PUBLIC OPINION ON ASYMMETRICAL FEDERALISM: GROWING OPENNESS OR “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CONTINUING AMBIGUITY? can make words mean so many different things.” F. Leslie Seidle Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland Centre for Research and Information on Canada and Institute for Research on Public Policy In politics, words can be used for good or ill; they can help clarify complex public policy Gina Bishop issues or baffle even well-informed citizens. At Centre for Research and Information on Canada different times and in different contexts, the expression ‘asymmetrical federalism’ has Foreword probably performed all of these functions and others. Some have used it to describe what they The federal Liberal Party’s 2004 general see as a strength of Canadian federalism, namely election platform heavily emphasized issues that that provinces are not identical in their history, are mainly subject to provincial competence circumstances and public policies. Others have under the constitution (e.g. health care, child used the term to express their opposition to the care, cities). Since the federal government lacks ‘special treatment’ they believe one province, the authority to implement detailed regulatory namely Quebec, seeks – or already receives - schemes in these areas, acting on these election within the federation. Still others claim that even commitments frequently requires federal- modest asymmetry, such as variation in provincial-territorial (FPT) agreements. intergovernmental agreements (as opposed to the A controversial question that arises when letter of the Constitution), violates the principle considering all intergovernmental agreements is of the equality of the provinces. whether they should treat all provinces and territories similarly or whether the agreements Largely because of the association with should be expected to differ from one Quebec, politicians and policy makers have province/territory to another. This issue of tended to avoid using the term ‘asymmetrical symmetry or asymmetry arises at two levels. The federalism’ in their speeches, official statements first is whether all provinces should be and or intergovernmental agreements. That trend should be viewed as “equal” in legal and was broken, however, on September 16, 2004 constitutional terms. The second relates to the political and administrative level and the when a communiqué titled “Asymmetrical intergovernmental agreements it generates. When federalism that respects Quebec’s jurisdiction” should Canadians expect all provinces/territories was released along with the Health Accord to be treated similarly in these agreements and agreed to by all First Ministers. The when should difference be the rule? communiqué reflected the agreement between Prime Minister Martin and Premier Jean Charest Given this political context, it is timely to that the Quebec government would use the reconsider the factors that are relevant to the additional funding from the Health Accord “to issue of symmetry and asymmetry. We are doing implement its own plan for renewing Quebec’s this by publishing a series of short commentaries health system” and that it “will report to over the first half of 2005. These papers will explore the different dimensions of this issue- the Quebecers on progress in achieving its historical, the philosophical, the practical, the objectives” and on ‘the use of all health comparative (how other federations deal with funding.” The communiqué also stated that the asymmetrical pressures), and the empirical. We elements of the agreement that applied only to do this in the hope that the series will help Quebec were based on asymmetrical federalism, improve the quality of public deliberation on this “that is, flexible federalism that allows for the issue. existence of specific agreements and arrangements adapted to Quebec’s specificity.” Harvey Lazar Director Asymmetry Series 2005 (2) © IIGR, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University Leslie Seidle and Gina Bishop, Public Opinion on Asymmetrical Federalism: In the first section of this article we present respondents indicated they were very or public opinion data from autumn 2004 on the somewhat satisfied with the agreement; only Health Accord, including the provisions that 18% were somewhat or very dissatisfied. apply only to Quebec, and on the question of Moreover, there was not a great deal of variation potential differences in agreements between the by region: the highest satisfaction levels were in federal and provincial governments. In the the Atlantic provinces and the Prairies – 82% in second section, we explore what may be the both cases; the lowest levels were in Ontario and roots of many Canadians’ continuing antipathy Quebec – 76% in each province (see Figure 1). to particular arrangements between the federal government and Quebec by reviewing findings In the same Focus Canada survey, from public opinion surveys since the late 1980s respondents were asked the following question: on the attempts to recognise Quebec’s “The agreement exempts Quebec from some of distinctiveness in the Constitution and related the new provincial