Canadians believe the future of consumer vehicle market will be defined by electric vehicles, and they hope it happens pretty quickly, according to the second in a series of exclusive polls by Abacus Data and Clean Energy Canada.
• Most (64%) say that if it were up to them, electric cars would become the majority of vehicles that consumers drive at some point in the future. And even more (72%) say that this is bound to happen at some point.
• The desire to see electric cars eclipse gasoline-powered vehicles is stronger among younger people and outside Alberta, but even half of Albertans, 54% of the Silent Generation, and 46% of Conservative voters say they would like to see this happen.
• Asked how long it will take for this shift to occur, 71% predict it will happen in 15 years or less, including 56% who say it will happen in 10 years or less.
• Asked what the ideal timing for this shift would be, 79% hope it happens in 10 years or less, including about half (49%) who would like to see it within 5 years.
• If they were buying a new car, more consumers would lean towards an electric vehicle, rather than a gas model. 10% say they are certain they would buy an electric vehicle, and another 14% say they are very likely to.
• The growth in interest in electric vehicles appears to be happening for several reasons. Very large majorities see climate and air quality upsides to electric vehicles compared to gasoline-powered cars. But now 2 out of 3 people also see fuel cost advantages for electric vehicles. On none of the criteria tested, including maintenance cost, reliability, and driving enjoyment, do gasoline-powered cars enjoy a significant perception advantage.
• Among the factors that would be important in influencing more people to consider an electric vehicle, at the top of the list is knowing that there are more charging stations and that charging time is quick. Many also say that knowing fuel and maintenance costs are lower for electric vehicles, and improvements to batter technology would be important to them.
• Majorities support governments offering rebates or purchase incentives to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles and investing public funds to strengthen recharging infrastructure. Less than 15% would oppose either of those measures. Support for both cuts across regional, generational and party lines.
QUOTES
“Canadians are excited about electric cars and the chance to cut both fuel costs and pollution. It’s a win-win for commuters, and it’s why both interest—and perception of inevitability—keeps growing. More and more Canadians want to choose electric for their next vehicle, and governments have the opportunity to make it easier for them to make that choice through purchase rebates or tax incentives and by investing in charging infrastructure. The federal government has ambitious but achievable targets for getting more electric cars on the road. Now they need to support Canadians’ desire to make it happen.”
—Dan Woynillowicz, Policy Director, Clean Energy Canada
“The first electric car was invented before Ford’s Model T, and then growth in the technology stalled out for about a hundred years. But the confluence of concerns about climate change, air quality, and a sense that the technology is both greatly improved and more affordable suggest that the world may be poised for a remarkable acceleration of electric vehicles. Public policy can play a major role in the pace of this change – with charging infrastructure high up on the list of things that governments can do. Skepticism about electric vehicles may have been a good bet for the last 20 years, but skeptics may want to hedge that bet now.”
—Bruce Anderson, Chairman, Abacus Data
METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted online with 1,495 Canadian residents aged 18 and over, from March 11th to 13th, 2019.
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 +/- 2.45%, 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.
Bruce Anderson Chairman Abacus Data 613-882-0929 banderson@abacusdata.ca
Clean Energy Canada is a climate and energy think tank housed at the Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University. We work to accelerate our nation’s transition to a clean and renewable energy system.
ABOUT ABACUS DATA
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy. We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and exceptional value.
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
Don’t miss any of our releases and receive our weekly “Worth a Look” newsletter by signing up for our email list. We promise no more than 2 emails a week… unless there’s something really important we want to share.
Our most recent survey of attitudes towards a Canadian pharmacare initiative commissioned by the Canadian Life and Health Association (1,200 interviews, conducted between February 26 and March 3, 2019) reveals strong support for the idea of helping improve the affordability of medicine for those who have no drug insurance today, coupled with a broad desire to see any federal tax expenditures focused on those who need help and lack coverage today.
