Are the feds really bigger than the provinces?

Despite provincial control of much of the social welfare structure and onshore natural resource development many people in Canada, including many political scientists, tend to think of provinces as relatively insignificant. Last night I was trying to come up with a way of demonstrating the importance of provincial politics in Canada.   Eventually I settled on conducting a quick comparison of the total spending as outlined in the 2012-2013 Newfoundland and Labrador and federal government estimates.  I was surprised that the comparison shows that while the per capita expenditure in the federal budget is approximately $7 242 the per capita expenditure in the Newfoundland and Labrador budget is almost twice as much at $12 684.


I realize this isn't a particularly rigorous comparison (in that I've only looked at one year and one province), but caveats aside, the size of the difference really amazed me.  Who would have guessed that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador spends almost twice as much as the Government of Canada on each resident.  Crazy.


If I get a bit more work done I may try to expand the comparison both in terms of the number of provinces examined and the number of years.

I feel a little ashamed

It's a little embarrassing that until reading this Ottawa Citizen article I wasn't thinking about the impending 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the patriation of the Canadian constitution.  And without the Charter we wouldn't have the Oakes test, and where would be we be then?

Maybe on the night of the 17th I'll have to have a celebratory beer or something.

Anyway, I guess I have to agree with Jean Chretien that this is an anniversary worth noting, though I am not sure if such an event lends itself to easy celebration?

I can't wonder if the anniversary lacks a little of the oomph one might expect because some of the changes didn't take effect for a few years, somewhat diminishing the claim that this is really the 30th anniversary of the Charter.  This fragmented start date really throws a spanner in the works, so to speak, of anniversary celebrations.

Fun(ish) fact

A few days ago I was thinking that over the past 20 years in the Canadian House of Commons there have been quite a number of parties that have been the Official Opposition.  Turns out there have been six.  In chronological order, the parties were: the Bloc Quebecois, Reform, the Canadian Alliance, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberals, and the NDP.

If my calculations are correct, the only party to have had official party status at some point during this 20 year window but not to have been the Official Opposition was the PC party.

Wasn't I right about this being a fun fact?

Something, something Robocalls

This morning I read a very underwhelming column on the developing robocall scandal by the Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson.  Not only does the column include the questionable claim "As a general rule, politicians never openly lie, because the consequences of being caught in one just aren’t worth it," but it also seems to back much of the official Conservative position on the Robocall Scandal somewhat uncritically.


One of the claims of the Conservative party that seems to have been accepted whole-heartedly is that

people who have worked at senior levels on election campaigns, but who prefer not to be identified, say that voter suppression tactics are stupid because they’re inefficient. It is more profitable on election day to mobilize your vote than to try to discourage your opponent’s.

What evidence do these unnamed campaign workers or Mr. Ibbitson have to support this position?  My gut feeling was that it was at least plausible that voter suppression could be very effective in some circumstances - and particularly in circumstances that were not all that dissimilar from those associated with the current Robocall Scandal.

A little time online lead me to a few neat articles about robocalling and voter suppression.  One that dealt more with the regulation of robocalling in the US does detail a few of the ways in which robocalls have been used both legitimately and illegitimately.  I was particularly amused by the following quote, which is quite pertinent to the Super PAC-era politics currently ongoing in the US:

The NRCC spent almost $20,000 to pour hundreds of thousands of robocalls into the district in New Hampshire. Because the calls were independent expenditures, they could not be coordinated with nor ap- proved of by the incumbent Republican candidate. Even after Congressman Bass asked for the calls to stop, the party committee refused, saying that cessation would require illegal coordination.

Another article more explicitly on voter suppression through the distribution of misinformation found that such tactics could suppress voter participation, particularly among those segments of a population with limited political knowledge/education.  Though these findings are preliminary,  they do hint at the potential effectiveness of a widespread campaign of misinformation.

