Across Canada, (according to our latest Spark Insights survey 6535 interviews, online) the Liberals now hold a 20 point lead over the Conservatives, 49% to 29%. The NDP stands at 9 and the BQ at 23% in Quebec. The Liberals are virtually tied with the Conservatives in Alberta and Saskatchewan and lead everywhere else.

These results underscore the advantage the Liberals felt in this week's three by-elections: most Canadians are not looking for a change in direction or leadership, and that’s true for many people who didn’t cast a ballot for Carney last year.

Approval of the way “in which the federal government led by Mark Carney is handling its responsibilities” has hit a new high water mark at 70%.

A majority of those who voted BQ and NDP in 2025 show approval of the government, as do 38% of those who voted Conservative.

Three out of four (74%) say Carney is doing a good or acceptable job handling relations with the US. This includes 76% of past BQ voters, 79% of past NDP voters, and 47% of those who voted Conservative last year.

Nationally, Carney has a +39 net favourability rating, while Poilievre is -8. Avi Lewis is +1.

In Quebec, Carney is +47, Yves Francois Blanchet is +17, Poilievre is -21, Lewis is -11.

The very large majority (78%) believe the federal government made the right decision to reject the proposals of the Trump Administration and end the negotiations.

Over the coming days, I’ll explore and write more based on the data in our latest study with a particular look at how different generations see things today.

For the moment, what stands out most for me is the extraordinary degree of unity, especially in a time of duress. Canadians are galvanized by Trump’s attacks on Canada. Alongside that, Carney has gathered greater personal support from both the left and the right of the spectrum. His mandate is stronger today, than it was on election night in 2025.

He’s been trying to rig the mid terms but it will be hard to overcome how weak the motivation is for GOP voters.

He won’t talk about affordability but can’t stop talking about his new ballroom.

His rallies are smaller, seats are empty, people smell corruption, are confused and unhappy about his new war and maddened by prices of everything. It’s been a season of failures.

His fever dream of American expansion comes off as more laughable than threatening, a perception he underlines by shouting about renaming Lake Ontario.

Canadians have been shocked at what the Trump era revealed about America. The Constitution failed. Institutions surrendered. Business muzzled itself. When Trump berated allies, or cozied up with enemies, the amount of resistance he met within his own country was - for the rest of the world - the real story.

But something seems to be changing.

Americans are saying “enough is enough”.

With about 70 days to the midterms, there’s a real chance that our neighbours want to get back to something more normal, more sensible. More tariffs on top of already too high prices for groceries, gas, and housing, a sputtering job market and a blank check war that no one really wanted - and things have started to snap.

His political rivals are landing punches with more impact. They say he’s reckless and cares only about himself. That’s he’s driving up their cost of living when he promised to do the opposite, and that he’s putting their farms and businesses in jeopardy while pretending that everything is going just great.

For many months, Americans didn’t like Trump’s tariff policies, but weren’t all that roused. They liked Canada and didn’t like his insults aimed our way, but that didn’t create much in the way of political push back.

What’s different? The latest barrage against Canada became the glue that allowed political opponents to link facts together and strengthen a cohesive “It’s the economy stupid” framework for the mid terms.

And make no mistake they are jumping on the opportunity. This is just a fraction of what has been said by Democrats in the last few days:

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) “Needlessly picking fights with our allies and raising prices here at home. That’s Trump’s economic policy in a nutshell.”

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) “Michiganders are uniquely impacted by DC Republicans’ ongoing, chaotic tariff wars with Canada... This must end. Michiganders literally cannot afford to keep paying these Republican tariff taxes.”

Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) “Maine has had enough of this unending trade whiplash.” Said the escalation would create more uncertainty for Maine businesses, push up costs, and strain the state’s bond with its closest trading partner.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) “Our closest ally. Our critical trading partner. And Trump is hitting Canada with 50% tariffs. What the actual f*** are we doing?”

Governor Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) “Trump’s new 50% tariffs on Canada will disrupt supply chains and raise costs for Virginia businesses of every size and in every industry and retaliatory tariffs will hurt Virginians. If the Trump Administration continues down this path, it will have devastating consequences for the Commonwealth.”

Governor Josh Shapiro (D-PA) “Since Day One, Trump has chosen chaos and cruelty – and by doubling down on his reckless trade war with Canada he’s further harming our families, farmers and small business owners. He’s not only hurting Pennsylvanians – who are already struggling to afford basic necessities, he’s destroying our relationship with one of our country’s strongest allies.”

Governor JB Pritzker (D-Illinois) “Donald Trump may not care about our farmers and families but we do. Canada is one of Illinois’ largest international trading partners and we plan to keep it that way.”

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan) “As Michiganders we know better than anyone that Canada is one of America’s most critical allies. The President’s decision to hike tariffs on Canadian goods is reckless and will be passed down to American companies and consumers. Our nations can achieve great things when we work together. “

Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) “President Trump has ratcheted up his trade war against Canada yet again... a slap in the face to businesses and farmers in Vermont and northern border states.”

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) “Instead of working to cut costs, President Trump has continued his reckless trade war with Canada, one of our largest trading partners. These tariffs make no sense. They will only raise prices and make it harder for Colorado families to put food on the table.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (Senate Democratic Leader) “This nonsense with Canada should have never gone into effect. It must end now.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) “New Trump tariffs just went into effect. Now it’s 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. That means higher costs for small businesses, farmers, and all Minnesota families.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) “Trump owes our friends and neighbors an apology for nearly 2 years of his boorish insults and jeers. Canada IS Washington state’s biggest trading partner and our country’s closest ally.”

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) “Canada is one of our closest allies and friends, not our enemy. The President’s self-defeating tariff wars will only raise our prices dn further drive Canada away. Probably irreparably. Time to stop this insanity.”

Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colorado) “The President needs to stop picking fights with our allies and start figuring out ways to lower costs for Americans.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) “The on-again/off again trade talks with Canada lead to higher costs, risks and uncertainty for Maine business. If the Administration proceeds with these tariffs they will increase costs for Maine families, as most businesses will have no choice but to pass on tariffs to their customers.”

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) “Wisconsinites are feeling the pinch and the President is making things worse. This trade war is bad for families at the checkout counter and bad for our farmers who will get his by Canada’s tariffs. This trade war needs to end.”

Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) “First war with Iran, now trade war with Canada. Trump’s priorities are clear: make himself richer, make everything more expensive, hurt American businesses and force middle class families to pay the price.”

Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) “Canada is our neighbour, ally, and one of New Hampshire’s closest trading partners. Trump’s reckless trade war is raising costs for Granite Staters while damaging a relationship that has benefited both countries for generations.”

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) “These latest tariffs against Canada directly hit Americans. This will only increase costs on New York families and hurt our state’s small businesses. Trump needs to stop political games.”

Senator Bernie Sanders “Another week in Trump’s dysfunctional government. A new trade ward with Canada, our closest ally.”

Rep Don Beyer (D-NVA) “I have introduced legislation to block Trump’s abuses of tariff powers and restore trade authority to Congress where it belongs. I have also voted to end Trump’s idiotic trade wars - including with our Canadian friends”

Rep Darren Soto (D-FL) “President Trump’s tariff war against Canada is costing Central Florida tourism…Congress must push back”

Rep Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) We should be working to make life more affordable for the people of Ohio. Tariffs and a trade war on our neighbours, friends and allies to the North does the exact opposite. A 50% tariff is a dire and unacceptable threat to our great lakes economy.

Rep Jamie Raskin “Stop Trump’s idiotic trade war killing American businesses. Let peaceful commerce among the nations prevail, and hands off Canada, America’s #1 trading partner, whose people are now boycotting American products because of Trump’s imbecilic policies.”

Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta “Canada is Pennsylvania’s number one export trading partner by a mile. Thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania area directly tied to that relationship. Trump and the Republicans have blown it up.”

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) “Dear White House, Canada is our ally. North Korea is our adversary. Canada is our ally. Get the difference?”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Illinois) “Prime Minister Carney said it clearly - tariffs are taxes paid by hardworking American families. Trump’s newest move to levy 50% tariffs on our neighbour and ally is the absolute wrong move.”

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) “At a time when working families need relief from rising costs, Trump is slapping 50% temper tariffs on our closest ally and second largest trading partner. Trump has never cared about your financial situation, only his own.”

Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) “Granite state small businesses deserve better. Trump’s chaotic tariff war continues to cause uncertainty, increase costs, and run away customers by damaging our relationship with our neighbours to the north.”

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) “Without steel from our Canadian neighbours the golden age of manufacturing that Trump promised is nothing more than a pipe dream. Not only are Trump’s reckless tariffs making inflation and prices worse for you, they are strangling the American economy.

NY Comptroller Mark Levine “Canada is the largest source of international tourists for NYC. Huge source of economic vitality for us. Since the start of Trump’s second term visitors from Canada to NYC are down 20%. This will almost certainly now drop further. He is shooting us in the foot again.”

Here at home, with the exception of the federal Conservative caucus, Canadians seem focused and clear about what they want to achieve.

Canadians’ priority is to find a path to a rational and reasonable relationship again. They’ll absorb the pain of the tariffs and live with the hardships that the retaliatory measures may bring, but as a means towards an end - a journey to a better, stable state.

Hard feelings will linger, but I believe most Canadians will want this relationship repaired over time. They’ll be looking for signals that Americans do as well.

The comments of the politicians above, show that there’s momentum among Democrats to meet Canada in the middle and do good business again.

Hopefully, more Republicans will echo these sentiments as well. If the common ground is simply about how to keep life as affordable as possible, well at least that’s a starting point.

The next two months promises to be among the most consequential time for Canada, and America, in modern political history. Will we work on a better path, together, or apart?

Turnouts in these three ridings last year were between 69%-72%, in line with the national average (69.5%) Typical turnouts for by elections are in the 35-40% range.

Two factors that can disrupt that pattern: if people really feel upset with the incumbent government and want to “send a message”, or if there’s a high profile and popular local candidate.

I looked at our latest Spark polling (Nationwide July 24-August 02, 2026 | 2439 Interviews) for evidence of a “send a message”mood. Here’s what we see.

• Overall satisfaction with the government is steady at 66%. On 25 different areas of government performance, between 62%-76% said they feel the government was doing a good or acceptable job.

• On the two lowest rated areas of government performance (affordable housing and the cost of living), results show mild improvement in recent months.

• Our voting intention indicator shows a 19 point lead for the Liberals. (Our questions asks how people think they are “most likely to vote in the next federal election, whenever that may be”, and we mention the leader’s name along with the Party.)

From a 30,000 foot level, none of this looks like built up pressure to send the government a message. When we look a little closer, there are a couple of interesting patterns to note.

• Among those who say they sit on the right side of the political spectrum, the Conservatives have a 22 point lead. That’s a fairly slim lead by historical standards.

• Among those on the left, the Liberals have a 47 point lead.

• On the centre, (where just over half of Canadians live) the Liberals have a 24 point lead.

What could one reasonably infer from these patterns as relates to by elections?

First, the current Carney approval rating isn’t suggestive of a high turnout motivated by a “send a message” mood. Second, Conservative candidates will struggle as long as their party is polling this weakly among those on the centre of the spectrum.

Third, while some exposure may exist on the left for the Liberals, it’s not visible in our numbers to this point. It’s hard to imagine motivation levels for NDP candidates will be high right now.

Finally, satisfaction with the Carney government is running at 69% in Quebec, including 56% among those who voted BQ last year. While Chicoutimi-Le Fjord has been a good battleground for the BQ in the past, the motivation level of the BQ voter has to be a something of a question mark.

A few weeks later, he took the conversation in a different direction, describing Canada as a $100 billion subsidy burden on Americans.

In a March 25th 2025 interview he first wheeled out the “nasty” term, saying we were among the nastiest people to deal with. (Historically the rest of the world and most people in his country would tend to put us at the other end of the nasty-nice scale). Trump’s superpower has been naming his opponents and having those images stick. This one won’t. Americans won’t buy it.

On the spectrum of insults that Trump employs, I suppose a case could be made that nasty is one of the milder ones. He’s also said that part of what makes him effective is that he can be nasty - a rare moment of lucid introspection.

Amidst all of the threats and insults, Canadians are alert but nonplussed. Or at least less plussed than they were last year.

Trump’s schtick is getting old.

In our latest wave of Spark surveying (Nationwide, online, July 24-August 2, 2026) we found only 23% saying it was urgent to get a trade deal with the US, while 77% said “it’s more important to get the best deal than to try to get it quickly”.

In response to the latest round of tariffs, which could go into effect in a couple of weeks, we offered respondents two choices as to what Canada should do: “push back aggressively and try to really increase the economic pain that America is feeling” or “be firm and focused on trying to reach a comprehensive and durable agreement, rather than showing anger and retaliating.”

By a more than 2:1 ratio, Canadians prefer “firm and focused”.

Today, 68% say the Carney government is doing a “good” or “acceptable” job at handling relations with the US.

Remarkably, this includes most of those who voted for the Bloc (56%) or the NDP (78%) and almost half (42%) of those who voted Conservative last year.

Conservative voters are not exactly rallying to the messages of Pierre Poilievre, and MPs Shuvaloy Majumder and Jamil Jivani about Carney failing in this part of his job. Trump calls our leadership nasty, and Conservatives say our leadership is terrible. There’s no playbook for politics in which this makes sense for the Conservative Party.

Voters in Canada want serious people in public life and are tired of performance politics. That’s partly because there’s been so much political performance on offer since the advent of social media, and partly because the apparent stakes - meaning the state of world affairs - calls for serious leadership and thoughtful choices.

Carney’s success so far comes in no small part because he conveys a hard diligence about the job, because he tends to avoid performing his negotiation strategy in public, and because he continually stresses why Canadians can feel confident about our economic future, even if that involves a different relationship with America.

Polarization is down, because pragmatism is up.

And nothing is more Canadian than pragmatism.

But as with many things President Trump has done, disagreeing with his ideas didn’t translate into any meaningful push back on his actions.

His argument that the tariffs would reshore jobs and fill the country’s coffers with money from foreign countries - as faulty as they were - were only lightly refuted.

“America First” sounded appealing, and seemed to swamp considerations of the actual outcomes of what he was doing. People changed the channel.

Most Americans see Canada as a good friend, ally and partner.

But when Trump treated Canada as an economic adversary, geography to be absorbed or a weakling to be bullied, this rarely made news in the US, and made no political waves. “Trump is just being Trump.”

Trump told Americans that the rest of the world - including Canada - was taking them for granted and ripping them off. Enough voters who - even if they didn’t like tariffs and did like Canada - were tempted to believe this was at least a little bit true.

When he promised to tax the rest of the world and grow jobs at home, it was hard to hate the sound of that, unless you looked under the hood. Which few did.

But now, something may be changing.

Trump’s overall approval rating has tanked. His approval rating for handling the economy is -9. To put that in context, during his entire first term, his economic rating was always in positive territory.

People think he’s made inflation worse than it was under Joe Biden. Lots of people are getting angry at the “billionaire class” and see him and his family as part of a system that helps the really rich become spectacularly rich, and leaves everyone else wondering how to pay for groceries, gas and health care.

