Abacus Data

9 in 10 Canadians are Concerned About the State of Housing in Canada Today

October 10, 2025

Recently, Abacus Data partnered with the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) to conduct a comprehensive national survey examining the current state of housing in Canada. This report is the first in a new series exploring how Canadians are experiencing the housing crisis, with a focus on the growing challenges of affordability and accessibility that have become defining concerns across the country.

As the Carney government prepares its first federal budget, housing stands out as a defining test of performance. Few issues cut as deeply across the country or affect as many aspects of daily life as housing. Alongside broader cost-of-living and affordability pressures, housing has become the lens through which Canadians are judging progress, and the measure by which they’ll gauge whether relief is truly within reach.

The Pressures Mounting on Canadians

Across the country, housing has become one of the most urgent issues Canadians face, reflecting a growing sense of strain in both affordability and accessibility. Nearly four in ten (38%) identify housing as a top concern in their community – behind the rising cost of living (59%) and ahead of healthcare (30%). Together, these pressures are shaping a climate where basic needs – having a home, affording daily essentials, and accessing care – feel increasingly out of reach for many Canadians.

Younger Canadians are particularly attuned to housing challenges: 41% of those aged 18 to 29 and 39% of those aged 30 to 44 rank it among their top local issues. Regionally, housing worries peak in Quebec (45%), Atlantic Canada (44%), and British Columbia (42%), reflecting where affordability pressures are most acute.

A Crisis Everyone Feels

Housing is one of the few issues that cuts across generational, geographic, and political lines. Nearly nine in ten Canadians (87%) say they are concerned about the state of housing today. This concern transcends party lines – shared by 87% of Conservative, 86% of Liberal, and 93% of NDP supporters.

Perhaps the most sobering finding is that only four in ten Canadians (40%) believe the dream of homeownership is still alive in Canada today. Among those aged 30 to 59 this sentiment is even weaker, with just a third believing the dream remains attainable.

What’s Driving the Crisis

When Canadians look for causes, they point to both supply and systemic barriers. A third (35%) say not enough affordable housing is being built, while another third (32%) point to the high costs of building new homes. Others highlight the pace of population growth outpacing supply (29%) and an influx of new Canadians (29%) as contributing factors.

There are also political nuances in how people understand the problem. Conservative supporters are more likely to point to immigration and foreign investment pressures, while Liberal supporters emphasize construction costs and the lack of housing that meets Canadians’ actual needs. Younger Canadians, meanwhile, are more likely to express frustration with government inaction, underscoring growing generational tension around the issue.

Worries About Housing Security

Among those who own or rent, the sense of stability is fragile. Just over half (51%) worry about keeping up with mortgage or rent payments, a concern that cuts across much of the population. It’s felt most by younger Canadians (57% of those aged 18–29 and 59% of those aged 30–44), lower-income households (53% earning under $50,000), and families with young children (59%). These findings show how financial strain and uncertainty have become defining features of the housing experience, especially for those still building their futures.

Meanwhile, 55% of Canadians worry about losing their home or rental if their finances were to suddenly change, a reminder of how fragile housing security has become. Concern is highest among younger Canadians (68% of those aged 18–29 and 64% of those aged 30–44), lower-income households (62% earning under $50,000), and families with children under 12 (67%). Together, the data underscores how precarious housing has become for those already stretched the most – young Canadians, families, and those living closest to the financial edge.

The Enduring Aspiration of Homeownership

Despite these challenges, the aspiration to own a home remains strong. Among non-homeowners, nearly two-thirds (65%) say they would like to own a residential property someday. This jumps to 86% among those aged 18 to 29 and 75% among those aged 30 to 44, clear evidence that the goal of homeownership persists, even as it feels increasingly out of reach.

Optimism varies. Four in ten Canadians (41%) feel hopeful about being able to buy a home in their desired community, while a third (34%) feel pessimistic. Encouragingly, optimism is strongest among younger Canadians – 47% of those aged 18–29 and 44% of those aged 30–44 – and among those with higher household incomes, including 44% of those earning $50–100K and 57% earning over $100K. These groups may still see a path forward if conditions improve, but for many others, the goal of homeownership feels increasingly out of reach.

The Upshot

The findings reveal a country living in a state of precarity, where stability feels fragile and the future uncertain. Canadians aren’t just worried about being able to afford a home; many are anxious about keeping one. This is no longer only an issue of affordability, it’s about security, control, and confidence in the systems meant to sustain opportunity.

The housing crisis has become the most visible expression of this broader anxiety. For many, especially younger Canadians and young families, it represents the breaking point of a social contract that once promised stability through effort. The goal of homeownership still exists, but it is increasingly accompanied by doubt, a quiet worry that doing “everything right” may no longer be enough.

For governments, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Canadians are no longer judging success solely by the scale of investment or the number of units promised, but by whether they can feel the difference in their own lives, whether housing, affordability, and community stability begin to feel within reach again. Restoring that sense of confidence will require more than policy reform; it demands a visible, sustained commitment to making life feel predictable and secure once more.

Until that happens, the housing crisis will remain not just a policy problem, but a public mood, one that shapes how Canadians see their country, their communities, and their own futures.

METHODOLOGY

The survey was conducted with 3,900 Canadian adults from September 5 to 16, 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 +/- 1.57%, 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.

This survey was paid for by the Canadian Real Estate Association.

Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements that can be found here: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/

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.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Canadian Politics Housing

Bridging Generations in the Workplace: What our Research Tells Us

October 7, 2025

This week, I had the opportunity to deliver a webinar to more than 1,300 lawyers from across Canada on the topic of Bridging Inter-Generational Workplaces. The audience was large and diverse — from managing partners and senior counsel to articling students just starting out — but the questions they asked were strikingly similar to those I hear from employers and leaders in every sector.

How do we understand what motivates younger workers? Why do generational tensions seem to surface so easily? And how do we create workplaces that can engage everyone, from those nearing retirement to those just entering the profession?

These questions have been central to my work for almost two decades. Fifteen years ago, I launched the Canadian Millennials practice at Abacus Data, the first dedicated research program in the country focused on understanding how generational change was reshaping politics, business, and culture. Since then, our team has become Canada’s leading agency for helping organizations navigate how generational differences influence leadership, engagement, and innovation by conducting the best research possible. Today, as Gen Z enters the workforce in large numbers, the conversation has evolved but the goal remains the same: to help leaders understand the “why” behind different expectations about work.

A Precarity Mindset Shapes How We Work

Much of the context for these generational differences begins with what I call the precarity mindset, a worldview shaped by unpredictability and instability. As I explained in the presentation, many people no longer see the future as stable or institutions as reliable

Younger generations, in particular, have grown up through overlapping crises: the Great Recession, climate anxiety, the housing affordability crisis, and now, economic uncertainty coupled with rapid technological change. They’ve never known a world that feels secure.

This sense of precarity affects how people make decisions about their careers. For older generations, loyalty to an employer once offered stability. For younger ones, that stability doesn’t exist, so they seek it elsewhere, often through flexibility, side hustles, or new ways to define success. As I tell leaders: if you feel your younger staff are restless or impatient, it’s not because they’re fickle or impatient. It’s because they were socialized to survive in an unpredictable world.

How They Were Raised — and Why It Matters

Understanding how each generation was raised helps explain their values at work. Baby Boomers grew up in a world of post-war optimism and institutional trust. Gen X came of age amid rising divorce rates and economic volatility, learning to rely on themselves. Millennials were told they could “achieve anything they wanted” — 85% of them say someone told them that growing up— and they experienced open communication and flatter hierarchies at home and school. Gen Z, meanwhile, is the first fully digital generation, raised in a world of constant feedback loops, performance metrics, and online comparison.

