Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, in our sessional order adopted on June 4, the government included an order of reference for the Standing Committee on Rules Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to propose rule changes to formalize ministers’ Question Period. This means that the committee can produce a government report which, because of potential time allocation, is not subject to Senate groups’ effective veto on voting on non‑government initiatives. In 2019, that veto prevented votes on 15 House of Commons private members’ bills in a filibuster. Last Parliament, the Senate did not vote on another 15 such bills, including Bill C-232, which I sponsored at third reading, to establish Arab heritage month. That bill passed unanimously in the House and spent 22 months here.

Senator Gold, to establish a fair and transparent system for nongovernment bills in the Senate, would the government consider an order of reference to the Rules Committee on this subject?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you very much for your question. It would be up to honourable senators to consider an order of reference, as we all know. But in fact, I believe I am correct in saying that this issue is already within the purview of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to study; the committee could take it on of its own initiative if senators so wished. I would defer to the committee to decide whether to take this up, at least at this stage of the calendar.

Senator Klyne: As a supplementary question, but not hitting exactly on your comment, in last year’s debate on Senate rule changes, Senator Dalphond pointed out that section 36 of the Constitution Act 1867 requires majority voting in the Senate. He said that requirement implies that our Rules should not include vetoes. If senators have used constructive vetoes over the years with non-government bills, is that consistent with the spirit and letter of section 36 of the Constitution?

Senator Gold: You are tempting me with a constitutional debate, but with apologies to the chamber, I’m retiring from this place soon, so I’ll refrain from debating on this. However, it is an important issue for debate and consultation. Thank you for raising it.