LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Climate change is going to be a major issue in the upcoming 2019 federal election; or so says a recent Abacus poll.

As a matter of fact this poll, according to Abacus's own analysis, tells us that "millions of Canadians indicate that the issue is extremely important and will be one of the two most important issues that they will consider in choosing how to mark their ballot".

And Abacus goes on to say, "As the weeks count down to the next federal election it seems clear that climate change will be one of the more important issues that engage voters and separate political parties one from the other."

Now if you take this analysis at face value, it's surely good news for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who, of course, has made fighting climate change one of the top items on his agenda.

Yet, with apologies to all the fine people who work at Abacus, I don't take it at face value.

In fact, I think it's a lot of polling baloney.  Or more accurately, I think the baloney is Abacus's interpretation of its own poll.

Now don't me wrong, I'm not for a minute suggesting this particular poll is basically just a blatant piece of pro-Liberal propaganda.

I would never make such a wild accusation.

Instead the point I want to make is simply this: sometimes public opinion polls, even those with meticulous methodology, can offer a misleading impression of public attitudes.

For instance, the Abacus poll I'm talking about asked respondents this blunt question: "How concerned are you personally about climate change?"

The results showed that a total of 83% of Canadians said they are "quite", "very" or "extremely concerned."

OK, that surely backs up the Abacus analysis, unless you wonder about the question itself.

And what I wonder is, when faced with the question "How concerned are you personally about climate change?" won't respondents be tempted to say, "I'm very concerned", simply because they don't want to look like they hate the planet?

In other words, even though people say climate change is a major concern, it doesn't necessarily mean that's truly the case.

Indeed, there's often a stark difference between what poll respondents say and what they really think.

This is why pollsters will use little tricks to try and get to the heart of the matter when it comes to voting priorities.

For example, one trick is to simply ask respondents to self-identify their most important issue from a list of broad categories, i.e. the economy, foreign policy, moral issues, terrorism, green issues, etc.

There's no prompting, no framing of the question, no guilt trips.

And usually when responding to such an open question, people typically say the issue they most care about is the economy.

To see what I mean, a US poll taken on the eve of the 2016 presidential election showed that 52 percent of Americans thought the number one issue in the country was the economy, while only 7 percent viewed "green" issues as a top concern.

This probably explains why Donald Trump, who made fixing the economy one of his main agenda items, defeated Hilary Clinton, who bragged about putting coal miners out of work.

Or, if you want a Canadian example, consider how Ontario Premier Doug Ford romped to a majority victory last year despite stomping all over Trudeau's carbon tax idea, which he labeled as bad for the province's economy.

Certainly if nothing else, Ford's win runs counter to the Abacus claim that Canadians view climate change as "extremely important."

I mean, if they did wouldn't Kathleen Wynne still be premier?

Meanwhile in British Columbia, NDP Premier John Horgan is considering offering "some relief" to consumers who are getting hammered with high gas prices.

If Canadians thought fighting climate change was such a top concern, wouldn't they welcome higher gas prices?

Maybe Horgan didn't see the Abacus poll?

Mind you, even the Abacus poll itself undermines the Abacus claim about the importance of the climate change issue.

What I mean is, according to the poll, when answering the question, "How important will climate change be in your vote this fall?" a paltry 12 percent of Canadians rated it as a "top issue."

That hardly sounds like a winning issue to me.

Photo Credit: Northern Pen

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


The Trudeau government has been engulfed in the SNC-Lavalin affair for two full months now.  A scandal, Liberals and friends still insist, that is really about nothing.

Yet, it is clear from the evidence that has been presented that there was very much a coordinated attempt by the Prime Minister and his office to interfere in the criminal case facing SNC-Lavalin.  While on the very first day Justin Trudeau stated the "allegations are false."

Since then, his story has changed many times, confirming slowly but surely Jody-Wilson Raybould's version.  The taped conversation between the Clerk of the Privy Council and then Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould is more undeniable evidence that in the She Said, He Said contest that preceded the release of the tape, her version was the correct one.  Liberal MPs took turns to express their disgust at Wilson-Raybould's lack of ethics.  Seriously.

So these ethical considerations became a convenient distraction from the actual content of the tape.  The tape became the excuse needed by Justin Trudeau to finally expel Jody Wilson-Raybould from the Liberal caucus, and Jane Philpott along with her although Philpott had nothing to do with that tape.

Michael Wernick was clearly on a mission on behalf of Prime Minister Trudeau, who was "quite firm" about this and was going to get this done "one way or another" because he was "in that kind of mood."

For 17 minutes, the highest federal public servant, tried to convince Jody Wilson-Raybould to call the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask her to reconsider her position on not offering a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin.

For 17 minutes, the Minister of Justice responds calmly that she can not agree to his request because the Public Prosecution Service of Canada is independent from political authorities.

Liberal operatives tried to turn the table on Jody Wilson-Raybould, claiming that she was secretly negotiating to remain in caucus.  It is a weird thing to put out there, because not only does it keep the story going, it doesn't help Trudeau.  Surely, if negotiations happened, it's because two sides were a part of it.  In other words, Trudeau was willing to play ball with Wilson-Raybould.

Willing indeed, considering that two of the five conditions were met: Principal secretary, Gerald Butts, along with Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, are out of their respective jobs.

A third one was apparently targeted by Wilson-Raybould: Senior advisor Mathieu Bouchard, from whom, incidentally, we have yet to hear from about this whole sordid affair.  Bouchard had been, according to Wilson-Raybould, quite keen to put untoward pressure on her to spare SNC-Lavalin, with the electoral calendar as his motivation.

Wilson-Raybould also wanted Justin Trudeau to apologize, something that should have been a no brainer.  If he had showed any kind of contrition, even under the pretense that this was a misunderstanding and that his office didn't want to cross any line.  After all, they kept telling her that it was her decision to make, there was no intent to interfere.

Which brings us to the last condition, which is that Jody Wilson-Raybould wanted assurances that her replacement as attorney general, David Lametti, would not overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions and direct her to give SNC-Lavalin a DPA.

Many jumped on that demand to point out that this amounted to political pressure from Jody Wilson-Raybould in a criminal case.  That is pure nonsense, of course.  More likely, Jody Wilson-Raybould simply stated that she would not remain in caucus if the PMO's political interference in the SNC-Lavalin criminal trial was to actually achieve what it sets to achieve.

In other words, if Trudeau firing her was a means of allowing the PMO's political interference to succeed, by ensuring that the next Auditor General, David Lametti, would overrule the decision of the independent prosecutor, undermining judicial independence, the very thing she had been fighting against for months, she wouldn't stick around.

She stated publicly that she would have resigned if Lametti had ordered a DPA.  He may yet do so.  And if he does, despite his plea that his decisions on this matter are his alone, everybody will think that Justin Trudeau got his way.  And that won't be seen as a win.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.