These distinct socializations influence how each group communicates, handles feedback, and defines professionalism. Boomers often value loyalty and face-to-face interaction. Gen X seeks autonomy and efficiency. Millennials crave collaboration, purpose, and growth. Gen Z demands transparency, diversity, and psychological safety. None of these perspectives are “right” or “wrong” — they simply reflect the environments that shaped each generation.

Why Conflict Happens

One of the slides that resonated most with the legal audience outlined what triggers each generation at work.

Baby Boomers feel disrespected by informality and rapid change.

Gen X can become frustrated by what they see as entitlement or over-collaboration.

Millennials are disillusioned when systems feel rigid or purpose is unclear.

Gen Z struggles when they experience a lack of flexibility or emotionally distant leadership

In a professional services firm context, these tensions often play out in predictable ways: a senior partner bristles at being questioned by a junior associate; a Gen X manager rolls their eyes at a young professional asking for client exposure too soon; a Millennial analyst feels unseen when feedback is minimal; a Gen Z clerk pushes back on a five-day return-to-office policy. Each reaction makes sense when viewed through the lens of lived experience and that’s precisely the point. Conflict isn’t about personality. It’s about perspective.

The Evolution of Work Expectations

Another key theme from the research is how workplace expectations evolve but rarely disappear. As I put it during the session:

“Baby Boomer dreams became Gen X hopes, which became Millennial preferences and have now become Gen Z expectations.”

What older generations once aspired to — flexibility, purpose, and autonomy — are now baseline demands for younger workers. The data in our presentation show that the average time spent in a job has fallen from 8 years among Boomers to just over 2 years among Gen Z. That doesn’t mean young people are disloyal; it means they’re navigating a market that rewards mobility, not longevity. Retention today depends less on long-term promises and more on day-to-day meaning.

The Four Keys from the Research

The closing section of my presentation focused on four key insights that apply to every organization, not just law firms.

1. Flexibility is the New Currency

Flexibility doesn’t mean chaos. It means giving people choices — a “menu” of options rather than a one-size-fits-all model. Younger employees often see flexibility as a sign of respect; older employees see it as autonomy. In both cases, it’s about trust.

2. The Feedback Gap is Real

According to Gallup data I shared, 78% of Gen Z workers want regular feedback compared with just 45% of Boomers. That’s a huge gap — and a major source of frustration. Younger staff equate silence with disinterest, while older leaders may see frequent feedback as hand-holding. The solution is simple: consistency.

3. Technology — Especially AI — is Divisive

Adoption of AI tools varies dramatically by age: 75% of Gen Z workers report using AI at work, compared to only 36% of Boomers. This gap isn’t just technical; it’s cultural. AI feels intuitive to younger workers but also existentially threatening and for older workers intimidating. Successful organizations are bridging this divide by creating space for shared learning, not judgment.

4. Impatience Isn’t a Character Flaw

Finally, one of the most important findings: impatience isn’t a generational trait, it’s situational. Millennials and Gen Z are facing record housing costs, unprecedented debt, and slower pathways to stability. Their urgency is rational. Empathy, not criticism, is the better leadership response.

What It All Means

After fifteen years of studying generational change, I’ve learned that every workplace conversation — about return-to-office, technology, mentorship, or leadership — is really a conversation about identity. People aren’t just negotiating schedules; they’re negotiating values: fairness, belonging, control, and respect.

In the webinar, I told participants that the goal isn’t to eliminate generational differences but to translate them. A Gen Z lawyer and a Baby Boomer partner can want the same thing — to do good work and feel valued — but the path to get there looks different. The most effective leaders are those who adapt, listen, and meet people where they are.

By asking people questions, our work continues to help organizations do exactly that. Whether in law firms, hospitals, or corporate boardrooms, generational change is rewriting the unwritten rules of work. Understanding those changes isn’t just a matter of curiosity — it’s now essential for performance, retention, and culture.

To see how I can engage your audiences with a presentation or keynote, or uncover what drives your audience, reach out. I’d be happy to connect.

Happiness Millennials She/Her/Hers Technology Workplace

Abacus Data Poll: Liberals and Conservatives Locked in Tight Race as Cost of Living Concerns Surge

October 5, 2025

Between September 26 and October 1, 2025, Abacus Data surveyed 1,504 Canadian adults on the state of federal politics. With Parliament back in session and economic anxieties simmering, this snapshot reveals a political landscape that is fiercely competitive and one where both major parties are digging in for a battle over economic credibility and leadership trust.

At the topline, little has shifted, but beneath the surface, rising pressure on affordability, mixed views of the Carney government, and some regional softness for both parties are shaping a dynamic fall political environment.

Direction of the Country: Still Static, Still Uneasy

The national mood remains stuck. Just 34% of Canadians believe the country is heading in the right direction, compared to 49% who say we’re on the wrong track, unchanged from mid-September but down from the recent peak at 40% in July.

Pessimism about the global context remains even more pronounced: only 13% believe the world is heading in the right direction, and just 14% feel that way about the United States.

Top Issues: Cost of Living Reasserts Itself

Affordability is back at the top and it’s gaining urgency. A full 62% of Canadians now cite the rising cost of living as one of their top three concerns, up 5 points in just two weeks.

Healthcare (35%) and the economy (35%) follow closely, while housing affordability remains a core concern at 34%, unchanged since mid-September.

Public concern over Donald Trump and his administration remains significant at 33% (although continuing its drop) while crime and public safety continues its slow climb, now at 21%, up 4 points over a month.

Government Approval: Slips Slightly but Holds Steady

Approval of Mark Carney’s government sits at 46%, down 4 points from two weeks ago, while disapproval has edged up to 31%, suggesting a modest softening in what had been steady approval over the past two months. The federal government’s approval is down 7-points since its peak in June.

Leader Impressions: Carney Leads, But Signals of Drift

Mark Carney continues to enjoy a modest favourability lead, with 48% of Canadians holding a positive view of him and 34% viewing him negatively, for a net favourability of +14.

But below those top-line numbers, a more complex picture is coming into focus and one that suggests voters are still working out who Carney is as a political leader and whether he’s lived up to the high expectations many had when he became Prime Minister.

Only 40% of Canadians say Carney has lived up to their expectations. A nearly identical share (41%) say he’s done less than they expected, while 19% remain unsure.

Among 2025 Liberal voters, these numbers are more reassuring, but not overwhelmingly so. Just 63% say he’s lived up to expectations, while 21% say he’s underperformed, and 15% are unsure. That’s a solid majority, but it also means nearly 1 in 4 past Liberal voters aren’t sold yet.

There are mixed views continues across other leadership metrics: 42% of Canadians say they feel reassured that someone like Carney is leading the country right now. But nearly as many (39%) do not feel reassured.

Once again, past Liberal voters are most confident, with 74% expressing reassurance — but even here, 1 in 5 either do not feel reassured (13%) or are unsure (12%).

And on whether Carney understands the challenges faced by people like them, Canadians are again divided: 38% say yes. 42% say no and 20% say they’re not sure.

Among past Liberal voters, 65% say Carney understands their concerns — but among younger voters (18–44), that number drops to 37%, and just 17% of Conservative voters agree. These gaps reveal the fragility of cross-partisan appeal that Carney once promised to offer.

Finally, Carney’s perceived decisiveness is also up for debate: 41% see him as strong and willing to make tough decisions. 38% disagree. And 21% are unsure.

Pierre Poilievre: Steady as he goes

Pierre Poilievre personal image is unchanged from two weeks ago. His favourability is narrowly negative at -2 (40% positive, 42% negative).

