A New Chapter or the Same Old Story? Quebec Public Opinion and the National Question from 1996-2003

By

Matthew Mendelsohn, Andrew Parkin, and Maurice Pinard

DRAFT Do not cite without permission

There is little doubt that the election of the Liberal Party of Quebec in the 2003 provincial election signalled an important change in the dynamic of intergovernmental relations. A federalist rather than a sovereignist government in Quebec City has far reaching consequences for Canadian politics. Some have extrapolated from this obvious fact and presumed that public opinion in Quebec has also undergone a major shift. Yet we know that governing parties are often defeated for a variety of reasons having little to do with fundamental shifts in underlying public attitudes. Has public opinion in fact shifted in Quebec on issues related to the national question? This paper will address the period from the aftermath of the 1995 referendum (our data begin in 1996) to the aftermath of the 2003 election (our data end in September 2003). We know that Quebec public opinion underwent major shifts in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord, along with the highly politicized and polarized events associated with this period. We also know that the intensity of nationalist feeling, which had apparently subsided in the aftermath of the defeat of the Charlottetown Accord, was mobilized anew during the 1995 referendum. Despite the fact that the YES side was narrowly defeated, the months following the referendum saw support for the sovereignist option continue to rise in the polls, peaking around 55% in mid 1996. This is a well-known story and we will not retell it here (see, for example, Pinard, 1997). Instead, we will weigh in at the beginning of the next chapter, which began in mid-1996 and ended in 2003. This chapter featured a number of important events: the federal government adopted a new strategy towards the Quebec sovereignist movement, an apparent de-mobilization of the Quebec sovereignist movement, the meteoric rise and fall of a new nationalist but non-sovereignist party in Quebec, and the election of a federalist government in Quebec. We will examine public opinion in Quebec for insights into how and why these developments occurred. We advance six arguments. First, there has been a demobilization around the national question and a depoliticization of the Quebec electorate on issues related to Quebec’s place within Canada, particularly among the young. Second, the federal government’s strategy to focus on the rules, processes, and terms of future referendums and possible secession was largely successful and was far more consistent with latent public opinion in Quebec than many Quebec opinion leaders expected. Third, many of the traditional concerns of Quebecers, sometimes referred to as “grievances” (see, for

example, Pinard and Hamilton, 1986), remain unresolved and opinion on the underlying factors that motivate support for sovereignty (see Mendelsohn 2003 for a discussion of these factors) has not evolved much since 1996. Fourth, the social democratic Quiet Revolution consensus around Quebec’s distinct economic and social model has largely collapsed. Although Quebecers’ values remain more to the left than the values of other Canadians, Quebecers have less confidence in the state, taxation, and unionization as pathways to attain their goal of greater social equality. Fifth, Bill 101’s insistence that new immigrants integrate more fully into the French-speaking community has been a success in terms of social relations, as young Quebecers and young Canadians outside Quebec demonstrate equally high levels of comfort with ethnic and social diversity. And sixth, the new model of more cooperative intergovernmental relations endorsed by Quebec’s new Liberal premier, Jean Charest, is largely consistent with Quebec public opinion, and is in fact consistent with where the Quebec public has been for some time. Data in this paper are taken overwhelmingly from three sources. First, the Privy Council Office commissioned CROP to conduct major surveys in Quebec in 1996, 1997, and 1999. The first two of these focused largely on traditional issues related to the national question, while the 1999 survey focused largely on issues related to the rules, terms, and processes of future referendums and secession. The first author was the architect of these surveys. Second, the Centre for Research and Information on Canada (CRIC) began conducting major surveys in Quebec in early 1998, conducted by CROP. This includes their annual fall survey, Portraits of Canada, but also includes occasional ad hoc surveys in addition to Portraits. All three authors, along with the management staff at CRIC, including Joan Fraser, Pierre O’Neil, and Marie-Josée Gariepy have been responsible for the design of these surveys. Third, the CRIC-Globe and Mail survey on the New Canada, designed in collaboration with the Canadian Opinion Research Archive, was conducted by Ipsos-Reid in the spring of 2003. It was designed by the first two authors, along with journalists from the Globe and Mail, including Edward Greenspon, Michael Valpy, Catherine Wallace, Catherine Bradbury, and Erin Anderssen. Depoliticization around the National Question The defining feature of Quebec public opinion since the 1970s has been polarization on the national question (Pinard and Hamilton, ). “Normal” politics took a backseat to the more existential questions of national identity and constitutional status. The extreme polarization around Quebec’s place within Canada began to take shape in the 1970 provincial election and remained the defining feature of the Quebec party system for three decades. The major electoral battles of the 1990s, including the Charlottetown referendum, the sovereignty referendum, the 1993, 1997, and 2000 federal elections, and the 1994 and 1998 provincial elections, all demonstrated that federalist and sovereingist forces were each able to consistently mobilize about half the Quebec electorate. The polarization and mobilization around the national question as the defining feature of Quebec politics has run its course. We are now witnessing a return to the normal debates of politics related to the size of the state, social values, and levels of taxation. One of the most important features of Quebec mass opinion in the early 21st century is the depoliticization on the national question, particularly amongst young Quebecers and new Quebecers. It has been widely reported in the media that Quebecers

