Mr. Speaker, I am glad you have pointed out that we do not get into motives, because the member for North Vancouver is perfectly correct when he quoted the Minister of Justice. Perhaps that was imputing motives but we will let that go by because, as you know, I am not that kind of person.
However, the point is while the accusations may have been made in this House, the reason I have objected to this particular bill and to the amendments that have come back from the other House has nothing to do with being meanspirited or being motivated by anything other than upholding the independence and integrity of the judicial system and the bench.
We have, unfortunately, a situation where an individual exception to the law has been granted to one particular judge. I have argued in the House that the particular exception should be introduced by way of a private bill rather than a public bill. I feel the Minister of Justice has used the rules of this House in such a way that we have less scrutiny in this particular private business than more scrutiny on this particular piece of private business.
There was a quote by a previous speaker, which I cannot give off the top of my head, but he said that the reason we have private bills in this House is to ensure that they receive more vigorous scrutiny because they are exceptions to the rules than what public bills receive because they are a matter of public policy. Private business should require even more scrutiny.
This exemption to the act for one particular person went through here as a public bill, went over to the other House and has been returned with amendments from the other House. It is now back here as a private bill, in essence as a hybrid public-private bill, which is disallowed by the rules of this House. We have even seen the rules of this House being used to the advantage of the Minister of Justice rather than to the advantage of all members of this House so that we can provide even more vigorous scrutiny to the exemption being granted.
As far as the impartiality of the bench, I take great exception to the way it is being used and abused. We now have a member of our bench who is supposed to be impartial. I have not question whatsoever about her integrity, but she is now going to be a prosecutor and is no longer sitting in judgment. She is taking sides.
Can one imagine the hypocrisy of a situation where the United Nations came back to Canada and reached into our bench and said it would like to have this judge on the defence? We have two members of the bench from Canada, one prosecuting and one defending war criminals in The Hague. How ludicrous, how partial and how totally unindependent that would be. Yet half of that transaction is what is being contemplated, approved and passed in this House.
If it is ludicrous to have a member of the defence and prosecution working on these cases in the United Nations then surely it is just as ludicrous to have one member of the bench on the prosecutor's side.
I will also come back to the last point the member made. We are dealing with crimes against humanity. We are dealing with horrific crimes that were committed in Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In the news today are the hundreds of thousands of people who are starving and the hundreds who are being slaughtered, massacred every day. These are crimes of great human tragedy no matter where they happen in the world.
Is a member of the Canadian bench the only person in the world who can act as a prosecutor? Is that the only person who could be found to uphold justice in the world, who can act as a prosecutor against these crimes? I ask that question. I do not in any way take away from the seriousness of these crimes and the fact that the criminals must be prosecuted. However, I seriously do question if she is the only person who could be found to do the job. That is the point I wanted to make.
Finally, I presume she will return to the bench. Remember she and she alone has been granted special dispensation by the Government of Canada. She has to decide on a case that involves the Government of Canada against someone else.
The defence counsel could will ask: "Madam Justice Louise Arbour, how can you be independent here when you are deciding between the Government of Canada as the defendant and someone else and you have been granted special dispensation by the government?" The appearance of impartiality, of integrity, of independence goes right out the window. That is an important principle which is being seriously undermined and eroded, aided and abetted by the Minister of Justice.
I find that repulsive and quite odious. I certainly hope the Minister of Justice will see the sense of the whole thing and withdraw this concurrence.