Wrk1 | Wrk2 | Wrk3 | Wrk4 | Wrk5 | Wrk6 | Wrk7 | Wrk8 | Wrk9 | Wrk10 | Wrk11 | Wrk12 | Wrk13 | Wrk14 | Wrk15


Not Just Because It's 2019: Intersectional Politics in the New Trudeau Era

Alana Cattapan (Co-Head of the Women, Gender and Politics Section – Saskatchewan)
JP Lewis (Section Head of Canadian Politics – New Brunswick-Saint John)
Ethel Tungohan (Section Head of Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous People and Politics – York)

Sarah Wiebe (Co-Head of the Women, Gender and Politics Section – Hawaii)

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked about his decision to ensure that there is gender parity in his cabinet, he responded by saying that he was doing so "because it's 2015." Now, the time has come to address the state of intersectional politics in the new Trudeau era. Since the last election, there have been significant commitments to addressing gender equality, Indigenous reconciliation, and more just immigration policies. The reinvestment in Status of Women Canada and the allocation of funding to women's groups is one notable example, as are new investments to come for engagement with Indigenous communities, and modifications to existing immigration policies that are meant to ensure that Canada's human rights commitments are upheld. From budget allocations to increased consultations to legislative proposals, there have been important promises for meaningful change.

The lines between rhetoric and real change are hard to distinguish, blurred by funding still to come, and programs in the process of being (re)established. Critiques have emerged from different quarters. Grassroots activists, for example, point to marginalized communities' continued experiences of inequity in the Trudeau-era while academics who observe the limitations in the Trudeau government's ability to shift policies because of policy 'stickiness.' These interlocutors have indicated that these initiatives merely pay lip-service to social justice commitments without fundamentally altering existing structural inequities. In this context, current efforts to consult and engage with the public emerge as a paradoxical process: legitimating already-established policy directions, with funding commitments being paid out reluctantly, while doing little to change the power dynamics of the status quo.

The goal of this workshop is to interrogate the nascent record of the Trudeau government, and to identify meaningful ways forward to address gender, indigeneity, race, and 'diversity'. We encourage submissions from a broad range of perspectives including (but not limited to) gender and political representation, intersectional policy analysis, Indigenous politics, and race and immigration. We invite panelists to reflect on the following (although we also welcome submissions that go beyond these questions):

  1. Is the Trudeau-era a new historical moment that signals a 'feminist' turn in Canadian politics?
  2. How can feminist achievements of this government be 'measured'?
  3. How 'intersectional' is the current government and, how could it do better?
  4. How can we evaluate the Trudeau's government's record when looking at specific policy areas (e.g., indigeneity and reconciliation, immigration, climate change) using a feminist lens?
  5. What elements of feminist and intersectional analysis can be applied to current policy problems to better engage with and involve affected parties?


The Canadian Judiciary in the Post-McLachlin Era

Stéphanie Chouinard
(Section Head of Law and Public Policy – RMC)

In December 2017, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin retired from the Supreme Court of Canada. She was the longest sitting (and the first female) Chief Justice the Court has ever known, having been appointed on the court in 1989, then becoming Chief Justice in 2000. Her tenure on the court allowed her to impact not only the Canadian law, but also the Supreme Court as an institution, in a profound way. She has also had an influence on the administration of the Canadian justice system.

This workshop's aim will be to give an overview not only of jurisprudential, but also of institutional, change at the Supreme Court during McLachlin C.J.'s tenure. The workshop welcomes panels or papers that touch on those broader questions, including but not limited to topics such as:

  • What are McLachlin C.J.'s most important contributions to the jurisprudence?
  • What direction did she imprint on the state of the Canada law? - How has the Canadian judicial system evolved since 2000? What changes are next?
  • What can we expect from the new Chief Justice, Richard Wagner?


The Official Languages Act at 50: What is Next for the Canadian Language Regime?

Stéphanie Chouinard (Section Head of Law and Public Policy – RMC)

The Official Languages Act, in its original iteration, was adopted in 1969. This quasi-constitutional legislation has been through a few transformations since then, notably in 1988. However, the general the consensus today is that it needs urgent revision. This workshop will seek to discuss the strengths and the shortcomings of this legislation, to analyze current proposals for its overhaul, as well as the possibilities for more significant changes to the Canadian language regime by the recognition of Indigenous languages. 

