Political Behaviour/Sociology

F04 - Health, Social Policy, and Political Divides / Santé, politique sociale et clivages politiques

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 01:45pm to 03:15pm | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Sylvain Bédard (Université de Sherbrooke)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Mathieu Lavigne (Dartmouth College)

Comparing Priorities in Health and Social Policies in Québec and Ontario: Olivier Jacques (Université de Montréal)
Abstract: The rising costs of healthcare, coupled with budgetary constraints, compel governments to make difficult decisions regarding the allocation of public funds across policy priorities. Yet, little is known about public preferences for healthcare relative to other social policies, particularly in the Canadian context where research on health and social policy preferences remains limited. Using a series of survey experiments embedded in an original survey conducted in June 2024 with a representative sample of 2,000 respondents, we analyze social policy priorities in Québec and Ontario, focusing specifically on health policies. Building on previous research indicating stronger support for public healthcare in English Canada compared to Québec, we find that Ontarians are more willing to fund healthcare and prioritize it over other social policies compared to Quebecers. Interestingly, Quebecers, while more likely to support user fees for healthcare access, also show a stronger preference for maintaining a public healthcare system. In line with prior research on provincial preference variations and research on comparative political cultures in Canada, we also investigate whether the factors influencing healthcare preferences differ between Ontario and Québec. Pursuing a tradition of comparing the two most populous provinces in the country, we contribute to the study of the political economy of policy preferences in Canada.

Belonging in Crisis: Non-Compliance, Rhetorical Bridging and Social Cohesion in Canada's COVID-19 vaccine roll-out: Sarah Casey (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadians experienced an intensification of state power and and infringement on their civil liberties. While this was broadly accepted in the early pandemic period, dissent grew as lockdowns were repeated, and then again as vaccines were rolled out and vaccine passports and mandates were imposed on the public. Though the majority of Canadians were vaccinated, opposition to the vaccine regulations was vocal, becoming a key part of the Ottawa “Freedom Convoy” protest in 2022. Most of Canada’s COVID-19 mitigation efforts can be classified as forms of domestic hard power, what Joseph Nye calls the “use of coercion and payment” (2009 p. 160). Yet, at the same time, public risk communication from the Government of Canada (GoC) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) employed soft power strategies of “attraction” (Nye, p. 160). This paper agues that the two types of power were strategically misaligned on key matters: where the vaccine mandates made explicit compliance demands on citizens, vaccine hesitancy primers promoted autonomy in personal health decisions. It examines the use of hard and soft power in the Canadian context during the first vaccine roll-out (2021-22) and argues that attending to the strategic alignment of hard and soft power in the domestic context is critical for social cohesion during a crisis. Further, it considers how rhetoric can be used to, as Johnstone and Mifsud (1999) explain, “bridge the poles of the divided [society]” to support all citizens during crises while still encouraging appropriate risk-mitigation behaviours.