About the time I matured enough to dismiss errant patriotism, I realized that Canada’s parliamentary system is a legislatively imbalanced pig. Not being naive enough to expect a shift to a congressional system, I could at least desperately hope that Canada’s upper house, the Senate, could be reformed into a meaningful body that contributes and—dare I say it—expedites the law making process.

But Dalton McGuinty, Ontario’s Premier, might be right. The senate should not even exist:

“My preference is that we eliminate the Senate,” Dalton McGuinty said Thursday night in Toronto after attending an Ontario Liberal party event.

“We’re 40 per cent of the country by way of population and at least 40 per cent by way of contribution to the GDP,” McGuinty said.

“But we only have 22 per cent of the Senate seats.”

McGuinty pointed out that Ontario currently has only 24 members in the 105-seat Senate. — CBC

McGuinty wants to maintain Ontario’s political preeminence, but his idea is a reasonable position for us disaffected westerners. Why? Because no Canadian Senate, past, present or future, will be configured in a manner that will grant an equal voice to any province besides Ontario or Quebec. Even an elected Senate will not have any ability to prevent provinces from strong arming federal policies to their favour. Only an equal senate, with the same number of senators from each province, will bring any positive new dimensions to Canada’s political equation.

Realistically though, is there any hope of equal senate representation in a country that can usually confirm a newly elected government via polls from just two key provinces? Merely electing senators will just lead to another house divided along geographic lines and even less meat and potatoes legislation getting passed. What would be the point?

The senate is an ineffective, vestigial body that can never be sincerely reformed into a distinct law making institution. Simply delete the impotent and sleepy institution that Social Studies teachers are forced to tell us “provides a sober, second look at federal policy.” The only downside is that students will likely be forced to learn even more about the bloody Coureur des bois.