Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought forward by the government as a very simple and straightforward bill, a bill that we were advised was housekeeping and a kind of innocuous bill. However, the more we look at it and the more I hear about it from people trained in the legal field, the more concern I have about it.
Some of the concerns I have are of course justified by what the justice minister has said.
I would just like to quote what the justice minister told the Senate committee when he appeared before that committee earlier this year: "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 any organization or entity other than the Government of Canada or, in the case of expenses, by the government of a province.
"The amendments to the bill now before this committee have the full support of the Chief Justice of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council. They would permit this type of arrangement to be entered into by Madam Justice Arbour and, in exception cases, by other judges. The provision contained in the bill's proposed new section 56.1 would be a narrow exception to the general prohibition set out in section 55 of the Judges Act against the judge engaging in any occupation or business other than her or his judicial duty".
If that is accurate, if the purpose of section 56.1 would be a narrow exception to the general prohibition set out in section 55 of the existing Judges Act against any judge engaging in any occupation or business other than her or his judicial business, it seems very clear that this act should have been passed before Judge Arbour accepted the appointment to her position with the UN on August 1.
What is the situation today? This bill went before the Senate and it came back with an amendment that I have some concerns about and which I will be offering an amendment to.
The question is very clear and of great concern. Is Judge Arbour now in violation of section 55 of the Judges Act? If she is not, what is the purpose of this particular amendment, section 56.1, which would exempt her from section 55, which creates a prohibition for her or other judges to accept employment in any other form?
We now have an Ontario federal court justice who has now accepted a position with the UN, a prestigious position, there is no question. However, there are at least three learned individuals who have expressed concerns about Bill C-42. Professor Morton appeared before the committee. In another debate on another amendment to the bill, I spoke to the comments he made before the committee. Professor Russell and Professor Manfredi also expressed grave concerns about the legality of what is happening here.
I am not going to belabour the House at this time on this bill. I am simply going to move the following motion:
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: "a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, and that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendment 2, but would propose the following amendments:
Insert the words "for a period not to exceed three years" after the words "judicial duties" in section 56.1(1); and
Strike out all the lines in section 56.1(2) and substitute the following: "If Madam Justice Arbour elects to take leave pursuant to section 56.1(1) she may receive moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses, in connection with her services as Prosecutor, from the United Nations"; and
That the following words be added to section 56.1(3): "notwithstanding any prohibition against accepting any salary, fee, remuneration or other emolument described in section 57"; and
That the following words be added to section 56.1(5): "and that benefits payable under these sections will be paid or will commence to be paid at the expiration of the leave of absence without pay".