This analysis looks at the proposed boundary changes to Nova Scotia ridings and how those changes might affect future elections. Specifically, I determined the results for the individual areas that are changing ridings and used these results as a measure of party support. Of course from a methodological perspective this isn’t a perfect comparison since some of the support enjoyed by one party in one riding may be tied to the strength of an individual candidate, the popularity of an incumbent candidate or even campaign strength or tactics parties are using in that area. Nevertheless, a significant body of academic research suggests party, party platform and consideration of party leaders is a major factor that voters weigh in deciding who they will support. Furthermore, while this may seem obvious to state, research suggests that a voter is more likely to support a party that they have voted for previously. Essentially that means that even if someone had voted from the NDP in Sackville-Eastern Shore because they supported Peter Stoffer that support for the NDP has a high probability of transferring to the new riding.
The old and new riding boundaries were found here.
Poll by poll results from 2011 can be found here.
I used GeoGratis geographic files to determine which polls would be included in the change. And I used some information from punditsguide in my analysis so I would like to thank Alice Funke for maintaining such a great resource on Canadian politics.
Cape Breton – Canso
This is one of the few safe Liberal seats left in the country. Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner won this seat in 2011 with almost 16% above the CPC candidate and almost 27% above the NDP. The riding loses no territory but gains a portion of Central Nova.
Polls Lost: None
Polls Gained: Polls noted from Central Nova, with 2011 results equal to 1540 CPC votes, 675 NDP Votes and 523 Liberal votes
Analysis:
Despite these changes, the riding is probably still overwhelmingly safe for the Liberals. The margin of victory for the Liberals in 2011 was more than 5,000 votes so the addition of 1,000 new Conservative votes isn’t a quite enough to close the gap. However, there might be cause for them to worry if the Liberal poll numbers continue their downward trend.
Central Nova
This is Peter MacKay`s riding. While the 2008 results can`t be representative because of the lack of a Liberal candidate, this is a riding that has been contested on Conservative-NDP grounds for the last few elections. In 2006 the CPC only led the NDP by 8%, but by 2011 MacKey won with 56.7% to 24.8% for the NDP. This riding will be changing significantly, losing chunks to Cape Breton – Canso and gaining territory from Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley and some from the Eastern Shore area of the Old Saskville-Eastern Shore area.
Polls Lost: (To Cape Breton-Canso) 129, 144-152, 160 Parts of 128, 130, 131, 158 and 159
Polls Gained: Polls noted from Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley, 2011 results equal to 1020 CPC votes, 813 NDP votes and 302 Liberal Votes. Polls noted from Sackville-Eastern Shore 2011 results equal to 1267 NDP votes, 827 Conservative votes and 205 Liberal votes (plus or minus partial polls).
Analysis:
The area being lost from Central Nova is about 7.5% of the riding (although there are a large number of partial polls in this group) and is pretty representative of the riding at large. The area in 2011 was 53.9% CPC (2.8% below the riding at large), 23.6% NDP (1.2% below the riding average) and 18.3% Liberal (3.5 points above the riding average).
The gained area from Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley is Conservative but has a significantly higher level of NDP support than average.
Central Nova is probably still a strong CPC seat but these changes may tilt things slightly more towards the NDP. The additions from Sackville-Eastern Shores will be helpful but it will still be an uphill battle. However, if there was a strong candidate with a fully funded campaign, the seat might be competitive.
Cumberland—Colchester
This riding is based out of the old Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley Riding, Bill Casey’s old riding. Casey was the Conservative MP who voted against the 2007 budget and won the seat as an independent in 2008. Nevertheless, this is a pretty safe Conservative seat. The current CPC MP Scott Anderson won the seat in a 2009 byelection with 45.8% to about 25.7% for the second place NDP. In 2011 Andreson won with 52.4% compared to 24.8% for the NDP. The riding gains no new territory but loses some of its land to Central Nova in the Musquodoboit Valley.
