Larry Bagnellsays he will be supporting the bill while stressing judicial independence via commission
- Vic ToewsHe moves third reading and passage while calling the bill important legislation that implements the government's response to the commission report.
- Joseph A. DaySenate · SenatorRecommends supporting the bill despite concerns about technical amendments, to avoid delaying judicial compensation.
- David McGuintyHe praises remarks that illustrate the bill's merits and calls for debate focused on its details.
- Alan Tonksaffirms Parliament's role in setting salaries as a proper check without compromising judiciary
- Rob Moorecalls the proposal very reasonable and encourages support for the legislation
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
That Bill C-17 · 2006-11-07 · Passed
How it changed on the way
85% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (20,863 words introduced, 8,834 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core salary schedules and annual adjustment mechanism remained unchanged, but Parliament added a new spousal employment allowance and tightened wording on removal allowances for northern and federal judges. Minor refinements also appeared in pension eligibility and French-version text.
- Added a new pension provision for long-serving Supreme Court of Canada judges who resign.
After: “95(1)(E) (e) a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who has continued in judicial office on that Court for at least 10 years and resigns from office,”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets exact dollar salaries for judges and uses defined terms plus arithmetic ratios for allowances and adjustments. Some phrases still leave room for interpretation on expenses and regulatory details.
Open to argument
“reasonable travel and other expenses actually incurred”
Subjective standard of reasonableness invites argument over what counts.“the Governor in Council considers necessary”
Broad discretion tied to an official's opinion rather than an objective test.“prescribed by regulation”
Defers content to future rules without limits stated in the text.
Clear-cut
“the Chief Justice of Canada, $298,500;”
Fixed numerical amount leaves no interpretive gap.“the number of months in the period bears to twelve”
Objective arithmetic ratio replaces subjective judgment.“a non-accountable yearly allowance of $12,000”
Exact dollar figure and clear eligibility criteria.
Discretion. Governor in Council appoints assessors and sets their jurisdiction, while regulations may prescribe further details on annuity divisions and other matters.
Challenging the law itself. Text contains no broad prohibitions or vague offences that would readily engage Charter vagueness or overbreadth doctrines.
Disputing a charge under it. Core rules are numeric salary tables and formulas, so disputes would centre on arithmetic application rather than open-ended standards.
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.