KEY FINDINGS – CURRENT AFFORDABILITY
• 93% agree “it’s time to fix this gap in Canadian health care and make sure no one suffers because they cannot afford medicine”
• 83% agree “government should not spend tax dollars on those who already have decent drug coverage”
• 3 out of 4 respondents (77%) have some form of insurance coverage that helps them with the cost of medicines they need. 23% of respondents have no coverage.
• About 3 out of 4 Canadians (73%) report that the medicines they need are affordable for them. This includes 83% among those who have group health insurance benefits.
• Among respondents who have no coverage of any kind today, 45% say medicines are unaffordable.
• Most (74%) of those with insurance have a co-pay requirement. Almost all of those who do have a co-pay say the cost is affordable or affordable enough (88%).
KEY FINDINGS – NATIONAL POLICY CHOICES
A large majority (86%) say the Task Force on national pharmacare is an important or very important initiative. This cuts across party lines and includes people who have coverage today as well as those who do not. Half say that the issue will affect how they will vote this fall and half say it will have little or no effect.
• A majority (76%) think it is likely that if the federal government provided free drug coverage to everyone, employers might see this as an opportunity to drop the rest of the group benefits that employees enjoy. Among those in a group plan today, half say there is a good or very good chance that this could happen to their group plan.
• Canadians would put the greatest priority on helping seniors on fixed incomes who have a challenge with deductibles, followed by people working lower-wage jobs with no benefits.
• At the top of the list of considerations that people want to see taken into account in the design of a pharmacare initiative are i) ensuring those with no coverage can afford the drugs they need, ii) negotiating lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, and ii) limiting the impact on taxes or the deficit. Each is seen as crucial or very important by large majorities.
We tested two policy options: a plan for companies and government to collaborate to ensure current plans stay intact while everyone has affordable access to the medicines they need, and the idea of a single plan covering everyone, but possibly with fewer drugs covered than some might enjoy today. The first approach found 94% support, the second 55% opposition.
Presented with a choice between one party promising to “cover the most common drugs for those with no insurance” and another party promising a “government program that would cover everyone with a narrower range of drugs than those who currently have insurance are covered for” 70% favoured the approach that targeted help to those without insurance. This result was highly consistent across party lines.
Finally, we tested a scenario where the Liberals might propose a targeted program and the Conservatives might argue that the initiative was unneeded and unaffordable. In that scenario, 65% said they would side with the Liberals in support of a targeted approach.
KEY FINDINGS – TRUST
Employers, doctors, patient advocacy groups and group benefits providers enjoy the highest levels of trust when it comes to this policy issue, with pharma companies finding the least amount of public trust.
CONCLUSIONS
Most Canadians find they can afford the medicines they need today if they have an insurance plan of one sort or another. About half of those who don’t have insurance say their drugs are unaffordable. Canadians broadly like the initiative of the federal government to close this gap in Canadian health care, but the clear preference is to do nothing that would put current coverage levels at risk for those who have insurance and to target federal expenditures on those who don’t have coverage today.
METHODOLOGY
The survey was commissioned by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association survey was conducted online with 1,200 Canadians aged 18 and over from February 26 to March 3, 2019. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 2.0%, 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.
As the weekend comes to a close and we all adjust to the time change, I wanted to share the latest results of our daily tracking.
Since February 28, we have been interviewing 300 people each day and rolling 3 days of data into a snapshot of public opinion over those three days.
Over the three days, we interview a representative sample of 900 Canadian adults online. The comparable margin of error is +/- 3.3%, 19 times out of 20. Each wave is weighted to match the Canadian population by age, gender, region, language, and educational attainment.
Here’s a quick look at some of the dynamics our tracking has captured:
The Conservatives have a slight lead over the Liberals. Based on the sample size, there’s an 89% chance the Conservatives are in the lead. There’s an 11% chance the Liberals are ahead.
Mr. Trudeau’s personal image remains in the red. The gap between those with a positive view and those with a negative one has persisted since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony.
