Methodology

How Governance Scores Are Calculated

🔧Overview

How the Governance Strength Index Scores Canadian Politicians

The Governance Strength Index (GSI) is a nonpartisan scoring model built to evaluate Canadian federal and provincial politicians using publicly available data. GSI focuses strictly on measurable outcomes—how elected officials engage, contribute, and represent—rather than party lines or media narratives.

📚 What GSI Measures

🏛️ 1. Legislative Activity

Measures how active and effective a politician is within the lawmaking process.

✅ Bills Sponsored

Tracks unique pieces of legislation initiated by the politician.
Includes private member bills, motions, and sponsored amendments.
Weighted by role (e.g. backbench vs. cabinet) and adjusted for term length.

📜 Bills Passed

Reflects how many sponsored bills successfully became law.
Normalized by parliamentary/legislative context (e.g. minority vs. majority government).
Designed to reward legislative success without penalizing opposition members unfairly.

🗳️ Voting Attendance

Captures how often a member is present for votes.
Compared against sitting averages and adjusted for long-term leaves (e.g. parental or health-related).

🗣️ 2. Civic Engagement & Conduct

Evaluates how engaged the politician is with public discourse and ethical standards.

🎤 Debate Engagement

Measures how often the politician speaks in legislative debate.
Captures both volume and consistency over time.
Emphasizes presence in key debates (e.g. budget, major bills).

❓ Question Period Participation

Tracks how often an MP or MLA engages in QP by asking or answering questions.
Includes both scripted party-led questions and spontaneous interventions.
Treated as a lightweight metric given its theatrical nature, but still a measure of visibility.

🚨 Formal Ethics Record

Flags any rulings or findings by federal or provincial ethics commissioners.
Applies negative weighting based on severity (e.g. conflict of interest vs. outright violations).
Non-violators score neutrally; ethics rulings reduce score.

🛡️ Charter Compliance (v1.3 update)

Introduced to reflect votes that impact fundamental Charter rights.
Applies a fixed penalty if an MP/MLA votes in support of legislation that undermines protections under Section 7 or Section 15 (e.g. LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, MAID).
This penalty is structural: violations apply regardless of other performance areas.

📋 3. Qualifications & Background

Captures how prepared a politician is to serve based on their experience and education.

🎓 Education Level

Scores the highest completed level of education (e.g. diploma, bachelor’s, PhD).
Does not weigh by institution, field, or prestige to avoid bias.
Rewards continued learning, but recognizes all levels.

💼 Professional Experience

Measures years of full-time, non-political work before election.
Includes private sector, trades, healthcare, military, education, and public service.
Designed to recognize candidates who bring lived experience and practical knowledge into government.

Conservative Party Of Canada Card 1.7 (2).png

📊 Data Sources

All GSI scores are based on verifiable public data, including:

OpenParliament.ca
Hansard transcripts
Parliamentary and legislative records
Ethics commissioner rulings
Elections Canada disclosures
Public education/employment records
Archived government reports (for historical politicians)

We do not use media commentary, party self-promotion, or public sentiment in any score.

⚖️ Score Normalization & Weighting

How GSI balances fairness, structure, and accountability

The Governance Strength Index (GSI) scores each politician from 0–100%, using nine metrics normalized across historical data, role, and tenure.

Scores are benchmarked to ensure fairness across party lines, government vs. opposition, and federal vs. provincial levels.

But while what we track is public, how it’s weighted is intentionally protected to maintain the model’s integrity.

🛡️ 🎯 Charter Compliance Scoring (Updated in v1.7)

Earlier versions of GSI applied a flat 30% penalty to any politician who voted against rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Sections 7 or 15), such as abortion access, LGBTQ+ equality, or MAID.

This was clear, but also blunt. In v1.7, GSI introduced a tiered penalty system that offers more nuance:

Charter Compliance Score GSI Penalty Applied

100% = 0%

90–99% = 10%

75–89% = 20%

50–74% = 25%

Below 50% = 30%

This system preserves the baseline that Charter rights matter, but distinguishes between one-off votes and systemic opposition. The Charter Compliance Score applies across all parties and levels of government equally.

