By Matthew Mendelsohn
Queen's University
2003

Regulations tend to be technical and their development and implementation is best left to specialists. One might therefore think that public opinion data would be of little use to those seeking to improve the regulatory regime in Canada. However, while the technical details of the regulatory regime no doubt must be left to specialists, the public does have many strongly held views about regulations, and these views need to be taken into account when undertaking widespread regulatory change. Those changes to Canada's regulatory regime proposed by specialists are much more likely to be successful if they are consistent with Canadians' underlying attitudes.

This paper canvasses public opinion data that may be relevant to the question. A wide ranging search of all publicly available opinion data was conducted. The goal of this search was to identify and gather data from studies conducted to capture citizens' perspective on regulation in Canada (see Appendix A for more details on the methodology). A large body of data was identified. The challenge, however, stems from the fact that many issues are quite technical and public attitudes thus change dramatically depending on the cues given in the question wording. Moreover, different people understand "regulations" in very different ways, and it is difficult to know what people think of when they hear "regulations." For example, when asked about "regulations on business" one citizen may think about environmental standards, while another may think about the paperwork they have to fill out on their job. If these two individuals give different answers to polling questions, it might not be that they disagree, but simply that they are thinking about entirely different things. This kind of situation represents a challenge for the public opinion analyst. Nonetheless, a number of fairly consistent and important findings emerged:

• A majority of Canadians do believe that businesses in general are subject to too much regulation, and that these regulations are too complex.
• A majority of Canadians believe that environmental and consumer protection standards need to be higher.
• Enforcement of existing regulations, rather than the development of new ones, is a priority.
• Harmonization of regulations across departments, provinces, and countries is appropriate, so long as it results in higher standards and the facilitation of other goods, such as economic growth and efficiency.

Overview

Divisions in public opinion on most issues can take one of two forms: polarization, that is, people are divided against one another; or internal conflict, where individuals are personally torn. While issues like same sex marriage and Medicare would fall into the first category, the issue of regulation falls into the latter. Coming to terms with "ambivalence" in public opinion on regulation is crucial. On issues where individuals are personally torn, the framing of the issue is crucial because how the issue is communicated will determine which considerations – positive or negative – people use to think about the issue. For example, at an ideological and rhetorical level, a majority of Canadians generally believe there is "too much" "regulation on business" (Figure 1) and believe we would be better off if business was subject to fewer regulations (Figure 2). But on the other hand, on issue after issue, like the environment, banking, product labelling, or consumer safety, Canadians say they want stricter regulations (Figures 3-8), and a majority of Canadians continue to believe that regulatory agencies like the CRTC are necessary (Figure 9).

Canadians have become wary of the language of "deregulation" (Figures 10 and 11) and are concerned that businesses are operating with insufficient oversight, but at the same time, a majority also believes that too many businesses are mired in government red tape and subject to indecipherable and complex regulations. It is this ambivalence that policy makers must consider when formulating policy and communication. The language of "government regulation" inspires little confidence, but likewise the language of "deregulation" inspires fear. At its core, the challenge is one of a basic lack of trust in governments, businesses, or markets to consistently protect the public interest (Figures 12-14). Canadians thus have a very pragmatic rather than ideological conception of the public interest on issues related to regulation.

The Citizens' Perspective on Regulations

Governments regularly undertake regulatory actions for what they define as "the public interest." How do citizens understand this term, and do they basically share government's understanding of acting in the public interest? There is no one definition of "public interest," but Canadians would understand it to mean the protection of public goods from the private interest. Often, the pursuit of private interests can be understood to be compatible with public goods, but when they come into conflict, the public consistently opts in favour of the protection of public goods.

There is no one definition of the public good. Citizens forever seek balance between several worthwhile objectives that constantly compete. There is no one set of criteria that citizens can offer to guide regulators and other decision-makers to make the exact right choice supported by public opinion. Instead, citizens would like to defer to regulators. They would like to trust the processes. A disturbing finding is that in 2002, only 39% of Canadians said "government regulation" protected consumers (Figure 15), and this is consistent with other findings that show that many Canadians simply do not believe that governments have a positive impact in their lives (Figure 16). It is not that Canadians oppose "regulation," it is simply that they remain unconvinced that it does any good. Moreover, the term "regulation" often calls to mind a variety of negative associations. Citizens would like to have confidence in decision-makers because they cannot spend their time checking the safety of their own food supply, but at the moment they do not.

