labradore

"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Walter Noel, Giant of Federalism

Walter Noel took out his crayons and wrote the following brilliant analysis for yesterday's edition of the St. John's Telegram:
The country would cease to exist without equalization. Ontario and Quebec would be the biggest losers. The other provinces would be better off financially as independent countries or American states. As Americans, citizens of the smaller provinces would also have more say in national affairs through effective Senate representation.
A few quick questions for Walter as he continues his in-depth study of the costs and benefits of being a province of Canada:

1) Which fraction is bigger, 6/105 or 2/102? Those are the fractional shares of Newfoundland and Labrador's representation in the Senate of Canada, and in the United States Senate as a hypothetical U.S. state, respectively.

2) Relatedly, which fraction is bigger, 508,548/32,777,304, 7/308, or 1/435? The first is NL's share of the Canadian population, about 1.6%. The second, about 2.2%, is its share of the Canadian House of Commons. The third is what, as a hypothetical U.S. state, NL would enjoy as representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Canadian Parliamentary representation formula is much more generous to small provinces than the American one is to U.S. states.

3) How large is the equalization payment that NL would receive as a U.S. state? (Hint: the figure starts and ends with the digit 0)

4) How large are the royalties collected by the U.S. federal government from offshore, and even onshore oil, gas, and other mineral developments? Are they larger than the comparable ones collected by the Canadian federal government? (Hint: the Canadian figure is effectively the same as the U.S. equalization figure; the American figure is a non-zero amount.)

6 Comments:

At 5:11 PM, April 16, 2007 , Blogger campmaster J said...

While I agree with you generally, WJM, I think Noel has one valid point. American and Canadian Senators are not really comparable positions due to the constitutionally restricted powers of the Canadian upper house.

2/100 US Senators is more powerful and influential than 6/105 Canadian Senators.

 
At 6:14 PM, April 16, 2007 , Blogger WJM said...

Canadian Senators are not really comparable positions due to the constitutionally restricted powers of the Canadian upper house.

"Constitutionally restricted" how?

The only constitutional restriction on the Canadian Senate is that it can't originate "money bills". The US Senate has the same restriction as against the House of Representatives.

 
At 8:04 PM, April 16, 2007 , Blogger Mark said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 8:07 PM, April 16, 2007 , Blogger Mark said...

Even better. He claims that the "smaller have not provinces" gain by having non-renewables removed from the calculation of fisal capacity. I guess he has never heard of PEI, New Brinswick or Manitoba... but why would he have he's only former intergovernmental affairs minister.

Wow.

Most Newfoundlanders live on an island, Some, apparently, live in a vacuum

 
At 1:01 PM, April 19, 2007 , Blogger campmaster J said...

The only constitutional restriction on the Canadian Senate is that it can't originate "money bills". The US Senate has the same restriction as against the House of Representatives.

I was not aware of that, or I had forgotten it. It's been a rather long time since I studied the US Constitution.

 
At 11:47 PM, April 19, 2007 , Blogger WJM said...

Eee.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home