Polls lost: 193 to 209 (No partial polls)
Polls Gained: None
Analysis:
The area being lost represented 5.6 percent of the riding and went to the conservatives overall, but the NDP won 5 of these 17 polls. Considering that the NDP only won 12 polls in the whole riding that is notable. The area changing hands was won by the Conservatives with 44.4%, eight points below the riding norm, but the NDP came in a stronger second at 35.4%, a full 10.6 points above the NDP riding average. The Liberals received 13.1 in this area, 3 points below the riding average.
This riding is still going to be a safe CPC bet because the large 2011 margin and because it is losing more opposition votes than conservative votes. However, this may have an effect on Central Nova.
Dartmouth -Cole Harbour
The riding of Dartmouth-Cole Harbour is currently represented but NDP MP Robert Chisholm. The 2011 election here was hard fought with Chisholm beating the Liberal incumbent by only about 1% (NDP 36.2%, Liberals 35.1%, CPC 24.7%). The riding is being redrawn with a portion of Dartmouth moving to the new Sackville riding and it is taking a part of the old Sackville-Eastern Shore riding in exchange, specifically the area around Eastern Passage and CFB Halifax.
Polls Lost: 1-22, 24 and part of 23 and 43.
Polls Gained: Polls noted from the Sackville-Eastern Shores riding, with 2011 results equal to 2273 NDP votes, 1214 CPC votes and 450 Liberal votes.
Analysis:
The area being given to the new Sackville riding represents about 10.1% of the old Dartmouth riding. While the riding at large went NDP by a small margin in 2011, this area supported Liberals slightly more than the riding average. In the polls transferring to Sackville-Porters Lake, 39.97% of voters supported the Liberals, about 5% above the riding at large. Support for the NDP was at 33.7%, about 2.5 points below the riding average, and the Conservatives received about 22.5% or 2.2% below their riding average.
The new Dartmouth-Cole Harbour riding will be a stronger NDP seat. The portion of the riding that is being transferred to Sackville-Porter Lake trended 6% more Liberal than NDP, which at about 10% in scale would have almost doubled Chisholm’s 2011 margin. Add to this the strong NDP tilt of the Eastern Passages area the riding is gaining with relatively few Liberal votes being added to the riding … and that’s a recipe for growth.
Halifax
The Riding of Halifax represented by the NDP’s Megan Leslie will see very little boundary changes. It does lose a little geographic territory but it is mostly part of a provincial park. It appears as if only one or two polling partial divisions will be lost.
Halifax West
This riding is currently represented by Liberal MP Geoff Regan but it was a close three way race, with only a little more that 5% between the first (Lib) and the third (NDP) place parties. The riding doesn’t gain any territory but it does lose a bunch of ground. The rural southern end was lost to Southshore-St.Margarets and half of the area of Bedford is transferring to the Sackville riding.
Polls lost:
(Bedford) 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 45 and most of 26
(South) Most of 127, 129 and 130. All of 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141
Polls gained: Nothing significant
Analysis:
The area lost in Bedford represents only 3.3% of the votes cast in 2011 however it is an area that trended much higher to the Liberals and Conservatives. Geoff Regan won all but one of these polls and received 46.6% percent of the vote in the area, nearly 11 percentage points above the riding average. The Conservatives received 31.6% of the voter in this area, one percentage point above the norm, and the NDP received 17.8%, about 11.5 points below the norm. This transferring of Liberal and Conservative voters out of Halifax west may hurt Regan and make the riding even more competitive. While this is a chuck of Lib-Cons voters being transferred into Sackville, I don`t think it will significant hurt the NDP chances there.
The area lost to the South Shore is a bit of a different story. This area is about 8.6% of riding and trended to be more of an NDP/Conservative battleground. In terms of polls won, the area was split fairly evenly. In terms of actual votes cast, the NDP handily won this are with 37.5% of the votes cast, nearly eight points higher than the norm. The Conservatives received 32.9% of the vote in this area, 2.5 points above the riding norm, and the Liberals received 23.6%, more than twelve points below the riding average.
