Right, Mr. Speaker.
They can practice what they preach, or they can just keep preaching. Either way, they are preaching from an empty book.
If we look at this argument about the Senate, again I go back to the fact that there was never a road map. There was never a way of getting rid of the Senate. There was a promise that abolishing the Senate would be taken care of.
As I mentioned earlier, one idea was brought up, and it was the first time I had heard of it. The Supreme Court, in its decision, said that there is a fundamental way to do it so that the federation is involved in the decision. The one thing that has to be done is that all the provinces have to agree to get rid of the Senate. Instead, what we got was that they could not do it, and therefore we should just give up on the argument. Let us just not bother.
What the New Democrat members are going to do today is vote to deny money going to Senate. Is it just me, or is that the first time that has ever been said in this House? I am just trying to illustrate the point here.
The New Democrats can lash out in anger in all different directions, madly off in all directions, I might add, but at the end of the day, if it is not feasible, it has fed into an untruth. If they want to have a conversation about the Senate, why do they start with an argument or a campaign or illustrate the most nefarious factor of an organization?
The New Democrats complained during many of the immigration bills brought in over the past little while. They said that what the Conservatives were doing was basing their theory, their logic, and their legislation on a small minority of bad things that happened. Is that not what the New Democrats are doing here with the Senate?
Let us assume for a moment that the Liberals want to either elect the Senate or get rid of the Senate. Let us assume that for a moment. At least we are starting with a conversation about how to change it to get the most nefarious factor, the lowest common denominator in the Senate, out.
However, we did not ignore the family. We did not ignore the people who built this nation, not just this House but 10 legislatures across this country that played a fundamental role in building this country, with provincial jurisdiction for health care, education, and other areas that are so vitally important. It is as if they did not exist altogether.
If that is the argument about the fundamental existence of the Senate, then surely there has to be room for a mature conversation about how we are doing it.
The Prime Minister tried to get around the fundamental elements, which were illustrated in the Supreme Court decision, of how to have an elected Senate. At least there was some element of trying to do something the Conservatives thought might fly. It did not work.
Now what we need to do is have a discussion with the provinces, which is fundamentally lacking in this House, about how we deal with the question of the Senate.