His adventure in Iran is going terribly. Voters thought his isolationist mantra could be trusted. Turns out he can’t resist getting immersed in the affairs of the rest of the world, disrespecting European allies and increasing friction in the Middle East.

This week, his Secretary of War asked for an extra half trillion to fight a war Trump never asked Americans or Congress to support, a war he has said was won several times already. There are rumours that American soldiers will be on the ground in the days ahead.

Trump now finds himself facing more criticism than he has experienced before. And the latest public opinion data is ugly and getting uglier.

Critics are speaking out, and frustration with the tariffs and unhappiness with the treatment of Canada are more prominent. They’re linked with a narrative that is about the whole of the Trump agenda, rather than any specific parts. The case that’s being made is that Trump is hurting Americans, costing them more money, focused on the wrong priorities, and ignoring their concerns.

Here are some examples of the statements put on the record this week:

• Rep, James Walkinshaw (Virginia Democrat) “Trump slapped 50% tariffs on Canadian goods to satisfy his own ego. But Trump won’t pay the price. American families will. A tariff is a tax, and families already struggling with high costs cannot afford another Trump tax. Trump’s trade war is back, & your wallet will take the hit. His new 50% tariffs on Canada mean costlier groceries, pricier furniture, & rising building costs that push home prices even higher. Canada doesn’t pay this tax. You do. Same failed strategy. Americans pay the price.”

• Rep Raja Krishnamoorthi (Illinois Democrat) “President Trump promised to lower prices. Instead, he's slapping a 50% tariff on many Canadian goods that economists warn will raise costs for American families and businesses. Americans don't need another self-inflicted tax hike—they need an economic strategy that brings prices down, not another reckless trade war.”

• Rep Tim Kennedy (NY Democrat) “Once again, President Trump is picking a fight with our closest ally and next-door neighbor: Canada….Our industries thrive because we grow our trade with Canada, not because we tax it. These tariffs will raise prices for every American, and my community will be among the first to feel it. Instead of picking fights with our closest friend, President Trump should be focused on doing the job he was elected to do: making life more affordable for working families.”

• Senator Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire Democrat) “Granite Staters are already paying higher prices due to Trump’s tariffs, and yesterday, he announced an additional 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. His mission to make life more expensive needs to end.”

• Governor Gavin Newsom (California, Democrat) “Donald Trump just imposed a 50% tariff to increase YOUR COSTS because he felt that Canada didn't do enough to rake their forests. How many tantrums from this failed president do Americans have to suffer through?”

• Senator Ron Wyden (Democrat Oregon) "Trump cannot be trusted with tariff authority, and I will be introducing a bill very soon to rein him in and put Congress back in the driver's seat."

• Senator Patty Murray (Democrat Washington) Yet another absurd and harmful escalation in Trump's idiotic trade war with our close friend and ally. Trump's tariffs continue to hurt Americans AND Canadians alike. Congress must vote to BLOCK these tariffs. Canada and the USA should stand together.”

• Senator Ed Markey (Democrat, Massachusetts) Trump putting a 50 percent tariff on Canada in response to the wildfire smoke is like an arsonist trying to collect on the insurance policy after the house burns down. Tariffs don’t put out wildfires, firefighters do. If Canada is asking for our help, we should send it.

• Rep Jared Huffman (Democrat, California) “Slapping 50% tariffs on Canada is going to hurt Americans. We're the ones who will eat the cost. That's what happened with Trump's last tariff spree and it will happen again. Trump’s failed foreign and economic policies are making life worse for hardworking people.”

• Rep Jim McGovern (Democrat) “What a pathetic, petulant manchild. HIS big oil friends—NOT Canada—are the ones that caused the climate crisis that’s driving the wildfires. And now Americans will pay for his temper tantrum with $$$ from our wallets.”

• Rep Ted Lieu “Trump is raising prices on Americans, again, by jacking up tariffs by 50% on Canadian goods bought by Americans. Democrats will flip the House. And on Day 1 of next term, Democrats will introduce legislation to repeal trump’s disastrous tariffs. And we will pass it.”

• Senator Amy Klobuchar (Democrat, Minnesota) This is just bad, especially for Minnesota when Canada is our #1 trading partner & Trump’s tariff taxes have already hit us hard.”

• Senator Peter Welch (Democrat Vermont) “whatever the intent, the impact is really harmful for Vermont, tourism is down 40% which has to do with the rhetoric the President has used. Canada is Vermont’s number one customer”

• Steve Schmidt (Republican Consultant) “To wage economic war against Canada is rather like punching yourself repeatedly in the face because you dislike your reflection."

Now of course it’s true that a lot of the criticism is coming from Democrats. But the fact that they are reacting this way to tariffs on Canada - when in the past the comments were fewer in number and muted in tone - is my point here. There’s a sense that Trump and his Republican proxies in the mid-terms are vulnerable to this criticism, and that a promise to revisit these policies is something Democrats are putting forward.

And then, let’s look across the aisle. It’s hard to find Republicans lining up to cheerlead for more Trump tariffs. They’re uneasy and it shows. Try to find Republicans this week applauding the President’s actions…you won’t find much.

They don’t love the battling with Canada, especially those in border states, or states that like our tourist dollars and bourbon and wine drinkers. They don’t like the fiscal position their country finds itself in, and know that a substantial part of any new tariffs amounts to a tax hike on American businesses and consumers. Gasoline prices in some states have touched $5 again and no one has any idea how to solve the impasse Trump’s war with Iran has provoked.

US Treasuries are going back up again, and global markets are asking for a full point more of interest from the US, than they do for a Canadian government bond. Trump says America is the “hottest country” and he’s right if he means has the hottest inflation rate in the G7.

Of course, it’s always possible that none of these prevailing political winds will deter Trump. That’s often been the safest bet with Trump.

But the polls are sobering if you’re a Republican candidate in a tight race.

YouGov interviewed almost 10,000 Americans on July 22. Here are three key results

Americans think tariffs are costing them money. They don’t like these new tariffs against Canada. And they aren’t happy with the way he’s managing the relationship with Canada.

Only a bare majority of Republican voters support the new tariffs, a much lower number than partisanship normally delivers to Trump, and Independent voters are 4:1 opposed.

The US midterms are about 100 days away. For Trump’s first year and a half, his tariff aggression and his treatment of Canada produced discomfort but nothing more substantial than that, in the US. But it may be that we’re entering a new phase, where these policies are starting to carry a real and apparent risk for Republicans, and a real and present opportunity for Democrats.

Canadians wanted to, and expected to, have a good relationship with the US. Friendly but independent.

Through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, and Biden, bilateral relations ran along a spectrum that was never cooler than cordial and mostly better described as warm.

We were never a big topic of conversation in America and we were happy enough with that being the situation.

If we didn’t always agree with what America was up to, we didn’t obsess about what America would do next, and that was ok too.

All of that is gone now. Because there’s never been a President like Donald Trump.

Trump has trash talked Canada relentlessly. His comments are aggressive, petulant, foolish, incoherent, uninformed and those are the kindest things one could say about them.

He’ll probably never realize it, but the damage he’s doing to his own country is real, and will endure for some time.

America is not the world’s “hottest country” as Trump likes to say - it’s now a word uttered with a curled lip in many parts of the world.

Perhaps it’s some comfort that Canada is not the only target - the list of countries spared this treatment (Russia and North Korea come to mind) is short. Trump’s list of ‘shithole’ countries now includes most of Western Europe.

But Trump lives right next door to us, and the insults hit differently.

The latest salvo from the US President is about forest fires. Canadians know that climate change is increasing the risk and severity of forest fires. Trump thinks climate change is a hoax. Trump loves culture war distraction the way a junkie loves a narcotic.

