In advocacy, files can move, stall, or never get off the ground but because decision makers may not know what the public thinks.
They may not know whether the public sees the problem the same way they do (or if something is a problem at all), whether proposed solutions feel realistic, and whether people care enough to act when decisions are made.
Good polling (like we do at Abacus Data) sheds light on these questions before you invest resources into pushing for an outcome. It shows which messages resonate, which assumptions people hold, and where permission for action exists or not. In a democracy the public is the source of authority not a distraction from it.
Below is a simple model you can use to design and evaluate advocacy strategies. It’s a framework our team at Abacus Data uses all the time It focuses on three requirements for success that only proper measurement through polling can reveal.
1. Does the Public Recognize the Problem as You Do?
Successful advocacy starts with problem definition. If your audience does not see the problem or defines it differently from you, no amount of solution selling will stick. Decision makers can be unsure whether to act or how to act if they do not know where the public stands.
Public concern about plastic pollution is an example where the problem definition is clear and shared broadly across Canada. Multiple polls have shown overwhelming concern among Canadians about plastic waste and strong support for action. Support levels were high across provinces and political affiliations, with about eight in ten Canadians backing federal action on plastics. Such clarity makes it easier for advocates and lawmakers to argue for stronger policy because the public sees the problem and wants it addressed.
Contrast that with climate policy. Polls show Canadians generally worry about climate change, but there is a significant gap between broad concern and support for specific policies once cost, fairness, and economic trade-offs enter the conversation. Without understanding how the public balances concern with perceived costs, advocates risk pushing solutions that appear technically sound but politically fragile.
Polling also helps you refine the language you use to describe the problem. Different segments of the population may frame the same situation differently. If advocates use technical or abstract terms while the public uses everyday language, a disconnect emerges. Problem definition polling uncovers these disparities so you can adapt your framing.
2. Do People Believe Your Proposed Solutions Are Effective and Feasible?
Once you establish that the public recognizes the problem, the next question is whether they buy your solution.
People do not automatically link an idea to a credible fix. They assess whether a proposed policy will actually work, whether it is fair, and whether it can be implemented without unintended consequences. Measurement here helps advocates understand not just support for the idea but the depth of that support.
Research on Canadian perceptions of carbon pricing illustrates this point. Polls have shown that while a majority of Canadians say climate action is important, fewer are convinced that pricing carbon is effective or understand how incentive payments or rebates work. Without that deeper insight, advocates for carbon pricing can mistake general support for ambiguous backing of a specific policy design. Good polling identifies where communications need to be improved and what barriers remain to broader acceptance.
Feasibility also includes political feasibility. People judge whether governments can implement policies fairly and without undue disruption.
The measurement of perceived effectiveness and feasibility allows advocates to test alternative approaches. It tells you whether your preferred solution resonates and what adjustments make it stronger. Without this, you may advocate for a policy that looks good on paper but is disconnected from how people think it will play out in their lives.
3. Is the Public Willing to Act Politically Based on a Decision?
The third requirement is political intensity. This goes beyond passive support. It measures whether people are willing to reward or punish decision makers based on the outcome.
An issue can enjoy broad passive support yet lack political consequence if people do not care enough to influence decisions. Trouble arises when advocates build strategies around “nice to have” issues that do not move the needle in ways that matter to politicians.
Polling that measures willingness to act politically asks questions like whether people would reconsider their vote, contact elected officials, donate, or participate in demonstrations based on policy decisions. These measures uncover whether support is stable or shallow.
The debate over handgun policy in Canada, for example, shows how intensity matters. Polling has examined views on handgun bans and buyback programs, revealing that opinions are influenced by regional identities, perceived risks, and values. Understanding intensity and trade-offs is crucial for advocacy because a narrow majority might support a policy but lack the intensity to make it consequential for decision makers.
Similarly, research on public views toward health care resource allocation can reveal where support for broader access to family doctors or expanded emergency services is strong enough to influence policy. Without such evidence, advocates may overestimate the political leverage a broad support number suggests.
Measurement should track not just positive reactions but also how people respond if the policy fails to pass or if it is implemented poorly. Does that change how they view leadership? Does it shift trust? Does it alter their willingness to engage politically? These are the real signals policymakers watch.
How to Use This Model in Practice
When you combine these three requirements, you get a diagnostic tool that helps you understand where your advocacy strategy is strong and where it is fragile.
Good polling gives you a layered picture:
If problem definition is weak, you need to invest in awareness and framing.
If solutions are doubted, you need credibility, proof points, and clear narratives of how they work.
If political action is low, you need to build salience, community engagement, and intensity.
This model also helps diagnose why a file is stuck. If people see the problem but do not believe the proposed fix is feasible, your strategy needs refinement. If people support the idea but are not willing to act politically, you may need to focus on messaging that translates support into consequence.
Good Polling Illuminates the Road Ahead
Good polling does not tell you what to think. It tells you how people think. It uncovers assumptions, reveals barriers, and highlights opportunities. It shows where permission exists and where it is fragile.
Public opinion research is not about chasing headlines. It is about illuminating the road ahead so you know how choices will land with the public. It shows how to make decisions land more smoothly or why a decision could backfire if you are trying to stop something. It helps advocates reduce guesswork and plan for contingencies.
At Abacus Data we treat public opinion as a dynamic system. We do not just measure what people think today. We model how opinions form, how they shift, what messages move them, and what trade-offs matter. We measure problem recognition, solution credibility, and political intensity because we know these are the foundations of permission.
We also bring political context and segmentation to our analysis. Public support is rarely one monolithic number. It varies by region, values, lived experience, and trust in institutions. In a time when Canadians feel both anxious and open to leadership, that nuance matters. A policy can have broad support in theory yet fail to gain traction because key segments see it differently.
The best advocacy strategies treat public opinion as an asset to be built, not a hurdle to be managed. This means measuring the right things at the right times with the right level of nuance. It means separating recognition from agreement, agreement from credibility, and credibility from political action.
Politics and public policy are sustained by permission.
When advocates understand whether permission exists, what it is made of, and how it can change, they make better decisions and achieve better outcomes.
Public opinion research does not replace strategy. It strengthens it.
David Coletto is the founder & CEO of Abacus Data. Subscribe to his Subtack – inFocus with David Coletto – for more in-depth polling analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
About Abacus Data
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy. We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
We were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2021 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in 2019.
Contact us with any questions
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
As 2025 comes to a close, I want to take a moment to look back at the year we have had at Abacus Data and share a bit about where we are heading in 2026. But above all, I want to say thank you. This year has reminded me just how fortunate we are to do this work, how much trust Canadians place in us, and how essential strong public opinion research is in a time of uncertainty.
We are living through what some have called a permacrisis: a period marked by instability, rapid change, and a constant sense of disruption. Political tension, economic anxiety, technological acceleration, rising misinformation. All of it affects how people feel, how they make decisions, and how leaders across the country chart their path forward.
In that kind of environment, clarity becomes more valuable. Understanding becomes more urgent. And trusted insight becomes essential.
That is why I believe Abacus Data has never been more relevant. And it is why I am so grateful to everyone who helped us shape conversations across Canada this year.
Almost two million people visited our website in 2025 to read our polling, our analysis, and the stories we told about how Canadians and Americans are thinking and feeling. To everyone who read, shared, or reflected on our work, thank you.
To the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who completed one of our surveys or took part in a focus group this year, thank you as well. Your voice makes our work possible. You help build a more informed public dialogue. You help ensure leaders see the country clearly. We could not do what we do without your participation.
To the more than 380 clients who trusted us with your most important questions, I want to express my sincere appreciation. You asked us to help you see the world differently, to bring you closer to the people you serve, and to guide you through moments of uncertainty. It is a privilege to be invited into your decision making.
This year, our revenue grew by 15 percent. We worked with organizations across business, government, advocacy, and civil society. We briefed leaders across the country. We presented to audiences of more than 100,000 people through in person and through virtual talks.
Our work was cited by national news outlets, policymakers, and industry leaders and our partnership with the Toronto Star and The Logic helped clarify Canadian and Ontario politics. I think we helped shape national conversations on trade, Canada-U.S. relations, affordability, trust, generational change, housing, health care, and the evolving mindset of Canadians.
Another major development this year was the widespread interest in our work on the precarity mindset. Eddie Sheppard and I have traveled across Canada sharing this story, and the response has been remarkable. Audiences immediately connect with it because it gives language to something many were already feeling but could not quite express. That is the power of a clear narrative in public opinion research. It takes scattered data points and turns them into understanding. It helps leaders make sense of the country and chart a path forward.
Looking ahead, I believe we are entering one of the most important periods for our industry. There’s generational change in the leadership of the industry. Artificial intelligence is transforming how insight is generated and delivered (not all of it good). And yet, in the middle of all that change, one thing has become more valuable than ever: trusted interpretation.
AI can produce charts in seconds. It can summarize text, organize data, and speed up workflows. What it cannot do is understand the nuance of how Canadians think. It cannot interpret mood or risk. It cannot read a room or brief a cabinet minister or a board of directors. It cannot replace the human judgment at the core of what we do.
Next year, we will build on what worked in 2025. We will continue to strengthen our methods and expand our insight offerings. We will invest in new content, new tools, and new ways to help leaders understand the world around them. We will also introduce new public facing research products and strategic insight reports.
The goal is simple. Help people see the world more clearly, and give decision makers the confidence to act.
And we are just getting started. I believe 2026 will be one of the most exciting years in our history.
Thank you again to everyone who has supported Abacus Data this year. To our readers. To our research participants. To every client who trusted us. To every partner who collaborated with us. And to every Canadian who took time to share their perspective.
Wishing you and your loved ones a wonderful holiday season and a happy new year. I cannot wait to share what comes next.
It is not to praise Mark Carney or to criticize him. It is not to argue that his rise was inevitable, nor to suggest it was purely accidental. The goal is to understand how someone who was virtually unknown to most Canadians in mid-2024 became Prime Minister less than a year later, and what that transformation tells us about the political moment Canada is in.
I do that by following the data.
Using Abacus Data polling conducted from the summer of 2024 through the end of 2025, this analysis traces Carney’s meteoric rise to the highest political office in the country and situates it in the broader context of a rapidly shifting political market. The focus is not on tactics or personalities in isolation, but on how public opinion evolved, what Canadians were responding to, and why Carney’s particular offer resonated when it did.
