The statistical analyses of representation in the Canadian House of Commons which follow are based on a file of approximately 2,200 cards, each card representing a Canadian member of Parliament. The file covers the entire period from 1867 to the present, the following information being sought in each case: name, date and place of birth, party affiliation and electoral record, constituencies represented, occupation or economic interests, religion, education, previous experience in municipal or provincial politics, and career after leaving the House of Commons. Some of this information, such as names and constituencies represented, was readily obtainable from official sources, and much of the rest was equally accessible in such reference books as the Canadian Parliamentary Guide, Who's Who, etc. Some of it, however, such as the “post-M.P.” career of a man who did not attain the Elysian fields of the Senate or the Bench, was difficult and often impossible to secure, for most reference books of biography show a regrettable tendency to drop names from their pages unless the individual concerned is continuously successful in his career. Defeated or retired members are for this reason often hard to trace, unless there is some justification for their prominence as a citizen other than their political undertakings. Another point on which it has been impossible to find satisfactory data is that of members' education.

The maintenance of a satisfactory relationship between the financial resources and the responsibilities of a government is one of the most fundamental problems of all states. The difficulties are greatly complicated in those states in which a central government shares its tax resources and its responsibilities with local administrations. The complexities reach their peak in federations where central, provincial, and municipal governments all have strong traditions of independence, all draw their revenue from sources which overlap to a greater or lesser degree, and all compete for the support of the same voting public. As there develops a recognition of the nation-wide and not merely the local significance of such services as schools, roads, welfare services, etc., it becomes increasingly necessary for each local government to keep its services up to a level not too far below the accepted national standard. As the cost of these government services increases, an ever increasing proportion of the wealth of the community must be diverted to these uses and the point is eventually reached where the less wealthy communities are unable to raise the tax revenue necessary to maintain an acceptable standard.

Two conflicting courses of action offer themselves as possible solutions to such a situation. On the one hand there has been a movement toward larger administrative areas and toward centralization of services under the control of the authority operating over the larger area.