Carney vs. Trudeau: The Comparison Conservatives Want – and Carney Can’t Ignore

Since Mark Carney became Prime Minister, we’ve been tracking a key question: how different do Canadians think he is from Justin Trudeau? And just as important — does that difference (or lack of it) matter?

The Conservative Party has worked hard to tie Carney to Trudeau’s legacy, betting that the former PM’s baggage — especially on housing, affordability, and general political fatigue — still weighs heavily on many voters who ended up voting Liberal in April. And so far, that framing may be sticking, if only modestly.

In this wave, 55% of Canadians say Carney’s government is either very or fairly similar to Trudeau’s up just slightly from August. The percentage who believe the two governments are different (36%) has dipped a bit. So not a seismic shift, but in such a competitive political environment, every perception matters.

Where it gets more consequential is how these perceptions map onto vote intention. Among those who say Carney is like Trudeau and that’s a bad thing, a full 80% say they’d vote Conservative, while just 3% would back the Liberals.

By contrast, among those who see Carney as different from Trudeau and believe that’s a good thing, 71% say they’d vote Liberal. Being seen as unlike Trudeau is political advantageous at this moment.

The lesson here is pretty clear: being the anti-Trudeau matters — and not just symbolically. It’s a strategic imperative.

Issue Ownership: Conservatives Gain Edge on Core Issues

Among Canadians who prioritize affordability, the Conservatives lead by 13 points over the Liberals (41% to 28%). They also dominate on: crime and public safety (55% to 20%), immigration (62% to 17%), the economy (47% to 33%) and housing (36% to 26%).

The Liberals continue to hold advantages on: Trump and his administration (57% to 22%), healthcare (35% to 25%) and climate change (35% to 12%).

Accessible Voter Pools: Liberals Slightly Ahead

The Liberal Party remains accessible to 56% of voters nationally, compared to 53% for the Conservatives and 36% for the NDP.

Vote Intention: Conservatives +1, Liberals Hold Steady

If an election were held today: Conservatives 41% (+1), Liberals 40% (NC), NDP 7% (-1), BQ 7% (NC), Greens 3% (NC) and PPC: 2% (+1)

Among those certain to vote, the Liberals edge ahead with 43%, a 2-point lead over the Conservatives, suggesting turnout advantage might still matter.

Regional Spotlight

Ontario: Liberals lead 45% to 42%.

BC: Tie at 41% each.

Alberta: Conservatives dominate at 57%, Liberals at 25%.

Atlantic Canada: Liberals lead 47% to 41%.

Quebec: Liberals at 37%, BQ at 30%, Conservatives at 26%

Demographic Trends: Gender Gap Returns, Education Still Divides

The gender gap is modest but present: among men, Conservatives lead by 4 (44% to 40%), among women, Liberals lead by 3 (40% to 37%).

The education divide persists: University-educated go Liberal (48% to 36%) while those with college or apprenticeship go Conservative (44% to 36%).

The Upshot

According to Abacus Data CEO David Coletto: ““This wave shows a political environment that remains sharply competitive, but where perceptions of leadership and contrast are becoming more important. Voters are anxious about affordability, skeptical about political promises, and still forming their impressions of Mark Carney as Prime Minister.”

While Carney’s overall numbers remain solid — favourables, approval, and vote share all holding steady — there are growing signs that impressions are starting to fragment. For many Canadians, he hasn’t yet delivered on expectations, and a sizable chunk still sees him through the lens of his predecessor.

And that comparison to Justin Trudeau may prove defining. Conservative efforts to tie Carney to Trudeau’s legacy appear to be resonating with a key subset of the public — particularly those frustrated with the past and eager for change. Among voters who see Carney as too similar to Trudeau and see that as a bad thing, nearly all are backing the Conservatives.

The lesson here is pretty clear: being the anti-Trudeau matters and not just symbolically. It’s a strategic imperative.

If Carney wants to shore up support and expand his coalition beyond the Liberal base, the best advice might be simple: wake up every morning, ask “What would Justin Trudeau do?” and then try to do the opposite.

With Parliament back in session and a precarious economic outlook ahead, the next few months could define whether Carney can firm up a distinctive political brand or is seen as a continuation of the past.”

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 1,504 Canadians from September 28 to October 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 +/- 2.5%, 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.

Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements that can be found here: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/

The survey was paid for by Abacus Data Inc.

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

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.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Canadian Politics Politics

Abacus Data Poll: Edmonton Voters Focused on Stability and Affordability as Mayoral Race Heats Up

October 3, 2025

Cartmell leads, but many remain undecided. Public split on taxes, frustrated with homelessness and crime.

From September 25 to 29, 2025, Abacus Data surveyed 700 eligible voters in Edmonton to assess public opinion heading into the final stretch of the city’s mayoral campaign. The data paints a picture of an unsettled electorate with significant anxiety about affordability, homelessness, and public safety. While Tim Cartmell leads among likely voters, the race remains wide open, with nearly 4 in 10 still undecided.

Key dynamics shaping the election include a strong desire for stable, competent leadership, divisions on tax policy, and the polarizing presence of Premier Danielle Smith — whose role in the campaign appears to be motivating voters in different ways.

Direction of the City: Mood Leans Negative

Edmontonians remain more negative than positive about the direction of their city. Only 34% believe the city is headed in the right direction, while 49% think it’s off on the wrong track. Another 17% aren’t sure.

Perceptions vary by region and demographic. Those on the South East side of the city (68%) and older Edmontonians (51%) are most likely to say the city is off course. Men (56%) are more negative than women (43%), and UCP voters are especially pessimistic (63% off-track).

Top Local Issues: Housing, Homelessness, and Crime Dominate

Voters were asked to identify their top three local priorities. The results point clearly to a sense of urgency around affordability and basic public order:

Housing affordability and accessibility: 47%
Poverty and homelessness: 45%
Crime and community safety: 42%
Municipal taxes and fees: 38%
Traffic and road maintenance: 33%

Other issues like drug use, core services, and the economy follow behind.

While housing affordability and homelessness rank at or near the top for both Cartmell and Knack voters, the two coalitions diverge meaningfully on what comes next. Cartmell’s supporters place heavier emphasis on municipal taxes and fees (51% rank it a top-three issue) and traffic and road maintenance (37%) — issues tied to fiscal control and core city functions.

Knack’s voters, by contrast, lean more strongly toward protecting and expanding public services, ranking core services like transit and garbage pickup (35%) and the local economy and jobs (30%) higher than taxes. Both groups rate crime and community safety as a top concern (40% among Cartmell voters, 44% among Knack voters), underscoring that public safety is a cross-cutting anxiety. These differences suggest the two leading candidates are drawing from distinct but overlapping voter pools, with Cartmell appealing to those focused on discipline and cost control and Knack resonating more with those prioritizing social investment and service protection.

How Voters Are Thinking About the Election

To better understand voter motivations, we tested a series of paired statements that frame the election in different ways — from stability vs. disruption to investment vs. restraint.

The clearest finding: the largest groups of voters are looking for steady, competent leadership that can bring order and control to a city they see as drifting.

71% of voters say they want a mayor who will provide steady, reliable leadership — these voters break 23% for Cartmell and 18% for Knack.

29% say they want a mayor who will shake things up — a more divided group, with Cartmell ahead of Knack by 7 among this group but with undecideds much higher.

On fiscal issues, voters are divided:

55% say their vote is about keeping taxes low — Cartmell leads strongly with 28% to 13% for Knack.

45% say it’s about making sure city services are funded — these voters lean toward Knack (22%) compared with 14% for Cartmell.

When asked which statement reflects their view on housing more:

57% want to build more housing faster — Cartmell and Knack are tied among this group.