It’s tempting to want a sharp retort from the Prime Minister. People want their feelings heard, and expressed, by their leadership. Some want more transparency from Carney when it comes to the relationship with the US, almost like a play by play coverage.

“When did you last talk? What exactly did you say to him and how did he come across? What are you willing to discuss in terms of our trade irritants and what are you ruling off the table? Why aren’t you demanding a meeting right now? What exactly happened with the Gordie Howe Bridge deal? Why won’t you tell Canadians all of the details of each interaction? Why aren’t your elbows up? Why aren’t you more conciliatory?”

All normal and healthy pressures. It would be a weakness of our democracy if this wasn’t part of the conversation in Canada today.

This is what makes the job of leading more complicated now.

While a lack of transparency can be an awkward look, sometimes it’s the best of some less than ideal options.

Spell Canada’s position out publicly, and Trump will use it against us. That’s true for our negotiating options around CUSMA, and also the interplay of the original Gordie Howe deal and the side agreement.

Nothing is final in the Trump world, and Canada must be willing to play by those rules too, at least to a degree.

In NFL football, there’s a 15 yard penalty for “taunting”. If there was penalty in US politics for taunting, Trump would be flagged every day.

Part of the job of Canadian Prime Minister today is to exert a duty of care in how you respond to the taunting. To hold cards close to your chest, and choose when and how to engage.

Our polling suggests a broad majority (70%) is satisfied with the way the Prime Minister is handling the relationship.

They may not be happy but can’t imagine a better approach than the one they see Carney taking. They can see where the problem lies - the unpredictability, irrationality and temperamental behaviour is on display daily. Canadians are willing to be patient - to get better results.

When it comes to what should guide the country’s choices - the political performance doesn’t matter, the job is about the outcome. Canadians would rather wait for the right deal than rush to resolve the friction.

Hopefully, there will be another day where America’s leader wants a solid, neighbourly relationship again. When repairs to what’s been damaged are a priority, and both countries meet in good faith to start that work.

Canada’s political leaders are expected to imagine that opportunity will come, and represent our country in a way that allows for that outcome, down the road.

In our latest wave (nationwide, online, 2940 interviews, July 3-12) 66% indicated approval of the Carney government, with a majority in every region of the country offering that opinion.

Asked what they would like to see happen if an election were held soon, 64% said they would prefer a Carney victory compared to 36% who said they would like to see Pierre Poilievre come out on top.

• Three quarters of those who voted NDP or BQ last year would prefer a Carney government to a Poilievre one. So too would 18% of 2025 Conservative voters.

• Half of our sample in Alberta said they’d prefer a Carney win - a province which elected 34 Conservatives out of 37 seats and accounts for roughly a quarter of the federal Conservative caucus.

We measure perceptions of the federal government performance across 25 different topics. The average “good” or “acceptable” rating combined is 71.7%. At the top of the ratings chart is investing in defence, diversifying trade and strengthening the image of Canada in the world. At the bottom are the cost of living and housing.

My overall takeaway from these trends is this.

2025 was marked by a lot of uncertainty, change, anxiety and volatility. Canadians reacted to new leadership, threats and insults from the US President, a sense that the world order was under extraordinary pressure.

As the calendar turned to 2026, the opinion environment is more becalmed - which is not to say complacent. People are stressed, but not shocked. We don’t see material fluctuation. Most people think the broad outlines of Carney’s approach is a fit for the times, and are ready to see how things play out. The friction in the relationship with the US, and the resulting sense of urgency to build new opportunities, continues to be the most obvious driving force in Canadian public opinion. The most recent Trump tariffs and comments on wildfires will continue to absorb a great amount of the political bandwidth.

The Liberals are helped by the fact that the Conservative leader doesn’t look to most Canadians like a competitive alternative to Carney. His support level on our hypothetical head to head ballot question shows significant weakness among the coalition that voted for Poilievre just last year.

“For the last 10 years or so, the home that the Prime Minister used to occupy, known as 24 Sussex, has been unoccupied. It needs a lot of repairs and upgrades, including to security systems. The estimated cost to bring 24 Sussex up to the standard to house a Canadian Prime Minister including to host visitors, is potentially $50 Million. If there were private donors willing to fund these renovations, so there was no cost to the taxpayer, would you strongly support, support, be willing to go along with, oppose or strongly oppose letting people donate money to this project. The house would remain the property of the government of Canada.”

At that time, 50% said they would support this approach, another 32% would be willing to go along with it, and 17% said they opposed this idea.

There were only modest differences among partisans on this question. Conservative voters were somewhat more likely to oppose it (31%) - but most indicated they would be comfortable with this approach.

If there were an option for individual Canadians to donate a sum (we used $24 dollars and a tax receipt) to support this project, 27% said they would be certain or very likely to, and another 33% said they might or might not make such a donation. Those under 30 were the most likely to consider making a donation.

My take - based on these results - is that the approach announced by PM Carney will experience some, but pretty limited opposition.

Obviously there are more details in the future that people will have an opportunity to learn about and react to, but Canadians are likely to appreciate the recovery of this landmark and the involvement of private donations as part of the process. A not insignificant number might also donate themselves.

Liberal chances will have a lot to do with how Ford comes across over the next couple of years. It’s very difficult for an Opposition Leader to break through the content clutter - especially in provincial politics. In most cases, the only way an Opposition party wins, is when the governing party has put itself in defeat mode.

I don’t think that moment has arrived in Ontario just yet, but if it does, the Ontario Liberal Party has plenty of potential, and not a great deal of baggage.

Earlier this month we asked a sample of 1608 people across Ontario “In the next provincial election, the Liberal Party of Ontario will have a new leader…depending on who the leader is, how much chance is there that you would consider voting Liberal?”

• 21% said there is “zero” chance. That leaves a lot of potential supporters out there.

• 14% said “for sure I will” vote Liberal, another 22% said there’s a very good chance, and 24% said there’s a decent chance. Let’s consider those three categories the Liberal potential voter pool, and leave aside another 19% who said “not much of a chance, but not zero”.

A 60% voter pool is healthy enough. Over the last fifteen provincial elections the average share of vote of the winning party was 41.5.

Over the same 15 elections, the average share won by the Liberal Party of Ontario was 35.1%. The Liberals won 5 of those elections, with an average of 42.5%

When asked “If the next Ontario election came down to a choice between electing a Liberal government led by Navdeep Bains or a Conservative government led by Doug Ford, which would you prefer?”, a narrow majority (54%) said they would prefer the Bains/Liberal outcome, while 46% would prefer another Ford win.

Our voting intention data indicates a dead heat 37-37 with the NDP well back at 16%. These numbers would mean the Conservatives shedding 6 points from last year’s election (43%) and the Liberals gaining 7 from their 30%.

So far out from an election, these voting intention results really only provide a couple of broad signals.

First, the Conservatives are not as popular as they were. In our data, Ford personally is 41% positive/41% negative for a net 0. Not great, but far from a political death knell.

Second, the Liberal Party has room to run, and certainly enough voters willing to consider voting Liberal for the party to have a clear shot at victory.

It is normal to see some transference of federal political mood onto provincial politics, and we see evidence of that in our numbers. The brand Liberal is now less toxic to conservative voters (half of federal CPC voters say there is some chance they could vote Liberal provincially, and federal NDP voters are far more inclined to want a Bains-Liberal win (76%) than another Ford victory.

In short, Ontario voters are not enthusiastic about their current government, but aren’t bursting with anger about it either. It’s more like they think something better is possible, and they’ll be open to hearing what the Liberals have to say, and measuring their next Leader against Doug Ford.

In our latest Spark Advocacy survey (nationwide, June 7-12, 4462 cases) Canadians reveal that the year of drama has made them more patient and confident about how things will work out for the country.

