First, a disclaimer: I do not share Kevin Page's economic or social policy analyses; we come from different perspectives, which is fine. Nor do I agree with his implied suggestion that the democratic problems he is describing are products of a immediate era: they have been with us, and worsening, for some forty years, through successive administrations of different party stripes. Those who simply lay them at the feet of party X or leader Y are extending the partisan gamesmanship which is at least partially responsible for allowing this to develop. And lastly, I do not at all agree with his idea of yet another Royal Commission (spare us!).Now, the agreement: I think Mr. Page is right in saying that our democratic institutions, theories, values and practices are in poor shape. And getting worse, not better.I agree with Mr. Page's prescription that "together we must get to the bottom of how to fix it" and that we need "an open conversation about the state of our institutions and what must be done to equip them to meet the challenges ahead".And i think he is dead right regarding the difficulty for "those living within a particular paradigm to see beyond what they know and the system in which they have thrived in order to design a new one."Friends will recognize (and I am chagrined to acknowledge) that I have held these concerns for over thirty years. Encouragingly, many Canadians - and even a great many who are active in day-to-day politics, across party lines - also share these concerns. For instance, Michael Chong's initiatives include promising rays of sunlight.As we can see once again in today's Senate scandal and Senate reform discussion, people diagnose the specific problems of democratic health somewhat differently from one another, and therefore point towards different prescriptions. Some people primarily view the problem as one of a broken relationship between our executive and legislative branches. Some point to the democratically-illegitimate Senate. Some see the first-past-the-post electoral system as dysfunctional, and especially ineffective for a country as diverse as Canada. Some focus upon the lack of transparency which has long been deeply ingrained in Canadian governance. And most lament the shallow meanness of competitive partisan tactics and speech.I do not believe the problem is any one of these things. I believe it is all five.To excerpt from Mr. Page's article: "The House of Commons has lost its power of the purse. Members of Parliament are forced to vote on appropriations without the information they need. The public service has become dangerously good at avoiding transparency and accountability.... let's get our political leaders to commit to an open conversation about the state of our institutions and what must be done to equip them to meet the challenges ahead. This will require a level of transparency that is foreign to our government, as well as the kind of frank discussion that has become all too rare in our politics.Repairing institutions is a famously difficult project. It depends on those living within a particular paradigm to see beyond what they know and the system in which they have thrived in order to design a new one."