43% prefer to slow growth and preserve neighbourhood character — this group leans clearly towards Cartmell (23% to 12% for Knack).

Homelessness, Crime, and the Precarity Lens

When it comes to social disorder and encampments:

69% want to invest in long-term solutions like housing and social supports — Knack is competitive here, but Cartmell still draws support from 22%.

31% of voters say their vote is about cracking down on disorder — Cartmell leads among these voters (22%) to 13% for Knack.

This reflects a broader trend we’ve observed across the country: a rising “precarity mindset” among voters. More and more, people are looking for leadership that restores stability — whether through tough enforcement or systemic investment.

Danielle Smith’s Role in the Campaign

The Premier is a background but influential figure in the election.

Half of Edmonton voters (50%) say their vote is more about sending a message to Danielle Smith and the UCP than finding someone who can work with her. The other half say they want a mayor who will work better with the provincial government.

Knack draws more support from those wanting to send a message to the Premier. Among that group, 20% plan to vote for him. Cartmell is more competitive among those looking for provincial cooperation (27%).

This dynamic could shape the final weeks of the race, especially if Knack consolidates more progressive voters.

Tax Freeze Debate: Public Split

When asked whether a promise to freeze or cut property taxes is credible:

51% say it’s realistic and credible if priorities are managed.
49% say it’s just a promise to get votes and not realistic given the city’s financial situation.

Among Cartmell voters, 56% say such promises are realistic. Among Knack voters, 56% say they aren’t. This divide could reinforce campaign messaging on both sides — with Cartmell appealing to restraint and fiscal control, and Knack emphasizing investment in services.

Candidate and Party Leader Impressions

When we ask how people feel about the major candidates and the current and past provincial party leaders, none of the leading candidates are particularly polarizing.

Both Tim Cartmell and Andrew Knack have more positive than negative impressions — Cartmell holds a +25 net favourability score (35% positive vs. 10% negative), while Knack is at +18 (31% vs. 13%). Importantly, negative views of both men are low, suggesting neither is viewed as a threat or lightning rod by the broader electorate at this point.

This leaves room for the campaign to be decided on issues and leadership perceptions rather than personal baggage.

In contrast, Premier Danielle Smith stands out as the most polarizing figure tested, with a -21 net score (25% positive vs. 46% negative). While she’s not a candidate in the race, her presence looms large reinforcing her potential as a motivator for voters who want to send a message to the provincial government, and a reminder that provincial politics are very much in the background of this municipal campaign.

Vote Intention: Cartmell Leads Among Likely Voters

If the election were held today Tim Cartmell leads with 39% of decided likely voters. Andrew Knack is second at 28%. Other candidates — Omar Mohammad, Rahim Jaffer, and Michael Walters — are tied at 9%. 30% of likely voters remain undecided.

Among all eligible voters, Cartmell leads with 22%, Knack is at 17%, and 37% remain undecided — underlining just how open the race remains.

Demographic Trends: Cartmell Stronger with Older Voters

Cartmell leads by a wide margin among those aged 45+ (33% vs. Knack’s 13%).

Knack is slightly ahead among younger voters (20% vs. Cartmell’s 11%).

Vote intentions also reflect partisan leanings: Cartmell leads among UCP and Conservative voters (31–33%). Knack is strongest among NDP and Liberal supporters (28% and 24%).

The Upshot

According to Abacus Data CEO David Coletto:

“This election for Edmonton mayor remains wide open. Tim Cartmell has a lead — especially among older voters and those craving stability — but a large number of Edmontonians are undecided. The public is focused on serious concerns like housing, homelessness, and public safety, and they’re looking for realistic, credible leadership to get things under control.

The election is taking place in a broader climate of precarity, where people feel the city is losing control. The candidate who can best reassure voters — through competence, calm, or reform — is likely to win.

Premier Danielle Smith is also casting a long shadow over the race, with half of voters saying their ballot is a way to send a message. That creates opportunity for progressives, but only if they can consolidate around a single candidate. With three weeks to go, a lot can still change.”

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 700 adults (18+) eligible to vote in Edmonton from September 25 to 29, 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 +/- 3.8%, 19 times out of 20.

The data were weighted according to census data to ensure the sample matched Edmonton’s population by age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

The survey was paid for by Abacus Data Inc.

Weighted and Unweighted Case Numbers and Results (All Eligible Voters)

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

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.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Politics Public Policy

The Politics of Safety: Why Bail Reform Is Striking a Chord with Canadians

October 3, 2025

Note: This survey was conducted from September 12 to 17, 2025, and was originally planned for earlier release. The results predate the Conservative Party’s October 2 announcement of their “Scrap Liberal Bail” platform, and while not connected to that release, they provide important context for understanding Canadians’ perceptions of crime and public safety.

Crime and public safety have quickly become key elements in Canada’s political conversation as Parliament resumes. While the country is not facing a crime wave on the scale of past decades, many Canadians feel less secure today than even a year ago. Concerns about drug use, property crime, and violent offences sit alongside frustrations with homelessness, addiction, and the cost of living – creating a climate where both social breakdown and weak enforcement are seen as driving the problem.

This unease has sharpened the political debate. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives have made bail reform and tougher sentencing a rallying cry, arguing Canada’s justice system is too lenient. Mark Carney and the Liberals, meanwhile, must show they can balance enforcement with compassion – tackling root causes while addressing immediate safety concerns.

These findings reveal not only how Canadians view crime in their communities, but also why the issue could become a defining fault line in federal politics – one where enforcement and prevention both matter, but the balance is hotly contested.

Rising Concerns About Crime

Canadians are increasingly uneasy about the state of crime and public safety. Four in ten (44%) say crime in Canada has gotten worse over the past year, compared with just 18% who believe it has improved. Age plays a significant role in these perceptions: younger Canadians are more optimistic, with 35% of those aged 18–29 and 23% of those aged 30–44 saying crime has gotten better. Older Canadians, however, are far more pessimistic – 51% of both those aged 45+ believe the situation has worsened.

Partisan leanings also shape attitudes. Conservative supporters are much more likely to say crime has gotten worse (61%), compared to only 30% of Liberal supporters.

What Canadians See as the Biggest Crime Issues

When Canadians talk about crime in their communities, no single issue dominates. Instead, they point to a mix of concerns: drug-related offences (37%), property crime (34%), violent crime (31%), break-ins (30%), and vehicle theft (30%). Regional realities shape these perceptions – British Columbians are most likely to cite drug-related offences (52%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba residents point to property crime (55%), while in Ontario break-ins (37%) and vehicle theft (36%) stand out. Quebecers, meanwhile, are far more likely to cite cybercrime (49%) and organized crime (29%).

These patterns highlight why crime cannot be addressed with a one-size-fits-all solution. Canadians’ lived experiences of crime are shaped by where they live, meaning national policy must also account for deeply local challenges.

What’s Driving Rising Crime?

For many Canadians, the causes of rising crime go well beyond policing. Nearly half (48%) point to homelessness and addiction as key drivers, while 42% blame weak sentencing and justice system policies. Another 39% cite broader economic pressures like the rising cost of living. Conservative supporters are especially likely to focus on sentencing and government inaction, while Liberals are less inclined to see those factors at play.

This highlights that Canadians see crime as both a social and a systemic issue. It is not only about punishment and enforcement – it is also about economic conditions, housing, and addiction. Addressing crime, therefore, means tackling the root causes as much as the symptoms.

Confidence in Government to Address Crime

Overall, Canadians are more doubtful than confident in the federal government’s ability to address crime and public safety – two in five (41%) say they lack confidence, while 29% express confidence. Younger Canadians are more optimistic, with 40% of those 18–29 saying they are confident, compared to just 21% of those aged 45–59 and 25% of those 60+.

