| The Liberals are Back!
Liberals Fly Past Conservatives in Popularity Poll.
OTTAWA—The federal Liberal "revival" has been given a big boost by last week's convention that chose Stéphane Dion as leader, according to a new poll released today. An EKOS Research Associates poll shows the Liberals would be close to winning a majority government if an election were held today. It gives the Liberals 40.1 per cent of decided voters, compared to 33.5 per cent for the Conservatives. EKOS president Frank Graves said "what we are seeing here is Dion's Liberals enjoying a post-convention bounce, which builds on a trend of Liberal revival and Tory slump that began in the summer. "What is troubling for the Conservatives is an underlying trend over many months of rising dissatisfaction with the direction of government, combined with utter disappointment with its efforts on the environment. "At the same time, the preoccupation with ethics and accountability that drove the Tories' success in January (when Prime Minister Stephen Harper won an election) has largely dissipated," Graves said. The poll showed the NDP at 10.2 per cent nationally, well below the 17.5 per cent of the vote the party got in the Jan. 23 election. The Bloc Québécois was at 8.2 per cent, with the Green Party at 7.6 per cent. The survey of 1,022 adult Canadians was conducted on Dec. 5 and Dec. 6. Results from a sample of that size are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20. Harper presides over a shaky minority government that could fall as early as spring, likely after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget. Standings in the 308-seat House of Commons today are: Conservatives, 124; Liberals, 102; Bloc Québécois, 51; NDP, 29. There are also two independent MPs. The Liberal support is the highest since Jean Chrétien stepped down as leader three years ago. Its support is mainly coming at the expense of the NDP and Bloc Québécois but "they are also coming back in some of the key demographic groups — high-income earners and baby boomers — who have been important to them in the past," Graves said. The Liberals are ahead in every region except Alberta and Quebec, where they trail the Bloc, but are ahead of the Conservatives. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Dion, the Liberals' newly crowned leader, is being well received in his home province of Quebec despite his reputation as a staunch federalist, Graves said. "It's just the opposite of what many predicted. Quebecers are reacting to Dion as a favourite son. It is too early to say whether this sentiment will last. At the same time, he may have potential to win over people in the rest of the country as they get to know him better." The environment ranks a strong third when Canadians are asked to name the most important election issue, trailing only health-social issues and the economy. And of those who consider "green" issues of paramount importance, only 4 per cent said the Conservatives are the best party to deal with them. Thirty-five per cent said the Green Party and 31 per cent said the Liberals. With those type of results, the poll shows how the NDP is being squeezed. "There is a shock result here for the NDP," Graves said. "Nationally, the Greens are within sight of the NDP." In Quebec, the Greens now run ahead of the New Democrats and they are tied in Alberta. "These are the first clear indications we have that the New Democrats could find themselves squeezed into irrelevance in a painful grind between the Liberals and the Greens." The Tories' high card remains Harper. Even as public voting preferences have shifted toward the Liberals, Harper comes ahead of Dion when respondents are asked which leader would make the best prime minister. And outside Quebec and Atlantic Canada, Harper is seen by Canadians as the leader with the "best vision for the future of the country." Respondents were also asked which party leader best understands "the concerns of people like you?" Harper came out ahead of Dion in Western Canada but the new Liberal leader edged out the Prime Minister in Ontario and Quebec. In Atlantic Canada, Dion was well ahead of Harper on this question. Among federal voters in Ontario, the Liberals' lead continues to grow and now stands at 46.9 per cent. This is followed by the Conservatives at 37.4 per cent, while the NDP has fallen to 9.1 per cent and the Green Party has 6.6 per cent. In Quebec, the Liberals, who trailed the Conservatives for most of this year, are now solidly established in second place, with 26.1 per cent support. The Conservatives have 18.3 per cent while the Bloc Québécois hold a strong but diminishing lead, with 34.7 per cent. The Greens have 12.1 per cent and the NDP 8.8 per cent.
