Abacus Data BC Poll: Eby Government Holds the Edge a Year After the Provincial Election

A new Abacus Data survey of 1,000 eligible voters in British Columbia offers a timely snapshot of provincial public opinion, suggesting that Premier David Eby and the BC NDP are relatively strong position as the parliamentary session resumes today, just over a year after the last provincial election. More residents approve than disapprove of the government’s performance and the BC NDP has a modest but meaningful lead over the BC Conservatives.

A Government with a Net Positive Image

While British Columbians remain more likely to say the province is on the wrong track (49%) than the right direction (31%), evaluations of the Eby government itself are notably more favourable. Four in ten residents (40%) say they approve of the performance of the provincial government, compared to 31% who disapprove—a nine-point net positive rating.

The BC NDP’s approval rating is highest among younger residents aged 18 to 29 (54%) and lowest among the 45 to 59 group (34%). Geographically, Eby’s approval is slightly higher in the Lower Mainland (42%) than in the rest of the province (38%).

Favourable views are concentrated among voters who backed the federal NDP or Liberals in 2025, where approval climbs to 62% and 59%, respectively. Disapproval is sharpest among federal Conservative voters, 56% of whom disapprove of the BC government.

Seven-Point Lead for the BC NDP Among Decided Voters

Among committed voters—those who have made up their minds about how they would vote if a provincial election were held today—the BC NDP leads with 47% of the vote, ahead of the BC Conservatives at 40%. The BC Greens attract 8% of the committed vote, while new and smaller parties like CentreBC and OneBC remain marginal at 3% and 1%, respectively. 26% of those we surveyed overall said they were undecided.

Deep Divides by Federal Voting Behaviour

Provincial vote intention continues to align closely with federal partisanship. Almost 3 in 4 federal Liberal voters would support the BC NDP. Among those who voted NDP federally in 2025, 85% now say they would vote BC NDP provincially. Similarly, 85% of federal Conservative voters would vote for the BC Conservatives.

Regional and Age-Based Variations in Partisan Strength

The BC NDP’s strength remains most concentrated in Metro Vancouver, where they hold a nine-point lead over the Conservatives (50% vs. 41%). Outside the Lower Mainland, the race is somewhat closer, with the NDP at 41% and the Conservatives at 37% among committed voters.

Age-based patterns continue to shape the provincial landscape. The NDP performs best among seniors (53%) and those under 30 (43%), while the Conservatives are strongest with 30- to 44-year-olds (47%).

The Upshot

As the fall session of the legislature begins, Premier David Eby and the BC NDP enter the political season in a relatively strong but not unassailable position. While nearly half of British Columbians say the province is on the wrong track, the government itself continues to hold a net positive approval rating, something difficult to achieve in an anxious, economically uncertain climate. Dissatisfaction with the direction of the province has not yet translated into a decisive desire for change in government.

The seven-point NDP lead over the BC Conservatives among decided voters signals a competitive but still NDP-leaning landscape. The governing party’s advantage rests on its durable base in Metro Vancouver and strong support among both younger and older voters. But that lead narrows outside the Lower Mainland, where the Conservatives remain formidable and where economic and resource-sector concerns weigh heavily.

At the same time, the opposition landscape is fragmented. Internal challenges within the BC Conservative Party like the leadership review and defections have complicated leader John Rustad’s efforts to consolidate the momentum his party built into last year’s provincial election. The emergence of new competitors on the centre and right, including parties such as CentreBC and OneBC, further divides the change vote. Together, these dynamics make it harder for those who want a change in government to coalesce around a single alternative to the NDP.

There is increased alignment between federal and provincial politics: federal NDP and Liberal voters overwhelmingly back the BC NDP, while federal Conservatives align almost entirely behind the provincial Conservatives. That overlap means shifts in the national mood, particularly at the federal level, could quickly shape provincial preferences.

For now, Eby’s government holds the upper hand—but in a province where optimism is fragile and the appetite for change runs just beneath the surface, that edge could evaporate quickly if the opposition ever finds a way to unite.

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 1,000 eligible voters in British Columbia from October 9 to 15, 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 +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.

The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched BC’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, 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/

This survey was paid for by Abacus Data Inc.

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

Provincial Politics

Abacus Data Poll: Political Deadlock Persists as Carney Navigates Trump and Trade Pressure

Between October 9 and 15, 2025, Abacus Data surveyed 4,501 Canadian adults on the current state of federal politics. The findings show a landscape largely unchanged at the topline — a deadlocked race between the Liberals and Conservatives, steady impressions of Prime Minister Mark Carney, and consistent anxieties about cost of living and economic stability.