I am not trying to lay the blame for the Robocall Scandal at the feet of any particular entity or absolve other groups, but trying to suggest that when we hear claims about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of things like voter suppression campaigns that we try to assess the validity of these claims before accepting or rejecting them.  In some cases the validity or inaccuracy of such claims can change the way the whole situation is perceived.

A concept lacking a name

In Canada, as well as a few other Commonwealth countries, the term 'Crown corporation' is used to describe a set of entities owned by the state but run somewhat independently.  Good examples of Crown corporation in Canada include things like CBC or Via Rail.

Not surprisingly given the inclusion of the word 'corporation' in the term, these entities are often means through which the state can participate in economic activities.  In some instances these corporations almost look like their private counterparts while in other instances it is clear that they are government own entities.

So even though Crown corporations may be of provincial or federal origin, the term provides a sense of clarity about their origins and relationship to government.

When discussing similar entities I immediately encounter two problems.  Firstly, if such entities can't be called 'Crown corporations' what can they be called?  'Government-own corporations' is an entirely unsatisfying name.  And, secondly, because there is no unifying descriptor they don't seem to discussed in the same way.  I know that I often forget how many government owned entities exist is the US because we almost never hear discussion of the entire class of entities in the way that we do in Canada.

I can't help but wonder how political discourse would change in the US if there was an easy and accessible way to talk about the class of entities which includes Amtrak, the USPS, and the FDIC, just to name a few.

(Maybe it doesn't matter, but I find it funny that Amtrak and the USPS use .com domains while the FDIC has a .gov domain.)

This is big

In 2008 Harper almost lost his minority government (at least in part) because he was considering the elimination of per vote subsidies to political parties. It seems that now that Harper has a majority he is planning on re-introducing the plan. Assuming all goes according to plan in just a few years the per-vote subsidy will be completely phased out.

Given the relatively strict limitations on party contributions, this change will likely have a significant impact on the major Canadian parties. Who knows, maybe some parties will no longer be viable entities.

Whether you are a fan of these subsidies or not this change is big and will likely have a pretty significant impact on the way political parties at the federal level operate in Canada.

Are elections really that onerous?

Just a few minutes ago I was listening to this morning's episode of CBC's The House, a radio show/podcast about Canadian politics, when I heard Tom Lukiwski, Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, suggest that Canadians don't want an election.

For years I have wondered about this oft-repeated claim. Do Canadians really find elections elections distasteful? Is listening to coverage of an election and seeing election signs so troubling that Canadians would rather not experience an election at all? Maybe most troubling is that those making this claim almost never provide evidence to support their position, it is simply stated as though it is an obvious truth.

I find this claim troubling on two fronts. Firstly, elections in Canada aren't a big imposition for the average person. Aside from slightly different news coverage and a few more signs, I am not sure how most Canadians actually impacted by the process of holding an election (election outcomes are a slightly different story). Secondly, given that very few Canadians actually take the time to vote (about 59% in the last election) it seems fair to say that for many people elections don't even impose a significant time burden on much of the population (the same could even be said for most of those people who do take the time to vote). So what is it the cause of the supposed animus towards elections?

That being said, I also wonder if there is a difference of opinion about the desirability of elections between those who vote and those who don't. Off the top of my head I can't think of too many voters that I know who are too upset by the prospect of more voting. Actually, some of these voters quite like the idea of being able to exercise their right to vote more than once every four years. If this is the case and we have such low rates of participation is it really fair to speak about 'Canadians' as a whole and not disaggregate those who won't participate no matter how infrequently elections are held?

Maybe, and this seems the likely answer to the riddle, when politicians say that Canadians don't want an election what they actually mean is "We don't want an election." Unlike the average voter in a Canadian election, politicians and political parties do face substantial burdens because of elections. Not only do they have to campaign and fundraise, many of these people also face the possibility of losing their jobs. Calling an election a year before necessary is a non-trivial matter, in some cases it could means hundreds of thousands of dollars in future pension earnings, or a loss of control of the legislative agenda.

