Bill C-31 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Judges Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 28, 2007
- Debated in principleJan. 28, 2008
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 14, 2008
- Passed the second chamberJune 15, 2008
- Became lawJune 18, 2008
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
- Consiglio Di NinoSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Judy SgroExplicitly indicates support for the bill to add judges.
- Wayne EasterSupports adding judges to maintain judicial independence.
- Joe Comartinexplains the bill's purpose and the need for more judges at the superior court level.
- Jim AbbottStates legislation will pass with support and urges moving forward.
- Shawn Murphystates explicitly that he will be supporting the bill and calls it a good move.
- Marcel ProulxBacks adding judges to clear backlog.
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
56% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (321 words introduced, 251 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with 56% of its introduced text removed or replaced, including the specific limit of thirty salaries for certain superior court judges. It received royal assent as chapter 26 with only the formal enactment and assent details added.
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill replaces one number with another in a single paragraph of the Judges Act. It sets a fixed limit of fifty judicial salaries with no subjective language or discretion.
Clear-cut
“fifty, in the case of judges appointed to superior courts in the provinces other than appeal courts”
Uses an exact number and a clear category of courts instead of open-ended wording.“Paragraph 24(3)(b) of the Judges Act is replaced by the following”
Targets one specific paragraph with a direct textual substitution.
Discretion. No power is left to ministers, officials or regulations; the limit is stated as a fixed number.
Challenging the law itself. The provision contains only a numerical cap and engages no obvious Charter rights or vagueness doctrines.
Disputing a charge under it. Whether the number of salaries paid exceeds fifty is a straightforward factual question with no interpretive room.
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.