But this wave also captured a moment of high political visibility, as Carney’s trip to Washington and his high-stakes meeting with President Donald Trump dominated headlines. That moment — and Canadians’ reaction to it — offers new insight into how voters are evaluating Carney’s leadership on the world stage and the strategic space the Conservatives are working to exploit.

Trump, Trade, and Perceptions of Carney’s Performance + Would a Poilievre Government Do any Better?

The October tracking captured a rare high-visibility political moment: Prime Minister Mark Carney’s trip to Washington and his televised meeting with President Donald Trump. A full 74% of Canadians said they had seen or heard something about the visit, including 83% of those aged 60 and over, and 82% of past Liberal voters. In contrast, just 62% of younger Canadians (18–29) reported awareness, and even fewer had watched the Oval Office press conference.

How Canadians learned about the Carney–Trump meeting underscores the generational divide not just in media consumption — but in political perception. While TV news remains the dominant channel overall (41%), it was the overwhelming source for older Canadians: 53% of those aged 60+ got their information this way, compared to just 30% among those under 45. Younger people, by contrast, were far more likely to rely on YouTube (31% of 18–29s), TikTok (13%), and X/Twitter (15%).

In other words, the same event was being filtered through very different media ecosystems. For older voters, the Oval Office meeting was delivered through the traditional lens of diplomacy, legacy institutions, and broadcast framing — all formats that tend to reinforce seriousness and stature. Younger Canadians, meanwhile, were more likely to encounter the moment in clipped, algorithm-driven formats, with lower trust thresholds and higher exposure to commentary or satire. That matters. Because while most Canadians saw the same images of Trump and Carney side-by-side, how they saw them — and what context surrounded them — likely shaped whether they came away reassured, confused, or disengaged.

This exposure gap matters, especially when it comes to shaping perceptions of leadership. Older Canadians were not only the most likely to see the meeting, they were also the most likely to approve of how Carney handled it: fully 74% in Atlantic Canada, 72% in Quebec, 65% in Ontario, and 92% of Liberal voters said he performed well. That performance rating was strongest among those already inclined to support the government, but even among softer segments like BQ voters or even Conservative voters, 63% and 39% gave Carney positive marks.

What’s more, we continue to see a pattern: when Trump is front and centre in the political conversation, the Liberal vote share among older voters grows. This wave is no exception. Among those aged 60+, the Liberals lead by 11 points over the Conservatives (47% to 36%) — their largest margin among any age cohort. The effect is amplified by the fact that older voters are also the most likely to get their information through conventional media — 53% watched TV news coverage, compared to just 30% of 18–29-year-olds, who consumed content more through YouTube, TikTok, or didn’t engage at all.

Still, this wasn’t a political slam dunk. While two-thirds said Carney handled the moment well (66% feel that way), the public is split on the government’s broader trade strategy. Just 39% believe the Carney government is striking the right balance with Trump, while the rest are divided between believing the approach is too soft (21%), unclear (21%), or too aggressive (6%).

And expectations are low: only 14% think the negotiations will yield a fair and stable agreement, while most (52%) expect either real damage to the Canadian economy or a deal that still hurts key sectors. Importantly, most Canadians don’t see a clear alternative.

And yet, despite the heightened visibility and relatively strong marks for Carney’s performance, public opinion on the broader U.S. relationship remains cautious and doesn’t decisively favour either party. When asked whether things would be better under Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, just 29% agreed, while 32% said things would be worse, and a plurality of 40% said it wouldn’t make much difference because, in their words, “Trump is Trump.”

What’s striking is how little partisan consensus exists outside core bases: while a majority of Conservative voters (56%) believe Poilievre would improve Canada–U.S. relations, just 22% in Quebec and 29% in Ontario share that view. Conversely, more than half (54%) of Liberal voters believe Poilievre would make things worse, but that view is far from universal.

The fact that a plurality of Canadians default to the idea that “Trump is Trump” — that he shapes outcomes more than any Canadian leader could — reflects both realism and resignation. It also reveals a key communications risk for both parties: Canadians see Trump as unpredictable and dominant. That makes it harder for either Carney or Poilievre to frame themselves as having decisive influence. But in a climate where control is elusive, perception of competence matters, and in this case, voters appear more likely to reward steady stewardship over promises of tougher talk. For now, the Liberal strategy of managing rather than confronting Trump seems to be playing better with the broader public, particularly among older and more risk-averse voters.

The data points to a public that’s paying attention and not yet panicking. Most believe Carney held his own with Trump, and few are convinced Poilievre would do better. But there is an undercurrent of doubt about whether Canada is navigating these negotiations with enough clarity and resolve.

For the Carney government, the communications imperative is clear: project competence without appearing conciliatory. Reinforcing the notion that managing Trump’s unpredictability is a mark of leadership, not weakness, will be critical in the weeks ahead.

