Methodology

Our Mission

Bang for Your Duck is an independent, nonpartisan civic transparency project. We measure a simple question: how much value does your riding get back for the federal tax dollars you send to Ottawa?

We grade ridings, not MPs personally. An MP inherits their riding's infrastructure history, provincial transfer formulas, and geographic realities. A low score is not an indictment of character — it's a signal that measurable dollar flows into that riding are below average relative to the cost of federal representation.

Our goal is to give Canadians a starting point for asking informed questions about how federal money reaches their community.

How We Grade

Each riding receives a composite score from 0 to 100 based on three weighted categories that measure dollars flowing in and out:

Federal Investment (50%) measures Infrastructure Canada project funding per capita in the riding — the largest single indicator of federal dollars reaching a community.

Federal Transfers (35%) captures provincial-level transfer payments (health, social, equalization) allocated per capita. All ridings in the same province receive the same transfer score.

MP Expenses (15%) measures the cost of federal representation — office budgets, travel, hospitality, and contracts. Lower expenses relative to peers improve the score.

Three additional categories are displayed as context but do not affect the composite grade:

These categories provide important background but are not measures of value delivered. A riding's demographic profile or electoral competitiveness is not something an MP controls.

Data Sources

Every data point comes from a publicly available government or parliamentary source. We do not use proprietary data.

Scores are updated daily via automated data pipeline. Data accuracy depends on these source institutions. If a source contains errors, those may propagate into our scores until corrected.

What We Don't Measure

No quantitative model captures the full picture of parliamentary representation. We acknowledge several important aspects of an MP's work that are not reflected in our scores:

• Constituency casework — helping constituents navigate federal services (immigration, CRA, passports, veterans' affairs)
• Committee influence — the quality and impact of an MP's committee work, beyond simple membership counts
• Speech and debate quality — parliamentary speeches are counted but not evaluated for substance
• Legislative amendments — proposed changes to bills that may significantly shape policy outcomes
• Caucus and party influence — behind-the-scenes advocacy within government
• Riding-level service delivery — local office responsiveness and community engagement

These matter. They are simply not quantifiable from publicly available data at scale. Our scores should be a starting point for conversation, not the final word.

Structural Factors That Affect Scores

Several factors outside any individual MP's control can significantly affect a riding's score:

• Geography and travel costs. MPs representing remote or northern ridings face inherently higher travel expenses. A high expense score for a Yukon or Nunavut MP reflects geography, not wastefulness.
• Government vs. opposition. Governing-party MPs have more influence over where federal investment dollars flow. Opposition MPs may advocate effectively but have less direct control over spending decisions.
• Provincial transfer formulas. Federal transfers are allocated at the provincial level using equalization and program-specific formulas. All ridings in the same province receive the same transfer score — this reflects the province's fiscal relationship with Ottawa, not the individual MP's advocacy.
• Population density. Per-capita calculations can disadvantage very small or very large ridings in different ways. A single large infrastructure project can dramatically shift a small riding's score.
• Urban vs. rural characteristics. Urban ridings tend to have different infrastructure investment patterns than rural ones. Neither is inherently better.
• Historical investment. MPs inherit their riding's infrastructure history. A new MP in a riding with decades of federal underinvestment starts at a disadvantage through no fault of their own.

For MPs and Staff

We grade ridings, not individuals. If you believe any data about your riding is inaccurate, incomplete, or missing important context, we genuinely want to hear from you.

We also welcome suggestions for additional public data sources that could improve our model. Our goal is accuracy and fairness, not gotcha journalism.

Terms of Use

Bang for Your Duck is an independent editorial project. The scores, grades, and commentary on this website represent opinions based on publicly available government data. They constitute fair comment on matters of public interest under Canadian law.

This website is not legal, financial, or political advice. Scores represent a weighted composite model and are not absolute measures of MP quality, riding health, or government performance.

We are not affiliated with any political party, government body, lobby group, or elected official. No MP, party, or government agency has editorial input into our methodology or scores.

Data accuracy depends on the source institutions listed above. Errors in source data may propagate into our scores until corrected. We make reasonable efforts to verify data accuracy but cannot guarantee it.

All content on this website is protected by copyright. You may share and reference our scores with attribution. Bulk redistribution or commercial use of our data requires written permission.