But Mr. Scheer’s image hasn’t benefited from the SNC-Lavalin controversy. Those with a positive view of the Conservative leader has dropped 5 points since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. Mr. Singh has seen almost no change in impressions over this period, which also included his by-election win in Burnaby South at the end of February.By Saturday, Mr. Trudeau had opened up an 8-point lead over Mr. Scheer on who Canadians would prefer as PM after the next election. Attention to the controversy hasn’t really changed since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. All the movement is within the comparable margin of error.The percentage of those thinking Prime Minister Trudeau should resign has declined over time. Yesterday, 34% were inclined to say “yes” he should resign, the lowest we have tracked since February 28.
ABOUT ABACUS DATA
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy. We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and exceptional value.
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
Don’t miss any of our releases and receive our weekly “Worth a Look” newsletter by signing up for our email list. We promise no more than 2 emails a week… unless there’s something really important we want to share.
Over recent weeks we have been polling Canadian political attitudes regularly and feel we have a good data set to gauge the impact of the controversy to date, based on a total of more than 8,800 interviews conducted between January 30 and March 4, 2019.
Between January 30 and February 26, we have three snapshots taken before or after significant moments in the timeline of the controversy. Since February 28, we have been conducting 300 interviews daily and report a three-day roll-up of the results in this report.
Each snapshot is weighted to match the Canadian population independently.
—
Wave 1: Conducted from January 30 to February 5, 2019, and interviewed 2,500 Canadian adults. All interviews were conducted prior to the Globe and Mail story on about Ms. Wilson-Raybould and SNC-Lavalin.
Wave 2: Conducted from February 8 to 11, 2019 and interviewed 2,500 Canadian adults. All interviews were conducted prior to Ms. Wilson-Raybould resigning from Cabinet.
Wave 3: Conducted from February 22 to 26, 2019 and interviewed 2,347 Canadian adults. All interviews were conducted after Mr. Butts resigned as Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister.
3-Day Rolling survey: Conducted from February 28 to March 4, 2019, with 300 interviews being conducted daily. Results reported include a three-day rolling sample with a total sample size of 900. At times in this report, we report on the entire 1,500 interviews conducted between this period. All interviews were conducted after Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony and before Dr. Philpott’s resignation from cabinet and Mr. Butt’s testimony to the Justice Committee.
—
Over the course of these snapshots, we asked the same questions which allow us to compare responses and assess the impact of events across this period. During the rolling survey portion, we also asked how closely people were following the results and whether they believe the Prime Minister should resign because of the controversy.
We also include results from our last national survey conducted at the end of December as a reference point.
Here’s what we found:
VOTING INTENTIONS
The Conservatives and Liberals have been within two points of each other for most of February. Following Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, Liberal support dropped slightly while Conservative support increased. The six-point Conservative lead nationally is the largest Conservative lead over the Liberals we have registered in our polling since the last federal election.
When we roll up all the interviews conducted since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, we find the Conservatives lead in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba by a large margin and have opened up a 7-point lead in Ontario. The Liberals lead by 14-points in Quebec and 9-points in Atlantic Canada. In BC, we find a close race between the Conservatives and Liberals.
APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
Since December 2018, approval of the federal government is down 8-points with the sharpest drop happening after Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. Almost half of Canadians now say they disapprove of the government’s performance – the highest we have registered since the last election.
IMPRESSIONS OF JUSTIN TRUDEAU
Positive impressions have declined 11-points since December from 44% to 33%, negatives have risen from 37% to 46%. Views of Mr. Trudeau changed more rapidly after last week’s testimony by Ms. Wilson-Raybould and have stayed consistent over the past week.
IMPRESSIONS OF ANDREW SCHEER
Impressions of Mr. Scheer have not changed much over the period of this study. In December, 30% had a favourable view while 29% had an unfavourable view. As of March 4, those numbers are basically identical: 30% positive and 26% negative.
