Madam Speaker, to carry on with the testimony of Professor Morton:
It would appear that Justice Arbour agreed to the appointment before it had been approved by the Minister of Justice (or any other officials), thereby forcing the minister to react to a fait accompli. Furthermore it then appears that the minister, rather than recommending to Justice Arbour that she postpone her new activities pending necessary amendments to the Judges Act, sought to temporarily legitimate her actions by an order in council; and then (because the order in council is conceded to be insufficient) sought to retroactively legitimate J. Arbour's new employment with general amendments to the Judges Act, Bill C-42, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament.
I will conclude my quoting from the testimony of Professor Morton with this passage:
No doubt some will say that this is nit-picking. My response is simple. If the justice minister and appeal court judges cannot be expected to comply with the letter of the law, then who can? Indeed within the last month the justice minister himself pronounced on the meaning and importance of the rule of law. When Mr. Rock referred the issue of Quebec's so-called "right of secession" from Canada to the Supreme Court he declared that:
The rule of law "is a living principle that is fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance it means that everyone in our society, including ministers of government, premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike, is governed
by the same law of the land. We are all bound by the Constitution, by the Criminal Code, by acts of Parliament and the legislatures".
These are some observations. I only have time to refer to Professor Morton's concerns about Bill C-42 but there are others, including former Professor Peter Russell, who have expressed concerns about aspects of the bill. I feel that it is the duty of members of this House to closely examine these concerns.
I conclude by referring to the amendment the hon. member for St. Albert made and which I seconded. I am not completely satisfied with that and I offer an amendment to the amendment which reads: "That the amendment be amended by adding "and that this House respectfully request that Their Honours respond to this message no later than June 19, 1997".
[Translation]