If you want to understand Carney’s rise, the first thing to discard is the idea that it was inevitable.
It wasn’t.
It was conditional, contextual, and shaped by forces largely outside his control. His success tells us far less about personal charisma or campaign brilliance than it does about how the political market shifted, who that shift favoured, and why Carney’s particular product fit the moment better than the available alternatives.
Politics, like markets, does not reward effort. It rewards fit.
By the end of 2025, Mark Carney is not just Prime Minister. He is one of the most recognizable and, by several measures, trusted political figures in the country. Eighteen months earlier, almost no one could have predicted that outcome. In July 2024, only 7 percent of Canadians could identify him from a photograph. Even among Liberal supporters, recognition was barely 10 percent. Carney was respected in elite circles, but effectively invisible to most voters.
That invisibility turned out to be an asset.
At the time, Canadian politics was not suffering from a lack of options. It was suffering from exhaustion. Voters were not searching for novelty. They were searching for relief.
For much of 2023 and 2024, Canadians were living in what we described as a scarcity mindset: a persistent sense that life was getting harder to manage, more expensive, and less predictable. Scarcity is not just about prices. It is about control, or more precisely, the loss of it.
We are looking for an exceptionally curious, smart and driven research executive. Is that you? Know someone?
Scarcity is unforgiving to incumbents.
By late 2024, that dynamic had become unmistakable. After Chrystia Freeland resigned in December, just 12 percent of Canadians believed the Liberal government deserved re-election. When Justin Trudeau announced his resignation, Liberal support collapsed to 20 percent, trailing the Conservatives by 27 points, the largest gap Abacus Data had ever measured.
In that environment, familiarity was a liability. Continuity was a curse. Recognition often came bundled with resentment.
Carney’s obscurity insulated him from that backlash. He was not yet associated with failure, disappointment, or fatigue. He was not the solution, but he was not the problem either. In market terms, he was an unbranded product entering a category where most brands had become deeply unpopular.
Between July 2024 and January 2025, Carney’s recognizability rose sharply, from 7 percent to 24 percent. This was not celebrity in the cultural sense. It was exposure driven by context. Canadians were watching a governing party unravel. Media attention shifted from governing to succession. Economic anxiety remained high. And the Liberal brand, especially Trudeau’s personal brand, had become so damaged that voters were actively scanning for something that looked competent without looking continuous.
Recognition alone does not move politics. Reaction does.
Among those who knew Carney, impressions were strikingly positive. In our January 2025 leadership testing, Carney posted the strongest net favourability of any potential Liberal leader among those familiar with him. Voters did not just notice him. They liked what they saw, especially relative to the alternatives.
Then the category itself changed.
Donald Trump’s election in November 2024 and his inauguration in January 2025 did more than introduce a foreign policy challenge. It reshaped the emotional context of Canadian politics. Scarcity did not disappear, but it was joined by something deeper and more destabilizing: precarity.
Precarity is not about prices. It is about stability. It is the fear that the systems you rely on might not hold. Trade access. Jobs. Economic sovereignty. National security. Canada’s ability to control its own fate in a harsher, less predictable world.
Trump’s rhetoric about annexation, his tariffs, and his unpredictability made those risks feel immediate rather than theoretical. And when the dominant emotional frame shifts, the market shifts with it.
This is where Carney’s offer fit the moment.
He was not selling empathy or cultural alignment. He was not selling disruption. He was selling reassurance through competence. “I know how these systems work. I have managed crises before. I can steady this.”
Abacus Data’s tracking showed government approval rising sharply after Carney assumed office, even though material conditions had not yet improved. What changed was not reality. It was who Canadians believed was capable of managing it.
Throughout the campaign, Carney’s comparative advantage over Pierre Poilievre was not ideological. It was positional.
Poilievre dominated the market for disruption and change. Carney dominated the market for threat management and stability. When Canadians were asked who could best stand up to a bully or captain a ship through a bad storm, Carney consistently led. Those leadership attributes mattered enough to offset the Liberals’ incumbency disadvantage and the public’s still strong appetite for change.
The election result reflected that tension.
By election day, a majority of Canadians told us that change was their primary motivation, a dynamic that favoured the Conservatives. Yet Carney still captured roughly 30 percent of those change-motivated voters. That was the difference between a Liberal defeat and a Liberal comeback.
The victory itself was narrow, but the coalition behind it was revealing. Carney did not win because Canadians suddenly embraced Liberalism again. He won because enough voters, particularly older voters and those experiencing high precarity, decided that reassurance mattered more than disruption in that moment.
That generational divide persists.
At the end of 2025, Carney’s net favourability among Baby Boomers sits at +24. Among Gen X it is essentially neutral. Among Millennials it is negative. Gen Z is modestly positive. His coalition is anchored in voters who prioritize stability, institutional continuity, and risk management over relatability or cultural alignment.
This also explains why Carney’s brand feels solid, but not warm.
At the end of November, we asked Canadians an open-ended question: “How would you describe Mark Carney to a friend who does not follow politics?” The answers provide a revealing snapshot of both sides of the Carney brand.
Among those with a positive impression, the dominant portrait is remarkably consistent. Canadians describe him as smart, highly competent, and economically literate. Words like intelligent, capable, and knowledgeable appear repeatedly. Many anchor that competence explicitly in his financial background, describing him as a world-class economist, a former central banker, or someone who understands how the economy really works.
Just as important is temperament. Positive descriptions frequently include calm, steady, measured, pragmatic, and level-headed. People describe him as someone who thinks before he speaks, who does not overreact, and who brings discipline and seriousness to the role. Leadership is framed less as inspiration and more as stewardship.
Trust appears often, but in a specific form. Respondents talk about integrity, honesty, and principle, but not warmth. This is not a “he’s just like me” trust. It is “I believe he will do the right thing, even when it is hard.” In a precarity mindset, that is reassurance coded as competence.
There is also a noticeable contrast narrative. Many respondents describe him as a fresh start, different from Trudeau, and not a typical politician. His outsider status, despite his elite résumé, is interpreted as a lack of political baggage rather than detachment. For a meaningful segment, that “anti-politician” identity is central to his appeal.
But the same question also reveals the fault lines.
Among those with a negative impression, the critiques are not primarily about intelligence. Very few argue that Carney is unqualified. Instead, the dominant theme is distrust. He is described as dishonest, corrupt, self-serving, and acting in the interests of wealthy elites rather than ordinary Canadians. This is the core of negativity.
A second major cluster frames him as an elite or globalist figure, often sliding into conspiratorial language. References to global financial networks, outside control, or “WEF-style” influence are common. These responses are highly emotional and not policy-specific, but they are real and politically relevant. They speak to identity and suspicion rather than disagreement.
A third major theme is weakness. Many negative respondents describe Carney as spineless, too cautious, or not tough enough, especially when it comes to standing up to the United States and Donald Trump. This critique is notable because it appears both among opponents and among some otherwise positive respondents who wish he were more forceful.
Other negative themes reinforce this picture. He is described as out of touch with ordinary people, too similar to Trudeau, a banker unsuited to governing, or someone who talks more than he delivers. Complaints about affordability, deficits, immigration, and cost of living often attach to the broader “self-serving” frame rather than to specific policy objections.
Taken together, the open-ended data shows a sharply asymmetric brand. Support for Carney is grounded in competence, calm, and credibility. Opposition is grounded in distrust, elite suspicion, and questions about whose side he is on. That matters, because asymmetric brands are powerful but brittle. They rely on trust more than affection.
This framing is essential to understanding one of the central risks Carney now faces.
A significant part of his appeal rests on the fact that he does not feel like a conventional politician. His rise has been powered by an “anti-politician” brand: technocratic, serious, reluctant, and above the transactional manoeuvring many Canadians associate with Ottawa. He is seen less as someone who sought power and more as someone who accepted responsibility when circumstances demanded it.
That perception is valuable. And it is fragile.
As we move into 2026, Carney governs in a Parliament where the arithmetic is tightening. Two Conservative MPs have already crossed the floor to sit with the Liberals. One more would be enough to secure a majority government without an election.
From a procedural perspective, this is entirely legitimate. Floor crossing is a long-standing feature of parliamentary systems.
But politics is not judged only by rules. It is judged by narrative.
For a leader whose brand is built on being different from politics as usual, overtly political acts aimed at consolidating power carry risk. Treat a floor crossing MP as a trophy, I think, challenges Carney’s brand. It looks bad and doesn’t reinforce his strengths. Moreover, encouraging or facilitating additional floor crossings to manufacture a majority could read as transactional and overly political, even if lawful. It risks blurring the differentiation that enabled his rapid rise.
This is not because Canadians care deeply about parliamentary mechanics. It is because floor crossing activates a familiar script about ambition and power accumulation. That script runs directly against the emotional logic of Carney’s appeal.
The same tension applies to the possibility of a spring election. An election could be framed as a stabilizing move, seeking a clear mandate in a precarious moment and allowing the government to govern without constant election pressure. That framing aligns with his brand. But the risk is overreach. Consent sought openly reinforces trust. Power assembled quietly erodes it.
What Carney’s first year ultimately tells us is that Canadian politics today is less about ideology than orientation. Voters are not simply asking who best reflects them. They are asking who can keep the system from breaking and who can make life feel more predictable.
Carney’s rise from obscurity to the centre of gravity is a product of that question.
Whether he can remain there will depend on whether he can preserve the trust premium that lifted him, make competence visible to people still living with scarcity, and continue to act like the anti-politician in a system that constantly rewards political behaviour.
David Coletto is the founder & CEO of Abacus Data. Subscribe to his Subtack – inFocus with David Coletto – for more in-depth polling analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
About Abacus Data
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy. We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
We were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2021 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in 2019.
Contact us with any questions
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
I noticed a really interesting question asked recently by POLITICO in the United States about the cost of living. It cut through the noise by asking people something very simple: does the cost of living today feel worse than ever, merely bad, or not bad at all? Given how central affordability has been to politics in Canada, I decided to replicate the question here.
The results underline just how dominant this issue remains in the lives of Canadians.
Fully 67% of Canadians say the cost of living where they live is the worst they can ever remember it being. Another 21% say it is bad, but that they remember times when it was worse. Just 11% say the cost of living is not bad. In the United States, 46% of Americans recently said the cost of living was the worst they could remember, suggesting Canadians are feeling this pressure even more acutely.
