Nanos Research expects Canada-U.S. relations to factor heavily in federal election

Nanos Research Chief Data Scientist Nik Nanos speaks with Alberta Primetime host Michael Higgins about recent federal polling numbers.

Nanos Research Chief Data Scientist Nik Nanos speaks with Alberta Primetime host Michael Higgins about recent federal polling and Canada-U.S. relations.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Michael Higgins: What kind of impact is the Liberal Leadership race having on the Conservatives runaway hold on polling?

Nik Nanos: Before Justin Trudeau stepped down, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives had a whopping 27 point advantage, and I’m not sure if it’s the leadership race, or actually just Justin Trudeau stepping down, but what we’ve seen in the last couple weeks is that that 27 point advantage that the conservatives have, is now narrowing a little bit. It’s now 42-25, so instead of a 27 point advantage, it’s down to 17 points. That said, 42 per cent is still enough to form a comfortable majority government, and is probably close to the truer advantage that the Conservatives had.

MH: How realistic is it for the Liberals to expect significant enough gains through the course of the leadership race to actually challenge Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives?

NN: It’s going to be very difficult. I think the reality is that Pierre Poilievre actually has to make a mistake for his significant lead to evaporate. It’s probably not likely because he’s very disciplined and hasn’t been prone to making very many errors. He’s strong on the leadership front, he’s been consistent since he was elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, so it’s really his to lose right now.

That said, what’s interesting is that when we look at the polling data now, compared to the last federal election, the primary movement has been from the Liberals to the Conservatives, Liberal supporters now supporting Pierre Poilievre and change, so maybe some of those folks are starting to drift back.

We won’t know how competitive or uncompetitive the Liberals will be until they select their leader and things settle a little more.

MH: Mark Carney’s leadership campaign launch was held in his childhood hometown of Edmonton, Chrystia Freeland, as we know, can lay claim to significant Alberta roots. What’s your read on traction any of the candidates may or may not be making here in our province?

NN: Zero. I don’t want to say zero, that’s very harsh, not likely. You know the west, when we look at our polling in terms of the viewpoints of western Canadians of the government in Ottawa, writ large, they’re very angry. They’re angry at Ottawa. They believe that things have to change in Ottawa, and I find it difficult to see how, from a polling perspective, Chrystia Freeland, the former minister of finance, key supporter of Justin Trudeau, will have traction in the in the province of Alberta.

I think on paper, Mark Carney could do well in Alberta, or better perhaps, than the Liberals. Selectively, maybe in Edmonton, but I think in terms of a sea change, I can’t really see that right now looking at the polling numbers.

For the Liberals, the game is really in the province of Quebec. If they aren’t competitive in the province of Quebec, they might as well just fold up their campaign because they need a regional base and right now, Quebec is comparatively a better province and region for the Liberals than Atlantic Canada, Ontario or the West.

MH: In terms of what’s on the minds of Canadians, what is the current dominant issue registering the highest on the radar of voters, given the prospect we could very soon be headed to that early election?

NN: Right now it’s the economy, jobs and the cost of living that are the top of the mindset of Canadians. We’ve done an 18-year tracking study on whether Canadians think we’re moving in the right or the wrong direction as a nation, and 64 per cent of Canadians believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction, only about 23 per cent right direction.

These numbers are the worst on record in 18 years. Stephen Harper’s numbers were bad in the last two years of his mandate on this right direction, wrong direction item, but the Liberals have now broken the record for a poor score on this.

So there’s a mood across the country that the country is just moving in the wrong direction and they’re looking at alternatives, and Pierre Poilievre, right now, is at the very top of the list.

MH: How much does talk of Trump tariffs and the threat of a trade war weigh on those numbers?

NN: It weighs significantly on those numbers. The other thing is that we’re probably going to see an election that, directly or indirectly, is about Donald Trump and our response to Donald Trump and his administration and his negotiations with Canada.

It’s not going to be a carbon tax election, because we know that a couple of the Liberal leadership hopefuls are back peddling on that, and it’s not going to be on capital gains. It’s going to be on the United States, the renewal or the review of the Canada U.S. Mexico Agreement, potential tariffs that the Trump administration is looking at slapping on Canada, Mexico and other countries.

The thing is, our cost of living, jobs, our competitiveness all fits under our relationship with the United States. So for both Pierre Poilievre, and whoever happens to be the leader of the Liberal Party, they’re going to need down pat answers and a strategy on how they want to deal with Donald Trump and the administration so that Canadians can render judgment on that.

So that could be the ballot question, who’s best positioned to manage the relationship with the United States?