Canadian Politics

A01(d) - Political Leaders and Leadership

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Cristine De Clercy (Trent University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Cristine De Clercy (Trent University)

Leaders in the Canadian Public Eye: When Authenticity, Proximity and Competence are at Play: Mireille Lalancette (UQTR), Éric Bélanger (McGill)
Abstract: This paper explores the various perceptions about leaders’ traits in Canada using survey data provided by C-DEM about provincial leaders, from the 2020-2023 Provincial and Territorial Election Studies. Building on Ceccobelli and Di Gregorio’s (2022) triangle of leadership theory to assess the perceptions of Canadian leaders and using specific questions related to leadership perceptions, this research provides an unprecedented portrait of the ways Canadians perceive their provincial leaders. This theory is helpful for many reasons. It has proven a valuable resource for studying current approaches to self-presentation and storytelling used by leaders about themselves and their opponents. Ceccobelli and Di Gregorio argue that branding and leadership evaluation are based on three complementary elements that we can present in the form of a triangle, where competence, authenticity and proximity/ordinariness fit together and combine to help convince voters of political leaders' ability to lead. In other words, political figures are judged on the basis of their ability to be consistently perceived as competent, authentic, and close to the people. In this theory, these three dimensions are not in contrast to each other, but work in combination. This paper offers the first empirical study using survey data to test this theory. This study is thus the first to attach the model to real-life data in order to test it. It will provide much needed perspective on provincial leadership and thus contribute to offer a more acute reckoning of the diverse realities and perspectives on leadership in the Canadian provinces. More broadly, this comprehensive overview informs our understanding of the relationship between democracy and trust in Canada.

Driver's Seat or Backseat Drivers? Canadian Prime Ministers and Leadership of Cabinet Committees: Kenny Ie (University of British Columbia), Nicholas Allen (Royal Holloway, University of London), Nora Siklodi (University of Portsmouth)
Abstract: Although cabinet committees have existed at the federal level in Canada since 1867, their emergence as primary, institutionalized mechanisms of cabinet process dates only to the 1960s and Pierre Trudeau’s reforms to cabinet and the centre of government (Ie 2019; Koerner 1989; Matheson 1976). These reforms regularized the referral and delegation of decisions to committees prior to cabinet confirmation, enabling committees to play key agenda-setting and decision-making roles in the policy process. Notably, the prime minister enjoys complete discretion in the structuring of committees, including number, responsibilities, membership, and assignment of chairs, who “act for the Prime Minister with his or her authority, including setting the committee agenda” (Privy Council Office 2015). In this paper, we examine how the prime minister’s choice of committee chairs – both self-assignments and choice of other ministers – is indicative of their priorities, management and leadership style, and relational dynamics with cabinet colleagues. We assess Canadian prime ministers’ assignment of cabinet committee chairs from 1968 to 2024 as one of a set of studies we are undertaking, investigating committee chairs in the British context and comparatively in a broad set of European parliamentary systems.

Redefining Election Loss: Triggers of Leadership Races in Canadian Provincial and Federal Political Parties (2000-2023): Audrey Brennan (Institut National de Recherche Scientifique)
Abstract: Scholars generally agree that political parties change their leaders after losing an election (Leduc 2001). Pruysers and Stewart (2018), building on the "contagion effect" of leadership selection rules from Cross and Blais (2012), explore whether Canadian federal and provincial parties emulate each other's leadership races and conclude that there are no pan-Canadian practices. This study investigates whether election failure predetermines changes in leadership selection methods among Canadian political parties and whether these parties influence one another. To redefine election loss, we revisit the theoretical foundations of political party organizational change through the lenses of inherency and contingency theory, critically reviewing existing scholarship through Shugart’s (2008) model aimed at identifying the drivers of electoral reform. Utilizing an original dataset of leadership races from 2000 to 2023, we find that the duration of time spent in opposition is a better predictor of leadership changes than mere election losses or declines in seats and votes. Our analysis indicates that prolonged opposition—not just losing power—serves as the primary catalyst for change, with maintaining parliamentary status proving to be a more consistent factor than electoral outcomes alone. Lastly, we observe that parties adopt similar leadership selection selectorates as other parties within their jurisdiction or other parties of the same family across different Canadian jurisdictions. However, as the data is perfectly separated, further investigation is necessary to confirm this conclusion.