This riding is a mixed story. The loss of the Bedford voters will hurt the Liberals but the loss of the NDP and Conservative voters in the south end will balance things out. If you calculate the 2011 results while removing all the polls that are being transferred with the new proposed riding boundaries, Regan’s margin of victory actually increases by about one percentage point. But that’s not enough to make it a safe Liberal riding, it’s still a riding that will be in contention in 2015. Of course, some more NDP voters in South Shore might be a good thing, too.
Kings-Hants
Kings-Hants is a Liberal riding held by Scott Brison. It’s a close Liberal-Conservative riding which Brison only won by 3%, with the NDP a distant third about 17% below that. The riding loses no ground but gains a portion of the old Sackville riding.
Polls Lost: None
Polls Gained: Polls noted from Sackville-Eastern Shores with 2011 results equal to 967 NDP votes, 539 Conservative votes and 208 Liberal votes
Analysis:
The new Kings-Hants riding will be an even closer battle than before. The margin of victory in 2011 was just 1,100 votes between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Now there are 300 more net Conservative voters in the riding.
Sackville-Porters Lake
The current riding of Sackville-Eastern Shore is represented by NDP MP Peter Stoffer who won it in 2011 with 54% compared to 30.5% for the CPC and 11.2% for the Liberals. The riding is being redrawn significantly hence the name change. The new riding takes in a portion of the old Dartmouth-Cole Harbour and Halifax West ridings while giving a sizable portion of territory away to King-Hants, Central Nova and the new Dartmouth-Cole Harbour.
Polls Lost:
(To Dartmouth-Cole Harbour): 122 to 141, 141-1, 400 Part of 144
(To Central Nova): 161, 165, 166, 167, 171-178 Part of 158-1, 164
(To King-Hants): 2, 2-1, 3, 82, 83, 85, 86, Part of 14, 84
Polls Gained: Polls noted from Halifax West with 2011 results equal to 711 Liberal votes, 476 Conservative votes and 271 NDP votes. Polls noted from Dartmouth-Cole Harbour with 2011 results equal to 1749 Liberal votes, 1476 NDP votes and 987 Conservative votes.
Analysis:
The Old Sackville-Eastern Shore riding is losing about 20% of its voters in redistribution.
The area transferring to Dartmouth-Cole Harbour is about 9.8% of the voters of the old riding and was relatively representative of the results riding wide. In this region the voters cast 54.9% for the NDP (0.8% above Stoffer’s average), 29.3% for the Conservatives (1.2% below the riding average) and 10.9% for the Liberals (0.3% below the riding average).
The area transferring to Central Nova is about 5.9% of the riding. Stoffer won this area overwhelmingly as well but at a margin below the riding average. 51.8% of voters in this geographic area supported the NDP, 2.3% below the riding average, while the Conservatives were 3.3% above average in this area with 33.8%. The Liberals received 8.4% below their riding average.
The area transferring to Kings-Hant was about 4.3% of the riding and was also fairly representative of the riding at large. The NDP received 53.4% support in this area, 0.7% below the riding average. The Conservatives got 29.8%, 0.6% below their riding average. And the Liberals were above average slightly at 11.4%
While the Sackville riding in losing some areas that voted for Stoffer at a high rate, the new riding may be just as safe of an NDP seat. This is because the new additions to the riding tend to be split between the NDP and Liberals while the races in the Sackville-Eastern Shores riding were between the NDP and Conservatives. So a in the balance of things, while Sackville-Porter Lake will lose more NDP votes than it gains the difference is made up by Liberals not Conservatives. Since they are the 3rd place party in the balance of the riding, it isn’t likely to change the tilt of the riding.
South Shore
This riding is a Conservative-NDP battleground which was won by the CPC by 6% in 2011 and 2.7% in 2008. It is gaining the area noted from Halifax West and is losing the furthest southern tip of the riding (including Cape Sable Island and Barrington) to West Nova.
