The Hon. the Speaker: All those in the chamber who are opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in the chamber who are in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Senator Plett: If I could indulge the chamber for just one second, we have, I think, five speakers left. I know we have 25 minutes. I would like to, with leave, simply ask this chamber that we not allow any questions but we allow all five of these speakers to speak and have their 10 minutes. It takes us where it takes us. I think it would be wrong for us to drop the last two speakers for the sake of 20 minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those in favour of the motion, who are present in the chamber, please say “yea.”

Senator Gold: It’s an excellent question, and it does give me the opportunity to link that part of the process that we agreed to earlier today with the concerns that were expressed both in the chamber and outside the chamber.

I believe it was our colleague Senator Boisvenu who asked the minister why he didn’t just sort of fix it with the “notwithstanding” clause temporarily and then come back with a more comprehensive — I don’t want to put words in Senator Boisvenu’s mouth, but concerns have been expressed that what’s really needed here is a fresh look at the role of intoxication in criminal liability and greater attention on the rights of victims and the gendered nature of the crime.

This was a narrow decision creating a small gap. It’s like the leaky faucet in the third-floor bathroom; it’s not the whole house crumbling around us.

The purpose, I think, of giving our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee time to look at the broader area is precisely for senators to have the benefit — not necessarily exclusively, although I’m sure it will be a part of it — to look at this bill, if it passes, and also at the larger issue. They can then make recommendations and hear witnesses and contribute and do our part, which we do well, in trying to move the evolution of the law forward.

It’s also important to remember, colleagues, that it’s not simply that we “ask” the government to respond within 120 days. The motion is very clear that it refers to our Rules; the government has to respond within 120 days. If they don’t respond, the matter gets sent to a special committee under our Rules; it could even be considered a breach of the privilege of Parliament. It’s a serious business. I’m not aware of governments ever not honouring obligations of that kind.

We’re not talking about parliamentary reviews, about which I am often questioned, understandably, in Question Period. This is a serious attempt to allow for proper, sober study of a really important, complicated issue which, by virtue of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, needs proper time. I think we all agree, and I think Senator Plett said it better than me in an earlier discussion, that this just has to be fixed now.

Now, I believe it’s fixed properly. It is not the government’s view and it’s not my view that we’re sending it out there to fix all the flaws. Reasonable people can disagree. The debate will reveal the diversity of opinions; I respect that. If in fact the study in the Senate reveals that there’s a better way to fix this particular problem, it will be put forward. And I agree with Senator Lankin; I think this government would be responsive to attempts to improve it. It shares the objectives. It defended, as well as it could, as did LEAF and other intervenors, the current law.

Justice Kasirer, whom I respect as a jurist of enormous qualities, and the court, whom I respect equally, came to a different view. Indeed, many scholars for some decades have been saying, “We’re not so sure about section 33.1.” There have been questions about its constitutionality in the literature for a long time, but here we are. I hope that answers your question.