Anyway, though I don't expect to settle any of this definitively here, I guess I just wish that in the future when politicians make such claims that the journalists present would request that they provide evidence to support their claims, or otherwise justify them. As it stands now far too many politicians are allowed to get away with making this questionable claim on a relatively regular basis.

Wisdom from Durham

In justifying a greater degree of independence for the colonies of British North America, Durham suggests that

The colonists may not always know what laws are the best for them, or which of their countrymen are the fittest for conducting their affairs; but, at least, they have a greater interest in coming to a right judgement on these points, and will take greater pains to do so than those whose welfare is remotely and slightly affected by the good or bad legislation of these portions of the Empire. If the colonists make bad laws, and select improper persons to conduct their affairs, they will generally be the only, always the greatest, sufferers; and, like the people of other countries, they must bear the ills which they bring on themselves, until they choose to apply the remedy.

While he doesn't seem have a lot of faith in the 'colonists,' I do think his broader point makes some sense.

Why Durham wants taxes

Just a few pages later one gets Durham's assessment of the previously described (somewhat anemic) revenue stream:

This immunity from taxation has sometimes been spoken of as a great privilege of the people of Lower Canada, and a great proof of the justice and benevolence of their government. The description which I have given of the singularly defective provision made for the discharge of the most important duties of both the general and the local government will, I think, make it appear that this apparent saving of the pockets of the people has been caused by their privation of many of the institutions which every civilized community ought to possess. A people can hardly be congratulated on having had at little cost a rude and imperfect administration of justice, hardly the semblance of police, no public provision for education, lighting, and bad pavements in its cities, and means of communication so imperfect, that the loss of time, and wear and tear caused in taking any article to market, may probably be estimated at ten times the expense of good roads.

It seems that Durham might have been an early supporter of something approximating our contemporary welfare state.

Government revenue in Canada before Canada was Canada

Because I have already introduced the concept of municipal finance today, it seems appropriate for me to also include what Durham had to say about the source of government revenue in the 1830s

With the exception of the small amount now derived from the casual and territorial funds, the public revenue of Lower Canada is derived from duties imposed, partly by imperial and partly by provincial statutes. These duties are, in great proportion, levied upon articles imported into the Colony from Great Britain and foreign countries; they are collected at the principal ports by officers of the Imperial Customs.

At the time of the writing of the report the total revenue collected was about £100 000.

My how things have changed since those old pre-income tax and pre-welfare state days.

We're not so innocent

Many observers of the Canadian political system, myself included, take pride in (or at least appreciate) the fact that Canadian legislation is not burdened with unrelated amendments and riders (the range of goals associated with this practice potentially being quite varied). This, of course, is in contrast to the (perceived) frequent occurrence of this practice in the US.

Not surprisingly, it turns out that Canada hasn't always been free of this practice. It seems that in the pre-Durham/United Province of Canada days the existence of this practice was something that Durham highlighted and repudiated in his report

As Durham was kind enough to note,

“A singular instance of this occurred in 1836 with respect to the renewal of the Jury Law, to which the Assembly attached great importance, and to which the Legislative Council felt a strong repugnance, on account of its having in effect placed the juries entirely in the hands of the French portion of the population. In order to secure the renewal of this law, the Assembly coupled it in the same Bill, by which it renewed the tolls of the Lachine Canal, calculating on the Council not venturing to defeat a measure of so much importance to the revenue of the latter, by resisting the former. The Council, however, rejected the Bill; and thus the Canal remained toll-free for a whole season, because the two Houses differed about a jury law.”