For the Conservatives, the challenge is harder. Despite efforts to frame Carney as weak or too diplomatic, most voters don’t believe they’d fare better under Poilievre. The “tougher with Trump” card might not play unless it’s backed by a more credible alternative vision and not just contrast.

Direction of the Country: Static but Not Improving

The public mood remains stalled. Only 34% say the country is headed in the right direction — unchanged from two weeks ago — while 48% believe we’re on the wrong track.

Global sentiment remains bleak: just 14% feel optimistic about the direction of the world, and only 13% feel that way about the U.S. under Trump.

Top Issues: Affordability, Economy, and Trump Drive Concern

The rising cost of living remains the top concern for 62% of Canadians, unchanged from the last wave. The economy (38%, +3) and Donald Trump and his administration (35%, +2) round out the top three — reinforcing that both domestic affordability and international volatility are front-of-mind.

Other priorities like healthcare (35%), housing (34%), and immigration (29%) remain elevated, while crime has dipped slightly (17%, -4).

Government Approval: Stable and Generally Positive

Approval of the federal government led by Mark Carney sits at 48%, up two points from to two weeks ago. Disapproval is at 32%, unchanged from our previous survey.

The government’s approval remains 16 points above disapproval, a healthy gap for any government, especially one negotiating in a volatile international climate and navigating a very anxious public.

Leader Impressions: Carney Still Ahead

Mark Carney’s personal favourables remain solid and steady. 46% view him positively, while 31% hold a negative view, for a net favourability of +15 largely unchanged since August.

By contrast, Pierre Poilievre continues to lag, with a net favourability of -3 (39% positive, 42% negative).

Vote Intention Unchanged from Last Wave

If an election were held today: Conservatives: 41% (NC), Liberals: 40% (NC), NDP: 8% (+1), Bloc: 7% (NC), Greens 3%

Among those certain to vote, the Conservatives have a 3-point edge (43% vs 40%) — a slight shift that could matter in a close election if turnout patterns hold.

Regional Spotlight (note we had large samples in British Columbia and Ontario)

Ontario: Liberals and Conservatives statistically tied (44% to 43%)

BC: Statistical tie with Conservatives at 42% and the Liberals at 40%.

Alberta: Conservatives dominate at 61% to 27% for the Liberals.

Manitoba: Conservatives at 42% vs. 39% for the Liberals

Saskatchewan: Conservatives 59% and the Liberals at 29%.

Atlantic Canada: Liberals lead 54% to 38% for the Conservatives.

Quebec: Liberals at 36%, BQ at 33%, Conservatives at 23%

Interesting Generation and Life-Stage Dynamics

The generational divide in federal vote intention in this wave is striking(with a much larger sample size which improves confidence), with the most recent data highlighting a notable shift among older Canadians.

Among those aged 60 and over, the Liberals now lead by 11 points — 47% to the Conservatives’ 36%. This is a marked contrast from younger cohorts, where the choice is much tighter or even tilting Conservative. For example, among 45–59 year-olds, the Conservatives lead by 9 points (46% to 37%), and among 30–44 year-olds, the same – 9 points (44% to 35%).

But it’s that Boomer cohort where the Liberal advantage has re-emerged.

What’s important to note is that this widening lead among older voters consistently coincides with moments when Donald Trump dominates the news cycle. With Trump ranking as a top concern rising slightly again (the #1 issue for Boomers is Donald Trump (51%) vs healthcare at 44%), the Prime Minister’s brand continues to have a omparative edge among voters who are more risk-averse and fearful of the consequences of Trump’s leadership.

The Upshot

According to Abacus Data CEO David Coletto: “We continue to see a stable and tightly contested political environment. The Carney government’s numbers are holding — not breaking through, but not slipping either. And the Prime Minister’s handling of his meeting with Donald Trump appears to have reassured most voters, even if broader concerns about trade outcomes remain.

This wave reinforces a familiar story: a country on economic edge, but not in political flux. Most Canadians are tuned in, wary of Trump’s influence, and watching closely to see how the Carney government handles the storm.

For Carney, the opportunity lies in consistency. His brand remains stronger than his party’s, and his handling of high-profile moments — like the Trump visit — can help build the contrast needed to differentiate himself from both Trudeau’s legacy and the Conservative alternative.

The Conservatives continue to lead on cost-of-living concerns, but haven’t yet convinced voters that they’d offer a stronger hand in dealing with Trump or global uncertainty. And in an environment this tight, that absence of reassurance might be just as impactful as the presence of discontent.

With high visibility moments continuing and economic risks looming, stability may be Carney’s best asset, but the pressure to show strength is mounting.”

Methodology

The survey was conducted with 4,501 Canadians from October 9 to 15, 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 +/- 1.5%, 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

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

Canadian PoliticsPolitics

Canada’s Natural Advantage: A Path to Economic Prosperity and Climate Leadership

New research shows Canadians see nature as a powerful economic asset – and they’re ready to support action.