are tired of the national question and have little appetite for a new referendum or re-opening constitutional negotiations. It is impossible to underestimate how deeply felt is this sentiment. The debates of the 1980s and 1990s hold no appeal to younger Quebecers. A desire to avoid on-going constitutional disputes and a desire to avoid re-living debates that already seemed dated in the 1990s in part explains both the success of the PLQ and the shorter-lived success of the ADQ. We asked Quebecers in 2002 whether they thought of themselves primarily as sovereignists, federalists, somewhere in between, or neither. While 40% of Francophone Quebecers embraced one of the two labels, 58% embraced neither label. It is amongst the young, however, where one notes the most extreme rejection of both of these labels. Fully 67% of young Quebecers identify with neither of these two labels. It was supporters of the ADQ that were by far more likely to say that they identified with neither of these two labels, and although the ADQ failed to make significant gains in the 2003 provincial election, its positioning on the national question – nationalist but neither sovereignist or federalist – is nonetheless shared by a large majority of Quebecers, particularly young Quebecers. This is consistent with recent findings that only 38% of Quebecers wish to return to the constitutional question, and consistent with earlier findings that the overwhelming majority of Quebecers did not wish another referendum, and that those who did support holding another referendum were far less intense in their opinion than opponents of another referendum. 75% of Quebecers say they no longer believe Quebec will ever be sovereign, and 56% agree with the statement that “sovereignty is an idea of the past.” Both of these numbers having been moving consistently in the direction of depoliticization over the past few years. None of this is to suggest that many Quebecers do not continue to support Quebec sovereignty on some level. If we look at the various questions asked in 2003 by CRIC, we see that over 40% of Quebecers continue to say they would vote yes to a question on sovereignty-partnership. An even greater number say they support sovereignty, even if they wouldn’t vote for it, although a smaller number support independence. This is in itself striking: more Quebecers support sovereignty than would vote for it. The conclusion to emerge from these data is that most Quebecers are quite comfortable with the issue being removed from the agenda and focusing their political attentions on questions other than those related to the national question. The reasons for this are explored in the next two sections. The Success of the Federal Government’s Post-Referendum Strategy There were many arguments offered by federalists during the 1980 referendum, but they can be broken into three general categories: 1) Canada is a good place to live and belongs to all Quebecers; 2) the economic damage of a YES vote will be serious; and 3) there are a variety of practical issues that have not been addressed, such as the fact that there is no one with whom to negotiate a new association. (We will ignore the other major argument, that a NO vote rather than a YES vote would lead to renewal). These first two categories remained relatively consistent through the 1980s and into the 1995 referendum, but the third category, the one which focused on practical considerations and asked whether sovereignty was actually possible in any kind of straightforward manner, largely disappeared. It reappeared in the federal government strategy following the 1995

referendum. A widely shared misconception following the referendum was that the arguments used by the federal government were bundled into two categories: Plan A (“positive” arguments for Canada) and Plan B (“negative” arguments about sovereignty). This conceptualization misses an important part of the reality of post-1995 federal government strategy. While making arguments in favour of a federal Canada and underlining the costs and risks of sovereignty continued to play an important role in initiatives and discourse, the Supreme Court reference and the Clarity Bill were in fact designed to address the practicalities of the PQ approach. In 1980, Trudeau was quite prepared to state that there was no one with whom Quebec could negotiate following a YES vote; such practical considerations were re-introduced into the debate by federalists after 1995. This strategy has been largely successful. The most dramatic changes of opinion in Quebec since 1996 relate to the practicalities of secession. Quebecers are less sanguine about the ease with which it could be accomplished. Following the 1995 referendum, the federal government was concerned that the practicalities of the PQ proposal for secession had been subjected to far too little scrutiny. The Supreme Court reference, the Clarity Bill, and the general change in discourse – one which was more prepared to directly challenge the conventional wisdoms of nationalist discourse – all played a role in this. The data suggest two broad conclusions on issues related to the practicalities of the PQ project. First, mass opinion has been consistently more open to federalist arguments than suggested by the Quebec media and some elements of the Quebec elite. And second, despite a general openness to federalist arguments on issues relating to the rules of a referendum and secession, mass opinion became even more supportive of the federalist rationale in the aftermath of the Clarity Bill. The political culture of Quebec – and we define “political culture” as the conventional wisdom that sets the boundaries of political activity – underwent a real shift in the late 1990s. A direct questioning of the assumptions of the PQ approach to secession became much more acceptable parts of the political discourse. Facile and misleading arguments, such as “the people will decide, not the courts,” gave way to a more thoughtful deliberation on how secession could actually take place in an established liberal democracy. The Supreme Court decision set an appropriate and reasonable tone, by acknowledging that Quebec had a right to secede, that the rest of the country would have to negotiate such a secession, but that those negotiations would only begin after it had become clear that a clear majority of Quebecers wished to secede from Canada. The political conversation has thus changed. In both the 1980 and 1995 referendums, two debates were actually taking place. One asked Quebecers whether they wished to be sovereign, and a consistent majority of Quebecers have always opposed secession. But the second asked Quebecers whether a YES or a NO vote would be more likely to lead to a renewal of the federation; in both referendums, both sides offered up their option as the one best able to reform the Canadian federation in a manner consistent with the majority preference of Quebecers in favour of more autonomy within Canada and a recognition of Quebec’s national existence within Canada. Today, that second debate is closed. A referendum on sovereignty is not the appropriate form for seeking reform of the Canadian federation. Referendums can take place, but they must take place on direct questions relating to independence in order to be meaningful. One can attempt to secure more autonomy for Quebec within Canada, but using the referendum or the

