This Saturday, John Ivison reported that Prime Minister Trudeau was headed in China in December to open talks about a free trade agreement.

How do Canadians feel about China and a possible free trade agreement?

In January 2016, we explored public opinion on the Canada-China relationship for Teck Resources.

We found that Canadians recognize that China has become one of the world’s most important economic players and want to see Canada have a significant relationship with China when it comes to trade and investment flows.

This is not a view that is skewed by region: people across the country see the benefits of strong economic ties. Perhaps even more noticeable is that young Canadians are more open to strengthening our ties with China, as they will have the ability to influence policies and economic choices over the longer term.

However, as with most choices, Canadians also exhibit a degree of caution and prudence. This is not so much to do with China per se, as the majority believe that China is no less trustworthy than any other potential trading partner. Instead, Canadians are looking for the best of all possible worlds: more exports, but not necessarily more imports; healthy two-way investment flows, but ideally without seeing control of Canadian enterprises shifting to Chinese investors.

Consider this: More Canadians have an intensely negative view of the US government than the Chinese government.  Back in August, we asked Canadians their feelings about a number of different governments. And while we felt less intensively negative to the Chinese government than we do to the Russian or American governments, a majority (74%) tended to have negative views of the Chinese government.

And when we asked Canadians to compare China and the United States earlier this spring, majorities felt that China was doing more to try to maintain peace and avoid conflict, showing a better example of what world leadership should look like, and was doing more to grow the economy around the world.

Canadians generally think trade and globalization are good for the country.

And Canadians are generally predisposed to supporting trading. For example, in May we found that 73% feel that globalization including trade agreements will be more helpful than harmful to the prospects of Canada’s economy.  Moreover, more Canadians (58%) are “globalist” than “nationalist” (43%) in their general orientation. Sizeable proportions have particularly strong versions of these feelings: 24% could be called “ultra-globalist” and 16% “ultra-nationalist“. And immigration and diversity were stronger drivers of these attitudes than views around trade.

When it comes to the idea of a free trade deal with China, our research suggests a degree of openness that might not have been there a decade ago. Canadians will naturally have concerns about being competitive enough with Chinese companies, perhaps concerned with the nature of the Chinese government, but also recognize the potential economic upside is significant too.

For Canadian politicians, it’s riskier to ignore climate change than it is to propose solutions.

Twenty years ago, when the world’s leaders were debating the Kyoto Accord, a case could be made that politicians who chose to be early champions of action to reduce emissions were running a certain amount of political risk.  The public consensus on the need to act was not fully formed, the risks of inaction not as widely perceived, and the alternatives to producing high levels of carbon seemed elusive and expensive.

Today, in Canada, the risk equation has changed. The bigger political peril lies in appearing indifferent to a matter of widespread and growing public preoccupation.

Half of Canadian voters (49%) won’t consider a party or a candidate that doesn’t have a plan to combat climate change.  Only 6% prefer a party or a candidate that ignores the issue.  The rest (44%) are “willing to consider” a party that doesn’t make the climate a priority.

For Canada’s conservative parties and candidates, an optimistic read of these numbers is that the Conservatives could win without an ambitious climate plan, given that half of the population don’t consider this policy a pre-requisite for their support.  But a more cold-eyed analysis suggests that by ignoring the issue, conservative candidates would be tying one hand behind their backs, leaving themselves with no room for error.

What’s driving this shift in the relative importance of the climate issue is not radical environmentalism, and it probably has little to do with the efforts of environmental groups at this point.  Only 11% of Canadians describe themselves as “ardent environmentalists” – the same number as say they aren’t really concerned about the environment.  Twenty-three million (78%) see themselves as environmental “moderates”.
The opinion patterns in our recent studies suggest that there is a new normal in Canada on the question of climate change.  Only 2% dispute that the climate is changing.  Among those who perceive a change, people are three times more likely to say human and industrial activity is causing it than to ascribe climate change to natural causes.

If the question of causes of climate change is becoming more clearly decided in the minds of the public, when it comes to the consequences there is now compelling evidence of public concern.

More than 85% say the consequences of taking no action on climate change will be severe, very severe, or catastrophic across a range of areas, from agriculture to human health, to the cost and availability of insurance, and the cost to taxpayers.

Less than 15% say the consequences of unchecked climate change will be not that serious or not serious at all. 

Remarkably, especially given the election of a US President who has abandoned the Paris Accord and ignores climate change, Canadians feel the momentum on this issue is now with those who want action (63%) rather than with those who want to do little or nothing (37%).    
Almost everyone (91%) feels a moral responsibility to those who will live on the planet after us. Alongside that, 79% believe the world will “face a catastrophe if we fail to do more”.
Part of what’s changing is the droughts, floods, hurricanes that people witness today.  In addition to the human toll, 80% see the prospect that “weather disasters are becoming a financial disaster”.
Wanting to act hasn’t always meant that people are confident that the world can reverse the threat of climate change.  Today, doubts remain present but confidence is more plentiful.  Only 47% say there is little chance we could stop climate change at this point, while 87% say there is “already lots of evidence we can cut emissions when we try”.
Finally, many have come to believe that combatting climate change is not an economic poison pill: 79% believe combatting climate change will open up economic opportunities.