More specifically, the role of this workshop will be to interrogate the legacy of the Official Languages Act both on public policy and on Canadian society at large, but also to reflect on the possible and necessary amendments to the text of law and to the legal recognition of Indigenous languages. We invite panelists to submit papers on issues such as (and not limited to): 

  • The normative and legal underpinnings of the Canadian Language regime
  • The history of the Official Languages Act 
  • The impact of the Official Languages Act on Canadian society
  • The Official Languages Act and linguistic minority governance
  • The Official Languages Act and public policy in Canada
  • The role of the Official Languages Commissioner 
  • Possible amendments to the Official Languages Act 
  • The recognition of Indigenous Languages in Canada 


Political Economy of/and/in a Hotter World

Organizer: Andrew Biro (Section Head of Political Economy – Acadia)

Characterized in a variety of ways – the Anthropocene, a "hothouse planet," "Eaarth" (Bill McKibben), a "The Long Emergency" (James Howard Kunstler) – there is little reasonable doubt that we are transitioning into a new, hotter world, and one that is being fundamentally reshaped at a planetary scale by human activity.
The overarching questions this workshop seeks to explore are:

  1. how can political economy contribute to understand this transition process and/or the new planetary configuration that we are entering?
  2. how does political economy itself, a field developed in and for a more stable climate, need to be adapted to this new environment?

The workshop welcomes panels or papers that touch on those broader questions, including but not limited to topics such as:

  • Political economy of climate mitigation, impacts, or adaptations: local, regional, global
  • Political economy of science (climatology, stratigraphy, etc.)
  • Prospects for global governance and/or planetary sovereignty in the Anthropocene
  • Political subjects in the post-Holocene
  • Struggles for Indigenous sovereignty and/or/as climate justice
  • Critiques of the "Anthropocene" concept
  • The (im)possibility of a "good" Anthropocene
  • Climate migration, borders, sovereignty
  • Political economies of new/emergent tribalisms: contemporary populism to dystopian speculative fiction


Stealth Marketing in Politics and Public Policy

Andrew Biro
(Section Head of Political Economy – Acadia)
Stéphanie Chouinard (Section Head of Law and Public Policy – RMC)
Meghan Joy (Section Head of Local and Urban Politics – Concordia)

In 2008, a blog called "À vélo citoyens" was used to promote cycling in Montreal. Ostensibly created by three cyclists—Melanie Gomez, Jean-Michel Simoneau, and Penelope Riopelle—, it was later revealed that the blog was the creation of a marketing firm commissioned to promote the city's then-new bike sharing program (Bixi), and its creators were the work of the firm's imagination.

During the 2010 Toronto election, then-mayor Rob Ford's campaign team created a Twitter account posing as Karen Philby (@queensquaykaren), a woman claiming to be "losing faith" in Ford's opponent and who could increasingly "see Ford's appeal." When the origin of the account was revealed, the Ford team dismissed its critics by suggesting that such accounts are a regular part of election campaigns.

These are two examples of the initiatives used to shift public discourse or to muster support for ideas that advance political or corporate interests. "Stealth marketing" practices -like the fake blogging, the creation and use of fake social media accounts, and the broader creation of fake grassroots organizations-, work to mislead the public and policymakers into believing that there is broad support for certain policy approaches and programs where little or none exists. These practices span the range of topic areas and levels of government, as they are part of the regular lobbying and advertising campaigns of pharmaceutical firms, the telecommunications industry, tobacco companies, political parties, and the energy sector, to name a few.

This workshop interrogates how political and economic interests mobilize to disrupt and influence politics and public policy in unusual ways. We are particularly interested in "stealth marketing" practices, and in how lobbying in the contemporary period might be (and has been) more broadly conceived, but are open to an even wider range of relevant topics and approaches (e.g., methodological challenges, theory, and case studies).