threat of a referendum as a knife at the throat of the rest of Canada is no longer a viable option. We are only now beginning to rebuild some of the interlinguistic trust and social capital that was lost beginning in the late 1980s. A clear majority of Quebecers found the 1995 referendum question to be unclear, and a plurality preferred a question on independence to one on sovereignty, though “secession” clearly perplexed respondents. A strong majority agreed that the question should be set jointly by the government and the opposition in the National Assembly, and a majority was even open to the idea of federal government participation in setting the question. This is not surprising. In focus group after focus group, YES and NO voters alike complained about the question and an inherent sense of fairness pervaded the conversations: if we are going to undertake something as serious as secession, all the players should agree to the rules. A majority of Quebecers believed that 50% + 1 did not constitute a clear majority, though 70% believed that 60% did constitute a clear majority. By 1999, Quebecers were overwhelmingly likely to believe that following a referendum victory for the YES side, secession would be quite difficult, even with a large and clear majority. Another important change since 1995 was the sense that after a YES vote, Quebecers would be more divided rather than more united. While the YES side in the 1995 referendum invoked a mythical Québécois people in a post-YES environment freed from the ugly world of political divisions getting along merrily with one another for the purposes of building a new country, Quebecers were no longer buying that vision. The evolution towards a more sceptical stance in regards to Lucien Bouchard’s invoked magic wand is one piece of the story that explains the depoliticization around that national question and a decline in support for sovereignty. Those Quebecers who had been YES voters in 1997 but had become NO voters in 1999 were significantly more likely to say that a YES vote could lead to a crisis and that a YES vote was not the best way to put squabbling between the federal and provincial governments behind us. In short, by 1999, the Quebec public was significantly more likely to see practical problems with the PQ’s plan for a quick and seamless transition to sovereignty. Continuing Grievances Despite the depoliticization around the national question, and the progress made by the federal government on issues related to the practicalities of the PQ project, the distribution of opinion on traditional issues has changed little. Despite the obvious successes in regards to language preservation and economic progress amongst French-speakers in Quebec, many Francophone Quebecers continue to demonstrate many of the same grievances that they held in the 1970s and 80s. About 60% of Quebecers believe that the French language is threatened in Quebec, and this has not changed significantly in recent years. A significant minority of Quebecers believe that they contribute more to confederation than they take out, and only Albertans are more likely than Quebecers to believe that their own province contributes more than it takes out of confederation. Only about 1 Quebecer in 3 believes the federal and provincial governments are getting along reasonably well. Almost 60% of Quebecers support a greater devolution of power to the provinces; this number has gone up significantly in recent years, and puts the province at odds with other Canadians, who are

quite satisfied with the status quo. The continued support for greater provincial autonomy within the federation manifests itself in a desire for more control over its own health care system, which again distinguishes it from other provinces which are much more comfortable with a more unified national system of health care. The number of Quebecers who say that their province is not treated with the respect it deserves in Canada has not changed much over past six years, with about 6 in 10 saying that it is not. This is quite similar to the results found in other provinces (except Ontario) and the fact that there has been no evolution on these numbers in Quebec since 1998 is itself significant: despite predictions to the contrary about a nationalist backlash, the Supreme Court reference and Clarity Bill produced no change in Quebec on these measures. One of the most striking findings from new 2003 data is the finding that Francophones’ sense that Anglophones are favoured in the Quebec job market has gone up during the past five years. A sense of internal colonialism was an important motivation for sovereignist support in the 1970s. That the sentiment remains so strong is somewhat surprising. End of the Quiet Revolution Consensus? When Jean Charest left federal politics to take over the leadership of the PLQ, his opponents mocked him as an arriviste outsider who did not understand the realities of Quebec society. The 1998 Quebec election featured muscular attacks against him by then premier Lucien Bouchard. The general thrust of these attacks was that Charest was a parvenu who did not understand the Quebec economic model and would undermine it, hence destroying 40 years of progress that had begun in 1960. The “Quebec economic model” and the “Quiet Revolution consensus” were invoked as sacred mantra, and Charest was depicted as the neo-conservative import from English-speaking Canada who would undermine the consensus. This depiction was unfair at the time, and was not consistent with Quebec mass opinion. Beginning during the mid-1990s, when Bouchard and Landry both focused on deficit reduction, the consensus around the Quebec economic model had begun to fray. Quebec society had evolved, and while the Quiet Revolution consensus may have existed as an incantation in the late 1990s, it no longer had the same significance. Quebec mass opinion had shifted towards a greater willingness to question some of the conventional understandings of Quebec political culture. In the 1998 election, the PLQ directly challenged the size of the state and the Quiet Revolution mythology and ended up taking more votes than the PQ. Moreover, the ADQ, running a campaign that was even more explicit in its attack on the size of the state, took an additional % of the vote. While the shuffle may have taken two election cycles, and may have occurred a decade later than elsewhere in Canada, it was well along the way by the late 1990s in Quebec, and was crystallized in the 2003 election, where the Liberals and the ADQ combined took % of the vote. As the most heavily taxed province in Canada, over the last five years Quebecers have been consistently more supportive of tax relief than Canadians elsewhere. When asked to choose between three priorities for a potential budgetary surplus – tax cuts, more social spending, or debt repayment – Quebecers were more likely to choose tax cuts (at 37%) and were no more likely than Canadians outside Quebec to choose more social