IMPRESSIONS OF JAGMEET SINGH
Positive impressions of Mr. Singh have moved not moved much over this period staying around 20%. Negative impressions have hovered around 30%. We do see evidence yet that his by-election victory on February 25 has changed the public’s impression of the NDP leader.
PREFERRED PRIME MINISTER
When we ask respondents who they would prefer to be Prime Minister after the next election, our most recent sounding finds 35% preferring Mr. Trudeau, down 10-points since December and 4-points since the Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. 33% prefer Mr. Scheer, up 4-points since December and up a marginal 2-points since before Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. 13% would prefer Mr. Singh or Ms. May to be Prime Minister while 7% would choose Mr. Bernier.
ATTENTION BEING PAID TO THE CONTROVERSY
Since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, we have been tracking how closely Canadians have been following news about the controversy. Overall, we don’t see any change since last week with about 40% saying they are following the story very or pretty closely, about half being aware but not following it much at all and about 14% who say they haven’t heard about the story before.
As expected, attention being paid to this controversy is closely related to one’s partisanship. Conservative partisans are the most likely to be following the story closely followed by Liberal identifiers. Only 36% and 26% of NDP and non-partisans are following the story closely respectively.
SHOULD PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU RESIGN?
We also ask respondents whether they think the Prime Minister should resign because of these events. Since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, about 40% of Canadians are inclined to think the Prime Minister should resign while about 45 to 48% (over this period) feel he shouldn’t resign. An equal number definitely think he should resign and definitely think he shouldn’t resign.
Those following the news of the controversy more closely are more likely to think the Prime Minister should resign – although opinion is still fairly divided.
When we compare results across party identification, we find that Conservatives are far more likely to think the Prime Minister should resign than other Canadians. 48% think he should definitely resign while another 27% are inclined to think he should. 15% of Conservatives don’t think he should resign.
In contrast, only 5% of Liberal partisans think the PM should definitely resign with almost eight in ten saying they don’t think he should or definitely should not resign.
Among non-partisans, 32% are inclined to think he should resign, 46% are inclinded to think he shouldn’t resign and 22% are not sure.
UPSHOT
According to Bruce Anderson: “The 2015 election was a volatile and competitive one, and 10 weeks into 2019, it seems this year’s election might be as dynamic. If experience has taught us anything it is to resist the temptation to predict in March what voters will consider important in October. What we can tell is that a substantial enough number of people have been following the SNC Lavalin question, and the narrative they have been exposed to, has shaken up the political landscape, and created opportunities for the Conservatives and greater risks for the Liberal Party.”
According to David Coletto: “We’ve been tracking how Canadians are reacting to the events surrounding SNC-Lavalin and Ms. Wilson-Raybould for the past month. Our data gives us a unique ability to assess the impact of these events on public opinion.
What our data shows is the controversy has impacted public attitudes towards the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. The Liberals now trail the Conservatives by 6-points, the largest Conservative lead in our tracking since the 2015 election. The government’s approval rating is down 8-points since December and 4-points since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. More people now have a negative view of the Prime Minister than a positive one – the first time since last March that our surveys have found this and about as many people would prefer Mr. Trudeau to be the prime minister after the next election as would Mr. Scheer – a big shift since the end of last year.
And this all before Dr. Philpott’s resignation on Monday.
At the same time, we haven’t seen any noticeable improvement in views towards either Mr. Scheer or Mr. Singh. While vote intention has moved in the Conservative’s favour, Mr. Trudeau still leads Mr. Scheer on who people would prefer as prime minister after the election. And despite his by-election win last week, the public’s view of Mr. Singh remains more negative than positive.
But this controversy is still primarily about the Prime Minister. Before Dr. Philpott’s resignation, most Canadians didn’t think the Prime Minister needed to resign over this controversy. Only one in five Canadians felt he should definitely resign. The same number felt he definitely should not resign. Most are somewhere in between.