✅ Ethics Scoring (Updated in v1.8)

Total Weight: 10% of GSI Score

Ethics is no longer treated as a binary "violation/no violation" metric. In v1.8, GSI splits the ethics component into two parts:

📌 Formal Ethics Violations (6%)

Based on rulings from the Federal or Provincial Ethics Commissioner
Includes conflicts of interest, misuse of funds, and other formal breaches

📉 Governance Integrity Record (4%)

Tracks documented behavior that undermines governance—even if it doesn’t trigger a formal sanction
Uses a tiered deduction model based on the severity and frequency of anti-democratic tactics:

Severity Tier Deduction Examples:

Minor (Poor Transparency) - 1% FOI stonewalling, vague financial disclosures...

Moderate (Manipulative) - 2% Strategic prorogation, silencing oversight watchdogs

Major (System Erosion) - 3% Suppressing reports, firing independent officers

Sustained/Systemic Abuse - 4% Coordinated erosion of democratic or scientific norms

Unlike previous versions of the model, this update allows GSI to better reflect when a politician may be acting within the letter of the law, but outside the spirit of public accountability.

🧭 Decorum Score – Methodology Overview Added In V2.0

What It Measures

The Decorum Score evaluates a politician’s conduct in the legislature, focusing on their ability to uphold respectful, professional standards during debates, question periods, and other formal proceedings.

This metric helps balance out governance scores by recognizing not just what politicians do, but how they conduct themselves in office — ensuring the GSI reflects both performance and professionalism.

What’s Counted

All candidates start with a perfect score of 100%. Documented conduct issues result in deductions based on the severity and frequency of the infractions.

Only officially recorded or publicly verified disciplinary incidents are counted. These include:

Speaker warnings or reprimands
Being named and removed from proceedings
Refusing to retract unparliamentary language
Repeated disruptions that violate rules of order
Required apologies for behavior or statements
Noted decorum issues in Hansard or official House minutes

🧮 Decorum Scoring Rubric

Minor, single incident Speaker warning without ejection - 5%
Single formal incident Ejected from House or named once - 10%
Repeat incidents (2–3 total) Multiple warnings or ejections across sessions - 15%
Pattern of conduct (4+ incidents) Documented record of regular disruptions or misconduct - 20%

🏛 Institutional Seniority Score.
Added In V2.0

What It Measures

The Institutional Seniority Score reflects the highest formal role a politician has held during their time in office — whether they’ve shaped policy from the executive branch or contributed through legislative committees.

This score is not about longevity or popularity; it’s about trust and responsibility. Holding a leadership role within Parliament or a provincial legislature reflects an elevated degree of influence over decision-making, oversight, and national or regional direction.

What’s Counted

Each politician receives a score based on the single highest position they’ve held — not a cumulative total of roles. This prevents overinflation and ensures that true institutional leadership is rewarded proportionally.

🧮 Institutional Seniority Scoring Rubric

Prime Minister / Premier Head of government - 100%
Senior Cabinet Minister High-impact portfolio (e.g., Finance, Justice, Defence) - 90%
Other Cabinet Minister / Crown Minister Mid-level portfolios or ministers of state - 80%
Leader of Official Opposition Federally or provincially- 75%
Parliamentary Secretary / Opposition Critic Official legislative liaison or shadow cabinet - 65%
Committee Chair / Vice-Chair Chairs standing or special committees - 60%

Why This Matters

Legislative experience isn’t one-size-fits-all. An MP or MLA who has been entrusted with executive-level authority or high-level oversight carries a greater responsibility to govern effectively and ethically. As well Senior members are often at a disadvantage for other stats due to the enhanced requirements of their senior roles - combined this offers clarity and reduces externalities.

The Institutional Seniority Score ensures that the GSI reflects not just presence in office, but proximity to power — and how that shapes a politician’s opportunity to effect real change.

🔐 Why Other Weights Are Not Public (Yet)

While GSI is committed to transparency in what we track, the exact weighting formulas for the remaining metrics are currently held back for three important reasons:

1. Model Maturity: GSI is rapidly evolving, and weights are still being calibrated as new data is added and edge cases are addressed.

2. Integrity Protection: Publishing precise scoring logic invites potential manipulation, imitation, or “gaming” by parties or operatives.

3. IP Security: GSI is a unique and original model—keeping the methodology partially internal protects against replication or dilution.

That said, every metric, version change, and logic shift is tracked and made public through version logs and changelogs. Feedback and questions are always welcome.