Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will Senator Seidman take another question?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Moodie, thank you for your advocacy on this bill. This piece of legislation has been a national aspiration for decades. It is now tantalizingly within our reach, and I commend you and other colleagues for bringing it here. However, we also have to get it right. I think we all agree with that.

You talked about how the guiding principles in clause 7 give you sufficient comfort. Senator Cormier wants to ensure that there is no legal ambiguity in clauses 7 and 8. These are two different clauses, and there is some confusion surrounding them. I noticed that you invoked the Canada Health Act, which is likely the mother of all confusing acts, and the bickering around the Canada Health Act does not give me a great deal of comfort.

I think about Bill C-48 last week or the week before. We approved an amendment and it was sent over to the House of Commons. I understand it has now come back. They did that quite quickly. Let’s say this amendment passes. My question to you is this: Why should we worry that if we make this improvement, it will somehow sink the entire armada?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold, for your comments, and in particular the preamble to your comments about identity. I appreciate them; they were authentic and sincere.

I’m going to invoke the law professor in you — rusty or not — by reading from the witness testimony of Professor Larocque, who had a great deal to say about clause 8. He said this:

. . . when Parliament is silent in one part of the law but explicit in other parts of the law, courts are entitled to infer from that that it was an intentional silence.

He continued, saying:

By not mentioning official language minority communities in clause 8, we essentially allow a court to eventually conclude that this was the legislator’s intention, since specific mentions are included elsewhere in the bill, but it is silent . . .

— in the founding clause.

I wonder how the law professor in you would rebut that.