By: Gregory Jack and Mike Colledge
Over the past several months, Prime Minister Mark Carney has laid the foundation for his aggressive agenda to build Canada and de-couple it — as far as such a thing is possible — from the United States. He has convened investors in Toronto, designated major projects as “in the national interest” to speed along approvals, and carved out side agencies at the periphery of the bureaucracy to speed things up and get things done. He has tabled legislation to reduce environmental regulations and increased the federal government’s power to intervene in a labour dispute through forced mediation prior to the right to strike.
And he has done this with historic levels of public support. Polling shows strong backing of the prime minister’s agenda, and an Ipsos poll in May of this year found that 81 per cent of Canadians support the federal government’s strategy to build many new energy, resource and infrastructure projects in Canada. This is a remarkable number; it close to what we would consider to be true public consensus. That may be because almost the same number of Canadians — 71 per cent — believe Canada is falling behind due to taking too long to approve and build major energy, resource and infrastructure projects.
Carney, it seems, has carte blanche to build. But these numbers mask an important constraint. We argue what the prime minister has is conditional support and this might not hold as his agenda unfolds in real projects in real communities, producing real consequences and disruptions. He must build acceptance from skeptics on top of his existing support if he truly wants to achieve his goals.
It’s useful to define the terms here. “Support” is active approval, and today, that support is real. It may have conditions, and if those conditions are not met, then support can be withdrawn. Support today is not guaranteed tomorrow. But for our purposes, “support” means backing a proposal because you believe that you will benefit from it.
Acceptance, on the other hand, is tolerance of a proposal that will not directly benefit you. It is being willing to put up with something because it will benefit the country at large. Canadians have not yet been forced to reckon with the tradeoffs that they will be asked to make. Someone who supports a pipeline because it will benefit them is not the same as someone who accepts that pipelines should be built.
Our polling measures broad approval for building in the abstract, but some of that approval must be mere acceptance, and that acceptance can rapidly vanish if and when the specific details are known. Someone might accept a pipeline in theory but not one that cuts through their province, for instance.
There is a useful, recent example. Justin Trudeau convinced around four in 10 (41 per cent) Canadians to support a carbon tax. No one really supports taxes, but people will accept that they are necessary under certain conditions. Ipsos polling in August 2021 found that seven in 10 (71 per cent) Canadians would be more supportive of a carbon tax if they knew the money collected was going directly to initiatives to combat climate change. Under those conditions, they supported a carbon tax; even with known costs, they accepted it.
The moment Trudeau started carving out exceptions for things like heating oil in Atlantic Canada to maintain Liberal support there, acceptance evaporated. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre prosecuted a successful campaign against the carbon tax, arguing that it was negatively impacting Canadians everywhere. The tax was not seen to be fair and became extremely political. Ultimately, Trudeau’s own party, under his successor, were the ones to eliminate it.
What is Carney’s carbon tax equivalent? We argue that it is assuming support for his agenda will endure the scrutiny of the trade-offs and the costs of acceptance. The prime minister has not yet done the work locally to create enduring deference to his projects, nor really outlined the costs and benefits to communities. The carbon tax involved very easily identified, measurable costs. The benefits were supposed to be a winning battle against climate change; instead, the carbon tax became a tool Trudeau wielded for moral lecturing and regional favouritism.
The build agenda imposes costs too. It means communities must accept pipelines and rail lines going through their backyards. It means fast-tracking projects and limiting environmental reviews. It means faith that benefits to Canada — and to the individual — will accrue evenly over time. Carney has rallied the nation to support his build agenda as necessary, but he has come nowhere close to laying out the terms of acceptance and the associated trade-offs. Unions and Indigenous groups are starting to ask questions. One of those is what’s in it for me?
There is regional skepticism as well. All the premiers are notionally on board with bringing down trade barriers, building at pace, and finding ways to diversify and expand the economy. Doug Ford, never one for subtle, careful argument, is saying he wants things to happen fast. Full stop. His endorsement of the Carney agenda, however, has not yet proven whether it can withstand local opposition, local costs for national gain, or acceptance under duress. Ford isn’t offering any trade-offs where Ontario carries more of the costs and less of the gains. Neither is Danielle Smith in Alberta.
The moment a shovel enters the ground in someone’s backyard, acceptance is tested and will only survive until it finds an identifiable loser. Rallying behind the flag will not be enough to carry actual projections to completion. For that to happen, Carney must make the case for both legitimacy and necessity, and broker the tradeoffs required.
Carney needs some communities to say “this project should proceed, even at a cost to my community, or me personally, for the betterment of Canada.” That has not happened yet; it may never. It’s easy for an Albertan to support a pipeline to B.C. It’s much harder for a British Columbian to accept it. Success of Carney’s agenda will rely on a willingness to proceed despite concerns.
Finally, success will mean ensuring fairness and maintaining trust. There must be some local or national benefit that will be realized, if not today, but sometime soon.
“I am better off because Canada is better off, and so I accept that these things need to be done, even at personal cost” is not something we have heard from many who currently support the build agenda through our Ipsos Communities platform. We hear it on counter-tariffs (though those costs are still pending), but not on local projects or increased investment in someone else’s community.
The politics of the moment may yet get Carney into trouble. Hints of Liberal ridings, Liberal firms or allies of the prime minister disproportionally benefitting will derail good will and will put acceptance at risk. Much like consent, acceptance is continuously conditional and can be withdrawn at any time.
Eight in ten Canadians backing your agenda is a good place to start, and Carney, right now, has all the goodwill in the world. But the question of what Canadians are willing to accept has not yet been answered, and until it is, we are just rallying behind a flag. Acceptance and durable support will not come from a New York Times interview. It will come from having his MPs talking directly to the people who elected them.
Gregory Jack is Senior Vice President, Public Affairs, Ipsos Canada, and Mike Colledge is Executive Insights Lead, Ipsos Canada.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded. No federal subsidies, no bailouts. If you value our work, please consider supporting us by subscribing or making a donation. Donations are not subscriptions and do not unlock paywalled content, but they help keep The Line independent
To contact The Line with a general inquiry or comment, please email info@readtheline.ca. For other ways to connect with us or to follow us on social media, please see our LinkTree.