None of this should be taken to mean that Canadians have great confidence in private companies to regulate themselves. Strong majorities recognize that a company's primary responsibility is to increase profit and put its own interest ahead of the public interest (Figure 17). Historically, Canadians have believed that governments should establish guidelines and principles (Figure 18) and focus on enforcing existing regulations rather than new regulations (Figure 19). What is therefore required is not a set of criteria to guide regulators on specific decisions, but a set of overarching principles that should be followed in the decision-making process. The most important of these from a public perspective are:

1. The independence of the regulatory body or process (that is, Canadians need to have confidence that regulations are designed to protect the public rather than sectional interest);

2. The ability to independently enforce regulations (that is, Canadians are aware that sometimes there is a gap between symbols and reality, between the regulations themselves and whether they are in fact effectively enforced);

3. Consequences for failure to comply with regulations (that is, Canadians need to be convinced that there is a real deterrent to skirting regulations; that there are real punishments, that there is accountability, and that it does not pay to decide: "we'll ignore the regulations and then pay whatever fine we need to if we get caught);

4. All three of these principles be applied in a transparent and timely fashion (that is, there must be public scrutiny and stakeholder participation in regulatory issues so that the public knows that decisions are being taken for the public rather than the private interest).

There are naturally other important principles, such as the need for Canada to be able to respond to changing circumstances, and that Canadians should receive efficiency and value for money. If these criteria are met, Canadians will accept that the regulatory regime is meeting the ‘public interest'.

Some Questions and Answers

1. Does the public support harmonization between departments?

Yes, there is little doubt that Canadians support better coordination between government departments. This belief that there are contradictory or overlapping regulations generated by different bodies in part accounts for the belief in "too much red tape." A well-coordinated effort to undertake a "regulations audit" – which ones are necessary? Are some contradictory? Is there unnecessary overlap and duplication? – would be consistent with Canadian public opinion.

2. Does the public support harmonization between provinces?

Yes, there is strong support for the economic union and the breaking down of all trade and regulatory barriers between provinces. As we know, opposition to the economic union comes from narrowly defined and powerful constituencies protecting their own sectional interests. However, the public is supportive of the public rather than the private interest. Surveys for CRIC on the economic union have consistently shown that the general public is more supportive of breaking down interprovincial barriers than governments have proven to be (Figure 20). Other surveys have consistently shown that Canadians have little attachment to the division of powers (Figure 21). A harmonized pan-Canadian regulatory framework on many issues would be popular with the general public.

3. Does the public support harmonization between countries, particularly with the US?

Canadians instinctively say they want Canada to set its own standards (Figure 22). They do not respond favourably to language that suggests we should lower standards to become "more competitive." They deeply resist the idea of "harmonization" with the US and its policies (Figure 23), or adopting the US dollar (Figure 24). This is in part due to the continued perception that Canadian values differ fundamentally from those of Americans (Figure 25).

Nonetheless, on many issues, there is far less resistance than one might expect. Canadians' conception of national sovereignty has evolved over the past decade. Today, Canadians are both more aware of our interdependence and have less confidence in our own national government. Canadians are supportive of trade liberalization (Figure 26). They are supportive of free trade in labour (Figure 27) and thus supportive of common regulatory standards that would facilitate the movement of people across the border for the purposes of employment. They are certainly prepared to work with the US on issues like border security (Figure 28), an issue most Canadians interpret in a pragmatic rather than an ideological way. These are viewed as pragmatic responses to economic opportunities. However, the issue remains one of pragmatism not ideology. Canadians are not ideologically committed to global governance, nor ideologically committed to Canadian sovereignty. Canadians do not want to "harmonize our policies with the US" and hence sacrifice our sovereignty, but they are prepared to negotiate agreements for mutual recognition of standards that reduce barriers to economic transactions. Canadians think about these issues differently than they did in 1988. Today, having products move quickly across the border is recognized as part of the new Canadian public interest. Canadians are also generally becoming more internationalist and have become more likely to believe that what takes place in other countries is our business (Figure 29).