spending, at 33%. In surveys in both 2000 and 2002, using two different questions, Quebecers were more likely than Canadians in any other province to support more privatization in the health care field. This may in part be explained by the fact that “Canadian public health care” is a more important symbol of Canadian citizenship outside Quebec than it is inside Quebec, but nonetheless, that almost half of Quebecers support more privatization in the health care field is striking. This shift in Quebec towards challenging the Quiet Revolution social democratic consensus is important, but it should not be taken to mean that Quebecers’ values have changed. Quebecers continue to demonstrate values more to the left than Canadians in other provinces; for example, they are more likely to believe in equality over liberty and more likely to believe that the state has a responsibility to reduce income inequality. The sense of solidarity that animated the Quebec economic model is still present. However, the size of the state, its accompanying bureaucratization, and the comparatively high tax burden, have all taken their toll. Bill 101 and the “New Quebec” The evidence is increasingly incontestable that Bill 101 succeeded in making Quebec a more multicultural, integrated society along linguistic and ethnic lines. While older Quebecers lived in far more homogenous social networks than their counterparts in the rest of Canada, younger Quebecers and their ROC counterparts live in virtually identical worlds in terms of social diversity, and demonstrate virtually indistinguishable attitudes on questions related to ethnic diversity. While older Quebecers stand out as being less comfortable with religious and ethnic diversity, younger Quebecers and younger Canadians outside Quebec demonstrate no discernible attitudinal differences on these questions. While one of the projects of Bill 101 was to facilitate the integration of immigrants in the French-speaking community, the data collected in the Globe and Mail/CRIC survey clearly show that the integration has been a two-way street. A New Model of Intergovernmental Relations One of the single animating features of the Canadian federation since 1960 has been the drive of Quebec to secure more autonomy within Canada, and this has been true for Liberal and PQ governments alike, and the Union Nationale for that matter. During many periods this support for devolution co-existed with active participation in the federation; at other times – the period following patriation with the PQ in government and then again following the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord with the Liberals in government – Quebec governments have boycotted or abstained from many federation activities. During the 2003 election campaign, the PLQ argued that Quebec was hurting itself by boycotting many federation activities and made commitments to participate more actively in the federation for the benefit of Quebecers. While the PQ made a strategic choice to focus on securing greater autonomy for Quebec, the PLQ has not ruled this out. A focus on rectifying the fiscal imbalance is one such overture. By focusing on both more cooperative engagement with other Canadian governments while also suggesting a need for more provincial resources, the PLQ has attempted to appeal to both of the animating spirits of Quebec public opinion: a desire for greater autonomy, as well as a desire to participate in a larger Canadian project that is respectful of French Canada.

The first thing to note is that Quebecers generally respond favourably to the idea of participating actively in the federation. The next thing to note in the public opinion data is that Quebecers are far more likely to believe today that a provincial Liberal government strengthens Quebec’s position viz-a-viz other provinces than they were to believe in 1999 that the PQ did. This represents a significant shift, and again overlaps with data regarding a depoliticization around the national question and the changed public opinion environment in the late 90s regarding the success of the PQ at extracting concessions from the ROC. Quebecers came to believe that a PQ government, threatening another referendum, was not the best way to secure Quebecers’ primary goal: a better relationship with the rest of Canada based on more provincial autonomy and recognition of Quebec’s national status within Canada. By a margin of 57-26%, Quebecers stated that a PLQ government strengthens Quebec, a truly remarkable finding. Quebecers are also not nearly as tied to the federal principle as one might expect, with most Quebecers preferring a co-decisional model of federalism rather than a watertight jurisdiction model of federalism. Quebecers do not believe that governments have been getting along particularly well, but blame both orders of government equally. This has not changed since 1997. In sum, these data paint a portrait of a public that values cooperative intergovernmentalism. On the other hand, Quebecers also believe that a fiscal imbalance exists: only 14% of Quebecers think the federal government has too little revenue to fulfill its responsibilities, while 43% believe that the provincial government has too little revenue. Quebecers, however, are not more likely than other Canadians to believe a fiscal imbalance exists, and hence, these data provide further evidence of potential common cause between the various provincial governments. Quebecers today simultaneously support greater provincial autonomy and an improved federal-provincial relationship. They simultaneously support greater respect for provincial jurisdictions, but also support having a strong say in federal institutions and enjoy participating alongside other provincial governments to make Canada work. Conclusion If one were to simply look at public opinion on traditional issues, such as threats to the French language and the fairness of the federation, one would think that the public opinion environment in Quebec had changed little since 1996. This would be a mistake. Quebecers have pretty much the same concerns and unresolved issues that they had during the 1995 referendum. What has changed dramatically is the agenda and Quebecers’ desire to pursue sovereignty or even talk about sovereignty as a way of addressing these issues. This then is the public opinion environment in Quebec in 2003: 1) a continuation of unresolved grievances and issues; 2) a new found belief that secession is not a particularly feasible path for dealing with these issues; and hence 3) a deep desire to avoid issues of national status and identity entirely. In sum, this lack of appetite for another national discussion on Quebec’s place in Canada should not be mistaken for a renewed sense of attachment to and support for Quebec’s current status within Canada. A final, more speculative conclusion might also be offered. As we know, the state and government are not viewed as pathways to political change as much as they once were. We may have failed to fully appreciate the importance this has for the Quebec