It’s clear this controversy has hurt the Prime Minister’s reputation and with it the entire government. How people react to Dr. Philpott’s resignation and the additional testimony to come this week may further impact these opinions. We will continue to track opinion dynamics.”
Don’t miss any of our releases and receive our weekly “Worth a Look” newsletter by signing up for our email list. We promise no more than 2 emails a week… unless there’s something really important we want to share.
METHODOLOGY
Wave 1: Our survey was conducted online with 2,500 Canadians aged 18 and over from January 30 to February 5, 2019. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 2.0%, 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.
Wave 2: Our survey was conducted online with 2,500 Canadians aged 18 and over from January February 8 to 11, 2019. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 2.0%, 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.
Wave 3: Our survey was conducted online with 2,374 Canadians aged 18 and over from January February 22 to 26, 2019. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
3-Day Rolling Survey: Between February 28 and March 4, 2019 we interviewed a random, and new sample of 300 respondents. We roll up the three days into a sample of 900 respondents.
The random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 3.3%, 19 times out of 20. Each wave was 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.
The aggregate data set of the five days of rolling surveys (February 28 to March 4) totals 1,500 respondents. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.6%, 19 times out of 20.
ABOUT ABACUS DATA
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and exceptional value.
On behalf of the Canadian Nuclear Association, Abacus Data developed a different approach to surveying contemporary attitudes towards nuclear energy. Instead of looking principally at nuclear as a source of energy, we created a survey that explored whether people might feel differently about nuclear if the conversation was about how to find energy solutions that reduced carbon emissions.
This release details our findings from this study, which was conducted among 2,500 Canadian adults from February 8 to 12, 2019.
CLIMATE CONCERNS AND SUPPORT FOR A LOW CARBON ENERGY SHIFT
• The large majority (82%) of Canadians are somewhat, very or extremely concerned about climate change.
• Alongside this, 87% consider it somewhat, very or extremely important to “reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of renewables and lower carbon energy sources”. Belief in the importance of this shift cuts across regional, generational and partisan lines.
KNOWLEDGE OF CARBON IMPACT OF NUCLEAR
• To measure how familiar people are with the carbon impact of nuclear energy we included in our survey a series of questions that asked people whether they perceived each of a variety of different energy sources as having a greater, equal or lesser impact than oil. The results revealed that only 38% of Canadians were aware that nuclear is a lower carbon form of energy compared to oil.
INFORMED REACTION TO NUCLEAR
• When informed that nuclear power emissions are similar to solar, wind and hydro, and asked how they felt about the idea of using nuclear in situations where it could replace higher emitting fuels, a large majority (84%) say they are open (35%) to or supportive (49%) of this.
REACTION TO SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
• When informed that small modular reactors can be built transported to a site and once installed can offer years of reliable, low carbon power and heat to support the needs of consumers and economic activities like mining” a large majority (86%) say they are open (43%) to or supportive (43%) of this.
• Similar support is found for the idea of a five-year trial project to test and demonstrate the usefulness of small modular reactors, located on an existing regulated facility.
• The idea of using small modular reactors to help reduce oil sands emissions also shows very broad support or openness.
• Support for the idea of a trial is predicated on several arguments that resonate with people: including reducing emissions and fighting climate change, improving air quality and health, offering a reliable heat and power source, and helping Canada develop skills in clean technology.
SURROUNDING OPINIONS
• In our survey, we also explored some surrounding opinions. Among the interesting findings were that 83% believe that continuing to use fossil fuels is more dangerous to the planet than nuclear energy. Similar proportions feel that “to combat climate change we need to be open about nuclear power.”
UPSHOT
According to Bruce Anderson: “These results make clear that for many people, the issue of climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions, means being open to potential new roles for nuclear technology. To date, many people are unaware of the carbon-reducing contribution that nuclear can offer, and the data indicate that when informed about the facts, there is broad interest in exploring potential trials in a regulated context.”
METHODOLOGY
Our survey was conducted online with 2,500 Canadians aged 18 and over from February 8th to 12th, 2019. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 1.9%, 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.