Public-Private Partnerships at Sub-National Level in Canada (and Beyond)

Joseph Garcea (Section Head of Provincial and Territorial Politics in Canada and Beyond - Saskatchewan)

Public Private Partnerships (P3s) are pervasive in most, if not all, spheres of the Canadian polity and economy at the national and sub-national levels. This includes P3s in which the provincial and territorial governments are involved directly and indirectly. Despite their growing importance as policy and program instruments, most academics, policy makers, ratepayers, and voters do not have a very sophisticated understanding of why P3s are created, how they are governed, managed, financed and operated. The central purpose of this multi-panel workshop is to raise the level of awareness, interest, and knowledge about P3s among political scientists. The second objective is to motivate participants to think about important aspects of P3s that warrant greater attention in their respective research agendas and in their teaching.

The hope is that those producing proposals that fit within the scope of this multi-panel workshop will bear in mind not only the theme of the 2019 Congress ("Circles of Conversation"), but also the theme of the 2019 CPSA Conference ("All Sides of Things: Speaking Truth to People"). Given those two themes, this is a good opportunity for political scientists to engage in "circles of conversations" in which participants consider "all sides of things" and "speak truth to the people," and not just to power and to the powerful, especially those who prefer quiet compliance more than conversations on many topics, including P3s.

Focus of Workshop Panels

The series of panels focused on P3s consists of several general topic areas:

  • Theoretical and thematic perspectives of major issues such as the political economy of P3s; multi-level governance and its implications for P3s; governance of P3s; management of P3s; legal issues of P3s; financial issues of P3s; and Perspectives on the patterns, potential and problems of P3s.
  • Perspectives on the roles of provincial governments as mediators between the federal government and various types of regional and local governments and authorities in the creation and operation of P3s.
  • Policies and politics of P3s in various provinces and territories.
  • Policies and politics of P3s involving various First Nations communities.
  • Perspectives on policies and politics of P3s in various major sectors (e.g., education, health, provision of infrastructure, provision of community services, and the provision of services in the justice sector).
  • Perspectives on policies and politics of P3s involving sub-national governments in other countries.


Patterns of Continuity and Change & Converge and Divergence in the Provinces and Territories

Joseph Garcea (Section Head of Provincial and Territorial Politics in Canada and Beyond - Saskatchewan)

This workshop consists of two panels that deal with two different but related objectives. The objective of the first panel is to provide an overview and analysis of elections in any provinces or territories in Canada. The objective of the second panel is to provide an overview and analysis of any major policy initiatives undertaken in any provinces or territories.

The central integrating question of this workshop is to what extent do the political events and policy initiatives reveal patterns of continuity or change and/or patterns of convergence and divergence?

This is a timely question in light of their complex and rapidly evolving political-economic contexts. Their respective contexts comprise not only ideological and normative dimensions but also economic and fiscal dimensions. The ideological and normative dimensions include varying mixtures of socialism, neo-conservatism, and 'third-wayism', as well as libertarianism and communitarianism, and right- and left-wing populism. The economic and fiscal dimensions include the interrelationships of fluctuating economic conditions and fluctuating fiscal pressures and capacities. The workshop will consider the extent to which these and other factors influence elections and policies in the various provinces and territories.

Focus of Workshop Panels

The panel on provincial and territorial elections will focus on the party platforms, narratives, dynamics, and outcomes of various elections. Of particular interest are the elections conducted during the five-year period from 2014 to May 2019. The papers can focus either on one or more elections in a province or territory.

The panel on provincial and territorial policies will focus on the purposes, substantive content, and instruments of such policies as well as the policy-making processes and dynamics. The papers can focus on a policy initiative within a single jurisdiction or the same types of policy initiatives across two or more jurisdictions.

Despite their different foci, the overarching purpose and integrating theme of the two panels is the extent to which they reveal patterns of either (a) continuity or change, or (b) convergence or divergence. Within the scope of that theme, panelists should devote attention to such patterns both (a) within individual jurisdictions, and (b) across jurisdictions based on what is most appropriate and significant for their paper.  