nationalist movement. To political scientists it is natural that the state will be uppermost in our consciousness when we think about the development of a national community. To citizens of the advanced information democracies, this is not nearly as apparent. The protection and development of the Quebec national community can take place at an interpersonal, social, and economic level on a daily basis. To most citizens, that which takes place in the formal political world is only one small part of the effort to strengthen Quebec. Which government does what and who has formal sovereignty are of course important political issues, but they are no longer at the core of most citizens’ preoccupations when they ponder community protection, definition, development, and progress.

References Fred Cutler and Matthew Mendelsohn (2004). “Unnatural Loyalties? The Governments and Citizens of Canadian Federalism.” In Insiders and Outsiders: Alan Cairns and the Reshaping of Canadian Citizenship, Gerald Kernerman and Philip Resnick (eds). UBC Press. Matthew Mendelsohn (2003). "Competing Approaches to Explaining Support for Sovereignty in Quebec". Canadian Journal of Political Science. 36(3): 511-37. Maurice Pinard, “Les fluctuations du mouvement indépendantiste depuis 1980,” in Maurice Pinard, Robert Bernier, and Vincent Lemieux, eds., Un combat inachevé (Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 1997). Maurice Pinard and Richard Hamilton “The Independence Issue and the Polarization of the Electorate: The 1973 Quebec Election.” Canadian Journal of Political Science Maurice Pinard and Richard Hamilton, “Motivational Dimensions in the Quebec Independence Movement: A Test of a New Model,” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 9 (1986).

A New Chapter or the Same Old Story?Quebec Public Opinion from 1996-2003

Matthew Mendelsohn (Queen’s University),Andrew Parkin (Centre for Research and Information on Canada),Maurice Pinard (McGill University)

State of the Federation ConferenceInstitute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s UniversityOctober 2003

Please direct correspondence to: mattmen@post.queensu.ca

OverviewDepoliticization around the national questionThe success of the federal strategy post 1996The continuation of “grievances”The “New Quebec” in light of Bill 101The end of the Quiet Revolution consensusSupport for Charest’s new approach to federalism

Depoliticization around the national question

25

19

2927

2929

21

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Québec Francophones seulement

Fédéraliste Entre les deux N'est ni l'un ni l'autre Souverainiste

Vous considérez-vous surtout comme un fédéraliste, surtout comme un souverainiste, comme quelqu’un qui est entre les deux ou comme quelqu’un qui n’est ni l’un ni l’autre ?

Fédéraliste ou souverainiste?

Centre for Research and Information on Canada, 2002

18

45

1419

37

9

15

35

2123

171820

6367

44

6165

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

18-34 yrs 35-54 yrs 55 + yrs 18-34 yrs 35-54 yrs 55 + yrs

Sovereigntist In Between / Neither Federalist

Do you consider yourself to be mainly a federalist, mainly a sovereigntist, someone who is in between the two, or someone who is neither one nor the other?

Federalist or Sovereigntist by Age

All Quebecers Francophones

Centre for Research and Information on Canada, 2002

14

80

46

14

46

78

768

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PLQ PQ ADQ

OUI NON NSP/pas de réponse

Si un référendum avait lieu aujourd’hui sur la même question que celle qui a été posée lors du dernier référendum de 1995, c’est-à-dire sur la souveraineté accompagnée d’une offre de partenariat au reste du Canada, voteriez-vous OUI ou voteriez-vous NON ?

Intentions de vote référendaire selon les préférences partisanes

CRIC, 2003

22%

70%

24%

71%

30%

74%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Want areferendum?

Upset ifreferendum held?(those opposed toa referendum only)

Upset if not held?(those in favor of areferendum only)

Yes

No

Support for a Referendum on Sovereignty?

CRIC, 1999

Support for Constitutional Change

9

70

21

12

52

36

10

68

22

61

10

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Return to constitutionalquestion

Leave issue alone DK/NA

Atlantic

Quebec

Ontario

West

In order to improve the way the federation works, some people say we should make changes to Canada’s constitution. Others disagree. In your opinion, is this the right time to return to the constitutional question,or should governments leave the issue alone?

Support for “Sovereignty-Partnership”(Quebec Respondents Only. Decided Voters, With Undecided

Redistributed on a Pro Rata Basis)

4143

47

40

51

4245

4142

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Yes to sovereignty-partnership(average fromseveral surveys*)

CRIC 2003 Result

If a referendum were held today on the same question as that asked in 1995, that is, sovereignty with an offer of partnership with the rest of Canada, would you vote YES or would you vote NO?* Surveys from CROP. Number of surveys for each year: 1996 = 9; 1997 = 5; 1998 = 13; 1999 = 8; 2000 = 10; 2001 = 13; 2002 = 13; 2003 (Jan.-Sept): 9.