Over the last couple of years, there has been a lot of discussion about interference in elections. In our latest survey conducted at the end of January to early February, we explored how Canadians feel about the risks facing Canada.
Here’s what we found:
Most (60%) Canadians think it likely that foreign governments will attempt to influence Canada’s federal election this October. This worry is fairly consistent across the political spectrum. Most (64%) Liberal, NDP (64%), and Conservative (58%) supporters believe it is likely that foreign governments will attempt to influence our election.
Not all countries are seen as equal when it comes to the chances that they might try to influence our political process. People are much more likely to see China, Russia, and the US as posing a threat than Japan, the UK, or India.
Confidence in the defenses against attempts to influence our election is mixed. Two out of three have some confidence that the Government of Canada can prevent foreign governments from interfering. But confidence in social media companies like Facebook is much lower.
Younger Canadians (18 to 29) express more confidence in social media companies to prevent foreign interference (48% at least somewhat confident vs. 34% among those aged 30+). Liberal supporters (44%) are slightly more confident than Conservative (37%) and NDP (37%) voters.
UPSHOT
According to Bruce Anderson: “It’s remarkable how many people arrived at a point where they place the same level of trust in the US as they do in China and Russia when it comes to interfering in our political process.
It’s also striking that the idea of interference has almost become an expected, unwelcome part of life in the digital age.
Finally, the gap in confidence about the defenses offered by government compared to social media companies is a signal that people will likely call for tougher regulation if they judge that private companies are lax in their efforts to protect our democracy from interference.”
According to David Coletto: “Canadians are mindful that foreign governments are likely to try and influence the upcoming federal election but most are at least somewhat confident that the Government of Canada can prevent it from happening. When it comes to social media companies, there’s much less confidence, although younger Canadians express a higher level than those older than them. What is clear is that concern about foreign influence on Canada’s election is a cross-partisan issue and one that worries Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats alike.”
Read the Toronto Star’s coverage of the poll here.
METHODOLOGY
Our survey was conducted online with 2,500 Canadians aged 18 and over from January 30 to February 5, 2019. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 2.0%, 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.
ABOUT ABACUS DATA
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and exceptional value.
One of the most hotly debated issues in Ottawa in recent years has been the federal government’s legislative proposals surrounding major project reviews. The current bill in question is known as C-69. In our latest nationwide survey, we asked a few questions to take the temperature of the public on this legislation. Here’s what we found:
Initial question: “The federal government has introduced legislation to overhaul the rules and processes for evaluating potential new resources projects. Have you heard about these proposed new rules, which are sometimes referred to as Bill C-69?”
• Few people (5%) have heard a lot about this bill. Another 32% say they have heard a little, but 63% say they haven’t heard anything. Awareness is higher than average in Alberta, but even in that province only 12% say they have heard a lot about the bill, and almost half have heard nothing about it.
• Levels of awareness of this bill are basically the same across party lines. In the 78 ridings won by a margin of 5% or less in 2015 (we refer to as the “Swing 78” awareness of the C-69 debate is no higher than the national average.
• Higher levels of attentiveness are seen among those who describe themselves as very active in discussing community matters, but this subset only amounts to 6% of the adult population.
• Among the 37% who have heard about the bill (917 respondents), opinion is generally positive, with 63% saying they think it is a step in the right direction. In Alberta, 42% say the bill is a step in the right direction. The bill has more support among Liberal and NDP supporters, while Conservative voters are evenly split.
• Among those aware of the legislation, 31% think it is designed to do more to protect the environment, 38% think it is designed to do more to encourage good projects and jobs, and 31% think it is intended to do both.
• 62% of those aware think that when C-69 becomes law, it will have a positive effect on investment and jobs in Canada. Albertans are 62% of the view that the impact will be negative, as are 56% of Conservative Party supporters.
• 68% think C-69 will have a positive effect on the environment, including 53% of Albertans and 57% of CPC supporters.
