Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for listening to my speech. That is a very good question.
Members of the Senate now realize that they are not elected. They realize that many Canadians feel that the House of Commons should have some primacy in the end result of things because the members of the House of Commons are elected.
As I said earlier, the senators very seldom stop a bill. They quite often amend it, make suggestions back to the House. Last week or the week before, we sent an amendment back and the Senate deferred to the House, and agreed to not go with the amendment it had suggested because the House did not want it.
The moral equivalency is if the senators are equally elected and then feel that they have the same moral authority as the House of Commons to stop all the bills, to start all the bills, or to deal with money bills, we could have a gridlock. Which house then would predominate? How are we going to get government bills through when they are stopped by a house that has equal moral authority or stopped on far more occasions than they are now?
That is the point I am trying to make. I think it is a substantive point that is worth debate in the House and worth debate in any discussion on Senate reform.