Partisan divides are clear: 44% of Liberal supporters are confident in the government’s ability to address crime, while 61% of Conservatives say they are not.

A Divided Approach: Tougher Laws vs. Social Supports

Canadians believe reducing crime requires a balanced approach – one that addresses both enforcement and root causes. Over half (52%) want stricter laws and penalties for certain crimes, while 40% favour improving social services to address underlying causes. Another 38% emphasize enhancing mental health and addiction supports. Beyond these, many also believe in increasing funding for law enforcement (32%) and investing in community programs and prevention initiatives (28%).

Demographic divides are notable. Older Canadians are more likely to call for tougher laws (70% of those 60+) and more police funding (39%). Women lean more toward strengthening social services (44%) and improving mental health and addiction supports (45%). Politically, Conservatives prioritize stricter laws and more police funding, Liberals focus on social services, and NDP supporters highlight mental health and addiction supports.

This balance underscores the complexity of the public mood. Canadians want immediate safety through enforcement but also recognize the need to invest in long-term solutions that address why crime happens in the first place.

The Bail Reform Debate

One of the clearest points of consensus is the widespread belief that Canada’s bail system is too lenient. Nearly eight in ten Canadians (79%) say it is too easy for people accused of serious crimes to be released. Support for reform crosses partisan lines: 83% of Conservatives and 76% of Liberals agree. Most Canadians (80%) also believe repeat violent offenders should automatically be denied bail for serious charges.

This consensus is politically powerful. It explains why Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has made bail reform a central plank of his law-and-order message. His calls for tougher bail laws tap into frustration that extends far beyond his base – even into Liberal ranks. With few issues showing such broad agreement, bail reform could become a defining flashpoint in the national conversation on public safety.

Policing vs. Prevention

Canadians are divided on how best to ensure long-term safety. Over half (54%) say police funding should be increased, with Conservatives most supportive (63%) but even half of Liberals agreeing. When asked what would most reduce violent crime in the long run, 62% chose stricter bail rules and more enforcement, while 38% pointed to investments in social services, mental health, and prevention. Older Canadians are far more likely to favour enforcement, while younger Canadians are evenly split.

The generational divide here is telling: younger Canadians are open to preventative approaches, while older Canadians prioritize immediate enforcement. This signals a long-term debate about whether Canada should double down on policing or invest more in root causes – a divide that will likely shape the future of public safety policy.

THE UPSHOT

The story these results tell is one of both division and consensus. Canadians are deeply concerned about crime, but they don’t see it through a single lens. For some, it is about social breakdown – addiction, homelessness, and the cost of living. For others, it is about weakness in the justice system and the failure of government to enforce laws. This duality means any political party trying to own the issue has to balance two competing instincts: the demand for tougher enforcement and the recognition that prevention and supports matter too.

For Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, the environment is advantageous. Concerns about rising crime and the strong consensus that bail is too lenient give weight to his law-and-order message. Bail reform, in particular, offers a rare point of agreement across partisan lines, allowing him to reach beyond his base with a clear, simple promise to “fix the system.”

For Mark Carney and the Liberals, the challenge is to avoid being boxed in as soft on crime. Their strength lies in addressing root causes, but Canadians also want tougher rules. To compete, Liberals must frame their approach as one of balance – coupling investments in social supports with measures that reassure the public on enforcement.

The political impact is clear: crime and public safety have become a stage where the Conservatives can score easy points, but the Liberals are not without tools. Canadians want balance, and the party that convinces voters it can deliver both accountability and prevention is likely to win the debate.

METHODOLOGY

The survey was conducted with 2,230 Canadian adults from September 12 to 17, 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 +/- 2.08%, 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.

This survey was paid for by Abacus Data.

Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements that can be found here: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

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.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Canadian Politics Insights Public Policy

Canadian Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy

September 29, 2025

On September 19, I was invited by Ontario’s Minister of Energy to moderate a panel discussion with some of the country’s leading energy executives. As part of that panel, I delivered a short briefing on some new polling I did to prepare for the Energy Summit. This research was independently designed and was paid for by my company Abacus Data. Here’s a summary of what I see in public opinion around nuclear energy.

—

The debate over nuclear power in Canada is no longer taking place in the abstract. As electrification accelerates and concerns about emissions intensify, Canadians are increasingly aware that their provinces will need far more electricity than they do today. This expectation is reshaping how people view nuclear power: not as a relic of the past, but as a potential tool to solve future energy challenges.

Our September 2025 of 3,000 Canadian adults survey finds a Canadian public that is pragmatic, divided, but shifting. Roughly four in ten Canadians (38%) describe their feelings towards nuclear as positive, while 22% are negative, and the rest fall into neutral or indifferent camps. Importantly, when asked how they would react if their province announced a major investment in nuclear, support rises to 43% compared with 23% opposed. A substantial share remain in the middle, open to persuasion if concerns about safety, cost, and waste are credibly addressed.

Electricity Demand and Perceptions of Capacity

The starting point for this debate is the widely held belief that demand will grow. Seventy-one percent of Canadians expect their province will need more electricity within 10 years, rising to 72 percent over 20 years. Only a small minority expect less. Quebec stands out, with nine in ten residents predicting rising demand. Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan also lean heavily toward growth expectations. By contrast, Atlantic Canadians are somewhat less convinced.

Younger Canadians (18 to 29) are the most skeptical. Only 58 percent think their province will need more electricity in the next decade, compared with 82 percent of those over 60. This generational gap is central to understanding how nuclear fits into the future. Older Canadians, perhaps because they have lived through debates about energy shortages, are more attuned to the risks of under-supply.

When asked whether provinces currently have enough generating capacity, opinion splits almost evenly. Forty-eight percent say yes, 36 percent no, with 16 percent unsure. After respondents were reminded of expert projections about electrification and population growth, confidence weakened. Only 45 percent still believed capacity was sufficient. This suggests that once Canadians link future demand with current supply, they begin to question whether existing tools will be enough but more needs to do to tell that story and socialize people to the reality of what’s coming.

Linking Need to Nuclear

Among those who think their province will need much more electricity, almost half (44 percent) hold positive views of nuclear power. Among those who think their province will need less, a majority (55 percent) are negative. Recognition of rising demand is strongly correlated with openness to nuclear. The politics of nuclear are, at their core, the politics of scarcity.

This intuitive link between more demand and greater openness to nuclear creates a clear pathway for advocates. The more vivid and credible the story of future demand becomes, the more nuclear is seen as necessary rather than risky. Those who remain neutral or uncertain about demand are correspondingly lukewarm about nuclear.

Provincial and Regional Differences

Perceptions of nuclear vary considerably by province:

Ontario and Saskatchewan: Both show relatively high positivity toward nuclear (48 and 54 percent). These provinces have established nuclear industries, and familiarity appears to breed support.

Quebec: Despite near consensus that more electricity will be needed, attitudes toward nuclear are more divided, with negativity running higher. The Hydro Québec legacy of abundant hydro may leave little appetite for nuclear.

Atlantic Canada: Views are fragmented, with positivity in New Brunswick reaching 40 percent, but somewhat lower in Nova Scotia (34%).

Manitoba and Alberta: Both provinces have sharply different views, with Alberta at 44 percent positive and Manitoba at 25 percent (hydropower impact).

These regional patterns suggest that familiarity with nuclear infrastructure, as in Ontario or New Brunswick, or having much of the world’s uranium, as in Saskatchewan, are critical drivers of support. Where provinces have abundant renewable (especially hydro) resources, nuclear faces steeper skepticism.