Support for Sovereignty in Quebec(Three Different Questions)

4649

5

4348

9

54

8

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes/ Favourable No / Opposed NSP

Favourable tosovereignty

Would vote forSovereignty-partnership

Would vote for"sovereignty"

Are you personnaly very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat opposed or very opposed to Quebecbecoming a sovereign country?

If a new referendum were held today and the issue of partnership were left out of the question, stating only “Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign country?”, would you be inclined to vote yes or no?

CRIC 2003

Appui à la souveraineté

13

44

26

10 8

16

41

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

Indépendancecomplète

Souveraineté, avecoffre de partenariat au

reste du Canada

Fédéralisme renouvelé Fédéralisme actuel

1999 2003

Parmi les options constitutionnelles suivantes, laquelle préférez-vous pour le Québec? Est-ce…

Le Québec deviendra-t-il probablement un jour un pays indépendant ? (1998-2002)

(répondants du Québec seulement)

21

69

5151

61

75

2330

3939

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Restera au sein du Canada Deviendra un pays indépendant

Croyez-vous que le Québec deviendra probablement un jour un pays indépendant, ou croyez-vous qu’il restera probablement au sein du Canada ?

Souveraineté du Québec : une idée dépassée ? (2000-2002)

51

44

54

39

56

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

En accord En désaccord

2000 2001 2002

Êtes-vous fortement en accord, en accord, en désaccord ou fortement en désaccord avec chacun des énoncés suivants : la souveraineté du Québec est une idée dépassée ?

The success of the federal strategy post 1996

4439 37

33

4650

53 55

10 11 10 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1995 referendumquestion

Independent Independent,separate from

Canada

No longerprovince of

Canada

Sovereignist Federalist No answer

1999 PCO survey

Support for various secessionist options(Francophones only)

40

56

15

24

40

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Clear

Not clear

Very clear

Somewhat clear

Not very clear

Not at all clear

1999 PCO survey

Clarity of 1995 Referendum Question(Francophones only)

Lors du dernier référendum en octobre 1995, le gouvernement du Québec a demandé aux Québécois la question suivante "Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995? » Selon vous, est-ce que cette question référendaire est…

49

25

38

54

1321

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Independence/secession Sovereignty-partnership No answer

En En mettant de côté vos préférences personnelles, quelle serait pour vous une question référendaire claire : une question portant sur "L'INDÉPENDENCE" ou une question portant sur la "SOUVERAINETÉ-PARTENARIAT"? b) ... "LA SÉCESSION" ou une question portant sur la "SOUVERAINETÉ-PARTENARIAT"?

“Secession”“Independence”

Which question is clearest?(Francophones only)

(PCO Survey, July 1999)

29

43 44

68

56 53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

a) "…opposition partiesin the National

Assembly"

b) "…Gov't of Canada" c) "...the ROC"

Gov't of Quebec alone should set question Question should be set jointly with…QuestionsAu référendum de 1980 et de 1995, seul le gouvernement du Québec a décidé du libellé de la question posée au référendum. Si un autre référendum avait lieu, pensez-vous que: le gouvernement du Québec devrait décider seul du libellé de la question à poser, comme il l'a fait par le passé; ou que…a) .le gouvernement et les partis d'opposition siégeant à l'Assemblée nationale devraient s'entendre sur le libellé de la question à poser; b) les gouvernements du Québec et du Canada devraient s'entendre sur le libellé de la question à poser; c) le Québec et le reste du Canada devraient s'entendre sur le libellé de la question à poser?

Should the referendum question be set jointly?(Francophones only)

(CROP, July 1999)

40

70

56

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

50% + 1 60%

Represents clear majority Does not represent clear majority

Dites-moi si vous êtes tout à fait d'accord, d'accord, en désaccord ou tout à fait en désaccord avec les affirmationssuivantes? Si vous n'avez pas d'opinion n'hésitez pas à le dire.50 % + 1 / 60% des votes lors d'un référendum sur l'indépendance représentent une majorité claire? (CROP, July 1999)

What constitutes a “clear majority”?(All Quebecers)

2810

28

464139

19

0

20

40

60

With 50% + 1 With 60%

Very easy Somewhat easy Somewhat difficult Very difficult

Will Sovereignty Be Easy?(Francophones only)

33 33

57 58

11 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Direct question Question including competingarguments

More united than ever More divided than ever No answer

Question: Lequel des énoncés suivants se rapproche LE PLUS de votre opinion? A) Est-ce...après une victoire du OUI à un référendum, les Québécois seraient plus unis que jamais OU après une victoire du OUI à un référendum, les Québécois seraient plus divisés que jamais?B) Est-ce... après une victoire du OUI à un référendum, les Québécois seraient plus unis que jamais parce que les Québécois commenceront à batir ensemble un nouveau pays OU après une victoire du OUI à un référendum, les Québécois seraient plus divisés que jamais parce que plusieurs de deux ayant voté NON voudront toujours que le Québec fasse partie du Canada?

Cohesion following YES vote(Francophones only)

28%

65%

39%

60%

22%

54% 56%

79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

ConsistentYES

Moved to YES Moved to NO Consistent NO

1997

1999

Could YES vote could lead to serious crisis?

Question: Je voudrais que vous me disiez si vous êtes tout à fait d'accord, plutôt d'accord, plutôt en désaccord ou tout à fait en désaccord avec les énoncés suivants: voter OUI à la souveraineté / l ’indépendance pourrait mener à une crise majeure au Québec?