Democracy in Canada

So you think the Canadian constitution is a bit strange because it omits a number of key features (like the existence of a Cabinet)? It turns out that you are not alone, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Secession Reference has noted similar omissions, in particular any specific reference to the fact that Canada was to be a democracy. On the other hand, they do suggest that

the democracy principle can best be understood as a sort of baseline against which the framers of our Constitution, and subsequently, our elected representatives under it, have always operated. It is perhaps for this reason that the principle was not explicitly identified in the text of the Constitution Act, 1867 itself. To have done so might have appeared redundant, even silly, to the framers.

It is comforting to know that so much of a country's constitution is just assumed. There is no way that such a practice could ever go wrong.

Why is Canada called Canada?

I have recently been wondering why Canada is called Canada and why it doesn’t have a name more indicative of its federal nature.

If Canada began as the coming together of three colonies (the United Province of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) to form a federation of four provinces why was the name of the resulting country Canada? That this became the name of the country seems particularly striking as in the years before confederation ‘Canada’ clearly referred to the area that is presently Ontario and Quebec.

My one-track mind

It seems that since yesterday I haven't been able to get past the idea of comparisons of sizes of population units with one another. My new kick seems to be to compare census metropolitan areas (CMAs) with larger units.

Due to popular demand I have now added a few of Canada's smaller, though still sizable, municipalities and CMAs. Presumably if I come up with more comparisons in the coming days you will be able to find them here soon after I have completed compiling the tables.



Errata: Manitoba, with a population of 1 210 547, should appear between Montreal (V) and Ottawa/Gatineau (CMA).

Sources:

1. Statistics Canada, Quarterly Demographic Estimates (2008 numbers)

2. Statistics Canada, By census metropolitan area (CMA) or census agglomeration (CA), (2006 numbers)

3. Statistics Canada, All census subdivisions (CSDs), (2006 numbers)








Sources:

1. Statistics Canada, By census metropolitan area (CMA) or census agglomeration (CA), (2006 numbers)

2. Statistics Canada, All census subdivisions (CSDs), (2006 numbers)

3. Statistics Canada, Quarterly Demographic Estimates (2008 numbers)


Blog-off
Cameron: 9
Neil: 0

More population comparisons

A few days ago I posted a table that listed the provinces, metropolitan areas, and municipalities ordered by population. As you might have noticed, this first table is quite similar to the one that was posted a few days ago, the main differences are a change in terminology and a correction in one of the Winnipeg listings.



Errata: The superscript '3' by Hamilton should actually be a superscript '2.'

Sources:

1. Statistics Canada, Quarterly Demographic Estimates (2008 numbers)

2. Statistics Canada, By census metropolitan area (CMA) or census agglomeration (CA), (2006 numbers)

3. Statistics Canada, All census subdivisions (CSDs), (2006 numbers)

This second table is what seems to me to be the obvious continuation of the first, a representation of size of cities relative to their metropolitan areas. As you can see, Canada's largest cities comprise less than half of their respective metropolitan areas. It seems that it might be worth noting that Calgary, a city that has been experiencing a population boom in recent years, stands apart from some of Canada's older and more established cities in terms of its development patterns. Though it isn't on the table, and it isn't as large, Winnipeg is another city that comprises the vast majority of the metropolitan area.



Sources:

1. Statistics Canada, By census metropolitan area (CMA) or census agglomeration (CA), (2006 numbers)

2. Statistics Canada, All census subdivisions (CSDs), (2006 numbers)

Blog-off
Cameron: 8
Neil: 0

25 Largest Jurisdictions in Canada

A few days ago I as thinking that I really wanted to see the populations of various political jurisdictions in relation to other political jurisdiction. In particular, I was interested in seeing how certain municipalities matched up against provinces, and how much difference there was between the city proper and the metropolitan area.

Anyway, this is a quick version of this list.



Sources:

1. Statistics Canada, Quarterly Demographic Estimates (2008 numbers)

2. Statistics Canada, By census metropolitan area (CMA) or census agglomeration (CA), (2006 numbers)

3. Statistics Canada, All census subdivisions (CSDs), (2006 numbers)

Blog-off
Cameron: 4
Neil: 0