Generational and Educational Divides

Generational splits are striking. Positivity toward nuclear is highest among the youngest (54 percent among 18 to 29 year olds), dips to 32 percent for those aged 30 to 44, and then rises again among older groups. The volatility of younger cohorts suggests they are open to arguments about technology and climate solutions, but also susceptible to safety and waste concerns.

Education also matters. University graduates (48 percent positive) are more favorable than those with only high school (37 percent). This may reflect greater exposure to scientific framing of nuclear’s low-emission benefits.

Where Canadians Think New Power Will Come From

When asked, unprompted, which energy sources will fill future demand, Canadians default first to hydroelectricity (22 percent), then nuclear (13 percent), followed closely by wind (12 percent) and solar (11 percent). Natural gas, at just 2 percent, barely registers.

This is a telling hierarchy. Hydro is widely seen as Canada’s comparative advantage, but nuclear sits ahead of other renewables in the public imagination. It suggests that nuclear has earned a place in the shortlist of future power sources, even if it remains divisive.

Implications

The story in these data is one of cautious but growing receptivity. Canadians know demand is rising. They are uncertain about whether existing capacity will suffice. When confronted with this reality, they are more willing to contemplate nuclear as part of the mix.

For governments and industry, three messages emerge:

Make demand real. The more Canadians believe their province will need substantially more electricity, the more open they become to nuclear solutions.

Address safety and cost head-on. Support is higher when benefits are linked to reliability and emissions reduction, but opposition remains rooted in concerns about safety and waste.

Tailor regionally. Ontario and Saskatchewan are the most fertile ground. Quebec and parts of Atlantic Canada will require different narratives, focusing less on scarcity and more on climate or export potential.

The Upshot

Positive views of nuclear energy are not overwhelming, but they are not trivial either. Four in ten Canadians are already favorable, and nearly half would support new provincial investments if announced. The swing middle – those who are neutral, uncertain, or lightly opposed – are watching the demand story closely. If electrification, population growth, and decarbonization remain central to Canada’s economic agenda, nuclear has an opportunity to be repositioned not as an option of last resort, but as a credible, scalable part of the solution set.

The politics of nuclear will follow the politics of electricity demand. Where people believe more supply is essential, nuclear’s appeal grows. Where they believe their province has enough, skepticism hardens. That tension is the key dynamic shaping nuclear’s future in Canada today.

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 3,000 Canadian adults from September 4 to 6, 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 +/- 1.8%, 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. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

This survey was paid for by Abacus Data Inc.

Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/.

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

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.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Canadian Politics Insights Provincial Politics Public Policy

Most Ontarians Skeptical of Ford’s Push to Eliminate School Trustees, Want Investment in Public Education

September 24, 2025

From September 11 to 13, 2025, Abacus Data conducted a survey of 2,000 Ontario residents for CUPE Ontario. We asked Ontarians about proposals being sounded by the Ford government to eliminate or restructure school boards and trustees, and whether they think governance structures or underfunding are at the heart of Ontario’s education challenges.

The results reveal a strong current of public skepticism toward the Ford government’s approach. Few Ontarians see trustee elimination as a solution to the problems facing schools. Instead, most believe underfunding is the real issue, view the government’s actions as a distraction or power grab, and assume negative or absent outcomes for classrooms. Strikingly, these views cut across political lines, leaving little political advantage for the government in pushing forward with restructuring.

Awareness of the Restructuring Proposal

Awareness of the issue is already high for a debate on school system governance – 6 in 10 Ontarians at least think they have heard about Ford’s proposals, and 4 in 10 are following the story at least somewhat closely.

Only 1 in 3 support eliminating trustees or restructuring boards, with opposition and uncertainty making up the clear majority. And when Ontarians are pressed on what outcomes would follow, seven in ten believe the changes would either make no difference for students or actively make things worse.

What Resonates with Ontarians is a Commitment to Resources, Not Governance

A majority in the province agree that the real problem in Ontario schools is underfunding, not trustees, and that trustees provide local accountability and give parents and communities a voice in education. It follows, then, that the majority also reject the notion that eliminating trustees will result in smaller class sizes, more educational assistants and better staffing, or improved infrastructure. Only a small subset (around 1 in 5) disagree with any of these notions.

Ontarians view Government’s Intentions

Views of the Ford government’s motivations are equally telling. Far more Ontarians believe Ford has underfunded schools by billions since taking power than disagree, and many assume his government is manufacturing this trustee fight as a distraction from its own record or to free up land for developers.

Issue That Could Split Ford’s Base

The survey included two questions that asked Ontarians to choose between two competing narratives about the government’s approach to education. In both cases, the majority (2 in 3) aligned with the view that the government should focus on increasing funding and protect local accountability rather than moving ahead with trustee elimination. Importantly, these results reveal significant divisions among Progressive Conservative voters, who split evenly between the two sides.

The Upshot

This survey shows that the Ford government has picked a fight that most Ontarians don’t want. Awareness is already high, but instead of building momentum, the public is approaching it with skepticism. Ontarians are unconvinced that reshaping school governance will fix real problems for students and education workers, instead seeing underfunding as the core issue.

Ontarians overwhelmingly prefer increased investment in public schools over eliminating trustees, and many view the government’s actions as anti-democratic. On a fundamental level, they do not see boards or local trustees as problems in need of fixing; rather, they view them largely as essential, democratic tools.

While overall opinion tilts against the government, the more striking finding is the lack of unity within its own base, suggesting limited political upside for the Ford government in pursuing this direction. The upshot is clear: pushing ahead with trustee elimination risks deepening public mistrust and further defining the Ford government as unwilling to fund Ontario classrooms.

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 2,000 Ontario residents from September 11 to 13, 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 data were weighted according to census data to ensure the sample matched Ontario’s population by age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add to 100 due to rounding.

The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.19%, 19 times out of 20.

This survey was paid for by CUPE Ontario.

Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/.

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

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.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Insights Provincial Politics

Abacus Data Ontario Poll: PCs Steady at 52% as Crombie Resigns Amid Liberal Convention Fallout

September 23, 2025

As Ontario politics enters a period of leadership turbulence for the opposition, Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives maintain their dominant grip on the electorate. The latest Abacus Data survey, conducted over the weekend of the Ontario Liberal Party’s leadership review convention, shows the PCs holding steady at 52% of the vote—only one point below their all-time high in our tracking – while the Liberals see their support drop and Bonnie Crombie exits the political stage.

This wave captures a rare moment of volatility: interviews were split almost evenly between the days before and after Crombie’s resignation, allowing a unique glimpse into voter sentiment amid political upheaval. Despite the drama, the results underscore a recurring theme: Ford and the PCs are not just ahead, they are way ahead.

Vote Intention: PCs Maintain 52%, Liberal Slide Accelerates
If a provincial election were held today, 52% of committed voters would cast their ballot for the Progressive Conservatives, down just one point since August. The Ontario Liberals have fallen to 24%, a three-point drop in the same period. The NDP holds steady at 12%, while the Greens are at 6%.

This 28-point lead over the Liberals is the largest margin since our tracking began. After months of slow erosion, the Liberal brand has now lost six points since May and shows signs of further deterioration, particularly in regions where the party had been moderately competitive.

For the PCs, this month’s data confirms a stable coalition that has weathered affordability pressures and economic uncertainty. Their support base appears deeply embedded across regions and demographic segments, suggesting the party is benefiting from both Ford’s personal brand and the vacuum of credible opposition.

PCs Dominate Regionally and Across Key Demographics
The Progressive Conservatives continue to lead across all major regions of the province. In Toronto, they are ahead of the Liberals by 24 points (52% to 28%). In the GTHA, the PCs lead by 22 points, while in Southwestern Ontario, they now command a 42-point margin over the Liberals (60% to 18%).