Canada’s political parties do not all see eye to eye on climate change, but our numbers reveal that many Conservative voters share the sentiments of other voters: 85% believe there is a moral responsibility to act, and two thirds (67%) see a looming financial disaster if we fail to do more.  It is inaccurate to imagine a “conservative base” that broadly rejects the need to act on the climate issue.  Most 2015 Conservative Party voters believe the world faces a catastrophe if we do too little and that action will create new opportunities for the economy.

When we ask people what is the best reason to take action on climate change, of four options (moral responsibility, catastrophe if we fail to do more, cost of weather disasters, and the economic opportunity that comes from a transition to a more climate-friendly economy), the top answer is moral responsibility, followed by the sense that catastrophic risks are evident if we take the issue lightly.  Today, fully 15% say that the best reason to act is the financial implications of weather disasters.

Baby boomers put a little more emphasis on the moral responsibility, while Millenials are more likely to see new economic opportunity.  

More people see upsides than downsides when it comes to the actions that might be taken to tackle this issue.  Majorities say climate action will benefit the prospects of younger generations, will be good for the long-term health of the Canadian economy, good for jobs (52% positive/13% negative). On the costs to government and taxpayers, 38% see an upside, 33% a downside and 29% see a neutral impact.   
For those planning election platforms and campaigns, it’s worth noting that among the 44% who would consider voting for a party that didn’t emphasize this issue, most see positive or neutral impacts from taking more action on climate change.
Because the climate change debate has often been cast as an issue which pits the interests and values of voters in Saskatchewan and Alberta against those of people living elsewhere, it is worth examining the size of opinion gaps between residents of those provinces (our combined cell size is 248).
• Less than 10% of voters prefer a party or candidate that favours doing nothing on climate change; more than 45% say they won’t vote for one who doesn’t have a plan.
• Majorities believe the climate is changing due to human impacts
• More than 75% believe that the consequences of inaction will be severe or very severe or catastrophic, and most do not believe that acting to fight climate change will be bad for the economy or for taxes.
• And large majorities agree about there being a moral imperative, plenty of evidence that emissions can be cut, and economic opportunity that will result from a shift.

UPSHOT
According to Bruce Anderson: “There’s a new normal in Canada on the issue of climate change. Half of voters won’t consider politicians who don’t take the issue seriously – and most other voters also believe action is needed and inaction will result in catastrophe.

Part of what’s changing is a belief that solutions are available, may not be as costly as we used to think, and could produce economic opportunity too.

For Conservative Party voters in particular, weather disasters represent a huge and growing cost associated with doing nothing.  Most people who live in oil sands producing provinces and most people who voted Conservative in 2015 believe there’s enough evidence to warrant action and are unconvinced that action will be economically disastrous.

As the country heads towards an election in two years, it will be interesting to see if the competition will still shape up with one party trying to rally opinion against climate action – or if all major parties will be competing with different ideas for how to grapple with this matter of broad concern.”

METHODOLOGY
Our survey was conducted online with 1,534 Canadians aged 18 and over between October 31st to November 2nd, 2017. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a large representative panel of over 500,000 Canadians.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys.   The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of 1,534 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, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

ABACUS DATA INC.
We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and value-added insight.  Our team combines the experience of our Chairman Bruce Anderson, one of Canada’s leading research executives for two decades, with the energy, creativity and research expertise of CEO David Coletto, Ph.D.

Halfway between the 2015 and the 2019 elections and with two new opposition party leaders, it’s a useful moment to take stock of what people know and perceive about the three individuals leading Canada’s largest political parties.

Here are the highlights:

Mr. Trudeau is obviously better known than his rivals, and 84% say they have a very good idea or a pretty good idea of what kind of person and leader he is.  For Mr. Scheer, the comparative number is 28% and for Mr. Singh 22%.

When we compare what people say they know about the three main leaders today compared to what people said they knew at the start of the 2015 election, both Mr. Scheer and Mr. Singh are well off where the two opposition leaders were at the start of the last federal election.

Heading into the 2015 campaign, Mr. Harper was very well known having been prime minister for almost a decade but so too was Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair with at least a majority of respondents saying they had at least a pretty good idea about what kind of person and leader they both were.

Mr. Trudeau has established a largely positive reputation. 48% say they have a positive view of the PM, 31% negative.  For Mr. Scheer, results are 16% positive, 20% negative.  For Mr. Singh: 17% positive; 18% negative.

For both opposition leaders, the numbers are both good news in that they start with no strong negatives, but they do face a challenge because they need to attract attention in a cluttered communications market where it is arguably harder than ever to grow a share of voice. But both have much more neutral and undefined images than when Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau were elected their party’s leaders in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

A few months after Mr. Mulcair became NDP leader in March 2012, he had a greater profile than Mr. Singh. 36% had a positive impression of Mr. Mulcair while 21% viewed him negatively.
Similarly, a few months after Mr. Trudeau became Liberal leader in April 2013, 40% viewed him positively compared with 26% who had a negative impression of the new Liberal leader.