Looking at All Sides of Things and Speaking Truth to People in Public Administration

Jean-François Savard (Section Head of the CPSA/CAPPA Section on Public Administration - ÉNAP)

The CPSA/CAPPA Section on Public Administration invites you to submit a paper proposal or a panel proposal for the upcoming 2019 Annual Conference. Rooted in this year general theme, All Sides of Things: Speaking Truth to People, the section is seeking papers that are looking at public policy and public management research objects from a different angle. We encourage submitting papers that question the appropriateness of given concepts such as policy success and efficiency, transparency, diversity and inclusion, public participation and so on. What are the dark sides of implementing and experimenting with these concepts? Could they be used to mask government or public administrations' failures?

Looking at All Sides of Things also refers to using new research methodologies or improved actual research methodologies. How will we be studying Public Administration in the next 5 to 20 years? What will be the role of big data and artificial intelligence? How will qualitative and quantitative methodologies be used differently with all the new tools that are currently emerging? How research ethics will impact the development of new methodologies?

Also, Canadian public administration has always been characterized by two simple mottos: speaking truth to power and fearless advice, loyal implementation. Savoie (1999) and Juillet and Rasmussen (2008) claim that one of the principles of our public administration is the loyalty of the public administration to its government. Civil servants tell the truth to power by providing them fearless advice, but once a decision is made, the public administration loyally (or dare we say blindly) implement it. In light of recent reports criticizing the federal government management, we can question whether this model is still sustainable or not. Are civil servants still able to provide fearless advice? Are they more preoccupied in pleasing the government and be promoted? Is there a culture of fear within our public administration? With policy issues becoming increasingly complex and demanding a deep expertise, do civil servants (who are the experts) still have to loyally implement government's decision or do they have a greater responsibility towards the public? Is it time now to question that 110-year-old model and ask how public administration can speak the truth to people?

These are only few ideas to fuel reflections on how we can look at All Sides of Things and Speaking Truth to People in public administration. Any ideas that find their ways in this year theme will be welcome. The section will also welcome any paper or panel proposal related to public administration, but not specific to this year general theme.


Socially-Engaged Research and Teaching in Unprecedented and Momentous Times

Karen Murray
(Section Head of Teaching and Professional Practice – York)
Ethel Tungohan (Section Head of Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous People and Politics – York)

The goal of this workshop is to critically examine socially engaged research and teaching in unprecedented and momentous times.  We are now arguably in an era of hatred, as witnessed by the rise of the Alt-Right and other forces embracing the ideologies of the far right, including Islamophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, transphobia, and white supremacy, all of which are variously woven through imperial, colonial, capitalist, and military entanglements.  All of these dynamics traverse multiple scales that shape and are shaped through different spatial forms, from families, to neighbourhoods, cities, countries, and global and transnational milieus.

Socially Engaged Research, Public Scholarship, Activist Research, and Participatory Action Research have grown more dominant in recent decades. More scholars are starting to subscribe to the belief that academic research and knowledge should be used not only towards academic theorizing but also for the benefit of people whose lives form the basis of theorizing. For some, it is believed that academic skills should be aimed at creating a more just world. Whether as public intellectuals, elected officials, grassroots organizers, or as scholar-activists, academics are starting to see the necessity of engaging with 'the public' in their work.

We have seen these dynamics at play in recent political events, such as the increased deportation and surveillance of racialized immigrants in the United States, in Great Britain, in Canada, and other Western immigrant-receiving states, the intensified dispossession of Indigenous land that have led to protests in the United States and in Canada, and the continued incarceration of Indigenous and racialized bodies. These events have led many scholars to use their expertise to contest these policies. Academics have played an important role in shaping debate and have been involved in various forms of political activism, from direct action to social movements.

Nevertheless, socially engaged research and teaching necessitates epistemological, methodological, and pedagogical approaches that depart from dominant positivist approaches in the discipline of political science. Some in the discipline may find embarking upon these alternative approaches risky, particularly in a context of neoliberal pressures in the university system.