Polls lost: (To West Nova) 175 to 181, 185 to 191, and most of 182 and 183
Polls gained: Polls noted from Halifax West. The new area had 2011 results equal to 1467 NDP votes, 1289 Conservative votes and 926 Liberal votes (plus or minus partial polls).
Analysis:
The lost area is a conservative stronghold in the southern edge of the riding account of about 6% of the riding. While CPC MP Gerald Keddy received 43.1% in the riding at large, he won every one of these polls with 53% in the lost area. The NDP came second with 24.9% in this area, more than eleven points below the riding arrange of 36.1%. The Liberals received 18% of the vote in this area, about a point higher than the riding norm.
The loss of an area that trends significantly more conservative and the gain of an area that the NDP wins slightly over the conservatives will make South Shore-St.Margarets a more NDP friendly riding. Although in 2011 the Conservatives won the riding with a six point lead above the NDP, in 2008 that lead was only 2.7%.
The closeness of the past races and this shift, abet small, should put South Shore-St.Margarets on NDP target lists for 2015.
Sydney-Victoria
This riding is currently held by the Liberals and is a close Liberal-Conservative seat. There are no boundary changes in Sydney-Victoria.
West Nova
This is a Conservative seat which they won by 11 percentage points over the Liberals in 2011. It was a closer in 2008 and has a history of switching between red and blue. Of course that before the slide of Liberal support national and without a large reversal, I’m not sure it will be close again. The riding loses no ground but gains a portion of South Shore-St.Margarets
Polls lost: None
Polls Gained: Polls noted from South Shore-St.Margarets . The new area had 2011 results equal to 1318 CPC votes, 614 NDP votes and 448 Liberal votes (plus or minus partial polls).
Analysis:
While this new area is not a huge addition, it does trend overwhelmingly conservative and makes this an even safer CPC seat.
Gun Control Part 2 – Policy Options
Much of the public discourse in Canada about gun control in Canada over the last few years has revolved around the gun registry and the conflict between those who support it and those who didn’t. Although the registry has merits and I’ll address it below, the fact that it was the focus of so much debate clouded other options for controlling guns in Canada. And there are other options…
I will attempt to discuss different tactics for controlling guns and hopefully curbing gun violence.
I’m trying to balance some sensitivity to the concerns of hunters, farmers, sport shooters and others with the need to ensure public safety. This is importantly because opposition to the long-gun registry was based on in part on the idea that the registry targeted hunters, sportsmen and farmers who had legitimate reasons to own guns while doing little to address criminal firearm owners. Furthermore, for political reasons, sensitivity to rural concerns about gun control is needed for any proposals to gain the public and political support needed for success.
Of course, this is intended as an introductory discussion and this shouldn’t be considered absolute endorsements of any of these policy options. Nor should this be considered exhaustive research, I’m sure there are other options and for these options there may be aspects that I have not considered. My goal is to start a conversation about gun control options, not to be the definitive source on the topic…
What follows is based on a simple premise: Jurisdictions that have higher and more rigorous forms of gun control have lower rates of gun crime. Warren Kinsella’s column this week does a great job of articulating that fact, and if you aren’t sold on this premise I recommend you read it(http://m.torontosun.com/2012/07/23/poverty-and-inequality-the-triggers-to-more-gunplay). Or I could recommend some academic studies … there are a lot of research that supports this premise.
In addition, I take the stance that individuals in Canada do not have an inherent legal right to own guns codified in the constitution or in common law. Therefore, restrictions on gun ownership cannot, in my opinion, be opposed on the ground that they violate personal liberty. (For an interesting discussion on whether the right to bear arms is a fundamental natural right, see this Economist article)
Revisiting the Registry
Now that the Conservative government has killed the registry, those of us who support gun control have two options: we can attempt to rewind and rebuild the registry as it was created in 1997, or we can move forward, make a revised registry and chart a new course for gun control in Canada.
I could attempt to debunk the myths about the gun registry like that the fees were simply a tax grab or that it wasn’t used as a crime fighting tool, neither of which were true. However, that would make for a very long post.