These trends in support of trade liberalization, pragmatism, and internationalism mean that Canadians are not instinctively hostile to ceding some sovereignty to international bodies. For example, occasionally deferring to the WTO or the UN does not cause most Canadians much concern (Figure 30). A major survey conducted with the support of the Law Commission of Canada found that Canadians were very supportive of greater international cooperation on just about all issues (Figure 31). On the question of governments deciding things together at international meetings, there were relatively high levels of support for these kinds of multilateral activities. As long as the democratically elected Canadian government is participating in decisions, Canadians tend not to be too worried about national sovereignty, but there are important differences in Canadians' attitudes toward the various issue areas. One can distinguish what could be understood as "international managerial issues" (preventing climate change and curtailing the spread of disease), where Canadians support delegation of these decisions to international meetings, from "domestic political issues" (establishing standards for social programs and standards for the workplace), where there is more support for the retention of national sovereignty, though some support for delegation. When respondents were asked whether international organizations should actually be making decisions, there was more support than one might expect. On the "international managerial issues," 68% and 59% of Canadians say that these matters should be decided by international organizations. Similarly, on the "universalist" issue of human rights, 56% of Canadians say that the issue should be decided by international organizations. But Canadians are extremely reluctant to cede sovereignty to international organizations on three issues: standards for social programs, standards for the workplace, and ensuring clean drinking water.

From the perspective of the public, multilateral rather than bilateral mutual recognition would be more suitable. Concerns about the US always remain in Canadian public opinion, and Canadians continue to support internationalism and working through multilateral processes. At the same time, Canadians would be uncomfortable recognizing the standards and frameworks in place in many parts of the world. An initiative that begins with the US and the EU simultaneously would be most acceptable.

It needs to be noted, however, that mutual recognition of standards presents challenges for Canadian governments because many Canadians are under the impression that our own standards are higher than those of our major trading partners, particularly the US. On many issues, our standards are not objectively higher. A communication strategy around the mutual recognition of standards should focus on its ability to improve standards and safety worldwide, including in Canada. Canadians' fear would be that mutual recognition would lead to downward harmonization. Instead, Canadians should be encouraged to think that it is in Canada's interest and the interest of other countries to collaborate internationally in order to meet the highest standards of safety. This is consistent with Canadian values to promote human security and human rights globally.

4 Can companies regulate themselves?

No, but independent agencies can. As discussed earlier, independent agencies are more trusted than other bodies because they are appear to be above the influences of either the market or politics.

5. Are Canadians nationalists or provincialists?

Picking up on the themes from the earlier questions, it is clear that Canadians are not provincialists; that is, they do not care about the division of powers and do not care which government is doing what. At the same time, Canadians are not nationalists; that is, they do not care if Canada cedes some sovereignty to international bodies, provided that a justification can be offered. When it comes to regulations, Canadians are pragmatists and internationalists.

Conclusion

At an ideological and rhetorical level, Canadians object to "regulation of business," but on issue after issue, like the environment, banking, or consumer safety, Canadians say they want stricter regulations, which they understand to mean "higher standards". Canadians are able to distinguish between regulations they like and regulations they don't. Regulations for safety are important, but regulations to prevent competition, such as the maintenance of monopoly providers, have become problematic. Support for strong environmental and consumer protection regulation never wavers. On important matters, Canadians simply do not trust private companies to regulate themselves. Even when looking at questions using strongly worded language, very strong majorities concluded that business could not be left to their own devices to undertake self-regulation. Strong regulation of the banking and financial sector is generally viewed as very important.

Because views on regulation are not fully crystallized, how one presents and communicates policy change on the issue is crucial. When ambivalence exists in public opinion, the presentation of policy will have a stronger than usual impact on public perceptions. While there is concern about "too much" regulation on business, there is also concern that there are insufficient environmental and product safety regulations. Canadians simultaneously believe there are "too many regulations on business" and insufficient "regulations to protect consumers and the environment." This is possible because both call to mind different consideration: the former reminds citizens of "red tape" and "needless bureaucracy," which all Canadians have experienced, while the latter calls to mind the need for "public protection against businesses that would cut corners," also something which all Canadians have experienced. Canadians genuinely believe there is too much paperwork and unnecessary regulation associated with running a business, but this does not mean that there is support for weakening consumer protection or environmental regulations.

Regulations must instil trust in citizens and Canada's trading partners. Building trust into the regulatory process is necessary in order to prevent irrational demands for stricter regulations from the public, what can be called "regulatory creep." There is a belief that government action is often undertaken for the sectional or private interest rather than public interest, and this applies to regulatory processes lead by government as well as those lead by other actors.