PCO Surveys

77%

35%

64%

24%

66%

38%

25%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Consistent YES Moved to YES Moved to NO Consistent NO

1997

1999

Is YES vote best way to end the constitutional debate?

Question: Je voudrais que vous me disiez si vous êtes tout à fait d'accord, plutôt d'accord, plutôt en désaccord ou tout à fait en désaccord avec les énoncés suivants: la meilleure façon de mettre fin aux chicanes entre le gouvernement du Canada et le gouvernement du Québec c'est de faire la souveraineté / de se séparer du Canada?

PCO Surveys

The continuation of “grievances”

La langue français(Francophone seulement)

596059

393939

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2003

Oui Non

Selon vous, la langue française est-elle menacée ou non au Québec ?

Contributing to Confederation (2003)

36

55

1010

3237

698

2522

8

272322

15

33

39

3331 3026

4446

27

34

40

32

47

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NF PEI NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC

Puts more in Takes more out Takes out about as much as it puts in

Overall, including money and other considerations, does your province / territory put more into Confederation than it takes out, does it take out more than it puts in or does it take out about as much as it puts in?

Who Should Have More Power?

47

5

41

35

4

58

43

10

45

52

11

3128

9

58

49

15

31

9

46

40

9

4347

37

9

49

43

10

43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Provincial Gov't Federal Gov't No change needed

NF

PEI

NS

NB

QUE

ONT

MA

SA

AB

BC

In your opinion, in the future, should the provincial [territorial] governments have more power, the federal government have more power, or should things stay as they are?

Support for devolution in Quebec

43

58 58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2001

2002

2003

In your opinion, in the future, should the provincial [territorial] governments have more power, the federal government have more power, or should things stay as they are?

.

80

90

7872

41

6975

6661

6876

69

8580

46

78 7772 72 75 73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nfld NS NB PEI Quebec Ont Manit Sask Alta BC North

1996 2003Source: CRIC, 2003; PCO 1996.Which of the two following statements comes closest to your own view: Canadian citizens should be entitled to the same medical services no matter where they live in the country; or each province and territory should be allowed to organize its health care system the way it sees fit.

Support for “same medical services” nationally

Cooperation Among GovernmentsRespondents answering that governments are working

together “very well” or “somewhat well”

59

6764

79

68

44

78

63

40

5348

73

56

37

71

5044

35

45

56

44

35

58

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Canada Atlantic QC ON MB SK AB BC

1998

2002

2003

2003: Do you think the federal and provincial / territorial governments are working very well together, somewhat well, not very well or are they not working at all well together?

1998, 2002: In recent years, do you think the federal and provincial governments have worked very well together, somewhat well, not very well or have they not worked at all well together?

Source: CRIC

.

4146

5651

3 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 2003

Same everywhere Provinces organize as they want DK

Source: CRIC, 2003; PCO 1996.Which of the two following statements comes closest to your own view: Canadian citizens should be entitled to the same medical services no matter where they live in the country; or each province and territory should be allowed to organize its health care system the way it sees fit.

Support for “same medical services” nationally

Is Your Province Treated With Respect?Respondents who answered Yes

40 41

66

494639

70

4140 43

77

4639

68

45

36 36

76

424337

42

74

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Atlantic Quebec Ontario West

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

In your opinion, is your province treated with the respect it deserves in Canada or not?

Discrimination(Francophones seulement)

38

22

32

44

15

34

05

101520253035404550

Mêmes Chances Francophone plus dechance

Anglophone plus dechance

1998 2003

En présence d’offres d’emplois et de promotions, croyez vous qu’au Québec, un francophone et un anglophone, à compétence égale, ont tous deux les mêmes chances de les obtenir, que le francophone a plus de chances ouque l’anglophone a plus de chances?

The end of the Quiet Revolution consensus

The Surplus

21

32

44

37

2833

23

47

30 31

42

27 27

50

2430

34 35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cutting Taxes Debt Repayment Social Programs

Atlantic

Quebec

Ontario

Man /SaskAlberta

BC

If governments have budgetary surpluses, which of the following three things shouldbe the HIGHEST priority: cutting taxes, paying down the debt or putting more moneyinto social programs?CRIC, 2000

Health Care Reform: Support for “Private Services for Those Who Can Afford Them”

38373944

31

49

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Atlantic Quebec Ontario Manitoba Sask. Alberta BC

Question (abbreviated): To deal with rising costs, government should… (a) significantly INCREASE THEIR SPENDING on health care; (b) LIMIT THE AVAILABILITY of some treatments or medications; or (c) allow THE PRIVATE SECTOR to provide some services to people who can afford to pay. The figure shows the proportion of respondents choosing option (c).CRIC, 2002

Health Care: Public vs. Private

24

74

4447

29

66

4551

39

58

41

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Allow Private Entirely Public

Atlantic

Quebec

Ontario

Man /Sask

Alberta

BC

In your opinion, should Canada allow privately-owned companies to deliver some health care services in Canada, or should the health care system be operated entirely as a public program?CRIC, 2000

Enduring Social Values68

59

42 43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Agree: Government Responsibility to Reduce IncomeInequality

Equality More Important Than Freedom

Quebec Canada outside Quebec

Question 1 (CRIC, October 2002):Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements? It is the responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes.

