Madam Speaker, I have a few comments to make about Bill C-42 which has come back from the other House.
I would like to make a few initial comments about the justice critic for the Bloc. Obviously he does not remember the path which this bill followed. The bill did not go before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Witnesses were not called. We were assured by the government that this was a housekeeping bill. The government said it was a rather innocuous bill which deserved rapid passage through the House and that is exactly what happened.
If we are to criticize those who have looked at it in a more exhaustive manner, then we should really look at what they are saying about the bill.
The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, who was the one who indicated to our caucus that this was just a housekeeping bill and a rather innocuous one, now says it is a very important bill.
When this motion on Bill C-42 came back, I examined the reasons for it. Why would it come back? It is a housekeeping bill. It is an innocuous bill. It was not an important bill.
I read what witnesses who appeared before the committee of the other House had to say about the bill, as well as some of the senators' comments. In the short time I have I will quote some of the expressions made by one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee in the other House with respect to Bill C-42.
I will quote from the testimony of Professor F. L. Morton. I do not have time to touch on all of his testimony but I would like to quote a portion of it: "The government is concerned, as well it should be, with the current status of Justice Arbour and the implications of her status for those responsible at justice. The government seems to hope that by passing Bill C-42 as quickly as possible it can retroactively legitimate apparent indiscretions by Justice Arbour and possibly others". That is a pretty serious statement. It was not made by someone from the other House, who may be detached from reality, as was suggested by the hon. member from the Bloc a few minutes ago; it was made by a professor of law.
Professor Morton went on to say: "For the past week I have tried to ascertain whether or not Justice Arbour is currently acting within the letter of Canadian law. On balance it seems that there is considerably more evidence to suggest that she is not".
Again, this is certainly something we were not aware of at the time that we examined the bill and the bill passed through this House. We were not aware of those opinions and the ramifications of this bill.
To go on to quote Professor Morton's discourse:
My understanding is that Justice Arbour left for The Hague on August 1 to undertake new duties as "Special Advisor" to the UN Commission on War Crimes; and that as of October 1-that is, more than two weeks ago-she officially took up her new responsibilities as Chief Prosecutor. Apparently the government has attempted to "authorize" Justice Arbour's actions through two orders in council as authorized by section 54 of the Judges Act. Does section 54 authorize leaves for the type of activity that Justice Arbour has already undertaken? Not according to the testimony of Mr. Rock before this committee on October 7.
Professor Morton quoted the justice minister, stating this:
There is no provision in the Judges Act for a federally appointed judge such as Madam Justice Arbour to be granted a leave of absence without pay to work for an international organization such as the UN, nor does the act permit the salary and expenses of a judge during a period of leave to be paid by an organization or entity other than the Government of Canada or, in the case of expenses, by the government of a province.