Magic Statistics

Sixties baby boomer Mary Kenny writes in the London Telegraph that cohabitation is probably more common than marriage among British young people.  She, like many of her generation, thinks cohabitation more rational and less repressive than getting married straight away.

So, she is taken aback by research showing that cohabiting relationships are far less stable than marriage.

But it emerges now that, far from being a natural prelude to marriage or permanent commitment, cohabitation can actually be an inoculation against it. Research by New York's Cornell University, published in the journal Demography, now reveals that cohabitation is unstable: half of all cohabitees' relationships last less than a year and 90 per cent end within five years, mostly because couples broke up.

This has prompted the Cornell boffins to describe cohabitation as an ''intense form of dating'' and their findings mirror the experience in Britain, where the average length of cohabitation is just two years, and more than half of all cohabitees split up within five years of the birth of a child.
. . .
If cohabitation is seen as a try-out relationship lacking real commitment and frequently associated with failure, that elevates marriage, by definition, to the position of the gold standard. Cohabitation is the imitation: marriage is the real thing.

Previous related posts:

• Canadians who believe in marriage have stronger marriages
• Does marriage matter for the nurturing of children?
• UK government contributing to erosion of marriage: Rowan Williams

Europe has in recent decades seen a proliferation of hierarchical and inter-connected governmental authorities.  In practice, such “multilevel governance”, or MLG, has resulted in confusion and loss of accountability.  Two Canadian political scientists recently defined MLG as

a system of continuous negotiation among governments at several territorial tiers.

Sounds like Canada’s federal-provincial/territorial-municipal system.

Globe and Mail columnist Neil Reynolds observes:

In the continuous negotiations that this process requires, the need for unanimity expands even as the prospect for it recedes.

This process also increases ambiguity as to who is responsible for particular areas of decision-making.

Canadian governance has recently developed in this direction as well.

Canada moved further into "multilevel governance" with former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin's "New Deal for Communities," which — among billions of dollars worth of other things — provided a federal cabinet minister for cities, a constitutional novelty perpetuated by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Constitutionally, the provinces have exclusive responsibility for cities. With the federal government dealing directly with cities and funding them directly, how are the provinces to remain accountable for them?

As government breaches constitutional restraints on its activities, it obviates accountability.  Europe is already there.  The supra-national agencies of the European Union are not answerable to any electorate or elected official.  It’s “all government, all the time.”  Is Canada headed the same way?

For access to Mr Reynolds's full column, click here. 

Previous related posts:

• EU Constitution to rise from the grave?
• We’ll regulate them back into the Middle Ages

Statistics Canada released a report this morning on the time Canadians spend travelling to and from work.

The average Canadian now spends nearly 12 full days a year getting to work and returning home, according to a new study on commuting, the first of a series of four that paint a picture of the daily activities of Canadians.

Commuters spent an average of 63 minutes a day making the round trip between their place of residence and their workplace in 2005. That's the equivalent of nearly 275 hours of commuting, based on a 260-day work year.

Wide variations in commuting times were seen in different cities.  The city whose residents had the longest average round-trip commute was Oshawa with 111 minutes, followed by Toronto (80), Montreal (76), Vancouver and Calgary (67), Ottawa-Gatineau (66), Halifax (65), and Edmonton (63).  [Information found on page 19 of this pdf document.]

These estimates, based on the 2005 General Social Survey, show average commuting times have increased since previous surveys in 1992 and 1998.

Public transit typically entails longer commuting times than private automobiles.

The study also found that the average travel time rose for both car users and public transit users. But it confirmed what many people already know (despite problems of congestion) it is in most cases faster to use a car or other vehicle to get to work than public transit.

It was also found that automobile users who participate in car pools commute an average of 12 minutes longer than automobile users who travel alone.

If you want to minimise commuting time, the ideal place to live is an urban area with a population under 50,000 or a rural area.  Hey, with a population of 23,638 (per page 2 of this pdf document), Whitehorse fits the bill perfectly.  And, indeed, my commuting time is away below the national average for workers who live 5 to 9 kilometers from their place of work.  (I live 7.5 km from my office.)  The national average is 42 minutes; my round-trip self-drive commute is about 24 minutes (a minute or two longer if there's a lot of traffic on the way home).

Also, the City of Whitehorse has said that an alternate route from my neighbourhood to the downtown area will be constructed beginning next spring.  That could knock another 4 or 5 minutes off my commute.  Whitehorse has an admirable philosophy on commuting: Stop congestion before it starts.

Sources:

Statistics Canada, 2006. "General Social Survey: Commuting times." The Daily.  July 12. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-XIE.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060712/d060712b.htm (accessed 12 July 2006).

Statistics Canada, 2006. "The Time It Takes to Get to Work and Back." Statistics Canada catalogue no. 89-622-XIE.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/89-622-XIE/89-622-XIE2006001.pdf (accessed 12 July 2006).

Another product from the 2005 General Social Survey released today is a detailed breakdown of how Canadians use their time.  Ever wondered how much time Nova Scotians spend watching television compared to Quebecers or Albertans?  Or Canadians aged 15 to 24 compared to those 65 or over?  Check it out (pdf); it's fascinatin'. (Unfortunately, residents of the northern territories were not included in the survey.)

The Hon. Bill Graham, Acting Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Leader of the Opposition, has denounced the Conservative government's proposal to bolster military strength in northern Canada, because "there aren't any immediate threats to sovereignty."

Federal Tories' pledges to increase military spending in the Arctic — including $5 billion for armed icebreakers promised during the campaign before the Jan. 23 election — are unwarranted, he told reporters.

"The challenges in the North are not really military at this time," said Graham, who is heading the Liberal party until a December leadership convention to chose Paul Martin's successor.

And that guy used to be Minister of National Defence!  His myopic thinking goes a long way toward explaining why Canada's military has been allowed to fall into such poor shape.  He should know better than most of us that one of the basic concepts of national defence is preparedness—being ready for military threats before they happen.

"We're not going to have an invasion from Russia. We don't see a military threat in the North. What we want is to exercise our sovereignty in intelligent ways, but that means also investing in our local infrastructure, it means investing in our people."

"Investing in local infrastructure" and "investing in our people" are time-honoured Liberal clichés all well and good, but they hardly qualify as national defence.

Want Canada to "exercise our sovereignty in intelligent ways"?  How about this reality check: The United States is on record rejecting Canada's claim to sovereignty over the North West Passage.  This was in the news while Mr Graham was defence minister.  How soon he forgets!  See, for example, this in-depth BBC report from October 2005, source of the map on the right.

He has also forgotten that, only days after taking over as prime minister, Stephen Harper was sparring with the US Ambassador to Canada over Arctic sovereignty.  Apparently, Liberals prefer to repress news contradicting their fantasy that Mr Harper is beholden to President Bushitler.

Only last month, Professor Michael Byers of UBC's Liu Institute for Global Issues urged Canada to act now to ensure our continued control of the North West Passage.

"These are decisions that need to be made now so that they can actually be implemented in the years and decades to come when we do have a challenge to our sovereignty, as is almost inevitable in the years, perhaps even the months, ahead," says Byers.

There's that pesky preparedness thing again.

To complete Mr Graham's foolishness, he made those statements during a visit to northern Canada.

Graham, who was defence minister before the Liberals lost the parliamentary election in January, made the comment while in Yellowknife Tuesday to drum up support for the Liberal party.

If Mr Graham has no objection to Americans and other foreigners barging unannounced into Canada's northern waters, he's certainly entitled to his view.  But if he wants to "drum up support" for his party, it's probably best if he says that somewhere down south.

Previous related post: Denmark sends warship to island claimed by Canada