When we ask respondents to rate how well a number of words and terms describe each party leader, Mr. Scheer’s strongest positive attributes are “smart, principled, and a leader”.  His least favourable ratings are “tough, interesting, and understands people like you.”
For Mr. Singh the top positives are “smart, good heart, principled and interesting” while the less favourable numbers are for “good ideas, tough, understands people like you”.
Mr. Trudeau’s top marks are “good heart, smart, interesting” while his weaker ratings are for “tough and understands people like you.”
Comparing the image of Mr. Trudeau to his two competitors reveals that he has an advantage on all of the items, which has to do with the fact that he is better known, but also relatively well liked as political leaders go.
Of note: Mr. Scheer trails both the others on “interesting, smart and good heart” and Mr. Singh trails both the others on “understands people like you”.  On most other items the gaps between the two opposition party leaders is slight.

Looking at only Millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) who will make up the largest generation in the electorate in 2019, Mr. Scheer trails Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Singh on almost all attributes. The largest gap is on people feeling he has a good heart, is interesting, and is ethical.

Among women, the gap between Mr. Trudeau and the two opposition leaders are similar on most attributes except for “interesting” where Mr. Scheer trails both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Singh and “understands people like you” where Mr. Singh trails both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Scheer.

We also asked whether Andrew Scheer was seen in a more positive light than Stephen Harper on a range of attributes.  On several of the items tested, there was a mild tendency to see Mr. Scheer as a better choice than Mr. Harper: especially on being open and approachable, having a different approach to politics, ideas and vision for Canada.  The only area where Mr. Harper was seen as better was in terms of “how strong a leader he is”, but the gap is slight.
When we look at only those who currently say they would vote Conservative, Mr. Scheer is viewed as better than Mr. Harper on all the attributes we tested, especially when it comes to how approachable and open he is, his approach to politics generally, his vision for Canada, and the ideas he has for Canada.
Among those who would support another party or are currently undecided, views are more muted. Mr. Scheer is perceived to be better than Mr. Harper when it comes to how approachable and open he is while doing worse when it comes to how strong a leader he is. For most other attributes, non-Conservative supports don’t see much difference between the two or are unsure.
These results demonstrate that one of Mr. Harper’s perceived shortcomings as a leader was his lack openness and approachability. So far, those paying attention to Mr. Scheer’s actions in Ottawa are noticing an improvement on this front.

UPSHOT

According to Bruce Anderson: “How people feel about opposition leaders today is not always relevant to how they will be perceived in two years – and Justin Trudeau is a case that makes that point very vividly.  At the same time, these numbers show that Mr. Trudeau remains a highly valuable asset for his party – his personal reputation is strong and includes good regard for his empathy as well as his brainpower.

For his opponents, there are no big negatives to be concerned about, although Mr. Scheer may reflect on the challenge of becoming better known and the need to be seen as “interesting”.

That all three leaders get weaker marks for “understands people like you” may be a reflection of the fact that many voters doubt that any leader can really get their experience.  That all three get weaker marks for being ‘tough’ may be a reflection of the fact that voters are putting less emphasis on this attribute and parties are choosing leaders who reflect a stronger emphasis on “good heart”.

According to David Coletto: “There’s still a lot of time for Mr. Scheer and Mr. Singh to introduce themselves to Canadians and offer an alternative to Prime Minister Trudeau. But the data suggests they have some catching up to do if we compare them to recent newly elected opposition leaders.

Since leadership is such an important factor in vote choice, building a positive, well-known brand is vital in politics today. Certainly, election campaigns have the tendency to change the public’s knowledge and perception of leaders. Comparisons are starker and voters pay greater attention to the choices on offer. However, the pre-election period is still important in shaping opinions, defining the criteria by which voters will assess leadership attributes, and affecting the number of voters accessible to a party.

What’s clear in this data is that Mr. Trudeau has a head start in terms of awareness and image. For me, his greatest asset remains the fact that most Canadians believe he has a good heart, is interesting, and he is accessible. If voters believe you are open-minded and have the best intentions than they will forgive you when you make mistakes or decisions they disagree with. If you’re interesting, they will pay attention when you speak or share your views.

It’s also clear that Mr. Scheer faces a challenge in competing with two leaders who are viewed as more “interesting” than him, especially when we consider the perceptions of millennials, whose influence on Canadian politics will continue to grow. Getting noticed is half the battle these days.”

METHODOLOGY
Our survey was conducted online with 1,500 Canadians aged 18 and over between October 20th to October 23rd, 2017. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a large representative panel of over 500,000 Canadians.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of 1,500 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, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

ABACUS DATA INC.
We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and value-added insight.  Our team combines the experience of our Chairman Bruce Anderson, one of Canada’s leading research executives for two decades, with the energy, creativity and research expertise of CEO David Coletto, Ph.D.