Why the Charter Compliance Penalty Matters in GSI

A2
May 17
2 min read

When we designed the GSI (Governance Strength Index), we knew one thing from the start: some standards aren’t negotiable.

That’s where the Charter Compliance Penalty (CCP) comes in.

While most of the GSI is built on a flexible, weighted system—factoring in things like debate performance, legislative activity, and real-world experience—the CCP is different. It's a structural check, not a bonus metric. Fail it, and you lose a % of your total score. No exceptions. CCS is a baseline expectation.

🏛️ Why the Penalty Exists

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a partisan document. It protects:

Section 7: Life, liberty, and security of the person

Section 15: Equality under the law, regardless of sex, race, age, disability, or sexual orientation

Section 2: Freedoms of expression, religion, and association

Any MP who votes against legislation that upholds these rights—or supports legislation that infringes upon them—fails the compliance check.

GSI v1.3 introduced the penalty.

GSI v1.8 refined it.

📉 The Harper Example: A High-Performer, Penalized by the Charter Score

Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper is one of the clearest case studies of how the CCP operates in action thus far.

By most governance measures and despite being an extremely divisive Prime Minister, Harper performs well:

High bill sponsorship and passage
Strong attendance
Long political tenure
Relevant real-world experience
No formal ethics violations - keyword formal*

But his Charter Compliance Score? Failing.

Here’s why:

🧾 Key Bills Backed by Harper that Violated Charter Rights:

Bill C-51 (Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015): Widely condemned for infringing on Section 2 freedoms of expression and association, and Section 7 rights via expanded state surveillance and detention powers.

Bill C-36 (Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act): Criticized for violating sex workers’ rights to safety and autonomy under Section 7.

Opposition to same-sex marriage (2005): Harper voted against the Civil Marriage Act, which affirmed marriage equality under Section 15.

Each of these votes represents not a single moment, but part of a pattern that fails the Charter litmus test.

🎯 1. Smarter Charter Compliance Scoring

Previous GSI versions applied a flat 30% penalty to any MP who failed to score 100% on votes affecting Charter rights. It was a bold stance — but sometimes too blunt.

In v1.8, we’ve moved to a tiered penalty system:

Charter Compliance Score	GSI Penalty
100%	0%
90–99%	-10%
75–89%	-20%
50–74%	-25%
Below 50%	-30%

This structure still treats rights compliance as foundational, but introduces fairer gradation between someone who opposed rights once versus someone who did it every time.

⚖️ Why It Matters

If we don’t hold elected officials accountable to the Charter, we risk reducing rights to policy preferences.

The Charter Compliance Penalty reminds us:

You can be a capable legislator, but if you work to erode constitutional rights, you fail the most basic standard of public service.

And the GSI reflects that.

Do you think the CCS score is too aggressive, do you think the CCS score is not aggressive enough? Do you think the original GSI score should show alongside the penalized GSI score as well? These are the questions that will need to be answered as we move forward with later iterations of the model.