UPSHOT
According to Bruce Anderson: “UCP Leader Jason Kenney has made opposition to Bill C-69 a major plank in his campaign to win the provincial election in Alberta and federal Conservatives have also been highly critical of the bill.
These findings are another reminder that what preoccupies partisans may or may not always attract a great deal of attention among the general public.
Opinions about the bill are clearly more negative among Albertans and Conservative Party supporters than among others, but the amount of polarization around regional and party lines is perhaps somewhat less than might have been expected given the tone and tenor of the debate.
The results suggest that many people have not developed the impression conveyed by the critics of Bill C-69 – that it is a project killer and will have a chilling effect on investment in the resources sectors.”
METHODOLOGY
Our survey was conducted online with 2,500 Canadians aged 18 and over from February 8 to 12, 2019. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 2.0%, 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.
ABOUT ABACUS DATA
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and exceptional value.
When Ontario Premier Doug Ford claimed the federal government’s carbon tax would cause a recession in Ontario, many economists disagreed. And it seems most regular people do as well.
According to the first in a series of Clean Energy Canada / Abacus Data nationwide polls:
• Few Canadians (19%) expect a recession next year. If there were to be one, most (63%) say it would likely have more to do with global economic trends, than domestic policies.
• When told Premier Ford warned the federal carbon tax would cause a recession in Ontario, almost two out of three across the country (64%), and in Ontario (63%), disagreed, believing he was overstating the impact.
• When respondents were presented with a question which noted that many economists had offered a contrary view, namely that the impact of the tax would be too small to cause a recession, even more people (73% in Ontario, 74% across Canada) rejected Mr. Ford’s contention.
Canadians opinion about the federal carbon tax backstop reveals that 35% support the idea, 28% oppose it and 37% say they are open to considering it. When told of the idea that revenues would be rebated to affected households, support climbs by 9 points, and opposition declines by 6 points.
Opposition to the carbon tax is highest in Alberta, but even there only 41% are set against the idea, which drops to 30% when the rebate is introduced.
In Ontario, 34% support, 37% are open to, and 30% oppose the federal carbon tax. With the rebate, support jumps to 42%, and opposition drops to 22%.
QUOTES
“When it comes to climate policy—like climate science—we can choose who and what we listen to. On issues like pricing pollution where some political leaders are aiming to polarize Canadians, it’s critical that evidence and expertise trump political posturing and sound bites. These results suggest that most Canadians believe evidence and expertise are essential—not optional—for good policy.”
—Merran Smith, Executive Director, Clean Energy Canada
“Canadians don’t love new taxes but they are worried about climate change and want a rational discussion of what we can and should do about it. Time after time, people reject rhetoric which sounds far-fetched or over-reaching, which is how people reacted to Mr. Ford’s assertion. There are many chapters yet to be written in this highly charged debate, but this particular idea turned out badly for opponents of carbon pricing.”
—Bruce Anderson, Chairman, Abacus Data
METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted online with 2,500 Canadians aged 18 and over from January 30 to February 5, 2019.
A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 2.0%, 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.
At the start of 2019, we explored public attitudes toward liberalizing alcohol sales in Ontario. The provincial government expanded store hours in December and has started a consultation to look at other ways of changing the way alcohol is sold in the province. Note, this survey was not commissioned or paid for by an organization.
SUMMARY: Overall, we find broad support for liberalizing alcohol sales. Despite widespread satisfaction with the LCBO, most Ontarians support expanding grocery sales to include spirits, allowing convenience stores to sell wine and beer, and allowing private wine shops to open across the province.
THE CONTEXT
Four in ten Ontario adults drink alcohol at least once per week while 24% say they do not drink alcohol at all. Another 37% drink alcohol less than once a week. Men and older Ontarians are more likely to consume alcohol frequently. There is little variation across provincial party support. Consumption habits are highly correlated to support for liberalizing alcohol sales in Ontario.
