Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the motion proposed by my friend the Honourable Senator Terry Mercer. Should the Senate of Canada elect our Speaker?

Debate about reforming the upper chamber is as old as our nation itself. Indeed, this institution was essential in arriving at a compromise, bringing the diverse nations of francophones and anglophones together to form this great country. The hand- wringing over what to do about the Senate began almost immediately. Here we are, a century and a half later, still wringing our hands.

In light of some of the more recent events that have taken place here in the Senate, I think I can safely say we all recognize the need to do some things differently; however, I'm not sure we all agree on what those things are and how those changes should be made. One must remember that the Canadian political system, in effect, is based on precedent and convention, reflecting more than two centuries of compromise and understanding. When considering making changes, we must ask ourselves what problem we are seeking to solve and what the long-term ramifications will be.

It is now, with some of our critics at their loudest, that we must exercise great restraint not to tinker with things just to quiet the frenzied calls for reform and, in turn, end up finding ourselves with an institution that is neither recognizable nor able to function. It is crucial that we continue to focus our efforts on implementing real, meaningful change that will clearly demonstrate to Canadians on a daily basis our commitment to efficiency, transparency, accountability and, above all else, the guiding principle of respect for taxpayers, just as we did last week with the adoption of the new disclosure model.

While I commend my colleague's desire for change, I worry that in the face of enormous criticism, we are being too quick to cast off traditions and conventions that have served, and continue to serve, this institution and this country so well for so long.

The forefathers of Confederation gave great consideration and spent enormous effort in adopting a British parliamentary system and then modifying it into our current hybrid model. Based primarily on the Westminster tradition, while adjusted to meet the needs of Canada's reality, our system has been the cornerstone of our success for nearly 150 years.

My fellow colleagues, rules and traditions in our parliamentary democracy are fundamental to its functioning. Adopting language that is consistent with these rules and then overturning them without due process is a breach of the Constitution and the Parliament Act. This motion, proposing that the Senate of Canada elect its Speaker, contravenes the Constitution and, in essence, the actual role of our Speaker as it was designed.

The founders of our nation created an unelected Senate expressly and with good reason. Like our cousins in Great Britain, the role of the upper chamber was not to duplicate the role of the House of Commons. In essence, the Senate was specifically conceived to serve as an independent chamber of sober second thought, away from the pressure cooker of electoral politics, to represent regional and provincial interests while providing an essential contribution through debate using logic and reason to enhance the work of the chamber of public will.

I must underscore that our role requires discipline, intellectual rigour and a commitment to ensuring we remain independent from the pressure of public opinion polls, while elevating the level of debate based strictly upon reason and logic. With that said, electing a Speaker in an appointed legislative body has no logical basis, and without a doubt I believe that following the model from the House of Commons where the Speaker is elected would only serve as an affront to this chamber's history and constitutional obligations.

Honourable senators, I must reiterate: Our chamber was designed not to function like the elected body for specific reasons, not the least of which, as you can imagine, is the legislative deadlock we would be thrown into if we woke up tomorrow and sitting here were 105 senators who had been elected but were not reflective of the government of the day.

The Senate's role is not to thwart the will of the people as represented by members of the House of Commons. However, that is, indeed, what would happen more times than not if the Senate became a second chamber elected from the popular will. If being elected is what determines credibility and accountability, why stop at the Senate? Why not the Supreme Court? Why don't we also elect Supreme Court justices? Why not the Governor General? Colleagues, where will it end?

As we are all aware, the debate about transforming the Senate into an elected body has already stumbled into the very real political trauma that can dangerously occur when it comes to matters of constitutional change. Indeed, when one considers the constitutional crisis of the previous century, there is little appetite among Canadians to undermine the relative political tranquility we have established.

Colleagues, we must learn from the failings of Prime Minister Harper when considering Senate reform and, by extension, we are obligated to carefully consider the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding this issue. It is only through the process of concrete changes to the Parliament Act and amending the Constitution that we can make modifications to an independent house of Parliament such as the Senate.

We currently find ourselves navigating through murky waters, as we are forced to accommodate the agenda of the governing party from the other place. However, I caution against muddying the waters even further by attempting to fix something that is not broken merely to suit an agenda or because the opportunity presents itself — even worse, doing so without proper consideration of the traditions and laws of this country governing such changes, including the act and the Constitution.

My fellow senators, the position of the Speaker of the Senate of Canada was not designed to function at all like the Speaker of the House of Commons. As my predecessors and mentors, Speakers Kinsella and Nolin, stressed to me, "The Speaker in this chamber is a barometer for consensus" — very different than the Speaker of the House of Commons. Furthermore, the Speaker is responsible for decorum, but unlike the Speaker in the elected chamber, our Speaker has the right to participate in the debate and the right to register his or her vote from the chair.

Dear colleagues, I must also strongly emphasize a fact you are all aware of: the importance of parliamentary protocol in our system of government. In order of priority, the Canadian parliamentary protocol structure includes the following: First in line is the Governor General; second, the Prime Minister; third, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada; and, fourth, our very own Speaker of the Senate. I remind everyone of a critical fact, as designed by our forefathers, that the top four individuals in our structure of parliamentary protocol have one thing in common: They are all appointed and not elected.

In our Constitution, the Speaker represents our executive branch while serving his or her role as Speaker in this chair. However, we must also remember that the role of the Speaker does not begin and end in this chamber; indeed, the role of the Speaker of the Senate extends beyond this chamber and encompasses diplomatic and official duties as a representative of the government of the day. This critical aspect may be undermined severely should we attempt to implement a system requiring the election of the Speaker.

This last fact is clearly stipulated in our Constitution, which defines the dignity and importance of the office of the Speaker. Again, this fact is acknowledged according to the order of precedence that I just described.

Furthermore, our Constitution requires that the Governor General, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and all senators are all appointed on the final advice of the Prime Minister. As a result, we all derive our legitimacy from the Constitution and the Prime Minister, who is the chosen leader of the political party that garners a majority of support in the House of Commons.

Colleagues, I know that to some of you here today the words "political parties" is a dreaded concept, but I have news for you: In our parliamentary democratic system, it is those parties who engage Canadians in political discourse and drive policy debate, who nominate candidates to stand in elections for the House of Commons, and who ultimately choose among their members the candidates who serve as prime ministers. There is no shame in political affiliation, just as there is no shame in being appointed, whether as a senator or as Speaker of the Senate of Canada.

Dear senators, this motion calls into question our Constitution, laws and traditions and, effectively, much more than that. It calls into question the Prime Minister's constitutional obligation and, just as importantly, his judgment. If any prime minister is sound enough to appoint individual senators, then surely we must all agree that he or she is sound enough to appoint a Senate Speaker.

Again, while I commend my colleague Senator Mercer in his desire for change, I implore each and every of us to not lose sight of what that change should be if we are truly going to earn back the trust and confidence of the Canadian people.

We must continue to enact measures that guarantee real, tangible and meaningful change rather than just cosmetic strategies. This is what Canadians are demanding of us, and this is what Canadians deserve. We must, first and foremost, clearly demonstrate to Canadians our commitment to efficiency, transparency and accountability, and not structural changes that will do nothing to build a sense of trust.

My fellow senators, above all else we must focus upon fulfilling our role as protectors of the Constitution while carrying out our responsibilities in engaging in political discourse and providing added value to the legislative process here in Canada, and that's a process that Canadians expect and deserve.

Thank you very much.