Every year, conversations about Canada’s economic future tend to circle around the same themes: innovation, technology, and global competitiveness. But in times defined by uncertainty – from economic instability and rising costs of living to political turbulence and technological disruption – many Canadians are turning to something more familiar as a source of strength: nature.

Our latest research reveals a powerful story hiding in plain sight: Canadians overwhelmingly agree that nature is not just worth protecting, it’s one of our greatest economic advantages.

Balancing two priorities

Canadians today are juggling two major concerns. A strong majority, 83%, believe climate change is happening and that governments should act. At the same time, 79% express high degree of concern about the state of the economy.

Our data shows that these two ideas aren’t thought of as necessarily distinct. There is near-universal recognition among Canadians that nature is central to Canada’s economic future:

  • 91% agree nature is one of Canada’s most valuable economic assets.
  • 90% agree nature is a powerful resource for building a sustainable, proudly Canadian economy.
  • 87% believe investing in nature can secure Canada’s long-term resilience and independence.
  • And 93% say it’s important for Canada to position nature as a key economic asset.

These are views that cut across party lines and regions, pointing to a shared belief that nature isn’t a nice-to-have thing, it’s a strategic advantage.

Enter nature-based solutions

At the intersection of both economic and environmental anxieties is the idea of nature-based solutions, an approach addressing both these interrelated concerns without forcing a choice between them. 

Nature-based solutions are practical actions that use Canada’s forests, soils, wetlands, and waters to tackle environmental challenges while creating economic and community benefits. They include practices like reforestation, wetland restoration, sustainable farming, and urban greening – approaches that reduce climate risks, support healthy ecosystems, and strengthen local and Indigenous economies.

Even though only one in three Canadians were initially familiar with the term Nature-Based Solutions, once explained, 85% support pursuing them. About 8 in 10 support the federal government helping businesses transition their operations to adopt these approaches, and three in four (75%) support the federal government dedicating more of its existing investment portfolio to encourage private investment in nature-based solutions.

Nature as a defining economic opportunity

In a world where Canada is working to define its economic brand and open new markets, nature remains one of our strongest calling cards. It’s part of how the world already sees us and part of what Canadians overwhelmingly believe can power our future. The greatest opportunities for growth and resilience lie in the landscapes and communities that define Canada: our forests, farms, wetlands, and Indigenous-managed lands.

7 in 10 Canadians agree that, given current economic uncertainties, the country should strengthen policies and incentives that encourage nature-based practices to improve resilience and stability. The same share believe it’s more important than ever to differentiate Canada’s economic direction from that of the U.S. by valuing nature as a competitive advantage.

This research makes one thing clear: Canadians are ready to embrace nature not just as something to preserve, but as the foundation for our shared well-being, resilience, and future.

The Upshot

Canadians are in a period of heightened uncertainty, balancing deep economic anxiety with enduring concern about climate change. Against this backdrop, nature stands out as a rare source of confidence and consensus. Canadians across demographics and political stripes overwhelmingly view nature – including our forests, farmlands, wetlands, and Indigenous-managed lands- as a valuable economic asset, a powerful resource for building a sustainable, resilient economy, and an important part of Canada’s national strategy.  

Public attitudes toward nature-based solutions offer a rare foundation of social license. While people may not be talking about these policies unprompted, they’re not opposing them either – and when they learn more, they like what they hear. This creates room to articulate a vision that connects nature to prosperity, security, and Canadian identity.

This shared confidence presents a unique opening to advance policies that strengthen economic resilience and environmental leadership together, rather than forcing a choice between the two. Canadians also want to see the federal government play a leading role -from taking stronger action on climate change to investing more in nature-based approaches and supporting businesses and communities to adopt them.

Overall, there is broad support for nature-based solutions and a clear desire to see them put into practice.

About the research

This research was conducted by Abacus Data for Nature United.

The survey of 2,500 Canadian adults was conducted September 12–19, 2025, with oversamples in British Columbia and Manitoba.

Data were weighted by age, gender, education, and region to reflect the national population.

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

Canadian PoliticsEnvironment & Climate ChangePublic Policy

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

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

Canadian PoliticsHousing

Bridging Generations in the Workplace: What our Research Tells Us

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.

HappinessMillennialsShe/Her/HersTechnologyWorkplace

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

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

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

Canadian PoliticsPolitics

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

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

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

PoliticsPublic Policy

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

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

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

Canadian PoliticsInsightsPublic Policy

Canadian Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy

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

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

Canadian PoliticsInsightsProvincial PoliticsPublic Policy

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

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

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.

Contact us with any questions.

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

InsightsProvincial Politics