The rarely examined committees of the Senate of Canada offer interesting insights into the Senate as a whole, particularly following the 2016 reforms to the institution. While discussion of House of Commons committees often emphasizes them as separate and different from the larger chamber, Senate committees mirror the dynamics of the overall Senate; looking at them tells us a lot about the Senate itself. Through qualitative research and in-depth interviews about committees with senators, this article finds both contrast and continuity in the Senate and its committees.

Limited academic career prospects are pushing PhD graduates in political science and other disciplines to nonacademic careers. Understanding the mismatch between student and supervisor perceptions of doctoral career training is a starting point for suggesting program reforms. This research note examines the perceptions of PhD students and supervisors on doctoral career training. We compare results from two surveys of English-speaking Canadian universities on doctoral political science programs; one surveys PhD students and the other surveys supervisors. These survey results suggest that 1) students are more aware of the limited academic job market and interested in nonacademic careers than supervisors realize; 2) supervisors are unaware of the sunk costs PhD students face; 3) supervisors and students have different preferences for change in doctoral programs; and 4) students overestimate supervisors’ confidence in preparing them for nonacademic careers. Changes in program design can better meet student needs in these PhD programs.

Do all PhD students aspire to an academic career? Do PhD programs appropriately prepare students for the realities of the job market? There is a well-established gap between political science PhD graduates and tenure-track academic postings. The mismatch between PhD graduates and academic positions may point to alternative models of doctoral education as a possible solution. However, the survey of Canadian and Australian PhD students described in this article suggests that issues and challenges are common regardless of the model of doctoral education. Canadian PhDs report more mentoring activity, but they also are more fixated on securing academic positions. However, we find important gender differences across countries: men are more interested in an academic career and only a (disproportionately male) minority is confident that they will succeed in securing a faculty career. This raises questions about diversity in the future of the profession. This research suggests that although students have different experiences under different doctoral models, issues of academic jobs and a mismatch are common in both systems.

Supervisors shape the PhD student experience and play a critical role in students’ development. To what extent and in what ways are faculty engaged in mentorship? Are faculty mentoring more or differently now than in the past? This study of political science faculty from political science departments offering PhD programs in the English language finds that graduate supervision is changing over time, with mentorship practices becoming both more common and more varied. Supervisors do not appear to be simply replicating their own limited experience of mentorship as a PhD student. Instead, supervisors are becoming more actively and directly involved in their students’ research careers in ways that increase their students’ career opportunities. There is opportunity for institutions, at both the university and department level, to further invest in building the capacity and ability of supervisors to be effective mentors.

In face of the ongoing discrepancy between the number of political science PhD graduates and the availability of permanent academic positions, in this article we consider attitudes of faculty members towards options to address this issue. Based on a survey of faculty members in PhD-granting political science programs at English-speaking Canadian universities, we find considerable support for both reducing the number of PhD students admitted and reforming curriculum to ensure graduates cultivate skills transferable to non-academic environments. At the same time, faculty members are inclined to believe that PhD students themselves should shoulder the greatest responsibility for career preparation.

Legislatures are complex institutions that serve many purposes. While their overall roles vary in different political systems, they typically serve multiple functions, including representation, law making, scrutiny of government, public symbolism, and others. These inevitably overlap and sometimes collide; similarly, individual legislators must balance party, constituency, and personal factors in their decision making. Now, in a time of sudden and unexpected disruption amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Parliament of Canada has been forced to rethink its complex activities under urgent and unexpected new conditions.

This article argues that provincial government units for Aboriginal affairs in Ontario and British Columbia have ''double identities'' stemming from contradictory mandates anchored in two different policy communities. Aboriginal policy agencies act as Crown negotiators with Aboriginal nations over land claims and self-government, but are also responsible for co-ordinating government policies affecting Aboriginals. Consequently, they interact with two different policy communities. One involves economic and resource ministries, which engage in a pressure pluralist relationship with Aboriginal groups. The second involves social policy ministries who engage in more clientele pluralist relationships with Aboriginals. Consequently, Aboriginal policy agencies display different identities and play different and sometimes contradictory roles. These ''double identities'' illustrate the complexity and contradictions of provincial-Aboriginal relations in Canada.