Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Gold, in the question and answer document you sent to all senators late last night on Bill C-28, the government pointed out that, in the absence of a preamble, the courts will lean on “the parliamentary record” to learn the purpose of the bill. I would take that one step further to say that parliamentary proceedings have also been used as courts weigh any challenges to a law.

Senator Gold, do you not then feel it would be prudent to ensure that we have someone on the record other than the government to assure us that this bill will properly address the very narrow gap left by the Supreme Court of Canada decision and does not, in fact, create more loopholes?

Senator Patterson: It’s about hearing —

Senator Patterson: Senator Gold, let me get a little more particular on my concern. We have heard that groups such as the National Association of Women and the Law felt they were not meaningfully consulted on Bill C-28. In fact, the national association’s meeting with justice officials occurred on a Tuesday and the bill was tabled that Friday. The association has now asked all senators for the opportunity to state their case. They complain that the process is rushed. However, it is possible, according to the motion you have given notice of today, that we will receive the bill either later tonight or tomorrow and be pushed into considering the bill at all stages in a single day without hearing — in this place or in the other place — from any women’s organizations, not to mention the wider legal community.

Senator Gold — and I ask this as, I suppose, yet another man speaking on this issue — is your government content to entirely exclude the voices of women’s organizations to provide their considered comments now that we know what’s proposed in the text of the bill? Is your government, which prides itself on being feminist, really content to exclude women and women’s organizations from commenting on this bill when they are telling us they have identified significant flaws in the legislation?