There is a clear partisan gap in how acute these affordability pressures feel. While a majority of Liberal voters say the cost of living is the worst they can remember, that view is far more widespread among Conservative voters, where three quarters describe current conditions in those stark terms, compared with 58% of Liberals, underscoring how cost-of-living anxiety is both broad and more intensely felt on the Conservative side of the electorate.
This is not a marginal concern or a background anxiety. It is a dominant lived experience that continues to shape how Canadians interpret government performance, leadership, and competing policy priorities, alongside concern about Donald Trump, trade, and global instability.
Cost of living dominates the public agenda
When Canadians are asked to identify the top three priorities for the federal government right now, the rising cost of living stands clearly above every other issue. Nearly two thirds select it, far ahead of the economy, housing affordability, healthcare, or concerns about Trump and his administration.
This finding is remarkably consistent across regions and age groups. In Atlantic Canada, Ontario, the Prairies, Quebec, and British Columbia, affordability ranks first. Among younger and older Canadians alike, it anchors the issue agenda, even as it is paired with different secondary concerns.
For organizations engaged in public affairs and advocacy, this context matters. Any policy conversation, regardless of its primary focus, is now being interpreted through an affordability lens. Issues that are not explicitly about the cost of living are still being evaluated on whether they add pressure, provide relief, or feel disconnected from the financial reality many households are navigating.
What Canadians mean when they talk about affordability
Canadians are not speaking in abstractions when they talk about the cost of living. They are responding to very specific pressures.
The most widely cited concern is grocery prices, selected by 81% of Canadians. This concern rises sharply with age, from 61% among those aged 18 to 29 to 93% among those aged 60 and over. Food prices are the most universal and emotionally resonant cost because they are unavoidable and visible every week.
Housing costs, including rent, mortgage payments, and home prices, are the second most cited concern at 50% overall. Here the generational divide is clearer. Six in ten Canadians under 30 cite housing as a major pressure, compared with fewer than four in ten among those aged 60 and over.
Other costs matter, but to a lesser degree. Utility bills, household goods, healthcare expenses, transportation, insurance, and debt payments all register. Among younger Canadians, education expenses stand out more, while healthcare costs rise in importance among older Canadians.
While affordability is a shared concern, what people mean by affordability varies by life stage. Messages that treat the cost of living as a single problem risk missing the specific pressure points that different audiences feel most acutely.
Who prioritizes the cost of living most
The rising cost of living is identified as a top priority across regions, but it is especially pronounced in Atlantic Canada and Ontario. In every region, however, it ranks first.
Age differences are modest in incidence but meaningful in interpretation. Majorities in every age group say affordability should be among the federal government’s top priorities. Younger Canadians are more likely to pair it with housing affordability, while older Canadians are more likely to link it with healthcare and Canada’s relationship with the United States.
Gender differences also emerge. Women are more likely than men to cite the rising cost of living as a top priority and more likely to associate it with housing and healthcare. Men are somewhat more likely to connect affordability to economic growth, jobs, and government spending.
The political impact is real, but not yet decisive
The political consequences of affordability concerns are visible, but they are not yet fully crystallized.
Among Canadians who say the cost of living is a top issue for them, vote intention favours the Conservatives at 44%, with the Liberals at 38% and the NDP at 8%.
Government approval also shifts. Among those who prioritize the cost of living, 41% approve of the government’s performance, 20% are neutral, and 39% disapprove. Among everyone else, approval rises to 57%, with disapproval falling to 28%.
The same pattern appears in impressions of Prime Minister Mark Carney. Among those who prioritize the cost of living, his net impression is narrowly positive at +2, with 40% positive and 38% negative. Among everyone else, his net impression rises sharply to +20, with 52% positive and 30% negative.
These gaps matter. They show that affordability concerns are associated with weaker approval and softer personal ratings. At the same time, they also show that the issue has not yet become a defining political liability for the Carney government.
Why affordability has not yet broken through politically
There are several reasons why the cost of living, despite its intensity, has not yet fully translated into a political breaking point.
Many Canadians see affordability as structural and global rather than the result of a single government’s decisions. That tempers blame, even as frustration remains high.
The Carney government has taken some steps to demonstrate it is sympathetic about the issue. It eliminated the carbon price, cut income taxes, made the national school food program permanent, and launched automatic tax filing for lower income Canadians to ensure they can access government benefits.
Affordability is also competing with other anxieties rather than crowding them out. Trump, trade, healthcare, and global instability are layered on top of cost pressures, creating a complex agenda rather than a singular referendum that may be uniquely Canadian.
Why the next few months matter
Timing may shift the dynamics.
The holiday season is now upon us, a period when spending increases even for households under strain. That will be followed by January, when credit card bills arrive, savings feel thinner, and the post-holiday financial squeeze sets in.
This seasonal pattern has the potential to intensify affordability concerns in the first few months of the new year. For governments, institutions, and advocacy organizations alike, this is a moment when empathy, tone, and relevance will matter more than ambition or abstraction.
Implications beyond electoral politics
The findings also carry clear implications for associations, corporations, and non-profits shaping advocacy agendas.
Affordability has become a credibility test. Audiences are filtering messages through their own financial stress, and proposals that do not clearly connect to household impact risk being dismissed as out of touch.
For business and industry groups, arguments about growth, competitiveness, or innovation will resonate only if they are explicitly linked to stability, predictability, and cost relief for consumers or workers. I wrote about connecting the macro to the micro this summer.
For non-profits and civil society organizations, public support for social investment, climate action, and equity remains, but it is increasingly conditional. Canadians want to understand how these priorities fit into an already strained financial landscape.
Across sectors, effective advocacy in the coming year will require acknowledging the pressure people are under, demonstrating how solutions reduce risk rather than add to it, and being honest about trade-offs.
For now, the cost of living remains a warning light rather than a red light for the Carney government. But the intensity of feeling, combined with seasonal pressures and fragile household finances, means the issue is unlikely to fade quietly into the background.
Methodology
The survey was conducted with 1,500 Canadians from December 5 to 9, 2025. A random sample of panelists were invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.
The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 1.53%, 19 times out of 20.
The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
This poll was paid for by Abacus Data
About Abacus Data
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy. We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
We were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2021 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in 2019.
Contact us with any questions
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
Between December 5 and 9, 2025, Abacus Data surveyed 1,500 Canadian adults, offering a final snapshot of the federal political landscape as Parliament wrapped up for the year and the country entered the holiday season. This is our last federal political tracker of 2025.
This wave captures public response to several key developments: the Carney government’s early November budget, the memorandum of understanding between Alberta and the federal government on a pipeline to the west coast, and the intensifying trade and diplomatic tensions with the United States.
Despite these developments, the results suggest a political landscape that remains deeply competitive and stable with few signs of a major shift in momentum.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives remain locked in a tie, and Canadians continue to express ambivalence about the country’s direction, mixed feelings about their leaders, and sharp divides by generation, region, and policy concern.
Mood: Pessimism Still Dominates, but No New Slippage
Thirty-five percent of Canadians say the country is headed in the right direction, unchanged from late November. A majority, 51 percent, believe Canada is off on the wrong track, while 14 percent are unsure. These results are consistent with what we have seen since the fall, and while there is no further deterioration, there is also no sign of widespread renewal or confidence.
Views of the global context remain overwhelmingly negative. Just 14 percent believe the world is on the right track, and only 15 percent feel that way about the United States. The latter figure reflects entrenched concern about the direction of the U.S. under President Trump, whose policies on trade, energy, and foreign affairs have become a source of friction for Ottawa.
Regionally, optimism is highest in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, where 41 percent and 38 percent respectively believe the country is moving in the right direction. In Alberta and Quebec optimism remains low, with just 28 percent in Alberta and 32 percent in Quebec feeling positive about the country’s trajectory. Among partisans, 58 percent of Liberal voters believe Canada is heading in the right direction compared to just 17 percent of Conservative supporters.
Top Priorities: Cost of Living Dominates with Healthcare and the Economy Behind
This wave, we temporarily changed how we asked Canadians about their top issues. Respondents selected up to three from a slightly revised list and ask what should be the top three priorities of the federal government. This allows us to begin building a richer attitudinal picture of the electorate, which will form the basis of new segmentation work to be released in early 2026. That analysis will help uncover how different voter groups prioritize issues, values, and trade-offs, offering a more granular understanding of where the political battleground truly lies.
Even with the revised approach, the findings remain consistent with what we have tracked throughout the year. The rising cost of living remains the top concern for Canadians, cited by 62 percent. Healthcare comes second at 40 percent, followed by economic growth and jobs at 34 percent.
Concern about housing affordability holds steady at 25 percent, while immigration ranks closely behind at 24 percent. Another 24 percent cite Canada’s relationship with the United States as one of the top priorities
Other concerns include government spending (20 percent), crime and public safety (16 percent), inequality (15 percent), and climate change (13 percent). Environmental protection and issues related to equity or corporate power remain important to some, but these rank behind more immediate economic and geopolitical concerns.
Government Approval: A Modest Decline
Approval of the Carney government sits at 47 percent, down one point from the last wave. Disapproval has risen to 35 percent, up three points since late November. The result is a net approval of plus 12, still one of the stronger scores the government has posted in recent months.
Throughout the fall, approval remained relatively consistent, fluctuating within a narrow band. These numbers suggest Canadians are not moving decisively away from the government, but the political goodwill generated by the budget may now be fading.
Mark Carney continues to lead his rivals in overall favourability. Forty-five percent of Canadians view him positively, while 35 percent view him negatively. The four-point increase in his negative impression is significant. It marks the highest level of disapproval for Carney since becoming Prime Minister and narrows his net favourability to plus 10.
The shift may reflect a mix of heightened partisan friction, economic pressure, or disappointment with recent government actions. While still in net positive territory, this is the first indication in months that public perceptions of Carney may be hardening.
Pierre Poilievre’s ratings remain stable. Thirty nine percent view him favourably and 44 percent view him unfavourably, for a net rating of minus 5. These numbers have held steady for most of the fall, reinforcing the polarized and durable views surrounding his leadership.
Vote Intention: Deadlocked as the Year Ends
If an election were held today, the Liberals and Conservatives would each receive 41 percent of the vote. That reflects no change for the Liberals and a one-point gain for the Conservatives since the last wave. The NDP is at 9 percent, the Bloc Québécois at 6 percent, the Greens at 2 percent, and the People’s Party at 1 percent.