• 72% say the federal government is doing a good or acceptable job “handling relations with the US.” 78% say the same thing about the effort to “diversify Canada’s trade.

• These numbers have fluctuated a little over the last year. The high water mark for “handling relations with the US” was 74% last June, which fell to 63% in November and rose again to the current 72% level.

  

• In October 2025, 34% said it was urgent to secure a deal with the US as quickly as possible. Today, just 23% have that view. 77% say it’s more important to get the best deal than to try to get it quickly.

Underpinning this patience is a general confidence that things will turn out all right. When asked “in the end, how do you think the trade disputes with the US will turn out for Canada?” 43% say Canada will end up better off than before the dispute started, and 29% say more or less the same. Just 27% believe Canada will end up worse off - including just 11% who say we will be much worse off.

How is it possible that the level of anxiety and urgency that was evident in January 2025 has shifted so much?

In my view, there are several factors that are contributing.

First, many people sense that Trump’s tariff policies have been chaotic, temperamental, and that his “deals” with other countries have been fragile, to say the least. Canadians understand the risk of seeming to want a deal so badly with someone who can’t be trusted to keep their part of a bargain.

Second, Trump’s tariff agenda has created resistance in the US, and may not survive past Trump’s Presidency, or perhaps even much beyond the mid-terms this fall. US courts have pushed back on the tariff agenda, Americans are tired of inflation and do not believe that tariffs will lead to a great reshoring manufacturing renaissance.

Canadians sense that Trump’s power may be waning, that Americans don’t like these tariffs, nor the constant friction with allies.

Third, except for certain sectors, the impact on the Canadian economy so far has not been as dramatically negative as people feared. Much of the country’s trade remains protected under USMCA. There is a growing acknowledgement in America that Canada “has cards”, especially when it comes to aluminium and potash, and that Canadian lumber and energy would be very hard to replace. Canadians sense that our negotiating position has not weakened, but possibly firmed, when it comes to the fundamentals of how the trading relationship works.

Finally, Canadians see a federal strategy which is a combination of aggressive and ambitious efforts to diversify our trade and make our economy less dependent on the US, while at the same time, approaching the US as an ally and trading partner, with constructive ideas, but no sense of desperation. People are optimistic that the world wants to invest in Canada and do more trade with Canada, even if this transition will take time.

Trump has fought with Meloni, Macron, Starmer, Werz. He’s insulted and threatened and bullied them. Skirmishes with Carney have been qualitatively different. In the end, Canadians sense that the world is not going to capitulate to Trumpism.

No doubt Carney’s Davos speech caused frustration among Trump’s close circle. It laid bare the hypocrisy of Trump’s position: on the one hand he doesn’t want to “carry” all these other countries that he says have depended too much on the US. And then, when other countries talk about doing things on their own or without the US as leader, he reminds us not to forget that “Canada lives because of the United States.”

Canadians believe that amidst all the drama, a strategy of constructive, polite engagement is necessary and will work if in the end, the US decides it wants to stop creating friction with virtually all of its allies.

And whether the US does - or never does - arrive at that point, the rest of us will have been better off working on a different plan.

• On the simple question “do you want Alberta to separate from Canada” 15% said yes, 73% said no and 12% said they were not really sure. In April we found very similar numbers.

• Separatist sentiment is more concentrated among federal Conservative Party voters. While 58% of them are committed federalists, 27% want Alberta to separate and another 16% are unsure.

• On the question that Alberta Premier Smith will table this fall, 21% say they will vote to start the process of a binding referendum, and another 9% are unsure how they will vote. Two thirds will vote to remain in Canada.

• Most Albertans believe that separation would be bad for Alberta’s economy, would drive up taxes and the cost of provincial government, bad for education and health services, and bad for them personally. Negative impacts may be up marginally from our April measurement - but the difference is close to a margin of error.

• If there were a referendum down the road on separating, only 32% of Albertans think the threshold for separating should be 50% plus one vote -62% say it should require a higher number of votes. Another 5 % say Alberta should not separate under any circumstances. Conservative voters are somewhat split on this question - with 43% saying the threshold should be 50% plus one and 52% saying it should be higher.

Little has changed in the last couple of months. Separatist sentiment has not gained momentum, and remains at a level that would lead to a pretty strong repudiation of the idea in October. The debate among federal Conservative voters is the crucial battleground - at least for now. Interventions by federal Conservatives like Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre will be important, especially as several retired Reform politicians are staking out ground in favour of separation.

• A majority gave the government good or acceptable performance ratings on all 22 items. The average across all items was 72.3%

• 7 of the items tested showed modest gains since January of this year. All other shifts were within the margin of error.

• Top rated areas of performance include investment in military, diversification of trade relations and strengthening Canada’s image internationally.

• The two bottom rated items were housing affordability and the cost of living. Both improved 3 points from January.

• 75% and 74% respectively offer good or acceptable ratings on climate policy and protection of the environment.

• 72% are satisfied with the approach taken to Canada US relations.

• 71% satisfied with effort to improve the economy.

These top line numbers help explain why we find a continuing overall level of satisfaction in the mid 60’s. Underneath the top lines there are some patterns that are interesting.

The NDP Voter

A majority of those who voted NDP last year give the government good or acceptable ratings on all 22 items. Weaker assessments were on protection of the environment, oil and gas policy, support for social programs, cost of living and housing affordability.

The Conservative Voter

On 8 of the 22 items, 50% or more of those who voted Conservative last year offer the government a good or acceptable rating. On only 6 of 22 items do 60% or more offer a poor rating: size and cost of government, immigration, housing, crime and cost of living.

So what would I take away from these numbers?

First, given the amount of disruption in the world, the economic challenges and headwinds, uncertainty about trade relations with the US, Canadians are remarkably accepting of the direction and approach of the Carney government, so far.

Second, we see less partisan division than had become customary in Canada. It is unusual for a Prime Minister to muster this level of support across partisan lines.

Third, opinion is pretty stable, I don’t believe there is a lot of week to week or even month to month movement. The large majority of people are paying little attention to the normal political jockeying in the Ottawa precinct. We don’t see any shift in our voting intention data, with a Liberal lead in the high teens, just shy of the last Leger reading.

Recurring speculation about how support for the government may crash unless X happens by Y feels to me more pro forma than connected to evidence, since the prevailing evidence is to the contrary. Obviously at some point, people grow restless but the evidence of the past year is that they have become more patient rather than more impatient, when it comes to progress on tough issues, such as Canada US relations.

Clearly, Conservative leader Poilievre has failed to galvanize his own 2025 coalition by arguing that Carney has been a total failure for Canada. And the NDP voters no longer look like they would only vote Liberal to avoid a Conservative government.

(Our results are always weighted to the proper proportions of the population by age, education, gender and region. We do not consider it a reliable practice to ask people how they voted in last election and weight results based on how people answer that question. For additional views on this topic there is a useful paper prepared by Canadian academic researchers. Durand, C., Deslauriers, M . & Valois I. (2015). Should Recall of Previous Votes Be Used to Adjust Estimates of Voting Intention? Survey Insights: Methods from the Field, Weighting: Practical Issues and ‘How to’ Approach. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/?p=3543)

Bruce Anderson is a founding partner of Spark Advocacy. Spark provides campaigns and communications and research services to clients across many sectors in Canada. He has been in the polling and communication field for more than 40 years.

• Asked “As you may know, the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran, arguing the need to end the repression of Iranians and to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons..in general do you support or oppose this action by the US and Israel?” 21% said they support the war, 50% oppose and 29% are undecided. (In March, we found essentially the same result, 20% support and 52% opposition)

• Asked what they would like to see happen now, opinion is much more unequivocal: 8#% say “the war should be stopped immediately so that the economy of the world is not more disrupted”, while just 17% say “the US and Israel should continue with the war until Iran agrees to their terms”.