Canadians believe that governments are ultimately responsible for the health and safety of Canadians, but also believe that in many circumstances they should not micro-manage how companies meet standards but instead should hold them to account if they fail to comply. For the public, government is increasingly a hub and a network, not a place or an institution.

One final note. Government action on regulations may give the government little credit. Regulatory success is not a news story. Only regulatory failure is. Governments should not expect much public credit on these issues. However, little credit is better than the alternative, which would be highly critical coverage.

Recommendations

One way to communicate the importance of common regulatory standards is to discuss it through the lens of a common labour market.

Another way to communicate the importance of common regulatory standards is that it will raise standards for all Canadians and for citizens around the world. Common regulatory standards are thus an extension of Canadian values.

Canadians have increasingly come to see trade as part of the Canadian public interest. Canadians believe that ensuring that products can move quickly across the border is a fundamental role of government. A focus on this element could be crucial, though the language of "harmonization" and "competitiveness" should be avoided.

There is evidence that much of the public does not think that government regulations do much good for safety. Communicating how regulations make us all safer remains important.

There is an important distinction that must continue to be made between regulations designed to protect Canadians, such as environmental and consumer protection standards, and other regulations that appear designed to protect the sectional interest of particular groups or protect monopolies. For example, in 1993, there was little public objection to relaxing regulations on ownership of financial institutions (Figure 32).

Canadians are more concerned with enforcing existing regulations than developing new ones. A focus on how regulatory reform will improve enforcement will be beneficial.

The term "regulations" itself may evoke negative images in many Canadians; "common regulatory standards" or other less bureaucratic terms may have more positive connotations for Canadians.

Appendix A

Search Methodology for Opinion Data on Regulations

The goal of this search is to identify and gather research reports from studies conducted to capture citizens' perspective on regulation in Canada.  Only Canadian sources will be considered, but US sources may also be considered if the results include comparisons to regulation in Canada.

The definition of regulation for this search is not defined specifically and could include:

• Environmental regulation;
• Energy regulation;
• Banking and finance regulation;
• Telecommunications regulation;
• Transportation regulation; and/or
• Trade regulation.

Potential sources

There are a variety of sources where this information could be found.  Potential sources include:

• Articles in news, academic, and trade publications;
• Results of public opinion surveys;
• Research reports from regulatory and government agencies;
• Trade and industry association research reports; and/or
• Self-published research papers (academic only).

Specific sources available to us immediately

Nexis.com

• Non-US Newspapers and Wires
• Journal of Accounting and Public Policy
• Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
• Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
• Public Opinion Online library published by the Roper Center for Public Opinion
• Public Opinion Quarterly
• The Public Perspective

Ingenta.com

Ingenta supplies access to 6,000+ full-text online publications plus access to tables of contents from an additional 27,000+ publications.

I will perform searches for articles using the same search terms outlined below under "The World Wide Web."

Public Opinion Polling Firms

The Web sites of the following companies will be searched to identify previous polls related to regulation in Canada:

• Compas
• Decima
• EKOS Research
• Environics
• Gallup
• Ipsos-Reid
• Pollara
• SES Research

The World Wide Web

Searches of the World Wide Web will be performed using Google, Copernic, ProFusion, Mama, and WiseNut.  The following terms will be used in the search:

• "regulation in Canada"
• "regulation research in Canada"
• "regulation research databases"
• "environmental regulation research in Canada"
• "energy regulation research in Canada"
• "bank regulation research in Canada"
• "telecommunications regulation research in Canada"
• "transportation regulation research in Canada"
• "trade regulation research in Canada"
• "regulation policy research in Canada"

(As I perform theses searches, I will adjust my search terms if necessary, including removing "in Canada.")

Government Web Sites

I will also search the following sites for research reports:

• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
• Canadian Transportation Agency
• Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
• Department of Finance Canada
• Treasury Board Secretariat
• Industry Canada
• Statistics Canada

University Department Web Sites

Universities with programs in Economics, Political Science, and Public Administration will probably have faculty conducting research in this area.  Searching the Web sites for these programs might provide names of faculty conducting research in this area.

I will conduct searches of academic article databases such as ABI/Inform, EBSCO, PAIS International, Social Sciences Citation Index, and the Canadian Research Index.

The Canadian Opinion Research Archive, at Queen's University will also be searched.