Question 2 (CRIC, February 2002): Which of these two statements comes closest to your own opinion? (a) Both freedom and equality are important. But I consider personal freedom to be more important, that is, everyone can live in freedom and develop without hindrance; (b) Both freedom and equality are important. But I consider equality to be more important, that is, nobody is underprivileged and social class differences are not so strong.

The “New Quebec” in light of Bill 101

The Changing Social Circle (Non-Visible Minorities Only)

76 78

56

81

6973

46

71

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Quebec (18-30) Rest of Canada (18-30) Quebec (30+) Rest of Canada (30+)

Friends of different religious / ethnic background Friends of different racial background

Please think about your few closest friends. a) Do any of them come from a different religious or ethnic background than you do? b) Do any of them come from a different racial background than you do?

Globe & Mail/CRIC survey, 2003.

Levels of Comfort with Different Groups% Who Would be Uncomfortable

38

23

20

15

36

9

10

12

22

13

7

2

17

9

6

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Muslim

Jewish

Asian Canadian

Black

30+, Quebec 30+, Rest of Canada 18-30, Quebec 18-30, Rest of Canada

Would you feel very comfortable, comfortable, uncomfortable or very uncomfortable if … a close relative, like your sister or daughter, was going to marry someone who is:

Globe & Mail/CRIC survey, 2003.

Support for Charest’s new approach to federalism

Re-engagement with the Federation?

86

6474

2010

30

0102030405060708090

100

Tous les répondants Électeurs du oui Électeurs du non

Favorable Défavorable

Le présent gouvernement du Québec veut jouer un rôle très actif pour en arriver à un meilleur fonctionnement de la fédération canadienne. Etes-vous très favorable, plutôt favorable, plutôt défavorable ou très défavorable à cette orientation?

CRIC, 2003

Does the PQ/PLQ weaken Quebec?

40 42

57

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Affaiblit le Québec Renforce le Québec

PQ, 1999* PLQ, 2003

Lequel des énoncées suivants se rapproche le plus de votre opinion? 1999: Le fait que le Parti québécois soit au pouvoir affaiblit le Québec dans ses relations avec le reste du Canada...OU... ...le fait que le Parti québécois soit au pouvoir renforce le Québec dans ses relations avec le reste du Canada?*2003: Le fait que le Parti libéral du Québec soit au pouvoir affaiblit le Québec dans ses relations avec le reste du Canada ou le fait que le Parti libéral du Québec soit au pouvoir renforce le Québec dans ses relations avec le reste du Canada?

*Source, 1999: CROP; 2003: CRIC

Division of Powers: Work Separately or Together?

6

94

31

65

16

82

14

85

8

91

17

82

13

86

0

20

40

60

80

100

Stay Out of Each Other's Way Work Most Things Out Together

Atlantic Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta BC

Thinking about how governments make decisions, which of the following do you think would be best for Canada? Is it: (a) the federal government should have the final say on some things, the provincial governments on others, and they should both stay out of each other's way; or (b) both levels of government should work most things out together?

Cutler/Mendelsohn; CRIC, 2000.

.

82 3

14

1 2 4 4 1 2

5952

62

78

33

44

56

45

3544

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nfld NS NB PEI Quebec Ont Manit Sask Alta BC Quebec200??

Very well Very and somewhat well combined

Do you think the federal and governments are working very well together, somewhat well, not very well or are they not working at all well together?

Source: CRIC, 2003.

Governments working well together?

.

9 12

3 3

8379

5 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1997 2003

Federal government Provincial government Both equally DKWhen there is a conflict between the federal government and your government, which one do you think is usually to blame: the federal government, your government or that both are usually equally to blame?

Who is to blame for conflicts?

Source: PCO, 1997; CRIC, 2003.

Fiscal Imbalance?

27

40

14

2723

35

2624

323131

58

71

4748

20

65

48

4043

58

68

59

87

26

464652

625858

48

58

73

59

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NF PEI NS NB QUE ONT MA SA AB BC YK NWT

Federal Govt, Too Little Revenue Provincial Govt, Too Little Revenue Local Govt, Too Little Revenue

CRIC, 2003

Do you feel that the federal government has enough, too much or too little revenue to fulfill its responsibilities? Do you feel that your provincial [territorial] government has enough, too much or too little revenue to fulfill its responsibilities? Do you feel that local or municipal governments have enough, too much or too little revenue to fulfill their responsibilities?

ConclusionsQuebecers are less likely to identify as sovereignist or federalist and the relevance of the national question has declinedThe federal government’s post-referendum strategy was consistent with latent opinion in Quebec and has changed the terms of the debateUnderlying grievances and preferences in Quebec have changed littleQuebecers are less supportive of a large social democratic stateA “New Multicultural Quebec” existsQuebecers support engagement with the federation

The best way to think about Quebec public opinion and the national question is to think first not about the state

A New Chapter or the Same Old Story?Quebec Public Opinion from 1996-2003

Matthew Mendelsohn (Queen’s University),Andrew Parkin (Centre for Research and Information on Canada),Maurice Pinard (McGill University)

State of the Federation ConferenceInstitute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s UniversityOctober 2003

Please direct correspondence to: mattmen@post.queensu.ca