Confused over Québécois? You're not alone, poll shows
OTTAWA—The definition and understanding of the term "Québécois" shifts according to whether you live in Quebec or the rest of Canada, according to an EKOS poll. Canadians outside Quebec believe the term refers to old-stock francophones, whereas residents of the province consider it an all-encompassing definition for all who live there. The poll, conducted by EKOS Research Associates, found 62 per cent of those surveyed in Quebec believe it applies to all who live in the province, while 24 per cent say it refers to "any francophone living in Quebec." In the rest of Canada, 37 per cent believe the term "Québécois" refers to anyone living in Quebec, and an identical percentage believe it refers to any francophone living in Quebec. A smaller percentage of respondents — 9 per cent in Quebec and 15 per cent in the rest of Canada — believe the definition refers only to francophones whose ancestors came directly from France. On Nov. 27, the Commons overwhelming passed a motion formally recognizing "les Québécois" as a nation within a united Canada. But the motion caused some confusion as to the exact definition of Québécois. "We have a term that's been introduced into the national debate that is at best confusing and at worst mischievous and corrosive ... not only do we not agree on what it means, we don't agree on whether more power for Quebec is a good or bad idea," said Frank Graves, president of EKOS. Graves' research agrees with theories advanced by some Quebec observers and pundits, to the effect that English Canada's conception of the Québécois reality fits with what most denizens of the province consider an outdated view: a predominantly French-speaking Catholic of European extraction. He said the results are "mildly surprising" in that Quebecers' conception of themselves appears to have evolved over the past decade, since the province considered itself a "distinct society." "Québécois now equals a civic identity of all Quebecers living in the province. It's not seen as an ethno-cultural concept," Graves said. Beyond the etymological debate, English Canadians are more likely to believe the federal government's recognition of "les Québécois" as a nation will result in increased powers for Quebec — an outcome that is broadly viewed as a bad thing. By contrast, respondents in Quebec are more skeptical that last month's Commons motion will affect the balance of federal-provincial power, although increased powers for Quebec are seen as a positive development within the province. The poll also suggests the whole issue of Quebec's national status may be a political liability for the Conservatives. Given the attention in Quebec to top-of-mind issues like the environment and the conflict in Afghanistan, the nation resolution hasn't allowed the Tories to make any headway in the province. Graves said the data buttress the opinion the voting public in Quebec largely expects Conservatives — the party of Meech Lake — to recognize Quebecers as a "nation," although it is more likely to be impressed by Liberals making a similar gesture, given the party's historical reticence to do so. If anything, Graves said, the "nation" resolution risks provoking a backlash in English Canada while doing little to move the political needle in Quebec. Graves also said the days of politicians using language that means one thing in Quebec and something else in the rest of Canada — a tactic popularized by the late Quebec premier Robert Bourassa — are likely gone. The survey polled 1,022 people Dec. 5-6. Results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
|
|
|
Is Canada ready to take on a cleanup crusade?
For the third time in the past 40 years, Canada appears to be awash in a green wave. Once again, environment issues are a top concern in opinion polls. Politicians and business leaders can't afford to ignore them. Climate change and pollution dominate the platforms of four of the five federal parties. And even the fifth, the Conservatives, talk about them a lot. All the candidates at last weekend's Liberal leadership convention proclaimed themselves on the side of the environmental angels, and the greenest of the bunch, Stéphane Dion, won the contest. Dion promised he'd make the issue the centrepiece of a stark choice between himself and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the next election campaign. But is Canada really that green? Are Canadians actually ready to embrace a cleanup crusade? On the surface, the answer seems to be "Yes." News of a melting Arctic, droughts and floods on the Prairies and a combination of sweltering summers and freakish storms everywhere — along with a deluge of books, movies and scary reports on what's to come — have sparked high anxiety about climate change. An EKOS poll done and published today shows how the environment has grown in importance for Canadians. Asked what issue would be most important to them in an election campaign, 15 per cent said the environment. When asked the same question in January, prior to the last election, only 4 per cent said the environment. Another 23 per cent said social issues/health is most important today, while 18 per cent said the economy. Green party leader Elizabeth May finished second in the recent London North Centre federal by-election, a contest dominated by environment issues. Businesses are tripping over themselves to profess green values. It won't, however, be that simple for anyone who figures to woo voters by surfing a massive green breaker.
"Some opinion data says, `Yeah, it's part of our identity. We see ourselves as a clean country,'" says Richard Nimijean, a political scientist at Ottawa's Carleton University. "But we seem to be less willing to do the tough measures."