The demographic map is equally telling. The PCs lead among both men and women, and among every age, including those aged 18 to 29.

What stands out is the breadth of the PC coalition. Unlike the Liberals or NDP, whose bases are more narrowly distributed, Ford’s party continues to win support from all corners of the province and all walks of life.

Approval: Ford Government Still in Positive Territory
Public satisfaction with the Ford government remains largely unchanged. Forty-seven percent of Ontarians approve of the job Ford and his team are doing, while 31% disapprove. This net +16 is marginally lower than the +18 recorded in August, but still among the most favourable ratings Ford has received since our tracking began in 2023.

The Ford government’s approval numbers have been in positive territory since the beginning of the year, a period initiated by Trump’s inauguration.

Leadership Impressions: Ford Up, Crombie Down
Doug Ford remains the most positively viewed political leader in Ontario, with 46% of Ontarians holding a favourable impression of him, 33% unfavourable, and just 1% unsure—a net impression of +13.

Bonnie Crombie, by contrast, ends her tenure as Liberal leader with a net impression of -5, down from -3 last month. Only 29% view her positively, while 34% view her negatively, and 11% say they don’t know enough to offer a view. Her resignation comes amid declining personal numbers and a party brand that has stalled despite earlier optimism.

Marit Stiles’s impression is stable, now sitting at +1 overall. Mike Schreiner’s net score remains slightly negative at -1, consistent with previous months.

Preferred Premier: Ford Dominates Post-Crombie Landscape
Doug Ford is the preferred choice for Premier among 46% of Ontarians, unchanged from August. Crombie, even as she stepped down, attracted the support of just 18%, while Stiles trails at 12% and Schreiner at 6%. Another 18% remain undecided.

Ford leads in every major region and across almost every demographic segment. He is preferred by a majority of men (51%) and a plurality of women (42%). Among those aged 45 to 59, he reaches 53%, and among those 60 and older, he holds steady at 50%. Even among younger voters aged 18 to 29, a group typically more hostile to Ford, he registers 33%, ahead of both Crombie (25%) and Stiles (12%).

This widespread appeal underscores the strength of his leadership brand: well-known, broadly accepted, and largely unchallenged.

The Upshot
This survey was conducted during a moment of significant political drama. The Ontario Liberal Party convention, marked by internal tension and Bonnie Crombie’s resignation, reflects a party in transition. The data suggest that many voters are tuning out, as Liberal support has eroded and Crombie’s personal brand has weakened.

Doug Ford, by contrast, remains a picture of stability, unmoved by the noise, and bolstered by broad, cross-demographic appeal. With a 28-point lead over the Liberals, majority approval, and unmatched name recognition, Ford and the PCs head into the fall on solid footing.

The NDP, still facing internal uncertainty ahead of their own convention, have yet to present a compelling alternative overshadowed by the weak national party brand. Their vote share remains flat, and Stiles continues to face significant recognition barriers.

Looking ahead, affordability, economic uncertainty, and leadership remain the dominant voter concerns. Right now, Ford is winning on all three.

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 1,021 eligible voters in Ontario from September 12 to 17, 2025.

The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.

The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Ontario’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

This survey was paid for by Abacus Data Inc.

Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements that can be found here: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

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 2021 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in the 2019, 2015, and 2011 federal elections.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Canadian Politics Provincial Politics

Is the Canadian public primed on what to expect from Budget 2025?

September 23, 2025

In mid-September, we surveyed over 2,200 Canadians to understand how people are thinking about the federal government’s upcoming fiscal plan. What do they expect to see? Who do they think will benefit? And how do they assess the broader state of federal finances?

We asked these questions not because public opinion sets the budget but because managing expectations is as much a part of policy making and politics as managing reaction to an announcement or the policy itself. When expectations and reality diverge sharply, the risk of negative public reaction grows. If the government fails to socialize its choices in advance, even broadly reasonable decisions can land poorly.

This research gives us a clear picture of where public opinion stands now and what that means heading into a high-stakes fall for the Carney government.

A Country Expecting Action But Unsure of the Trade-offs

When asked what kind of budget they think is coming, Canadians show a strong belief that something substantial is on the way but they differ in how they imagine the government will approach the country’s economic and fiscal challenges.

A plurality, 35%, believe the government will spend on new projects but find savings in other areas to help pay for them – the main message the government has been trying to communicate. This group expects targeted investments, but within a frame of relative restraint. Another 26% think the government will simply spend more across the board without any cuts, regardless of whether it increases the deficit. Fewer than one in five expect little to change, and only 14% anticipate a budget dominated by cuts.

Interestingly, we don’t see much difference regionally or across age groups. Older Canadians (60+), who we know are paying more attention to politics through traditional channels, are the most likely to think the budget will spend on new projects but cut in other areas.

Politically, Liberal and NDP voters are more likely to expect a mix of investment and austerity, whereas Conservative supporters are more likely to think the government will spend more without many cuts.

What’s Expected to Be in the Budget

When Canadians imagine the content of the upcoming budget, three themes dominate: investments in defence, infrastructure, housing and support for those impacted by tariffs.

Sixty-five percent believe the budget is likely to include more funding for the military and defence likely a reflection of the ongoing global security environment and the clear signals the government has sent about Canada’s NATO commitments. Sixty-one percent expect to see large-scale investments in infrastructure, energy, or transportation.

And notably, 58% anticipate specific measures to speed up housing construction. With affordability challenges dominating political conversation and personal finances alike, this isn’t surprising. These three items – defence, major projects, and housing – have been front and centre in communications and so far, that work has been largely successful in socializing the public to what’s coming.

There are lower expectation in other areas. Just over half think there will be cuts to day-to-day federal operations. At the same time, only a third believe personal income taxes will go down (although they already have earlier this year) and most do not expect sweeping tax relief for small businesses or individuals.

The pattern here is consistent with a public that recognizes fiscal pressure, but still wants the government to show it can respond to urgent needs. There’s no single dominant policy item people are counting on but the expectation is that the budget will not be status quo.

Who Canadians Think Will Benefit

One of the clearest signals from this research is the widespread skepticism about who the federal budget is actually going to serve.

When we asked Canadians to identify up to three groups they believe will benefit most, the most common answers were the military (38%), wealthier Canadians (34%), large corporations (32%), and industries like energy, mining, or manufacturing. A full third of the public expects the biggest winners of this budget to be those who already wield the most power and influence.

Far fewer Canadians expect the budget to prioritize families with kids (18%), renters or first-time homebuyers (14%), or small businesses (14%). Just one in ten believe seniors will benefit meaningfully. In short, the public expects a budget that will target certain sectors and will benefit those who are already well off.

There are stark political differences here. NDP and Bloc supporters are more likely to believe the wealthy and corporations will benefit, while Liberals are somewhat more likely to expect help cities and towns, the energy, mining, and manufacturing sectors, and small businesses. Conservative voters expect defence and major corporations to be benefit the most.

Financing the Plan: More Borrowing, Some Cuts, Little Clarity

We also asked people where they think the government will find money for its budget plans. The most common answer, chosen by 41%, is that the government will simply borrow more and run a bigger deficit. Another 38% expect the government to cut federal operations, likely by trimming the public service. A third expect higher taxes or fees that affect households directly.

Fewer believe the government will raise corporate taxes or taxes on the wealthy. There’s even less expectation that the government will reduce transfers to provinces or municipalities. Only about 1 in 4 expect that to happen.

The upshot is again fairly good priming of what is likely coming in the budget. Among Liberal Party supporters, about half believe the budget will cut back federal government operations by reducing the workforce in the federal public service. But there are many who don’t know much about how the government will finance new investments. People anticipate trade-offs, but they don’t necessarily believe those trade-offs will be explained clearly or made fairly. There is also a real risk that if the government announces cuts without accompanying investments in high-salience areas like housing or affordability, public reaction could skew sharply negative.