Among the most committed voters, the Liberals hold a narrow one-point lead. These numbers underscore how little movement has occurred in recent weeks and how durable the core support for both major parties has been.
Regional and Demographic Patterns Hold
In Ontario, the Liberals lead by a single point over the Conservatives, 45 to 44. In Quebec, the Bloc holds 30 percent, with the Liberals at 37 percent and the Conservatives at 25. In British Columbia, the race remains competitive, with the Liberals at 40 percent, the Conservatives at 38 percent, and the NDP at 15. The Conservatives dominate in Alberta, where they sit at 58 percent compared to 29 percent for the Liberals. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Conservatives lead 51 to 38. In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals continue to perform strongly, leading the Conservatives 51 to 36.
Age continues to define the electoral divide. Among those aged 18 to 29, the parties are virtually tied. Among voters 30 to 44, the Conservatives lead the Liberals by 17 points, 48 to 31. That pattern continues among voters aged 45 to 59, with the Conservatives leading 46 to 36. Among Canadians aged 60 and over, the Liberals lead by 22 – 53 to 31.
Men lean Conservative by a margin of 43 to 41. Women lean Liberal by the same margin.
Issue Ownership: Each Party Holds Key Terrain
When asked which party would best handle the top priorities, a clear divide emerges. The Liberals lead among those prioritizing economic growth (by 3), healthcare (by 8), and on homeownership and housing affordability (by 3).
The Conservatives in contrast lead by a significant 13 points among those prioritizing the cost of living, and by 41 points among those who rate immigration as a priority. They also lead on government spending and crime.
These findings reflect a political environment divided not just by party preference, but by competing policy narratives and value systems.
The Upshot
According to Abacus Data CEO David Coletto:
“As 2025 comes to a close, this final wave offers a clear view of where things stand after a year of political transition, economic anxiety, and shifting global dynamics. The political environment remains deeply competitive, with no party holding a clear upper hand and very little evidence of meaningful momentum.
Despite a fall budget, a new federal-provincial agreement on pipelines, and trade talks with the U.S. on hold, vote intention remains deadlocked. Canadians continue to express mixed feelings about both the direction of the country and the leaders vying to shape it. While Mark Carney remains more personally popular than Pierre Poilievre, his negatives have risen, suggesting that any post-budget window of goodwill may be closing. Meanwhile, Poilievre’s numbers remain largely static, underscoring how entrenched public views of him have become.
Policy remains the key dividing line. The Conservatives dominate among those focused on immigration, government spending, and the cost of living — the latter being the single most important issue across the electorate. The Liberals, on the other hand, hold the advantage on healthcare, economic growth, and housing. These splits reveal that while both parties have clear strengths, they are appealing to voters with very different expectations of government.
Generational divides also continue to shape the landscape. The Liberals perform well among younger and older Canadians, while the Conservatives lead among working-age voters between 30 and 59. Regionally, the Liberals retain solid leads in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, while the Conservatives continue to dominate in Alberta and the Prairies. British Columbia remains highly competitive, as it has been throughout the year.
What we’re left with is a political environment that is stable but uncertain. Canadians are attentive but cautious. The race remains tight, the electorate remains divided, and the issues Canadians care most about continue to reflect both economic stress and concern about Canada’s place in the world.
We will return in early 2026 with new segmentation work that provides deeper insight into how different groups of voters are navigating this landscape — and what that might mean for the year ahead.”
Methodology
The survey was conducted with 1,500 Canadians from December 5 to 9, 2025. A random sample of panelists were invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.
The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 1.53%, 19 times out of 20.
The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
At the start of 2025, we witnessed a noticeable shift in the national mindset – a growing sense that life in Canada was becoming more fragile, more volatile, and harder to navigate. Over the course of the year, this feeling has not only persisted but deepened, driven by unrelenting cost pressures, global instability, climate disruptions, and rapid technological change. These forces have created a constant undercurrent of uncertainty that touches nearly every aspect of daily life. For some Canadians, this has meant a steady rise in background worry; for others, it has reshaped financial decisions, delayed major life milestones, and altered their expectations of what the future might hold.
Our latest look at how Canadians are feeling shows just how deeply these pressures have taken hold. Many report profound fatigue from trying to keep pace with rising costs, a heavy mental burden tied to concerns about the future, and a growing sense that they are nearing – or have already reached – a personal financial tipping point. Nearly half feel they are ending the year barely hanging on. This persistent, cumulative strain defines the emotional landscape as Canadians close out 2025 and prepare for the uncertainty ahead.
Update on the Precarity Index: Anxiety Levels Remain Elevated as Canadians Navigate an Unsteady Year
As 2025 comes to a close, our Abacus Data Precarity Index shows that feelings of instability, uncertainty, and vulnerability remain deeply embedded in the Canadian mindset. While the overall distribution of precarity levels looks similar to earlier this year, the emotional intensity behind these perceived precarity segments continues to deepen.
We again observe five distinct groups defined by how intensely they experience precarity:
Low Precarity (5%) – unchanged from July 2025. These Canadians remain the most confident – or disconnected – believing that sudden shifts pose little personal threat.
Mild Precarity (16%) – up slightly from July. They acknowledge some challenges but feel equipped to manage them.
Moderate Precarity (36%) – the largest perceived precarity segment, largely unchanged. They feel regular anxiety about the future but haven’t fully tipped into crisis mode.
High Precarity (31%) – down slightly, though still significant. Stress about finances, climate, and rapid technological change meaningfully shapes daily decisions.
Extreme Precarity (12%) – a deeply anxious group that fears disruptions – economic, social, environmental – could upend their lives entirely.
Across age, gender, and income, precarity has risen since March 2025. Younger adults (18–44) are disproportionately represented in the high and extreme perceived precarity segments, women continue to show slightly higher precarity than men, and lower-income households remain the most exposed. Yet worryingly, even many households earning over $100,000 are reporting elevated levels of stress.
Precarity also remains tightly connected to political orientation. Nearly half (49%) of those in extreme precarity say they would vote Liberal – suggesting the most anxious Canadians view the Carney-led Liberals as the safest option in turbulent times. In contrast, Conservative vote intention is highest among those experiencing low (68%) or mild (53%) precarity. The political divide, in other words, continues to map closely onto emotional and economic fault lines.
How Canadians Felt About 2025: A Year of Exhaustion, Delay, and Approaching the Breaking Point
The emotional toll of 2025 is unmistakable. Nearly two-thirds of Canadians (65%) say they feel worn down by the effort required just to keep up with the cost of living. This fatigue is especially pronounced among younger Canadians, lower-income households, and families with children – groups already more likely to fall into high or extreme precarity. Among those in extreme precarity, three-quarters report feeling exhausted by the struggle to stay afloat.
The year was defined not just by financial strain, but by the mental load of constant vigilance. A majority (58%) say they carry a moderately or very heavy burden of worry about prices, work, or their future – and nearly one-third (29%) describe that burden as very heavy or overwhelming. Again, younger Canadians, women, lower-income households, and parents report the heaviest load.
Uncertainty has also forced many Canadians to hit pause on major life choices. Almost two-thirds (62%) say that unpredictability in 2025 caused them to delay important decisions – from moving to changing jobs to starting a family. For younger adults, this hesitation is even more widespread: more than seven in ten say they have put off a major step this year.
Financially, a majority (54%) say they are nearing a personal tipping point – and 10% say they have already crossed it. Young Canadians, low-income households, and those experiencing extreme precarity are especially likely to report they are at or near crisis.
When asked how they are ending the year, 48% say they are barely hanging on, and a quarter (25%) say they are worse off than they were at the start. Younger Canadians and those with lower household incomes are most likely to feel they are falling behind. Further, those with high or extreme precarity overwhelmingly say they are just holding on.
A smaller portion of Canadians feel they are ending the year ahead – and these Canadians tend to be older, higher income, and experiencing low or mild precarity. This widening emotional and financial gap is one of the clearest indicators of how unevenly the pressures of precarity are being felt.
Looking Ahead to 2026: Hope, Hopelessness, and Rising Unpredictability
Despite the challenges of the past year, 41% of Canadians feel hopeful about their future heading into 2026. Hope is strongest among older adults (60+), men, and higher-income Canadians – groups generally less likely to experience high levels of precarity.
But one in four Canadians say they feel mostly hopeless about the year ahead. Hopelessness is concentrated among adults aged 45–59, women, and those in lower-income households – groups showing some of the highest levels of persistent strain.
Perhaps the clearest sign of the national mood is Canadians’ perception of predictability. 44% believe life in Canada is becoming increasingly unpredictable, while only 19% say it feels stable or predictable. This sense of volatility is a core hallmark of the precarity mindset: the belief that disruptions are constant, risks are multiplying, and the future feels less secure than the past.
The Upshot
The close of 2025 marks a turning point in how Canadians perceive stability and risk. Precarity has become the dominant lens through which many people interpret daily life – shaping their expectations, influencing their decisions, and redefining what they need from the institutions around them. What stands out most is not just the presence of worry or strain, but how deeply this mindset now runs across the population, and how strongly it is influencing behaviour as we head into 2026.
This moment demands attention from leaders in every sector. For businesses, the emotional context of decision-making has fundamentally changed: consumers are more cautious, more skeptical, and more sensitive to perceived volatility. Trust, clarity, and stability are no longer nice-to-haves, they are the new competitive currency. For employers, the pressures workers carry into the workplace require stronger support systems, more flexibility, and a greater recognition of the mental and financial load many employees are managing. And for governments, the path to restoring confidence lies in demonstrating competence, consistency, and visible progress in a time when unpredictability feels like the norm.
The message is clear: Canadians are looking for anchors – institutions, leaders, and brands that reduce uncertainty rather than add to it. Those who can offer steadiness and credibility in a moment defined by volatility will be the ones who earn trust, loyalty, and influence in the year ahead.
Methodology
The survey was conducted with 2,421 Canadian adults from November 20 to 27, 2025. A random sample of panelists were invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.
The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 1.99%, 19 times out of 20.
The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region.
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy. We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
We were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2021 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in 2019.