This workshop asks participants to reflect on the promise of engaged research in the discipline of political science by addressing in questions that include but are not limited to:

  1. What thinkers do we draw upon to inspire scholarly approaches to socially engaged research and thinking? 
  2. How do academics reconcile and/or synthesize their scholarship with their activist work?
  3. How are diverse methods, methodologies, and data sources (e.g., ethnography, participant observation, community archives, etc.) being harnessed in 'socially engaged research'?
  4. What does socially-engaged teaching look like? What are examples of innovative pedadogies that allow students attentive and responsive to political events, from cities to the global stage? What potential exists for bringing students into the field, such us walking through city streets? 
  5. How can academics engage with the 'community' equitably, ethically, and with attention to inherent power differentials? How can academics give back concretely and meaningfully?
  6. Do some types of projects fit socially engaged research models better than others; if so, why and how?
  7. How are ethical questions addressed when collaborating with grassroots movements (e.g., migrant movements, anti-racist movements, Indigenous movements)?
  8. How might other knowledge sources and translation techniques (e.g., film) be used to broaden and diversify what counts as data (e.g., community archives; autoethnography; etc.).

By drawing attention to new and innovative ways of thinking about academics' role in social engagement, this workshop endeavors generate new research and advocacy agendas.


The Pre-CPSA Conference "Women in Political Science Leadership Program," which takes place a day before the official start of the CPSA Conference, will consist of various workshops led by a mix of senior and junior female scholars that address issues such as work/life balance, navigating the academy, combating the absence of diversity in political science as an academic field, scholar-activism and other topics.

There is no call for abstracts to participate in this program. Participation is open to all women and women-identified registered attendees to the CPSA Conference, although there may be a cap on the number of participants depending on room capacity. Details for participation are forthcoming.

Alana Cattapan (Co-Head of the Women, Gender and Politics Section – Saskatchewan)
Ethel Tungohan (Section Head of Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous People and Politics – York)
Sarah Wiebe (Co-Head of the Women, Gender and Politics Section – Hawaii)

Although 40.9% of all Canadian Political Science Association (CPSA) members identify as women (Abu-Laban, Sawer and St. Laurent, 2017: 7), women are still underrepresented in key leadership roles. For example, CPSA has only had 11 women presidents since its establishment in 1912 (Ibid: 9). While important strides have been made to address gender and diversity concerns -- most notably through the establishment of the Women and Politics Section in 2000, concerns about gender equity in the professional abound. Every year, discussion at the Women, Gender and Politics workshops reveal that many female political scientists experience incidents of gender discrimination, which run the gamut from being underpaid to facing gender discrimination in the criteria used for tenure and promotion (e.g., student teaching evaluations, citation indices), to experiencing sexual harassment and assault.

The situation is direr for black and Indigenous women of colour. Although CPSA does not collect data disaggregated by race, by indigineity, and by gender, the experiences of racialized and Indigenous women in the profession have been documented by scholars such as Malinda Smith, who, in her groundbreaking co-written book, "The Equity Myth," highlights how diversity initiatives have done little to improve the everyday working conditions of Indigenous and racialized faculty members, and in particular, racialized and Indigenous women (Kobayashi, et al.: 2017).

The purpose of this one-day pre-conference leadership program, to be held on June 3, 2019, the day before the 2019 CPSA Annual Conference starts, is to provide women in political science a dedicated space to build community with each other and to identify ways to improve the situations of women and BIWOC in the academy. By having individual workshops related to professional development (e.g., addressing issues related to career options, research, teaching, and navigating the 'academy'), and to work-life balance (e.g., parenting while 'professoring,' working as activist-scholars), this leadership program will provide both junior, mid-career, and senior scholars the opportunity to learn from each other. Junior scholars will also have the opportunity to be paired with senior scholar 'mentors' who share similar research interests and who can help 'demystify' the ins and outs of political science.

Please note: this is a preconference workshop, which will take place the day before the start of the 2019 CPSA Annual Conference.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, Marian Sawer and Mathieu St. Laurent (2017). IPSA Gender and Diversity Monitoring Report. 

