Experiments in Co-Leadership in Canada

Article 4 / 9 , Vol 46 No. 1 (Spring)

Experiments in Co-Leadership in Canada

Two political parties with elected members in Canadian parliaments have or appear to be in the process of adopting co-leadership models. Although the co-leadership option has become well-established among some parties in other countries, this type of structure is still somewhat of a novelty in Canada. In this article, the authors illuminate examples of co-leadership in international contexts, outline the pros and cons of this type of arrangement according to existing political science literature, and explore how co-leadership has worked or may work among its Canadian adherents. The authors conclude that while the co-leadership model has multiple democratic and practical benefits, leadership arrangements where there is centralization in a heroic leader have clear advantages in an era of brand-based politics and that it remains unlikely that parties in government or on the cusp of forming government will adopt this system in the near future.

Continue reading “Experiments in Co-Leadership in Canada”

External Shocks and Westminster Executive Governance: New Brunswick’s All-Party Cabinet Committee on COVID-19

Article 8 / 14 , Vol 43 No 3 (Autumn)

External Shocks and Westminster Executive Governance: New Brunswick’s All-Party Cabinet Committee on COVID-19

This research note compares the responses of Canadian provincial cabinet governments to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic health crisis with a focus on New Brunswick’s unique and somewhat exceptional formation of an all party cabinet committee on COVID-19 in March 2020. The article reviews the responses of provincial cabinets to the pandemic with special attention to their relationship to opposition parties and leaders. While the Savoie thesis has dominated Canadian understanding of cabinet governance, we suggest that centralization of power is only one likely feature and not the dominant feature of cabinet government. With our findings of the current cases, we argue that the defining characteristic of cabinet government in Westminster systems is its “flexibility of method”1
and “capacity for change”.2

Continue reading “External Shocks and Westminster Executive Governance: New Brunswick’s All-Party Cabinet Committee on COVID-19”

A Consideration of Cabinet Size

Article 5 / 10 , Vol 38 No 3 (Autumn)

A Consideration of Cabinet Size

Cabinet size has fluctuated in Canadian legislatures over the past century. Beginning in 1993, two federal governments introduced “roll back” cabinets which sought to significantly reduce the number of ministers. The author, focusing especially on the years 1993 to 2014, asks if Canadian governments have a “cabinet size problem.” He notes that since 1993 two trends have emerged: 1) cabinets are more likely to expand during government and more likely to consolidate between governments and 2) cabinet size is more likely to increase during government under centre-left parties than centre or centre-right parties. Although arguments for a reduction of cabinet size tend to focus on financial costs, the author highlights the political cost of having a large cabinet relative to the size of the legislature, as there are fewer private members to keep the government accountable.

Following a January 2014 cabinet shuffle, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 40-member federal ministry tied Brian Mulroney’s 1984 cabinet as the largest in Canadian history.1 Compared to other Westminster systems, Canadian cabinets have been noted for their large membership.2 Does Canada have a cabinet size problem? As Graham White wrote in 1990, “foreign visitors to Canada are frequently bewildered by the size of Canadian cabinets”.3 Beyond the institutional differences identified by political scientists between Westminster states, the size of the ministries in Canadian federal and provincial governments is subject to domestic scrutiny after each cabinet shuffle. On occasions of cabinet expansion, critics express austerity-themed worries of the cost of government and populist-based concerns of “too many politicians”. On occasions of cabinet reduction, first ministers are praised for “streamlining government” or “doing more with less”. Not surprisingly, Canadian politicians have been quick to pursue the positive responses to cabinet reduction, promising to appoint fewer ministers to cabinet.

Continue reading “A Consideration of Cabinet Size”

Top