Contact us with any questions
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
The political news cycle moved quickly last week as the federal and Alberta governments announced a wide-reaching memorandum of understanding on energy and climate policy. The agreement includes a federal green light for a new oil pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, a pause on clean electricity rules in Alberta, and a shared commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050. Reactions came swiftly from political leaders, provincial premiers, and Indigenous communities, with strong words both in support and opposition. But what about the public?
We went into the field less than 24 hours after the MOU was signed to gauge awareness, initial reactions, and whether this deal has changed the political landscape. The short answer is: not yet.
There is little evidence of any immediate shift in vote intention or leader impressions, and approval of the Carney government held steady. But beneath that stability, the data reveals the contours of a national debate that may define energy politics heading over the next several years. The deal hasn’t moved votes, but it might just redraw the lines along which the next energy and climate battle will be fought.
Awareness and Familiarity: A Soft Landing So Far
Awareness of the deal is reasonably high given the short timeline. Nearly 6 in 10 respondents said they had heard about the new agreement between Alberta and the federal government, with awareness highest among older Canadians, British Columbians, and Albertans. Familiarity with the broader idea of building new pipelines remains widespread, with 60% of Canadians saying they are at least somewhat familiar with the concept.
Initial reactions (post MOU) to the idea of building a new pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast are modestly supportive. Nationally, 55% said they either strongly or somewhat support the idea, while 18% were opposed. Strong support was higher in Alberta (74%) and among Conservative voters (72%), and significantly lower in Quebec (42%) and among NDP voters (22%). In British Columbia, 53% support it while 30% oppose it. But more importantly, among those who would vote for the BC NDP, 37% support it while 47% oppose it demonstrate the sharp fault running right through David Eby’s voting coalition. Among BC Conservative supporters, 76% support a pipeline compared with 11% who are opposed.
In Alberta, 92% of UCP supporters approve of the pipeline compared with 53% of Alberta NDP supporters.
Among 2025 federal Liberal voters, support outpaced opposition by a roughly 2-to-1 margin. It is important to note that support for the idea of a pipeline to the west coast found more support than opposition in every region of the country. Among those aware of the MOU, 66% support a pipeline while 19% are opposed.
Put simply, most Canadians are open to the idea, and few feel strongly opposed at this stage. That said, the deal’s reception is still shaped by some regional dynamics and prior political commitments.
One reason the Canada–Alberta MOU may have landed relatively smoothly is that many of its core components generate more support than opposition. Items like building a carbon capture pipeline, committing to net-zero by 2050, and Indigenous co-ownership of the project all produce strong positive net impacts on support. Even elements that might be more contentious — such as changes to the oil tanker ban or suspending clean electricity rules for Alberta — are met with more ambivalence than resistance. The package as a whole offers a mix of climate, economic, and Indigenous reconciliation goals that appear to resonate with a broad cross-section of the public, and may be helping to blunt potential backlash and frame the deal as a pragmatic compromise.
When asked what the agreement says about Mark Carney’s leadership, most Canadians described it as a worthwhile compromise rather than a betrayal of environmental progress.
Over half the country sees the deal as a pragmatic move that could deliver economic benefits, even if it walks back some environmental commitments. That sentiment is strongest in Alberta, where two-thirds agree with the compromise framing, and weakest in Atlantic Canada, B,C., and Quebec, where skepticism is somewhat higher. Among those already familiar with the MOU, support for the compromise jumps to 66%, suggesting that greater exposure may work in Carney’s favour.
The deal also finds more support among men and older Canadians, while younger respondents and women are more divided. Politically, it is endorsed by majorities of both Liberal and Conservative voters, but rejected by a majority of NDP supporters. While this does not appear to be a polarizing moment in the electorate overall, the reaction does highlight the early contours of how Canadians might come to judge Carney’s leadership style in high-stakes negotiations, pragmatic and results-oriented to many, but not without consequences on his left flank.
Political Impact: No Shift in Vote or Mood
When it comes to vote intention, the political landscape remains unchanged from earlier in the week. The Liberals and Conservatives are tied at 41%, with no statistically significant movement following the announcement of the MOU. Approval of the federal government is also steady, with 47% approving and 48% disapproving of the job the Carney government is doing. These are almost identical to numbers recorded prior to the deal, suggesting no bounce, no backlash, and no measurable change in how Canadians feel about the direction of the country.
Among key regional battlegrounds, vote preference also remains stable. The Liberals continue to lead in Ontario (45% to 44%), while the Conservatives dominate in Alberta (59%) and the Prairies (53%). In Quebec, the Bloc holds a 31% share, followed by the Liberals at 40%. Even in British Columbia, where the proposed pipeline terminus would lie and where Premier David Eby voiced strong opposition, there’s no discernible movement in support for any party.
So, in answer to the first two questions this poll was designed to answer — how did Canadians react to the news and has it shifted the political terrain — the answer is a fairly firm “it hasn’t.” But that does not mean the political risks are evenly distributed or that the deal won’t matter down the road.
The Canada–Alberta MOU lands in a political environment where economic concerns still outweigh environmental ones for many Canadians. Just one in three believe climate policies should move ahead even if they harm the economy, while nearly half reject that trade-off outright. This view is especially pronounced among Conservative voters, where two-thirds oppose economic costs for environmental gain. Among Liberal and NDP voters, there is more room to manoeuvre — with 44 percent and 51 percent respectively favouring strong climate action despite the economic risk. Regionally, Quebec stands out as the most climate-forward, while Alberta and BC show greater hesitation.
At the heart of the MOU is a core question: can Canada lead on energy while still delivering on climate goals? Most Canadians believe the answer is yes. A clear majority think the country can do both, with optimism highest in Alberta and among Liberal voters. Even in Quebec, where environmental concerns tend to be more pronounced, over half agree this dual path is possible. While skepticism exists, especially among NDP supporters and younger Canadians, the broad belief in compatibility between energy leadership and climate ambition helps explain why the deal is not viewed as contradictory by much of the public. This sentiment provides political room for the Carney government to argue that economic and environmental priorities can move forward together.
Reading the Risks: Carney, Poilievre, Smith and Eby
For Mark Carney, the announcement and its immediate aftermath can be read as a net neutral political moment. He retains a net positive impression nationally (+13), and approval of his government remains in the high 40s (unchanged from the survey we released on Sunday). But the regional breakdown tells a more complicated story. Carney is viewed favourably in Quebec (+25) and Ontario (+14), and even holds a slim positive margin in British Columbia (+4), where is negatives are up 7 points from 29% to 36%. But he remains underwater in Alberta (-11) although his favourables are up 9-points.
That said, among 2025 Liberal voters, support for the pipeline initiative is strong. Nearly 7 in 10 said the job-creation and energy security framing made them more likely to support the project, and 57% said Carney’s decision to pursue this deal shows leadership and pragmatism but a sizeable group (1 in 5) of Liberal voters saw it as a betrayal of environmental values.
For Pierre Poilievre, the MOU does little to shift his standing. His national net favourability remains in the negative at -7, with particularly weak numbers in Quebec (-21) and British Columbia (-6). But his brand is stronger in Alberta (+13), where he remains the most popular political figure. While the deal could, in theory, pose a challenge to Poilievre’s claim to sole ownership of the pro-pipeline lane, it’s not yet showing up in his numbers. Supporters may take a wait-and-see approach before judging whether Carney’s move on energy is strategic triangulation or mere political opportunism.
Danielle Smith may face the least immediate political risk. Alberta voters were the most supportive of the pipeline, the most likely to see the deal as a good economic compromise, and the least worried about potential climate trade-offs. The deal allows her to claim a rare win in intergovernmental affairs without alienating much of her base (at least for now).
David Eby finds himself in a more difficult position. While 63% of British Columbians said they are at least somewhat supportive of the pipeline when told it would create jobs and boost Indigenous economic development, the inclusion of language around changing the federal oil tanker ban on BC’s coast generated a negative net impact on support in the province.
More than half of British Columbians were opposed to loosening the tanker ban, and 48% said the fact that BC was excluded from the agreement made them less likely to support it. That puts the provincial government on the defensive, especially among voters who otherwise lean Liberal or NDP.
Guilbeault’s Exit: No Uprising in Quebec, Muted Reaction Elsewhere
Steven Guilbeault’s resignation from cabinet in response to the MOU offers a clear test of how Canadians balance climate ambition against energy development. On the surface, Guilbeault’s departure might have been expected to inflame opinion, particularly in Quebec where his political identity is most strongly rooted. But the data suggests his influence is limited.
Only 25% of Quebecers hold a positive view of Guilbeault, and he has net negative impressions across the rest of the country. In Alberta, his net score is a staggering -31, and even in Quebec, it’s barely positive at +6. Nationally, his net impression sits at -12, putting him well behind Carney, Poilievre and even Danielle Smith.
So far, there’s no indication his resignation has hurt the Carney government among Quebec voters where the Liberals hold a 9-point lead over the BQ (similar to what we found prior to the MOU announcement). In fact, only 22% of Canadians said the deal represents a betrayal of climate values. That includes just 28% of Quebecers.
The climate constituency is still vocal, but it has not galvanized around this moment. If the pipeline is ever approved for construction and tanker ban changes move ahead, that could change. But Guilbeault’s departure alone does not seem to have shifted the political map.
Climate change simply does not rank as a top concern for most Canadians right now. Just 13 percent selected it as one of the country’s top three issues, well behind the cost of living, housing, and health care. In the future, this deal could come back to haunt the Liberals if climate change rises up the list, but for now, the public appears more anxious about the economy and willing to look past what amounts to a wholesale shift in the federal government’s climate posture.
The Upshot
This MOU thus far has not changed the game, at least not yet. Vote intention, government approval, and leader impressions are largely unchanged in the days following the announcement. For the Carney government, that’s a short-term success — they launched a high-stakes policy shift without immediate political backlash. For their opponents, the deal hasn’t yet offered the kind of political wedge that shifts public sentiment either.
But beneath the surface, there are hints of future tension. In British Columbia, opposition to changes in the tanker ban could create problems for both federal Liberals and the provincial NDP. In Quebec, Carney’s strong personal brand and the region’s muted reaction to Guilbeault’s departure suggest the Liberals may be able to weather a potential storm, but the Bloc could still press the case for greater environmental ambition. Among Conservatives, the deal may soften the party’s claim to exclusivity on energy development, though not enough yet to change the narrative. And for progressives, especially younger voters and NDP supporters, how this MOU is implemented could shape trust in Carney’s climate credentials moving forward.