There are few meaningful differences of opinion, large majorities in every region and across generations want to see an immediate end. Conservative voters are a little more divided, but two thirds would also like to see the war conclude now.

Here’s what we find as Parliament gets ready to rise for the summer.

• Overall satisfaction with the “way in which the federal government is handling its responsibilities” sits at 66%. Over 12 data points in our tracking since Carney took office, the average approval rating was 65.2.

  Majorities of BQ and NDP voters as well as a third of Conservative voters approve of the overall performance of the government.

  

  

• Asked to grade Carney as Prime Minister, 86% offered a passing mark while 14% said they would give Carney an F. The plurality said the government deserved a B, and a total of 55% would give the government an A or a B. Interesting to note is the fact that 50% of current CPC voters give Carney an A, B or C. Just 32% of Conservatives would give Carney a failing grade.

  

• Asked whether - in an upcoming election - they would prefer a Carney win or a Polievre win, Carney was preferred by s 63:37. Majorities of BQ (68%) and NDP (71%) voters would prefer to see Carney win in that scenario. 16% of Conservative voters would prefer Carney to Poilievre, while 7% of Liberal voters would prefer Poilievre.

  

Our results are always weighted to the proper proportions of the population by age, education, gender and region.

(We do not consider it a reliable practice to ask people how they voted in last election and weight results based on how people answer that question. For additional views on this topic there is a useful paper prepared by Canadian academic researchers. Durand, C., Deslauriers, M . & Valois I. (2015). Should Recall of Previous Votes Be Used to Adjust Estimates of Voting Intention? Survey Insights: Methods from the Field, Weighting: Practical Issues and ‘How to’ Approach. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/?p=3543)

Bruce Anderson is a founding partner of Spark Advocacy. Spark provides campaigns and communications and research services to clients across many sectors in Canada. He has been in the polling and communication field for more than 40 years.

The positions he’s taken, or the way he expresses himself, has left many voters cold. He bet heavily on harnessing the frustration of young people, especially young men. He pushed his whole stack in. Older voters backed away. Today, he trails Mark Carney among young people, and is miles behind among 60+ voters.

His problem isn’t policy. It’s tone and attitude. He needs to draw people towards him. It won’t happen by telling people the other guy is a dunce. Or that Canada is failing and swirling the drain. Or that Alberta separatists shouldn’t vote to separate but you can well understand why they might want to.

Poilievre needs more people to like the sound of his voice. To hear him say things that make them feel more confident about the future, not more depressed about the state of things.

Poilievre has decided he couldn’t win an election soon, so he should bide his time and wait for Carney to lose popularity. How he uses that time will have a lot to do with what would happen, in that circumstance where people are looking for something different, again.

(Fully understanding that he is extremely unlikely to take any advice from me) I found myself wondering what I would want him to say if I were still a Conservative partisan (as I was in the days of Mulroney, Clark and Charest) and hoping for a day when my party could win again.

Here’s how my Poilievre Canada Day speech would go.

Ladies and Gentlemen, what a country we live in.

Can we all just take a moment to appreciate what makes us love this country, and why “Canadian” is something that is respected around the world. Let me share with you what comes to mind for me.

It’s true there’s crime in Canada, but it’s one of the safest places in the world. This is a place where we debate how to make it even safer to walk the streets, to worship as you wish, to be yourself.

We love our seasons. We embrace the ice and snow, talk up our harvests, drink in the changing fall colours, relish the smell of earth in spring, talk about the bugs and when they’ll go away, enjoy the water and the swims and camps and campfires.

We occupy and nurture a bigger part of the planet, including the oceans, than almost any country in the world. It’s our inheritance and will be our legacy and we feel that responsibility keenly.

We love our music, sports and arts. Our hearts swell when one of us gets noticed around the world, but we also love the ones who remain our own special “if you know you know” artists.

Our politics aren’t perfect, our politicians are human. But few are corrupt. Almost all are trying to do what they think is right. Money doesn’t buy political favours. Corporations can’t give more money than the regular individual. This is good.

Every day when I stand up in the House of Commons, I know that my job is to challenge and criticise and pressure the government. But I also know that Canadians expect me to do it with a measure of maturity and respect. For what it’s worth, I’m sure I don’t always meet that standard, but I know I should strive to.

People in Canada aren’t obsessed with politics. It plays a healthy role in our life as a country. But it’s not everything, and it’s shouldn’t sound like warfare. People in politics, myself included, need to check ourselves sometimes, and remind ourselves that we work for people who have lives to live, and agendas that mostly have nothing to do with our work on their behalf. Humility is too rare in the political world, even though it might just be the most Canadian trait of all. And yes, that’s me saying I know I set a less than stellar example.

I think Mark Carney is a good human being, a very smart person, and someone truly dedicated to his country. He is doing what he’s doing because he wants to be of service to his country. He’s hard not to like, and for sure there are some days when I appreciate how he approaches his job.

When next we campaign against each other, I’ll paint a sharp contrast between what I think would serve your interests and what he is doing. I’ll talk about how he’s fallen into promising more than he can deliver, spending more than we all can afford, and putting too much trust in government rather than the hard work and spirit of enterprise of the people. I’ll highlight where our policies would differ and tell you more about the people who are running alongside me for the Conservative Party.

Between now, and then, though, let me put a few things on the table.

And leave no room for doubt.

Canada is a helluva success story. People from around the world want to come here, and of course they would. No one who is thinking clearly should vote to break up Canada. That’s a terrible idea.

Our economy runs on a lot of people working hard, adapting to a changing world, reinventing how we make a living, and persevering. Governments don’t always help, sometimes hurt, but this country is not broken. Not even close.

The last several years have been trying for a lot of people. Emotions can run high, politics can get brittle, and I’ve done more than my share of trying to rile people up, for political purposes. And so as we arrive at another Canada Day, I’ve been taking stock, perhaps, to borrow a phrase “to look within myself” a bit.

People are entitled to hold me to a standard. To be a champion for Canada. To be preoccupied with Canadians, not only Conservatives, to build confidence, not stoke fear. To give people more hope, better ideas, and show a set of values they can be proud to see on a national stage.

To everyone who lives in Canada today, who built Canada in the past, and who pay the bills for people like me to do the work we do, thank you for making this country as great as it is, and for holding us to a high standard. Your country, and you, deserve nothing less.”

Seattle is second only to Silicon Valley in experiencing the economic upside of technology, as home to both Microsoft and Amazon, 2 of the world’s 14 trillion dollar companies. Both companies sit at the centre of the boom in investment of Artificial Intelligence.

AI needs data centres. Lots of them. But as the race to build them is gathering momentum, so too is opposition. A Washington Post poll found voter "comfort with a new data centre in your community" was cut in half from 69% to 35% in just 3 years. Unusually, Trump voters and Democrats are mostly on the same page expressing discomfort.

Where will the water come from, where will the massive energy come from, and how much will the answer to these questions affect consumer costs. For those living near data centres, noise is another major challenge.

Hesitation about AI is related, obviously, but different. People worry about human job loss, and about the potential harm to humanity.

Last week the Carney government unveiled Canada's National AI Strategy, called 'AI for All.' Minister of Artificial Intelligence Evan Solomon — the former journalist and broadcaster who now holds the portfolio — has framed the strategy around building public trust.

Solomon’s announcement is an important step, the conversation needs shape, and voters need to engage on the issues, and contemplate the different and complex choices facing governments.

On the one hand, saying no to AI would be putting handcuffs on our economy. Saying yes - with no guardrails - would be just as reckless a choice.

