Thank you.
I've listened with interest, but just to recap, you strongly believe in an elected Senate. And you don't agree there should be divisions in terms of a province, that each senator from a province would represent the entire province and not a certain part of the province.
You seem to indicate the Senate elections could become a problem for members of Parliament because the senator might become more important than the member of Parliament.
You seem to think we should make incremental changes to the Senate. The Americans have two senators for each state, and whether the state be California or Alaska, great differences in terms of democratic process. Each has two members in the Senate of the United States, yet I don't hear a lot of complaints from the United States in terms of that type of representation. A senator in the States is very important.
With candidates for your own province of Alberta--we'll say we need three senators from Alberta--should people wanting to become senators be endorsed by their political parties? Should there be three candidates from the Conservative Party and three candidates from some other party and so forth, or should they all run simply as people of the people? Is there a necessity for a definition of who the candidates are? Should the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition identify who his candidates are on the ballot as it goes to the people of Alberta?
Would you comment on that?