The fact is that the old registry is no longer in effect and the data may or may not be getting destroyed. Another fact is that the official opposition party in Canada has pledged to recreate the registry. So this debate isn’t over, it wasn’t stopped and I’m not the one restarting it.
While, as is often said, criminals don’t register their guns, the database of legal Canadian guns allows investigators to trace a firearm involved in a crime back to the original source. Recent crime statistics suggest that at least a third of firearm offenses are committed with legal or formerly legal (i.e. stolen) firearms so this is not an insignificant benefit (Source 1)(Source 2).
Thomas Mulcair recognizes, as Jack did before him, that the Long Gun Registry had flaws, but the point is to fix them, not scrap the system because of them. (Read more about how the NDP tried to find a middle ground here)
Sporting Use Test for Guns
Great Britain has codified a test to determine if a specific gun should or shouldn’t be banned. It’s called the “Sporting Use Test” and it’s based on a simple principle: if a gun isn’t likely to be used for hunting or recreational shooting, it should be banned. Charlie Angus had a 2010 private members bill (Bill C-580) that attempted to introduce such a test in Canada.
Critics say that the rule is too tightly enforced in the UK but on the flip side Great Britain has a much lower crime rate than in Canada. If we could ensure that the ‘sporting use’ rule wasn’t abused, it could balance the concerns of rural Canadians and hunters with the obvious public safety concerns.
For an example of this type of test: It is illegal to use a handgun to hunt in Manitoba (Source), Ontario (Source), Alberta (Source), and BC (Source PDF). Of course some handguns might be used for sport shooting, but this framework would allow a case-by-case decision on which guns should be allowed under a ‘sporting use’ rule.
A Sporting Use Test for Gun Owners
Similar to the sporting use test for guns, the only people who should be allowed to get licences for guns in Canada are those people who have a legitimate ‘sporting use’ for them, meaning hunting or recreational shooting. Since individuals have to get hunting licences and permits from the government to use firearms, it should be rather simple to track who has used their licenced firearms for hunting.
This option would include a requirement for individuals renewing gun licences to show that they have legitimate sporting use for their firearms. This would include showing that they have had hunting permits during the time of the previous licence, a membership in a recreational shooting club or that they have agricultural uses for the firearms.
One attractive element of this approach is that by only targeting people who aren’t using firearms for what are generally assumed to be acceptable uses. And since farmers, hunters and sport shooters would be exempt, it could avoid backlash from rural voters.
Gun Control Zones
Astute followers of Canadian Politics will remember that in 2008 the NDP platform included creating urban handgun bans.
Specifically, the NDP promised to empower individual municipalities or provinces to decide if handguns would be banned in their communities. At the time, Jack Layton said, “In our cities and major communities the only people who should be carrying a handgun are law enforcement officials.” Those who wished to own handguns and happened to live in an area that had banned them could have them stored in the country, at a recreational range or an armory.
This is similar to proposals that Layton made at Toronto City Council in 1991 asking the federal government to allow the city to ban all gun storage in private residences or businesses in urban areas. The logic follows that if hunters living in urban areas need to travel to hunt anyway, it would be reasonable for them to store their firearms out of the city anyway. Of course, this rule allowed for storage in secure, licenced armories in urban areas as well (Source: City council meetings February 4th-5th, 1991).
Since this would only be implemented in urban areas it could attempt to address gun crime while not offending rural voters. Furthermore, since each local community would be able to decide whether it would have such a ban, it would be an expression of the democratic will of the people.
“We don’t target practice in the home, so there’s no reason to keep them [guns] there”
Ammunition Based Controls
When I was working on a paper on gun control earlier this year I came across a US article examining policy options for ammunition based gun control (The essay is here if you’re interested –PDF). The main ideas presented were to imprint serial numbers on ammunition sold and to ban dangerous types of bullets. It’s a type of gun control we should consider. While marked ammunition would increase the cost of bullets, it would make it easier for police to find criminals after the fact. More importantly it might discourage a few people from committing gun crimes in the first place if they know they will be more likely to be caught. Canada already bans certain types of ammunition, but those rules should be reviewed.