Public concerns will not be easy to tamp down. Media coverage will tend to lean in on stories that document everything that can and might go wrong. People are naturally interested in things that could negatively affect them, and it’s hard for many to imagine the myriad ways in which AI could be beneficial.

The leaders of the AI enterprises often reinforce public anxieties. Anthropic’s CEO has said the world needs a brake, not only a gas pedal, when it comes to AI, because of risks to humanity that governments must regulate. Good for him to flag issues and point towards solutions. At the same time, this conversation will, for the foreseeable future, make social license for AI and data centres elusive and fragile.

The broad outlines of what it will take to establish a durable social license are clear. Here are the biggest question marks.

Water. Data centres consume massive amounts of water. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently described how his company is working to solve this issue, creating a closed loop which would result in a data centre consuming roughly as much water as a restaurant. That would be a massively positive development.

Energy. Mind boggling is the best way to describe the tremendous amount of electricity data centres require. Where will it come from, how will it be paid for, who will pay for it, and will it be possible to use that much energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions? All of these questions remain only partially answered, but what won’t work is the public paying more for their electricity in order to subsidise energy for hyper-scalers.

Noise. Massive data centres hum, continuously. They don’t make great next door neighbours. Finding the space to locate them where the noise pollution isn’t intolerable, or solving the noise some other way, will matter when it comes to community willingness to embrace a data centre.

Those are the main questions that surround data centres, and they sit alongside big questions about Artificial Intelligence.

What will happen to jobs? How can people be given the tools and support to adapt and use the technology quickly enough to keep pace with the displacement that will happen in some areas.

Is there any way to ensure ethical uses and avoid abuses? This is as much a question of technology as of law. Companies must be ready and willing to come up with innovative answers to this dilemma.

Can countries find ways to connect with the world while protecting their ability to act as sovereign states, on behalf of their citizens. In many parts of the world, America under Trump 2.0 feels threatening and untrustworthy, leading countries to look for solutions which limit US influence.

In my lifetime, alongside the invention of the Internet, there has never been a more important technological shift, prompting a more complex set of policy choices for governments.

What makes all of this even more challenging, is that the US under Donald Trump has abandoned the conversation about setting global standards and norms. MAGA America is racing to dismantle clean energy and deregulate technology giants. It’s like bringing a casino mindset to a brain surgery theatre.

It would be excellent for Canadians if our major political parties found ways to collaborate on solutions to these challenges, rather than to use AI as the next polarising wedge issue. Solomon’s approach has avoided partisan edges, to his credit.

Our country can be both a dynamic participant in the innovation and economic upsides of AI while thinking hard and being creative about protecting the public interest.

But in the end, government can’t do this on its own. Just as mining companies, banks, telecommunications companies, railways and many other sectors of our economy have had to develop, discuss, promote, and maintain visible standards that meet the public where they are, this will need to happen when it comes to AI and data centres too.

While the speed of capital formation for AI seems breathtaking right now, the effort to build public support, by the companies that will need it, feels like it remains mostly on the drawing board.

What’s this got to do with high speed rail?

The discussion around housing affordability often stalls out at the conundrum of how to protect the asset values of those who own homes today, while at the same time giving those who want to own a home a chance to buy one, in an area where they would like to live.

Cutting development charges and taxes will help. So too will driving more investment in Canada that will strengthen incomes.

But we shouldn’t lose sight of the opportunity to stimulate economic activity and new housing in parts of the country that have less population density and less costly residential land.

Canada’s High Speed Rail project, called Alto, has real potential to help with this challenge. The Toronto-Quebec City corridor is home to 18 million people. The most powerful upside of Alto might be in stimulating business development and affordable, appealing housing along more places within the corridor.

The historical evidence of how this works is undeniable.

People settle where they can move goods and themselves at reasonable cost and efficiency. When the cost geography is improved, the settlement map changes.

The Erie Canal turned Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse into boom towns. The St. Lawrence and Rideau Canal system helped develop places like Brockville, Kingston and Cornwall. The effect on Ottawa was a little different than originally intended, but the end result of a large and vibrant economy was the same.

The CPR was arguably Canada’s most obvious example of how transportation links define urban development. Route choices have had a massive impact and the same will be true of Alto’s final route choices.

In Britain, railways connected urban London with many small towns and rural areas, which have since become thriving urban communities.

Experiences in China and Japan showed that intermediate cities and towns along high speed rail routes can also experience significant upsides. In France, when the TGV connected Paris to Reims, Dijon and Strasbourg, housing demand in those towns surged. People kept working in Paris but bought larger, less expensive homes in connected cities.

Places along the potential Alto rail line stand to see economic benefits because they will be more integrated into the largest labour markets in the country.

Someone thinking about commuting to a job in downtown Toronto from Peterborough today, faces a drive, in painful traffic of at least 2 hours each way, optimistically. Most people won’t do that. The lifestyle trade off is too extreme,

But Alto could bring Peterborough from outside the plausible commuter zone to inside it, with a 35 minute comfortable train ride.

Changing distant cities and towns to “far suburbs” is where the housing affordability option really happens. It’s important to plan this out, and make sure that the land prices remain affordable while the market interest is developing, of course.

Public opinion on this project is still only lightly formed, but broadly positive. Across the country, most people (82%) support or are willing to go along with the project.

No doubt as the Alto conversation moves along, there will be questions raised about cost and route and right of way. All normal and healthy. But alongside these concerns, the proponents of the project have a great case to make, not only about comfortable and fast travel, but about helping solve a major challenge today.

Bringing plenty of focus to the impact of Alto on labour market integration, and lower cost housing for people who live along this corridor, will help broaden support, including among those who might never be in a position to use the route themselves.

• People are generally more averse to losing something of value than they are convinced that they will gain something meaningful.

• Change is complex, and the more people contemplate it, the easier it is to become worried and fatigued by the choice. Fatigue results in a no vote to change.

• Those pitching change find themselves defending their project against multiple criticisms, from a variety of opponents. Opponents often only need to prove one downside of change. Proponents have to neutralize a lot of different concerns.

These dynamics are normal patterns but of course they can be upended by unusual events and circumstances. Still, as people consider the path to Alberta’s vote, they provide some parameters for thinking about what might happen.

In my research, hard core, convinced separatists in Alberta number roughly 20%. They are mostly male, often rural, generally older. They aren’t looking for a better deal, or the end of certain federal policies. They believe Canada has been a bad deal. They are angry about the influence of multiculturalism and progressive thinking in Canada. They are full throated about their conservatism, and many admire Donald Trump. Realistically, no one is going to change their mind, or their vote.

Committed federalists number 60%. Some of them think Alberta has been treated badly, some of them want a better deal, but they are pretty sure that separation will only make their economy weaker and their prospects more in doubt.

The remaining 20% are the voters whose choice will determine whether uncertainty becomes a more permanent feature of Alberta politics, with all the economic consequences that entails.

Some are only lightly interested in politics, and will be late deciders, if they end up voting at all. Others are mostly young, urban and suburban people who don’t feel particular grievance with Canada, but have a weaker attachment to the country and feel genuinely uncertain about whether the status quo will give them the economic future they aspire to, or whether separation might be more promising.

Of the choices Premier Danielle Smith has made in this debacle, giving people a “stay or maybe leave” choice is probably the worst. Letting the uncertain mark their ballot “uncertain” (meaning “let’s have another referendum”) might feel like a cost-less choice, but it isn’t.

If there needed to be a referendum - there didn’t - the way to end the conversation was a “stay or leave” choice.

The campaign then would have pitted political grievance against economic risk. In such a fight, concerns about the economy would almost certainly have prevailed.