The next round of data will tell us more once the details begin to roll out and opposition parties sharpen their arguments. For now, the political environment looks remarkably stable but the ground beneath it may not be.
Methodology
The survey was conducted with 1,802 Canadians from November 28 to December 1, 2025. A random sample of panelists were invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.
The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.3%, 19 times out of 20.
The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
When Mark Carney became Prime Minister earlier this year, he promised a new way of governing. A leadership built on strategic discipline, clearer expectations, and a tighter focus across a sprawling federal system. Rather than issuing dozens of mandate letters, Carney set out a unified set of seven national priorities meant to guide every minister and every department. The message was unmistakable: Canadians should judge this government not by its announcements, but by its progress.
Over the fall, that approach has begun to take shape. The government delivered its first budget, introduced several high‑profile initiatives, and attempted to map out a more cohesive economic agenda. But the past few months have also raised questions, particularly around Canada’s relationship with the United States, where mixed signals and shifting emphases have left the public unsure about the government’s direction. Add to that the ongoing pressures of affordability and housing, and the clarity of the seven priorities has only increased expectations for results.
More than ever, what Canadians perceive matters. Clear priorities create clarity, but they also create accountability. When the public knows what the government says it’s trying to accomplish, they’re better positioned to notice whether it falls short or reward it when it succeeds.
Back in June, we began tracking how Canadians view the importance, personal relevance, and progress on each of these seven priorities. We followed up in August. Now, after the government’s first budget and a consequential fall agenda, we present the latest results from late November.
As Mark Carney’s new Liberal government continues to roll out its agenda, our latest wave of tracking data offers a clear picture: public priorities remain remarkably consistent, and while Canadians see value in almost all seven focus areas, belief in government progress is still limited.
The survey, conducted with 2,421 Canadians from November 20–27, 2025.
Priority Importance: A Stable Hierarchy of What Matters Most
Little has shifted in terms of what Canadians want the government to focus on most. The top priorities from previous waves remain at the top today.
91% say lowering costs and helping Canadians get ahead should be a priority (NC).
89% say making housing affordable is a priority (+4).
There is little change among the mid-tier priorities:
83% say unifying the economy is a priority (-2).
82% say protecting sovereignty is a priority (NC).
82% say reducing government spending is a priority (+3).
80% say forging a new economic & security partnership with the U.S. is a priority (NC).
Attracting talent, perhaps to stimulate the economy, has grown in importance since the summer.
79% say attracting global talent at sustainable immigration levels is a priority (+5).
Personal Relevance: Good Outcomes, but Declining Intensity
Canadians overwhelmingly believe these priorities would be beneficial, but enthusiasm has softened.
The biggest shift is in lowering costs, perhaps a critique of the current economic approach proposed by Carney and his first budget.
73% say lowering costs would be good personally (-4).
Other changes down the list are negligible.
64% say the same for improving housing (NC).
63% believe unifying the economy would help them (-2).
61% say reducing government spending would benefit them (+1).
Asked to pick their current, top three priorities, lower costs is a clear front runner- 70% place it in the top three. It is also a unifier; the top issue across age, vote, and region of the country.
Progress: A Persistent Weak Spot for the Carney Government
Despite the movement we’ve seen on some priorities, the overall story on progress is one of moderation rather than momentum. Canadians aren’t punishing the government for failing to deliver, but they’re not rewarding it either. Most people still feel things are roughly where they were a few months ago—and in politics, that kind of stasis can be just as risky as decline.
Part of this is structural. The problems Canadians most want solved, lowering costs and making housing more affordable, are the very problems least likely to produce quick wins. But expectations remain sky-high, and when people don’t see visible, tangible improvements in their day-to-day lives, even steady or incremental progress can feel like no progress at all.
Another factor is narrative clarity. While the government has been busy with budget rollout, new initiatives, shifting geopolitical messages, Canadians aren’t yet connecting that activity to results. Progress doesn’t just need to happen; it needs to feel like it’s happening. And right now, most people are still waiting for that feeling.
Progress perceptions remain modest, with three areas seeing progress since the summer:
43% say protecting sovereignty is on track (+5).
37% say forging a U.S. partnership is on track (+4).
35% say reducing government spending is on track (+3).
Scorecard Summary
The good news for the Carney government is that the floor hasn’t dropped out. Canadians continue to give the benefit of the doubt on several files, and many remain open to the idea that progress is possible. But the lack of major shifts suggests a public that is watching closely, growing more impatient, and increasingly in “show me” mode. In this environment, stability isn’t failure—but it’s not success either. It’s a holding pattern, and holding patterns don’t last forever.
Bottom Line
The Carney government retains a strong mandate on its chosen priorities. Canadians continue to endorse the direction, the focus, and the disciplined approach the Prime Minister has laid out. But the gap between what people want and what they think is actually happening remains stubbornly wide and even as the government has taken steps to demonstrate progress, the public hasn’t yet caught on.
Over the past few months, there have been clear moments where the government tried to signal movement: the first budget, a series of major policy announcements, and a renewed emphasis on economic coordination with provinces and allies. These were intended to show Canadians that the priorities were more than words on paper. Yet for most people, those signals haven’t translated into a sense that progress is being made especially on the issues they feel most acutely, like the cost of living and housing.
Part of this disconnect may be timing. Progress on large, complex files takes time to materialize, and the impacts of budget measures or regulatory changes often lag the announcements themselves. But part of it is perceptual: Canadians don’t yet feel, see, or experience enough change to update their views. The result is a government that is active and busy, but still struggling to convince people that its activity is producing results.
For the Carney government, this creates both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is that patience is not unlimited. High expectations, once unmet, can quickly turn into doubts about competence or credibility. The opportunity, however, is that Canadians still want the government to succeed on these priorities and remain open to believing it can.
Methodology
The survey was conducted with 2,421 Canadians from November 20 to 27, 2025. A random sample of panelists were invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.
The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 1.99%, 19 times out of 20.
The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
About Abacus Data
We are Canada’s most sought-after, influential, and impactful polling and market research firm. We are hired by many of North America’s most respected and influential brands and organizations.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
And we are growing throughout all parts of Canada and the United States and have capacity for new clients who want high quality research insights with enlightened hospitality.
Our record speaks for itself: we were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2025 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in the 2021, 2019, 2015, and 2011 federal elections.
Findings from new research conducted by Abacus Data for the Paramedic Association of New Brunswick (PANB).
A new province-wide survey conducted by Abacus Data for the Paramedic Association of New Brunswick shows overwhelming support for giving paramedics a greater role in delivering healthcare in the province.
From October 24 to 30, 2025, Abacus Data surveyed 600 residents through our New Brunswick Omnibus survey to find out how New Brunswickers currently see paramedics and what role they want them play in creating a stronger, more resilient, and patient-focused health system.
The findings show that large majorities not only trust paramedics to deliver a high standard of care, but are also are open to seeing them working alongside doctors and nurses in more healthcare settings, such as emergency departments and primary care clinics.
The research confirms: New Brunswickers trust paramedics and giving them greater responsibility has the potential to not only improve patient care but also relieve pressure from other healthcare professionals and stabilize the whole system.
The full results are provided below.
Join Team Abacus Data Lead high-impact public affairs and consumer research at Abacus Data, guiding clients with insight and storytelling. We are seeking a seasoned research consultant and strategic advisor ready to own relationships and growth.
Not Seeing or Feeling Progress on Healthcare
Like those living in other parts of Atlantic Canada and across the country, New Brunswickers want more, and better, access to healthcare. They are frustrated by primary care shortages as well as long wait times for surgeries; and many think emergency departments are understaffed, overcrowded, and busting at the seams, with bad ED stories often in the news and circulating online.
They also don’t see much progress on improving healthcare. When asked if they think the quality of care in the province has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the past year, the most common answer is worsened, with slightly less than half of the population (46%) choosing that option, and just one-quarter (25%) saying its “getting better.”
Thinking that healthcare in the province is getting worse, not better, is a common experience with New Brunswickers of all regions and backgrounds tending to feel that way.
However, some segments are more likely than others to think things are getting worse.
62% of those ages 49 to 59 think the quality of the care is declining – a higher proportion than in other age groups.
Provincial party support also matters, with those who say they would vote PC (70%) if a provincial election was held today being much more likely to think the quality of care is getting worse than current Green (49%), NDP (35%), and Liberal (27%) voters.
Paramedicine = A Bright Spot in a System Under Pressure
While many are critical of the current state of the provincial health system, New Brunswickers do not see paramedicine as a weak point. In fact, they see it as one of the few elements of the system that is performing well.
60% currently rate paramedic and ambulance services in the province as “excellent” or “good” and about the same proportion (62%) rate the quality of services in the place where they live as “excellent” or “good,” with few regional differences.
This stands, of course, in sharp contrast to how New Brunswickers are currently feeling about the state of New Brunswick’s healthcare system, with those frustrations boiling over.
Paramedic and Ambulance Ratings Mostly Positive Over Time
We also have some historic data to compare against these new numbers.
Our previous research, dating back to 2018, shows that New Brunswickers have consistently rated the quality of paramedic and ambulances services more positively than negatively.
In 2023, 75% of New Brunswickers rated the quality of paramedic and ambulance services in their community as being “excellent” or “good.”
In 2021, 81% rated the quality of service as “excellent” or “good.”
And in 2018, 73% scored it as “excellent” or “good.”
While current paramedic-and-ambulance-service ratings are a little bit lower now than they were in the past, far more people continue to rate the level of service in their community positively than negatively (i.e. 62% as “excellent” or “poor” compared to 26% as “poor” or “very poor”) this fall and over time.
Paramedics Deeply Trusted
Trust is essential in healthcare, and paramedics also score well in this area, continuing to rank near the top of the trust-in-healthcare-professionals list.
When asked how much they trust in various health professionals to make on-the-spot decisions, New Brunswickers place paramedics slightly behind doctors and nurse practitioners, but not by much of a difference (only 6 and 3 pts, respectively).
This fall, 73% of New Brunswickers give paramedics a rating of 7 or more out of 10 on the trust scale compared to 79% for doctors and 76% for nurses.
These results further demonstrate the high degree of personal confidence New Brunswickers have in paramedics, clearly seeing them as highly trained professionals with the kind of medical knowledge and decision-making skills they can rely upon.