Kobayashi, Audrey, Car James, Enakshi Dua, Frances Henry, Howard Ramos, Malinda S. Smith and Peter Li (2017). The Equity Myth: Racialization and Indigneity in Canadian Universities. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Canadian Historical Association - Canadian Political Science Association – Canadian Sociological Association – The Society for Socialist Studies

Teaching and Learning after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Elaine Coburn (The Society for Socialist Studies – Glendon, York)
Myrna Dawson (President, Canadian Sociological Association – Guelph)
Karen Murray (Canadian Political Science Association - Section Head of Teaching and Professional Practice – York)
Paige Raibmon (Canadian Historical Association – UBC)
Ethel Tungohan
(Canadian Political Science Association - Section Head of Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous People and Politics – York)

After decades of efforts by Indigenous Peoples, including Indigenous scholars, highlighting the problems of residential schools and colonial educational systems more generally, the Truth and Reconciliation's Calls to Actions have also trained significant attention on education. The Calls to Action remain quiet, however, on the role of individual educators as independent actors. And yet, regardless of how any governments or university administrations might respond to the TRC, it will be individual teachers and learners, who will, one way or another, play a determining role in teaching and learning in the post-TRC setting.

As a complement to calls for the immediate overhaul of hiring and tenure practices at universities to address inequities relating to Indigenous Peoples and marginalized groups generally, these roundtables aim to create a space for teachers and learners to reflect on their roles in the wake of the TRC. We encourage participants from every stage of academic teaching life, from graduate students to faculty members spanning new hires to soon-to-retire. While we are situated in the areas of history, socialist studies, sociology, and political science, we welcome contributions across disciplinary boundaries from Indigenous and settler-colonial scholars.

The over-arching goal of these proposed roundtables is to encourage reflection, dialogue and collaboration on questions such as:

  1. What are we asking of ourselves, as teachers and learners, after the TRC? 
  2. How are we grappling with the fact that, as members of the Canadian university community, we are part of a system implicated in various forms of violence against Indigenous Peoples, including, but not only, the residential school system? 
  3. How do we story ourselves in this moment of potentially broad-based educational transformation? 
  4. How are settler-colonial scholars confronting and addressing their ignorance and the need for intellectual retooling? 
  5. How are settler-colonial scholars modifying their curriculum and pedagogical approaches? 
  6. How might we learn (or how have we learned) through collaborations, including within and across disciplinary boundaries. In particular, where settler-colonial scholars are concerned, how have we learned or how might we learn by partnering with Indigenous colleagues inside the university, as well as with Indigenous communities outside of the university?
  7. What are some of the challenges and possibilities for solidarity in and beyond the colonial university?
  8. What supports would help us as we pursue our efforts, individually and collectively?
  9. How can we support hiring practices to increase the number of Indigenous Peoples and marginalized groups generally among tenure-stream hires? 
  10. How do we maintain these conversations and commitments?

These questions are not meant to be exhaustive, and we welcome proposals on additional questions relating to teaching and learning after the TRC.


  1. The roundtables will comprise four or more participants.

  2. Panel proposals are also welcomed.

  3. Please write to Karen Murray at AND Ethel Tungohan at providing your:
    1. full name and institutional affiliation,
    2. a provisional abstract of 100-150 words describing what you anticipate focusing on, either as an individual participant or as a full panel.

  4. This information is to assist with the formation and scheduling of panels.

  5. Formal papers are not required.

  6. We hope to accommodate everyone who expresses interest in participating.


Experiments in Political Science

Ruth Dassonneville (Section Head of Political Behaviour/Political Sociology - Montréal)
Eline de Rooij (Simon Fraser)
Jason Roy (Wilfrid Laurier)

Experiments – whether conducted in the lab, field or embedded in a survey – have become increasingly popular in political science. Recent experimental studies have addressed a variety of questions, including ways to provide services to a population, how to improve women's political representation, how to reduce prejudice, and the impact of negativity on political preferences and participation, for example.

Last year, we organized a successful Workshop during the 2018 CPSA. Building on last year's success, we again aim to bring together scholars from a wide range of substantive areas who employ experiments in their research to address causal questions. Both papers that apply experiments and those that seek to advance experimental methods are welcomed. We are particularly interested in promoting a dialogue between scholars from various backgrounds about issues related to experimental design, execution and analysis.