Most Ontarians have shopped at the LCBO and a large portion has bought beer or wine from a grocery store. 40% shop at the LCBO regularly or occasionally while 1 in 5 Ontarians say they buy wine or beer at grocery stores regularly or occasionally.
In a very short period of time, many Ontarians have taken advantage of the wine and beer now available in many grocery stores across the province. Despite limited selection, there’s already wide take-up of the channel as a source for alcohol.
Ontarians are also generally satisfied with their experience at the LCBO. Satisfaction with the LCBO is particularly high with its selection, overall shopping experience, and the staff available to help customers. Most also say they are satisfied with the selection of new and interesting products and even the price.
Views about the experience buying wine and beer at grocery stores similar to that at the LCBO. Most Ontarians who have purchased those products at a grocery store report being generally satisfied with all aspects of the experience, although the intensity of satisfaction is more muted than with the LCBO suggesting there may be a desire from consumers for more choice and a better experience within grocery stores.
REACTION TO IDEAS TO LIBERALIZE ALCOHOL SALES IN ONTARIO
We wanted to gauge support or opposition to a number of ideas being floated around by the Ontario government and stakeholders to liberalize alcohol sales in the province. For all ideas, a majority of respondents either strongly support or support the idea demonstrating broad acceptance and support for liberalizing alcohol sales.
For example, two in three support the provincial government’s decision to extend the hours the LCBO and private alcohol retailers can sell alcohol in the province. There’s no political divide on this idea and finds support across age groups, regions of the province and among both men and women.
Six in ten Ontarians would support adding spirits onto grocery store shelves along with beer and wine with strong support four points higher than those who strongly oppose the idea. Support for allowing grocery retailers to add spirits to their shelves crosses all age groups (although younger Ontarians are more supportive) and party supporters.
Most Ontarians would also support allowing private, specialty wine shops to open in Ontario. This idea found the broadest support with 3 in 4 supportive and only 8% strongly opposed.
Although more divisive, one in two Ontarians (51%) support expanding alcohol sales into convenience stores with support highest among Ontarians under 45, regular consumers of alcohol, and among PC and Liberal party voters.
UPSHOT
As the Ford government consults with stakeholders and the public on its plan for liberalizing alcohol sales in Ontario, our research finds broad support for many forms of liberalizing alcohol sales.
Expanded hours, expanded selection at grocery, extending beer and wine sales to convenience stores, and allowing specialty wine shops to open are supported by at least a majority of Ontarians, and in some cases, large majorities.
Younger Ontarians and men are particularly keen to see more liberalization but support is broad across all demographic, regional, and political groups.
It seems that this is a policy idea with legs as consumers seek more choice, customization, and competition in the province’s alcohol market.
For more information about this survey, please contact David Coletto at david@abacusdata.ca and follow him on Twitter @colettoD.
METHODOLOGY
Our survey was conducted online with 800 Ontarians aged 18 and over from January 11 to 14, 2019. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are 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 +/- 3.5%, 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.
ABOUT ABACUS DATA
We are the only research and strategy firm that helps organizations respond to the disruptive risks and opportunities in a world where demographics and technology are changing more quickly than ever.
We are an innovative, fast-growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and exceptional value.
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
Will climate change and the environment be a ballot box question this year?
David Coletto joins the team at the Sixth Estate and a stellar line up of guests to discuss the issue.
Hosted by veteran journalist Catherine Clark, the show is broken down into three segments. In The Pulse, we ask opinions of expert guest pundits on pressing issues and interacts with the audience through polling technology to gain their reactions. Next in the The Policy segment, Catherine Clark invites newsmakers to the stage to talk about themed issues from their unique perspectives. In between interviews, Catherine asks the audience to submit questions electronically and vote up questions they want answered. After all guests have been interviewed, they remain on stage for the final segment called The People. Here Catherine engages the newsmakers in discussion by asking the most popular audience-generated questions.
Watch the full episode below and learn more about the show here.
