Mr. Speaker, I have listened with fascination to my hon. colleague. He presents a very interesting point.
The point he made, though, that the Senate is unreformed as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, is correct. The question is: Is it unreformable? I am afraid he might have missed the point of the issue of finances tonight. We, in the democratically elected House of Commons, have brought forward numerous mechanisms to ensure accountability to the taxpayers of this country, such as spending limits, limits on flights, accountability, conflict of interest rules, which the Senate decides it is above. It writes its own rules. It worked under the gentleman's code, which we see has resulted in numerous police investigations, and we do not know the end of it.
Regardless of the larger constitutional question we face with the Senate, the fact is that it does not seem to believe it is financially accountable to the Canadian people. Senators give themselves credit cards to travel with, to make purchases and then argue about it later. It has created a culture not just of entitlement but, I would argue, of corruption that does not exist in the House of Commons because we are accountable to the Canadian people.
Would he not agree that how we hold the Senate to financial accountability is a discussion that needs to happen here in the democratically elected House? Would he not agree that, if the Senate is going to continue as this anachronism in the 21st century, there should at least be some comparable measures or standards, even if they are similar to what the elected House has, in terms of conflict of interest rules, spending rules, and justification of spending, it would be an important first step and it is within the mandate of this House?