Whereas there was once a time when paramedics were seen as being much less skilled or experienced than other healthcare professionals, that is no longer the case.
In 2025, paramedics are highly valued – as is the role they play in a system under strain.
79% Comfortable with Paramedics Doing More
In addition to thinking differently about who paramedics are and the value they bring to health care teams, very high proportions are also open to paramedics playing a greater role in the province’s health care system.
This fall, an overwhelming majority – 79% of all New Brunswickers – say they are comfortable with the idea of paramedics playing a greater role in delivering healthcare in the province and their home community, with much smaller groups objecting.
This support is broad-based, with few regional or demographic differences in the results.
Comfort cuts across age, region, linguistic, and gender lines, ranging from the low 70s to low 80s in each segment.
Party support also makes little to no difference, with current NDP (92%), Green (85%), and Liberal (84%) voters only being slightly more comfortable with the idea of paramedics playing a greater role in delivering healthcare in New Brunswick than PC (74%) voters.
In today’s day and age, this kind of political consensus is rare.
It further highlights the safe ground the Holt government would be on if they decided to expand the role of paramedics.
82% Open to Expanded Role on Primary Health Teams and in EDs
To go even deeper, we also asked New Brunswickers how comfortable they would be with paramedics specifically having a greater role working on primary care teams and in emergency departments.
The results here are even more conclusive.
A remarkable 82% of New Brunswickers say they are open to paramedics serving in those healthcare settings as is commonly done in other parts of the world like the United Kingdom and Australia.
That’s an extremely high rate of acceptance.
And only 10% – of all New Brunswickers – say they would be uncomfortable with such a change.
Openness to having (more) paramedics join primary care teams and work in emergency departments is extremely high in every region of the province and demographic group, including various party supporters.
86% Personally Comfortable Receiving Care from a Paramedic
The strongest sign of confidence comes when New Brunswickers are asked about their own care.
A remarkable 86% say they would be comfortable receiving medical intervention from a paramedic if a physician was not available.
Comfort remains high across all age groups, including seniors, genders, and regions of the province.
Even among residents who are otherwise more critical of the health system, personal comfort with paramedic-delivered care remains extremely high.
This openness is likely driven by lived experience.
Many New Brunswickers have relied on paramedics in urgent situations or are close to someone who has done so. They trust their skills, their professionalism, and their ability to deliver care safely, with 60% of all New Brunswickers now considering the quality of paramedic and ambulance services in the province as “excellent” or “good” and a slighter higher proportion (62%) rating it as “excellent” or “good” in the community where they live.
The practical realities of seeing the province’s healthcare system under strain has also likely changed the way many people think about access to care and their own expectations for care. The current gaps in the system have probably made them more open to receiving care/treatment from a paramedic, because they think the likelihood of getting an MD is low.
This is another area where we have historical data to look back upon.
From our past research, we know that comfort with personally receiving medical care or intervention from a paramedic if/when a physician isn’t available is a little bit higher now than it was in 2023.
It currently sits at 86% compared to 84% two years ago, with that trendline being consistently high since 2021 (an early pandemic year).
These results further demonstrate the high degree of trust New Brunswickers now have in paramedics and the connections they are making every day between paramedicine and “excellent” and “good” standards of care.
The Upshot
In 2025, New Brunswickers clearly see paramedics as part of the solution to addressing the province’s healthcare challenges. There is now broad recognition that paramedics are highly-skilled, medical professionals, performing well in a system under strain.
The research we are releasing today also shows that large majorities are comfortable with the idea of paramedics working alongside doctors and nurses in more healthcare settings. With 79% of New Brunswickers now saying they are comfortable with expanded roles for paramedics (in general) and 82% saying they are open to seeing paramedics working in primary care clinics and emergency departments, the pathway to change is clear.
Giving paramedics more responsibility is safe, practical, and economically responsible. It’s also the kind of positive action that the public wants to see from the Holt government as they continue to look for opportunities to bring bold change to New Brunswick.
About the New Brunswick Omnibus Survey
This research was conducted by Abacus Data through our New Brunswick Omnibus Survey, a new addition to our expanding portfolio of Atlantic Canadian products. The omnibus is a regularly scheduled survey, conducted in both French and English, with a representative sample of 600 New Brunswick residents (age 18 and over).
The survey was fielded online from October 24 to 30, 2025, using a random sample of panelists drawn from partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of this size is ±4.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The data were weighted by age, gender, and region to ensure they reflect the province’s population according to the latest census data.
About Abacus Data
We are Canada’s most sought-after, influential, and impactful polling and market research firm. We are hired by many of North America’s most respected and influential brands and organizations.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
And we are growing throughout all parts of Canada and the United States and have capacity for new clients who want high quality research insights with enlightened hospitality.
Our record speaks for itself: we were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2025 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in the 2021, 2019, 2015, and 2011 federal elections.
Between November 20 and 27, 2025, Abacus Data surveyed 2,421 Canadian adults to assess the post-budget political landscape. The survey was conducted just days after the Carney government passed its budget and survived a confidence vote.
The results suggest that while the budget slightly lifted Liberal support and improved impressions of Prime Minister Mark Carney, it has not fundamentally altered the dynamics of the race. Canadians continue to express unease about the direction of the country, intense focus on economic anxiety, and an electorate that remains firmly divided between the Liberals and Conservatives. Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives retain a strong and consistent base, but there is little evidence they are expanding beyond it.
If the goal of the budget was to shift momentum or reset the political narrative, that has not yet materialized. What we’re seeing is more a modest repositioning than a political turning point.
Join Team Abacus Data Lead high-impact public affairs and consumer research at Abacus Data, guiding clients with insight and storytelling. We are seeking a seasoned research consultant and strategic advisor ready to own relationships and growth.
Public Mood: A Slight Uptick, But Pessimism Still Dominates
This wave of polling shows a modest increase in optimism about the country’s direction. Thirty-seven percent of Canadians now believe the country is headed in the right direction, up from 31 percent in early November. This is the highest score on this metric since spring and appears to reflect a mild but noteworthy response to the budget and accompanying federal messaging.
However, the overall mood remains cautious. Nearly half (48%) still believe Canada is on the wrong track, and 15% are unsure. These are not figures that suggest a broadly confident electorate. Rather, they reveal an incremental improvement among voters who may be reassessing the government but are not yet convinced.
Notably, views of the broader global context remain deeply negative. Only 15% of Canadians believe the world is headed in the right direction, and just 13% say the same of the United States. These numbers have been largely unchanged for the past year and continue to frame a context of global instability in which domestic politics unfold.
Regional Variations in Mood
Optimism is highest in Ontario (41%) and Atlantic Canada (41%), and lowest in Alberta (26%) and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (30%). In Quebec, 34% say the country is headed in the right direction — a middle-of-the-pack result, but a decline from the early days of the Carney government.
Partisanship plays a major role. Fully 62% of Liberal supporters believe the country is headed in the right direction, compared to just 19% of Conservatives.
Top Issues: Affordability Continues to Define the Political Agenda
The rising cost of living continues to eclipse all other issues in terms of public concern. Sixty-four percent of Canadians say it is one of their top three concerns, down slightly from 66% earlier in the month but still far above any other issue. The economy (40%) and healthcare (35%) round out the top three, unchanged from the previous wave.
Concern about housing affordability has ticked up slightly to 34%. Immigration (26%) remains near its high point for the year, reflecting the intensifying debate around housing pressure and labour market needs. Meanwhile, concern about Donald Trump and his administration has fallen modestly to 32%, though it remains higher than other issues crime (17%) or climate change (13%).
Government Approval: Budget Offers Modest Relief
After months of softening numbers, approval of the Carney government has edged upward. Today, 48% of Canadians approve of the federal government’s performance, up four points from earlier this month just after the budget was tabled. Disapproval has declined to 32%.
The result is a net approval rating of +16, the strongest showing for the Carney government in several months and a possible signal that the budget resonated with at least some segments of the public.
Mark Carney’s personal ratings have improved modestly. Forty-five percent of Canadians now view him positively, while 31% view him negatively, giving him a net favourability of +14.
Pierre Poilievre’s net favourability stands at -3, a slight improvement from earlier this month. Thirty nine percent of Canadians view him positively, while 42% view him negatively.
Demographic Divides
Among women, Carney has a net +14 rating, compared to Poilievre’s -9.
Among men, the leaders are closer, but Carney still leads (+15 vs. Poilievre’s +3).
Older voters (60+) is view Carney far more favourably than Poilievre (+27 vs. -27), while Millennials (30 to 44) are slightly more favourable to Poilievre (+6 vs. +3)
Would Canadians Vote to Keep or Remove Poilievre as Conservative Leader?
Among Conservative voters, Pierre Poilievre’s leadership remains strongly supported. Sixty-four percent of current Conservative supporters say they would vote to keep him as leader (75% among decided CPC voters), compared to just 22 percent who would vote to remove him. This 42-point margin suggests that Poilievre largely retains the confidence of his party’s base, although not universally. It is worth noting that we do not track this question and so it’s likely that there has always been a faction of the Conservative voter coalition would like to see another leader.
That internal backing is critical as the Poilievre prepares for the party convention in January. The leadership numbers also indicate that frustration with Poilievre is largely external to the Conservative coalition. Among Liberal supporters, two-thirds (66 percent) say they would remove him, while a slim majority of NDP voters (51 percent) say the same. This reinforces the polarization surrounding his leadership, but it also underscores his staying power within the Conservative tent.
Carney vs. Poilievre: Personal Contrast without Political Impact — Yet
This wave included an in-depth set of questions comparing Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre on personality, trust, motivation, and competence. Across nearly every measure, Carney holds an advantage at times a narrow one, and in other cases, a striking lead.
Personality and Policy
When Canadians assess Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre, most attention tends to focus on those who either like or dislike both the leader’s personality and ideas. But a closer look at the “middle” groups, those who express mixed views, reveals key contrasts in how each leader is perceived and where their vulnerabilities lie.
Carney’s challenge lies more in the realm of policy alignment, not likability. Thirteen percent of Canadians say they like his personality but dislike his ideas. That figure is nearly double the number who say the same about Poilievre (7%). These voters are open to Carney’s personal style and leadership tone but are not yet persuaded that his policy approach reflects their values or priorities.