Yesterday, the Harper government announced plans to spend $300 million to curb the use of toxic chemicals. Soon to follow are revived subsidies for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, and resurrection of the Liberals' EnerGuide program, which paid part of the cost of making houses more efficient. In January, the government is to announce the first regulations for emissions from industries and cars under its Clean Air Act. If the Conservatives repeat past form, these measures will be mostly spin and little substance. As well, Conservative officials and supporters appear set to play the scare card, warning that environmental action would come at a high price. But the party might pull off a surprise with some tough action. Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has certainly been talking as if that's possible. Rumours suggest Harper might even shuffle her out of the job to signal a new course. Much depends on whether the green movement is viewed as a real roller, or just a ripple. Angus McAllister has been tracking Canadian opinion on the environment for 20 years. The green wave breaking now looks very similar to the one in the late 1980s and early '90s, says the Vancouver-based pollster, who runs a publication called Environmental Monitor. Back then, people faced a series of environmental crises. In 1985, acid rain became a big worry here, and in Bhopal, India, a Union Carbide chemical plant blew up, eventually killing an estimated 20,000 people. The following year, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant spewed radiation across northern Europe. Then, we got our first pictures of the gaping hole in Earth's protective ozone layer. The sweltering summer of 1988 awakened awareness of global warming. A year later, the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground and fouled Alaska's pristine coastline with heavy oil. But these events didn't move environment to the top of opinion polls, McAllister says. It barely registered as a concern. Still, a shift was taking place, a bit like the earthquake that sets off a tsunami. "What really drives people's concerns about the environment is not the incidents themselves but the sense that governments and industry aren't doing anything about them," McAllister says. "As they perceive (those in power) are not acting, they got pissed off." Up to the mid-'80s, poll respondents seemed satisfied. After a few years of bad news, though, that began to change: Views of politicians and business leaders got negative. Only then did environment shoot to first place when people were asked their major concern. Governments and industry responded with various measures, including effective treaties on ozone and acid rain, and the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Companies produced a flood of green products. Although often of dubious value, they added to the sense change was afoot. As an issue, the environment became a smooth, untroubled sea. Riffles began to disturb that placid surface seven or eight years ago. Climate change, smog and other issues were becoming more obvious and complaints about inaction started to inch up again. The trend was briefly knocked aside by the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001. Soon, though, people concluded that menace was under control and returned to their growing anger over the environment. The tipping point came in 2004, when a majority of poll respondents said governments and industry were doing a bad job, McAllister says. As before, environment soon began to shoot up the ranks of "top of mind" issues — that is, when respondents are asked, without being prompted by any suggestions, what they're most concerned about. "It's not Number One yet, but it has momentum," McAllister says. Another important measure is the number who say they're very concerned when asked about a specific issue. On that score, in the past three years environment has jumped more than 25 percentage points, to about 55 per cent. Other polls suggest 90 per cent of Canadians have some level of concern about climate change, and 71 per cent think Ottawa's approach is inadequate. Frank Graves, at EKOS Research Associates, has also found a burgeoning interest in the environment. In his surveys, worry about climate change has been building since 1997, he says. "It's a top public concern." The first green wave hit in the late 1960s. At the time, Graves says, it was a "back-to-the-Earth, Birkenstock (sandals)" sort of movement. Now, it's far more mainstream, and fuelled by unease over direct threats to our health, economy and comfortable lifestyle. "There's a new thing: The environment has an additional layer of significance" connected to security, Graves says. "It's not just socially virtuous any more. People are scared stiff about the implications for them and their grandchildren." "Canadians are increasingly feeling our house is getting trashed, and we don't like it," McAllister adds. There is, Graves and others note, a gap between expressions of concern and willingness to act. People drive their cars more than ever, and fill their homes with energy-gobbling gadgets. One example: Sales of plasma TVs are soaring, even though the bright screens consume five times more electricity than conventional models. The ecological footprint of the average Canadian — the total amount of resources we consume — continues to grow. "Climate change requires changes in household activity and in corporations," says Tima Bansal, of the Research Network for Business Sustainability at the University of Western Ontario. "At the household level, we're not changing as much as we could." On the other hand, in areas such as recycling and public smoking, Canadians have shown they can alter their behaviour. And they appear to support big-scale measures. "People tell us they're willing to have government spend a lot more on climate change, especially in relation to other issues like defence," Graves says. "Given a choice between tax relief or action on climate change, most would opt for climate change. Our evidence on that is clear." Close to a majority now say that, if necessary, they'd pay higher taxes to deal with environmental crises. But "asking Canadians to talk about new taxes in a time of (federal) surpluses seems to be out of order." McAllister notes an interesting quirk in public opinion that could be significant for party strategists: People tend to support innovative solutions until a problem impacts them directly; then they want tough regulations and punishment. On climate change, emissions trading and other new schemes will be backed a while longer, but the window is closing, McAllister says. "Once people get upset, all they want to do is regulate and fine ... They want the tried and true, even if it's less effective." The Conservatives might be on to this. All fall, they've trumpeted plans to impose regulations, but how tough they'll be remains to be seen. There are other messages, though, which Dion and May appear to understand. "You can't keep scaring people," says Katherine Cinq-Mars, a PhD candidate in political science at McGill University in Montreal. "There has to be: `Yes, the threat is serious, but we can deal with it.'" Fear-mongering about the economy, and painful adjustments, could backfire. People don't like the prospect of major sacrifices. "They want action on the cheap," Cinq-Mars says. But Canada could do many things to combat climate change, including incentives, tax shifting, efficiency regulations and emissions trading that cause little or no pain. "There's plenty of low-hanging fruit," Cinq-Mars says. Dion agrees. So does May. Sacrifice would only be necessary if nothing is done for another 10 years, she says. There's also strong support for solutions, and the optimistic idea that, as Dion insists, environmental improvements can go hand in hand with economic prosperity and making "megatonnes of dollars." Environmentalists want their issue to become so universally accepted that it's simply part of the culture, and that any rules and regulations will be viewed as untouchable when a new party comes to power. We're not at that point, observers say. But the wave seems real. Bansal views change as a contagion — a few people act and it catches on. With the environment, "I think we are on the cusp of the contagion," she says. "Climate change is a real issue, not something that's fabricated ... It's not going away." "As long as public opinion stays as it is now, there will be political incentive to do something," Cinq-Mars says.
| |