requirements for reporting on issues. The analysis suggests that, although the the use of these health care funds. Do you term ‘asymmetrical federalism’ can be approve or disapprove of Quebec having Figure 1: Satisfaction with 2004 Health Care Accord, 100 by region 90 80 82 82 81 70 76 76 60 50 40 30 20 19 21 10 15 14 16 0 Atl. QC ON Prairies BC Satisfied Dissatisfied As you may have heard, Prime Minister Paul Martin and the 10 provincial premiers recently signed an agreement about health care programs and funding. This calls for the federal government to give the provinces 18 billion dollars in new health care funding over the next six years, within a framework of accountability on how this new money is spent by the provinces. From what you know or have heard, are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with this agreement on health care? (Source: Environics Focus Canada, Report 2004-3, Q 32) seen as a synonym for flexibility within the exemptions in this new health care agreement federation, a reality that does not seem to excite which are not specifically provided to other much opposition, for some it remains linked to provinces?” In all parts of Canada except the issue of ‘special treatment’ for Quebec. Quebec, the results were almost the mirror of the general question about the accord. In British CURRENT VIEWS ON ASYMMETRICAL Columbia, 85% of those surveyed indicated they ARRANGEMENTS disapproved of the ‘exemptions’; the next- The Health Accord announced on highest level of opposition – 79% - was in September 16, 2004 met with a high level of Ontario. In Quebec, just over a majority of approval from Canadians. In an Environics respondents (55%) approved of the provisions Focus Canada survey carried out between that applied only to Quebec (see Figure 2). September 23 and October 12, 2004, 78% of Asymmetry Series 2005 (2) © IIGR, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University 2 Leslie Seidle and Gina Bishop, Public Opinion on Asymmetrical Federalism: Figure 2: Approval/Disapproval of Quebec Exemptions in 2004 Health Accord, by region 100 90 80 85 79 70 77 60 67 50 55 40 39 30 20 26 19 10 17 12 0 Atl. QC ON Prairies BC Approve Disapprove The agreement exempts Quebec from some of the new provincial requirements for reporting on the use of these health care funds. Do you approve or disapprove of Quebec having exemptions in this new health care agreement which are not specifically provided to other provinces? (Source: Environics Focus Canada, Report 2004-3, Q 33) It should be said that the wording of the carried out between September 15 and October 4 statement that preceded the question could give outside Quebec and between September 16 and the impression the Quebec government will not October 3 in Quebec.) Respondents were told be required to report on the use of the health that agreements between the federal and care funds; in reality, it agreed to respect certain provincial governments can differ from one reporting requirements to its own population. province to another and then asked whether they Even so, the high level of disapproval of the were “in favour of having different agreements provisions that applied to Quebec but no other depending on the province or identical province suggest that this practical example of agreements with all provinces.” Nationally, 52% asymmetrical federalism was not well received of those surveyed were in favour and 45% elsewhere in the country. against (Figure 3). This pattern was fairly constant across the country: a bare majority A different pattern was evident in the (50% in all cases) favoured identical agreements responses to a question in the 2004 Portraits of in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Manitoba; in all Canada survey sponsored by the Centre for other provinces and the North, there was Research and Information on Canada (CRIC). stronger support for different agreements than (The fieldwork for the Portraits survey was identical ones (see Figure 4) Asymmetry Series 2005 (2) © IIGR, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University 3 Leslie Seidle and Gina Bishop, Public Opinion on Asymmetrical Federalism: Figure 3: Different or Identical Federal-Provincial Agreements? 2004 100 90 In favour of different 80 agreements 70 60 In favour of identical agreements 50 52 40 45 30 20 10 0 Some people think that certain agreements between the federal and provincial governments can differ from one province to another. Others oppose this, preferring identical agreements with all provinces. Personally, are you in favour of having DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS depending on the province or IDENTICAL AGREEMENTS with all provinces? Is that strongly or somewhat in favor? (Source: CRIC Portraits of Canada 2004) Figure 4: Different/Identical Federal-Provincial Agreements 70 2004, by region 60 59 55 55 56 55 53 50 50 52 50 49 50 48 48 48 48 44 44 40 42 42 43 39 37 30 20 10 0 NL NS PE NB QC ON MB SK AB BC North In favour of different agreements In favour of identical agreements Some people think that certain agreements between the federal and provincial governments can differ from one province to another.