Poilievre, by contrast, has the inverse challenge. Thirteen percent of Canadians say they like his ideas but dislike his personality. This is the same group that may agree with his positions on issues such as taxation, housing, or immigration, but struggle with his tone, style, or approach to politics more broadly. For these voters, it is not what he says that creates resistance, but how he says it.
These two groups, while not large, represent the pivot points in the electorate. They are voters who are engaged enough to form nuanced opinions but not yet locked in to either camp.
The relative stability of these numbers over time also matters, especially for Poilievre. When we compare today with how people felt at the beginning of the 2025 election, we find far more people know about Carney and the distribution of views is similar to what it was then. We find the same for Poilievre. Despite a narrative about views about him becoming more negative, the distinction between policy and personality remain the same. Back in March, 40 percent of Canadians said they didn’t like either his ideas or his personality. That’s down by two points today to 38%. Poilievre has been a polarizing figure for a while now.
For Poilievre specifically, while almost all Conservative voters say they like something about him, 1 in 5 say they like his ideas but not his personality.
Sixty-three percent say they like both his personality and his ideas, and only 5 percent say they dislike both, a remarkably low figure in a political environment marked by high polarization.
But that 1 in 5 who say they like his ideas but not his personality is worth reflecting on.
This is a larger share than any other subgroup and reflects a consistent theme in Poilievre’s profile: his communication style and tone remain polarizing, even among those who agree with him on a policy front.
Trust and Leadership Attributes
We also asked people to what extent they trust Carney and Poilievre on five core attributes. In every case, Carney outperforms Poilievre but the gap is not that large on most.
Making good decisions in a crisis: Carney (5.5), Poilievre (4.7)
Protecting the economy long-term: Carney (5.4), Poilievre (4.9)
Telling the truth even when unpopular: Carney (5.3), Poilievre (4.8)
Standing up for people like you: Carney (5.0), Poilievre (4.7)
Motivations Matter
When asked what motivates each leader, 28% say Carney is driven by a “sense of duty to Canada,” compared to 16% for Poilievre. By contrast, 35% believe Poilievre is driven by “ambition for personal power,” compared to 22% who say the same of Carney.
Poilievre is more likely to be seen as working to help “people like me” 13% versus 6% for Carney.
Symbolic Comparison
When forced to choose between the two on a series of metaphorical tasks — from captaining a ship through a storm to hosting a party — Carney is seen as the stronger leader across most serious domains, while Poilievre performs better on symbolic competence tests like “putting up a shelf” or “standing up to a bully.”
Among voters who are open to both the Liberal and Conservative parties (18% of the electorate), Mark Carney holds a clear and consistent edge over Pierre Poilievre across nearly every comparative leadership scenario tested.
These head-to-head evaluations offer a unique lens into how swing or persuadable voters judge the two leaders beyond partisan affiliation. Carney is seen as significantly more capable when it comes to serious leadership tasks. He leads Poilievre by 42 points on “finding common ground to solve a dispute,” 24 points on “representing you in a conflict with a powerful company,” and 19 points on “captaining a ship through a rough storm.” Even on the kitchen-table issue of “helping you manage your household expenses,” Carney holds a 17-point advantage.
The only scenario where Poilievre edges out Carney is on “standing up to a bully,” where he holds a narrow one-point lead. Whether this is because of criticism of Carney’s approach to dealing with Trump has weakened perceptions on him around strength is unclear but could be a factor.
These findings suggest that, among voters who could be persuaded to support either party, Carney is perceived as the steadier, more collaborative, and more trustworthy figure, a leader better suited to navigate uncertainty and complexity. Poilievre performs relatively better on symbolic or hands-on scenarios like “putting out a kitchen fire” or “putting up a shelf,” but even there, he does not outperform Carney decisively. The data reinforces a broader trend: swing voters may appreciate Poilievre’s assertiveness, but they appear to trust Carney more to handle high-stakes challenges.
Vote Intention: Deadlocked Again
If an election were held today, the Liberals would receive 41% of the vote, compared to 40% for the Conservatives. This reflects a slight one-point shift in favour of the Liberals and a mirror one-point drop for the Conservatives compared to November 6.
Support for the NDP (8%), Bloc Québécois (7%), and Greens (2%) remains unchanged. Among decided voters who are most committed, the Liberals hold a 2-point edge (42% to 40%).
The data suggest a very stable race with minimal movement among base voters. There has been no surge, no swing, and no clear trend emerging since the start of the fall.
Accessible Voter Pools: Evenly Matched, Still Polarized
The size of each party’s accessible voter universe remains relatively unchanged. Today, 55% of Canadians say they would consider voting Liberal, while 51% say the same for the Conservatives. The NDP sits at 34% nationally.
Regional and Demographic Vote Intention:
Ontario: Liberals 46%, Conservatives 43%
Quebec: Liberals 41%, Bloc 30%, Conservatives 22%
Alberta: Conservatives 61%, Liberals 28%
Atlantic Canada: Liberals 48%, Conservatives 42%
British Columbia: Liberals 39%, Conservatives 40%, NDP 16%
By Age
18 to 29: Liberals 39%, Conservatives 38%
30 to 44: Conservatives lead 46% to 34%
45 to 59: Conservatives lead 46% to 41%
60 and over: Liberals lead 49% to 34%
Vote Intention and the Issues
The relationship between top issues and vote intention remains one of the most revealing lenses for understanding the current political deadlock. Among Canadians who rank the cost of living as one of their top three concerns — a group that includes nearly two-thirds of the electorate — the Conservatives hold a narrow advantage, with 43 percent saying they would vote Conservative compared to 40 percent for the Liberals. On the surface, this 3-point edge may seem modest, but its significance lies in how central this issue has become. The cost of living dominates every other concern and acts as the primary filter through which voters assess party performance. That the Liberals remain competitive here, despite months of economic anxiety, suggests the issue has not yet translated into a decisive ballot-box shift. But the longer it remains unresolved, the more likely it is to benefit the party with the edge on this issue.
On the broader economy, the Conservative advantage grows to five points (45 to 40), reinforcing the party’s brand strength on the issue among those who care about it.
However, the Liberals have a commanding lead on healthcare voters, where they outperform the Conservatives by 14 points (47 to 33), and an even larger lead among those who see Trump as a top 3 issue, where Liberal support (56 percent) more than doubles that of the Conservatives (26 percent). This may reflect deeper concerns among Liberal-leaning voters about Donald Trump and what it means for Canada.
Housing, the fourth most cited concern, is the only top-tier issue where the parties are tied, with both the Liberals and Conservatives at 39 percent. This parity points to a battleground in flux. Neither party has yet emerged as the dominant force on the housing file.
Beyond the top five, the issues of immigration and crime show substantial Conservative leads. Among those who identify immigration as a top issue, the Conservatives lead the Liberals by a staggering 34 points (60 to 26). On crime and public safety, the gap is nearly as wide, at 32 points (59 to 27). These numbers are not just partisan preferences. They indicate deep alignment between Conservative messaging and the values or concerns of voters who prioritize these topics. The scale of these leads also means that if immigration and crime grow in salience — either through media coverage or campaign focus — they have the potential to shift the national narrative in the Conservatives’ favour.
Overall, the data shows an electorate divided less by ideology but by what voters believe the most pressing issues are in the moment. Where Trump, healthcare, or climate change dominate, the Liberals are well ahead. Where the frame shifts to immigration or public safety, the Conservatives benefit. Politics is not just about persuading voters on issues, it is about defining what the issues are.
The Upshot:
According to Abacus Data CEO David Coletto: “This wave of data reinforces what we have been observing for much of the fall. The fundamentals of the federal political landscape remain remarkably stable, despite some movement around the edges. The Carney government has seen a modest post-budget rebound in approval and leader impressions, but that shift has yet to translate into a wider lead in vote intention.
There are a few key takeaways from this survey. First, the cost of living continues to be the dominant lens through which Canadians evaluate politics and policy. That issue alone defines the political battleground. The budget may have helped the Liberals regain some footing, but the onus remains on the government to prove that it can deliver material, visible improvements in affordability. Voters appear willing to give the government a second look, but not a free pass.
Second, we continue to see a significant gap between how Canadians perceive Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre. On nearly every metric we tested — personality, trust, motivation, and leadership qualities — Carney comes out ahead. Canadians are more likely to believe he tells the truth, stands up for people like them, and makes good decisions in a crisis. He is more trusted to represent the country internationally and is more likely to be seen as motivated by a sense of duty. Poilievre, on the other hand, continues to be viewed by a plurality as driven more by ambition than public service.
But here is what is most striking. Carney’s personal advantage is not yet reshaping voter behaviour. Despite stronger approval ratings, more favourable impressions, and higher levels of trust, the Liberal vote share has only increased slightly. The race remains neck and neck. This speaks to a deeper political inertia in the electorate. Nothing has changed from the near deadlocked April election.
The third key dynamic is polarization. Voter universes for the Liberals and Conservatives are large and nearly identical in size, but they are also more rigid. Very few voters are moving between the two camps. Instead, each party is holding its base while fighting to win over a relatively small group of persuadable voters. Many of these voters are anxious, skeptical, and not deeply engaged.
Regional dynamics continue to follow familiar patterns. The Liberals remain strong in Ontario and Quebec. The Conservatives dominate in Alberta and the Prairies. British Columbia and Atlantic Canada remain competitive. Demographic divides persist, with the Liberals holding an edge among older Canadians and university-educated voters. The Conservatives lead among working-aged men and those without post-secondary education.
What we are left with is a political environment that is deeply competitive but not particularly volatile. Canadians are not embracing a new direction, but they also have not decisively turned away from the current government. The electorate is cautious, pragmatic, and watching closely, especially on affordability. Unless one party can break through on that defining issue, the deadlock will persist.
The coming weeks and months will reveal whether the modest bump for the Liberals after the budget is the start of a longer-term shift or a temporary stabilization.”
The survey was conducted with 2,421 Canadian adults from November 20 to 27, 2025. A random sample of panelists were invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.
The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2%, 19 times out of 20.
The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
We are Canada’s most sought-after, influential, and impactful polling and market research firm. We are hired by many of North America’s most respected and influential brands and organizations.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
And we are growing throughout all parts of Canada and the United States and have capacity for new clients who want high quality research insights with enlightened hospitality.
Our record speaks for itself: we were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2025 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in the 2021, 2019, 2015, and 2011 federal elections.
