Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I am hearing about what the Senate's purpose was and why it was created. The whole reason it exists is because of all of these archaic notions of lords and property owners and things that are far outdated. There is a reason why every time I have spoken in this House on issues concerning the Senate I have referred to it as institutional arthritis, because that is essentially what the Senate is at this point.
My colleague talked about the NDP wanting to disable part of the legislative branch and to disable part of Parliament. In that vein, does the member feel that it is appropriate that at the end of the day, the Senate is disabling elected members of Parliament in passing legislation, as it did on Jack Layton's bill on climate change, for example? There are plenty of great examples in this place. We talk about sober second thought all the time, but at the end of the day, there does not seem to be much thought in there.
Does the member feel that it is appropriate for these folks to be disabling the work that we, as duly elected members of Parliament, are doing in this place?