Fiscal Credibility: Low Expectations for Discipline

When we asked what Canadians expect the government to say about fiscal responsibility in the budget, the top answer — selected by 30% — was that the government won’t make any clear commitment at all.

Only about one in five expect the government to promise to keep Canada’s debt manageable relative to GDP. Another 22% think there will be a pledge to balance the budget by a certain year, but few expect the promise to be immediate or binding. Just 12% believe there will be any constraint on future spending growth.

This suggests that while many Canadians are concerned about fiscal sustainability, they do not expect it to be a major feature of the budget’s message. That opens the government up to criticism from those looking for reassurance on long-term fiscal discipline, particularly among older and more conservative respondents. But it also means that the public already expects a large deficit number.

A Budget Clouded by Pessimism about the Country’s Fiscal Position

Most believe the federal government is spending more than it brings in and a clear plurality think the gap is growing. Only 8% believe the government’s spending is closely aligned with revenues.

In a similar way, a plurality expect Budget 2025 to deliver a larger deficit or shortfall while 35% expect the same as last year. Liberals and Conservatives differ on expectations.

In terms of mood, 29% expect the budget to be bad news. Another 34% say it will be a mix of good and bad. Just 15% are expecting what could be called a “good news” budget.

That kind of backdrop — low confidence in finances, low expectations for equity, and little belief in fiscal discipline — makes the job of messaging and managing the budget rollout all the more critical. It does appear though that so far, the Carney government has done a fairly good job priming public expectations on the budget.

The Upshot

With just over a month to go before Budget 2025 is tabled, the federal government finds itself in a delicate but not unfavourable position: Canadians broadly expect a budget with meaningful investments and some restraint, but few feel confident about who will benefit or how it will all be paid for. The good news for the Carney government is that much of its high-level messaging has landed with some, likely those paying most attention. The less encouraging news is that most people remain skeptical about fairness, clarity, and the fiscal credibility of what’s coming and many don’t have any sense of what to expect from the budget.

The data show that the public expects action on the key files that Ottawa has repeatedly emphasized — housing, infrastructure, and defence. These issues have been sufficiently socialized to prime expectations, and most voters are aligned with the idea of targeted investment alongside operational restraint. That is the frame the government has sought to reinforce, and it is largely succeeding.

But success in shaping what people think will be in the budget doesn’t necessarily translate to support for how it will be delivered or who it will help. A full third of Canadians expect the biggest winners to be those with the most power already — the military, large corporations, and wealthy individuals. Just one in ten expect seniors to benefit, and expectations are similarly low for renters, families, or small businesses. That perception of imbalance — of the budget being skewed toward insiders or instittions — presents a clear political vulnerability. The government needs to connect the dots between its plan and vision and the day-to-day lives of people.

Crucially, there is no dominant belief in any single source of financing. Most expect more borrowing and larger deficits, but fewer believe there will be major tax increases or meaningful corporate contributions. And just 12% expect any real constraint on future spending. That leaves the government exposed on the question of fiscal credibility, particularly with older voters and those outside the progressive coalition.

So, what still needs to happen?

First, the government needs to personalize the upside by showing not just what the budget will contain, but who it’s meant to help. That story is currently vague and uneven. Second, it must begin to lay narrative track for how the budget will be financed, especially if restraint or sacrifice will be required. Third, it must reclaim credibility on fiscal discipline, not with abstract metrics, but through choices that feel targeted, purposeful, and fair.

The groundwork has been laid. But the next four weeks are about converting that expectation-setting into alignment and avoiding the perception that the budget, however well-constructed, simply missed the moment.

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 2,230 Canadians from September 12 to 17, 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 +/- 2.1%, 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.

Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements that can be found here: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/

The survey was paid for by Abacus Data Inc.

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

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.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Canadian Politics Politics

Canadians Want Action on Gender Parity in Politics

September 22, 2025

New research shows Canadians overwhelmingly support equal representation in politics—but give governments and political parties failing grades on progress so far.

Canadians have long seen gender equality as a defining value of our democracy. But recent polling conducted by Abacus Data for Informed Perspectives reveals a sharp disconnect between Canadians’ commitment to parity and the lack of progress in political representation.

Canadians Expect More

Nearly all Canadians want to see more being done to achieve gender parity in politics. Many are surprised, even disappointed, to learn that Canada ranks just 71st globally in women’s representation—a decline from 59th a few years ago. Four in ten Canadians say they are surprised by Canada’s low global standing, and nearly as many say they are disappointed that more progress hasn’t been made.

The data also show a broader frustration: 30% of Canadians describe Canadian society as inequitable—an opinion ten points higher among women than men.

A Core Canadian Value

Gender parity is not a fringe concern. It is a core belief for Canadians across political affiliations and demographics. Eighty-six percent say equal representation of men and women in politics is important at all levels of government, a finding consistent since 2022. Importantly, support cuts across lines of gender and party preference.

Canadians also believe that parity brings concrete benefits:

84% say it leads to policies that better reflect the realities and needs of the broader population.
81% say it increases respect in political dialogue.
78% say it boosts government productivity.
78% say it fosters more cross-partisan collaboration.

For most Canadians, parity is about building a democracy that works better for everyone.

Canadians want Institutional Involvement

Yet expectations remain clear: around seven in ten Canadians, and nearly eight in ten when it comes to the federal government, want each of these institutions and groups to play a big role in ensuring women have an equal voice in politics.

Pathways Forward

Canadians strongly support learning from international examples and adopting proven strategies here at home. Enforcing greater civility and respect in debates (73%) and changing conditions of work for elected officials (69%) top the list of reforms Canadians see as both effective and necessary.

Support is also growing for more ambitious measures. A majority now favour requiring parties to nominate a minimum number of women candidates (58%, up four points since last measured) and to run women in winnable ridings (56%, up four points). There is also majority support for legislatures, including the House of Commons, to ensure a minimum number of women are elected representatives.

Across the board, more than seven in ten Canadians believe these measures would help Canada achieve parity—including men and women, and supporters of all major federal parties.

Upshot
Canadians are clear: gender parity is fundamental to the health of our democracy. They believe it strengthens our economy, improves decision-making, and reflects the values of equality we aspire to as a country. But they are equally clear that governments and political parties are not doing enough.

With Canada sliding in international rankings, the choice is stark: act now with proven strategies to ensure women are equal partners in shaping our future, or risk further erosion of Canada’s democratic credibility.

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 2,000 adult Canadians over the age of 18 from July 31 to August 5, 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%, 19 times out of 20.

Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements that can be found here: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/

This poll was paid for by Informed Perspectives.

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

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.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.

Blog Canadian Politics Insights Public Policy

9 in 10 Canadians are Concerned About the State of Housing in Canada Today

Bridging Generations in the Workplace: What our Research Tells Us

Abacus Data Poll: Liberals and Conservatives Locked in Tight Race as Cost of Living Concerns Surge

Abacus Data Poll: Edmonton Voters Focused on Stability and Affordability as Mayoral Race Heats Up

The Politics of Safety: Why Bail Reform Is Striking a Chord with Canadians

Canadian Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy

Most Ontarians Skeptical of Ford’s Push to Eliminate School Trustees, Want Investment in Public Education

Abacus Data Ontario Poll: PCs Steady at 52% as Crombie Resigns Amid Liberal Convention Fallout

Is the Canadian public primed on what to expect from Budget 2025?

Canadians Want Action on Gender Parity in Politics

Menu

Contact

Join our newsletter