The NDP website neglects to state that the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators requires senators to declare any conflict of interest in matters for ourselves or family members before we can participate in a debate on the matter. The NDP website also neglects to mention that the code allows senators to abstain but not to vote on such matters. Had they included these and other sections of the code, it would be clear that their assertion is wrong.

The NDP website claims that the Senate is outdated, ineffective and elitist, but just because the NDP say it is so does not mean it is true. Where is the evidence that this is true? Where are the facts, studies, research or reports that support the NDP assertions? Perhaps there is some truth to their assertions, but how can one find out how much truth is in their claims when the NDP website does not post any references or links to scholarly documents supporting their opinion? Honourable senators, how can anyone believe them when the information on the Senate and individual senators is so obviously opinionated, poorly presented, unsubstantiated, disrespectful and, even worse, sometimes outright wrong.

I am embarrassed to think that Mr. Layton and members of the NDP would post such information — information that is wrong and lacking in intellectual breadth and depth. A student handing in this type of information as a term paper would receive a failing grade.

Honourable senators, in my opinion, the information about the Senate and individual senators posted on the NDP website should be relegated to the "Hall of Shame" because it is shameful to pretend their subjective opinions are the same as objective evaluations of a substantial body of facts.

To conclude, honourable senators, if I had a corporate sponsor, I would be glad to join the 11 senators depicted on the NDP website. We could be the dirty dozen of the Senate who roll up our sleeves and get dirty doing our work. The NDP of Canada, however, through their website, have gotten dirty by slinging mud at fellow parliamentarians.