Brexit broke this pattern, because the exit side campaigned aggressively that staying in the EU presented even greater economic downsides than leaving, which of course turned out to be dead wrong. However, a Carney federal government is not a parallel for Brussels, as far as Albertans are concerned. His approach is widely seen as economically reassuring, unifying and ambitious.

This debate needs to be led mainly by Albertans. As much as Carney has found traction in Alberta, swing voters know that his agenda includes the interests of people outside Alberta too.

Stephen Harper, Pierre Poilievre and many small, medium and large business voices should be crystal clear against Smith’s “maybe” option, and call it what it would be - an endless tax on Alberta’s economy.

Doing that means resisting the temptation to constantly validate grievance, as several federal Conservatives were doing again this week. The suggestion that there was no separatist sentiment in Alberta before the Liberals took over in 2015 is a ludicrous fiction. Every time people nurture the grievance they nurture the “maybe” argument - by letting people imagine that another referendum will result in more leverage, rather than fewer jobs.

By offering voters her “maybe” option, Smith has dangled a sword above the Alberta economy. It would be better if those who know this is true, did not equivocate in making that case.

If, in the end, the 20% leave sentiment grows into 40% support for Smith’s “maybe” option - she will have only herself to blame. Alberta will have avoided a near term crisis, but rebranded itself as a place that is unsettled and unpredictable, at the precise moment when attracting investment is crucial, and promising, too.

About one third of Conservative voters approve of the current government, as do at least two thirds of NDP and BQ voters.

If there were an election now, 63% would prefer to see the reelection of the Carney government, compared to 37% who would prefer a Poilievre win. In Alberta, 52% would prefer a Carney victory.

Each month we measure 22 areas of government performance. On 20 of the 22 items at least two thirds offered good or acceptable ratings. Best results include for investment in military, diversifying trade relations, attracting new investment and strengthening Canada’s image in the world. The only items where “good/acceptable ratings dropped below two thirds were for housing affordability (60%) and “cost of living” (60%).

Perceptions of Carney and Poilievre are steady, with 62% expressing a positive feeling about Carney and 41% feeling that way about Poilievre.

How people feel about Carney has rather little to do with demographics (age, gender, income, education, etc). Disapproval is mostly concentrated on the right of the spectrum and within that group, those who like Donald Trump. Only 16% of Canadians have a positive feeling about the US President. But those on the right are almost four times more likely have a positive impression of Trump, than those on the centre.

We regularly ask Canadians to assess what impact Trump will have in serving the interests of Americans. Across the country, 80% think “Trump is harming the interests and prospects of Americans and turning the world against America”, while 20% think “Trump is being the world to his will and will end up creating good outcomes for Americans”.

Those on the right are more than twice as likely (38%) as those on the centre (15%) to think Trump will deliver good outcomes for Americans.

The impact of Trump on the world combined with the approach and focus of Carney have essentially restructured the political agenda and priority list for Canadians, at least for the vast majority of those on the centre and left and for many of those on the right.

If there’s a sharp dividing line in Canadian politics today, it’s the difference between northern MAGA voters and the large majority who have an intense dislike of the US President.

Two years ago, most people wouldn’t have predicted that we would to be dealing with the global circumstances we see now, but Canadians have recognized that the times are different.

For opposition parties, the message in these numbers is that there’s little point in trying to reminisce about an agenda that seemed well suited to the times three years ago - people want a map of where we need to go, not a rear view mirror. And for the Conservatives, the pro-Trump third of their coalition remains a huge barrier to competitiveness among mainstream voters.

Trump will never stop being Trump. But he’s got fewer cards. He’s spending billions on a war Americans didn’t ask for and don’t believe will accomplish much. A billion on a ballroom they were told would be free. He’s close to owning the highest gasoline price in history. (In 1918, as refining was just getting started, gas was $5.41 in today’s dollars. He’s sitting at an average of $4.55.) The man who campaigned to cut gas prices in half, has driven them up 46% since the day he was sworn in.

But Trump tells people gas prices are low and coming down quickly. That the war with Iran is over, and it’s a giant victory. That the ballroom is under budget.

His political strategy has always been - in a nutshell - treat people like they’re stupid, and you’d be surprised how far you can get.

Here in Canada, there are a lot of different ways to analyze the wide gap between Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre. Resume, experience, knowledge… are all important.

But here’s another that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Carney speaks like the thoughtful person in your neighborhood, circle of friends, or extended family. The one who listens. Is polite. And who, when they lean in, says things that give you pause. Because they sound logical, and you can tell they’ve given it some thought.

But more than anything because human beings also react to the subtle chemistry of a conversation. They sense when they are being treated like they are gullible or dumb.

Carney treats people who disagree with him like decent people who happen to disagree with him.

Poilievre has adopted the opposite style. He mocks people who ask him challenging questions. He distills complex issues to simplistic slogans. He endlessly repeats that Carney has done nothing in office, despite the fact that most voters think Carney is running harder at the job than anyone they can remember. When Poilievre says Carney is poorly educated, voters think the Conservative leader must be high. Poilievre sells a PIPELINE YESTERDAY as the answer to everything.

The number of voters who believe Carney is a poorly educated layabout and the key to the future comes down to a pipeline is… microscopic. Except on Conservative twitter. The echo chamber effect can make anyone feel like they are winning a political prize fight. For several federal Conservative MPs who you would have thought know better, it’s become an opiate. They offer quarter truths, and love the resulting embrace of the angry. They won’t get competitive doing this.

This weekend Carney gave a speech which wound through the values and priorities that drive his choices. It was a standard for a speech we should want all of our leaders to hit - whether they have the same prescriptions or otherwise. Here are some excerpts:

“sovereignty requires more than a country just being able to feed, fuel, defend itself, as important as that is. It requires access to those critical minerals, to space-base communications, to sovereign cloud, A.I., payment systems, clean energy, and vaccines. And all of that demands partnership, and there’s no one-stop shop for that partnership, we need a variable geometry, a dense web of partnerships across those core strategic capabilities and issues, drawing on common values and interests, because it’s those common values and interests that will assure alignment and respect to those agreements.

We’re focused on building sustainably, because reducing emissions is not just a moral duty, it’s an economic imperative. So that means those low-carbon homes, low-carbon trade corridors, low-carbon manufacturing, zero carbon energy. We’re building in solidarity with workers; our focus is on creating good union careers for electricians, welders, carpenters, pipe-fitters, the engineers who will build the homes, the ports, the energy systems of this country.

…Those whose politics is to destroy, to demolish, dismantle, they’re not going to change their instincts, this is, many respects, this is their moment, right? We can’t match them by being timid imitations of them, we can’t answer them by pining for an old order that’s not going to return. And the loss of control that people feel, that feeds our age of anxiety, it can only be answered, only be answered by positive action, by building that which comes next.

… In this more uncertain world, building for all, actual building, concrete, steel, and code, is the new progressive politics. And our message, our message to Canadians, right from the start, has been reflecting back what we’ve heard, it’s a more dangerous world, we have to take care of ourselves, and as Canadians we will always take care of each other. Building a country that’s not just strong, it’s good. Not just prosperous, but fair. Not just for some most of the time, but for all Canadians, all of the time.

I personally happen to agree with these points, but whether you do or not, my point is this. It’s a grown up conversation.

It assumes that people want to know the things you believe in, the problems you are trying to solve, the values you consider to be most important. If you tell them something is complex, this builds trust and interest, because they know it’s true. If you give them the overly simplistic, they feel disrespected.

Before Carney got into politics, some wondered if he would be able to express his thoughts in a way that would capture attention in a time where competition for attention is so intense. Turns out many have been looking for something they haven’t been finding in the jibber jabber that a lot of modern politics indulges in. A serious, thoughtful, conversation, with plenty of optimism, but plenty of truth too.