Potential panel themes:

  • Experiments on mobilization and persuasion: Changing political behavior and public opinion
  • Experiments on group bias: Understanding intergroup relations and reducing prejudice
  • Media experiments: Assessing the impact of media messages on attitudes
  • Experiments in public policy and economic development: Evaluating the effectiveness of targeted policy interventions
  • Experimenting with political institutions: Designing more effective institutions
  • Advances in experimental methodology


Canada-US Relations under Trump

Jonathan Paquin (Laval) and Scott Fitzsimmons (Limerick) (Co-chairs | CPSA-ISA Canada Section on International Relations Section)

Since his swearing-in in January 2017, President Trump has challenged some of the pillars of Canada-US relations. He first attacked NAFTA, which he described as the worst agreement ever signed by the United States, and he harshly criticized NATO on the grounds that some members of the military organization were not paying their fair share. Since then, Justin Trudeau's Canadian government has been forced to renegotiate NAFTA and has sought to demonstrate Canada's commitment to the Atlantic Alliance by increasing its military budget and by participating in deterrence missions in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.

The main questions this workshop will seek to answer are:

  1. What impact does Donald Trump have on Canada-US relations?
  2. What strategy should Canada adopt against a president who conceives politics in terms of relative gains (zero-sum game)?

For this workshop, we welcome proposals for roundtables or papers on a wide range of topics, including:

  • Does the USMCA (or NAFTA 2.0) represent a significant change from the late NAFTA? How should we understand this agreement?
  • Historically, "non-linkage" has characterized Canada-US relations. However, the Trump administration is now using linkage politics in its relations with Canada. How does this change our understanding of the relationship?
  • Is Canada a more reliable and effective NATO ally than it was before the Trump election?
  • Why has Donald Trump adopted an antagonistic approach to Canada-US relations?
  • What strategy should Canada put forward to make its interests and message better heard in Washington?
  • Several Canadian stakeholders believe that, in the current context, the Canadian government should move away from the United States to invest more in a strategy to diversify its trade and partnerships (what many call the "third option"). Is such a strategy viable in 2019?


America's Relative Decline and Power Transition Eastward

Jonathan Paquin (Laval) and Scott Fitzsimmons (Limerick) (Co-chairs | CPSA-ISA Canada Section on International Relations Section)

Several experts suggest that we are now living in a "post-American" world marked by the relative decline of the United States as the organizing power of the world order and by an emerging multipolarity. This post-American system is defined as an international order in which the United States remains a powerful state, but whose relative economic, diplomatic, military and political power is reduced compared to China's. This perception of international change is not limited to academic circles; several official documents (defence policies, national security strategies, etc.) recently adopted by Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom all openly refer to the fact that the current international system is "polycentric", "pluralist" or "multipolar".

The main questions this workshop will seek to answer are:

  1. How does the transformation of American behaviour affect the dynamics of international order?
  2. How do US allies perceive and react to the relative decline of the United States?

For this workshop, we welcome proposals for roundtables or papers on a wide range of topics, including:

  • The emergence of China and its relationship to the international liberal order.
  • The perceptions and strategies adopted by the United States' allies in the face of Washington's relative decline.
  • Formal or informal alliances promoted by the United States' rival states.
  • European defence at a time of relative decline in Washington.


Taking Stock on Gender Studies in IR

Jonathan Paquin (Laval) and Scott Fitzsimmons (Limerick) (Co-chairs | CPSA-ISA Canada Section on International Relations Section)

The discipline of International Relations has mainly been developed by men. In this regard, the role and identity of women in the study and practice of IRs has long been overlooked. However, over the past decades, the discipline of international relations has witnessed a "revolution" in gender mores and the feminist approach to international relations is now well established. But where are we in 2019? What are the consensus and sources of debate that animate researchers interested in gender?

The main questions this workshop will seek to answer are:                        

  1. The impact of gender dynamics on the research environment
  2. Field research by women and men: two realities?
  3. Is it possible (or desirable) to separate the identity of the researcher from the IR research object?

For this workshop, we welcome proposals for roundtables or papers on a wide range of topics, including:

  • The gendered experience of undertaking fieldwork in international relations.
  • The role of gender in disseminating knowledge of international relations, particularly in the classroom, academic publishing, and media engagement.
  • Normative and positivist approaches to incorporating gender identity into academic research on international relations.