Furthermore, Canada has stronger rules about buying ammo than the US but they may not be fully enforced. In Canada, individuals are required to have a gun licence to buy ammunition and they can only buy ammo for the type of guns they are licenced to have. Gun control opponents like to say that criminals use guns outside the regulatory framework for firearms however the only way to get ammunition is within the legal framework. Given that criminals who do not have licences have been able to get ammunition it is clear that either they are getting from sellers who aren’t checking permits or from permit holders who are buying it and passing it on to non-permit holders.
We can strengthen the rules around ammunition without offending hunters or facing major backlashes from opponents of gun control. First, we should make selling or re-selling ammunition illegally more of an offence. Under the Ammunition Regulation Act, it is currently a finable offence to sell ammo to someone without a gun permit; we should make that a criminal offence. Secondly, this should be enforced regularly so anyone who can legally deal ammunition will know that the risk involved isn’t worth a quick buck. Finally, we should consider anyone that who knowingly sells ammunition to someone without legal reasons for having it an accessory to any crimes committed with that ammunition under Section 21. (1)a of the Canadian Criminal Code.
Quantity Control
Following the Montreal Massacure, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Big City Mayors’ Caucus ran a gun control public awareness campaign that included a limit to the number of guns that single FAC holder could possess. In 1991, as a Toronto City Councillor Layton supported that proposal saying, “The risk of theft and the need for safety outweigh any aesthetic rights of collectors who hold arsenals in their homes.”
Quantity based controls might cause some criticism from people who own guns for hunting or recreation but a lot would depend on what the limit was. I’m not sure that there is a legitimate reason to have a large number of working firearms.
Although such a might reduce the number of guns stolen and then used in crimes; it isn’t directly targeting gun crime.
Stopping the flow of illegal guns into Canada
While there is evidence to suggest that a statistically significant percent of guns used in Canadian gun crimes actually come from Canada, the fact that some guns are smuggled into Canada can’t be ignored.
Short of closing the borders (which I would not suggest) it may be impossible to fully stop the flow of illegal guns into Canada, however that doesn’t mean there is nothing we can do to reduce it.
In 2006, the NDP proposed a four-year minimum sentence for gun smuggling. In the recent Conservative Omnibus Crime Bill, the minimum for this was set at 3 years. Personally, I feel that supplying a criminal with a gun to commit a crime is empowering that crime and needs punished harshly. Whether this is a large enough punishment for the crime, is something that should be discussed.
More important than punishing gun smugglers is finding them (in part because if you don’t find them, you can’t charge and sentence them). This means more of a focus on border patrol. Unfortunately, Canada’s Conservative Government is taking us in the wrong direction in this regard. Recent news reports suggest that some reason to believe that the latest budget cuts will make it harder to stop guns at the border, since the agency in charge of the border is being cut.
Also fun fact: In 2004, 1,099 firearms were seized by the Canadian Border Services Agency. In 2008, that was 523.
Conclusion
There are ways that we can increase gun control and fight gun crime while respecting hunters and the rural tradition of gun ownership in Canada.
Although some people, including former Toronto Mayor David Miller, support a national handgun ban, at this point no one is calling for a larger ban like the one created by Australia in 1997 (where a large range of guns including almost all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were banned and destroyed by the government).
We don’t want an outright ban.
We just want more restrictions.
I’d say that’s a reasonable request.
——————–
This is the first of three posts exploring the issue of gun control, today’s dealt with Policy options for gun control
Part 1 discussed why now is the time for action and debunked the myth of politicizing tragedy. It can be found here.
Part 3 will recognize that violence and crime have other root causes than just guns, so I will address crime at large and will offer a progressive response to the conservative framework of fighting crime. I plan to post this on Monday, July 30th.