Front Burner - Drugs, abortion, taxes: Where Canadians stand on divisive issues

Episode Date: August 22, 2024

In politics, a “third rail” is an issue that’s so volatile, so dangerous, that politicians are afraid to touch it. The firm Abacus Data has just come out with a new poll that looks at the ���third rails” of Canadian politics — the issues that would make people vote for or against a political party who promised that idea. And some of their findings — and the way they cut across the political spectrum — are actually pretty surprising.David Coletto, the founder, chair and CEO of Abacus Data, breaks down those findings and what they may mean about the state of the country.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit:  https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. As you are well aware, most subway trains run along two tracks. But alongside those two rails, there's often another rail, a third rail. This third rail is crucial.

It provides the electricity that powers the train. But it's also incredibly dangerous. If you touch it, it tries to run its hundreds of volts of power through your body instead. It electrocutes you. When people talk about a third rail in politics, that's what they mean. An issue so volatile, so dangerous, that politicians are afraid to touch it. Abacus Data has just come out with a new poll that looks at the third rails of Canadian politics. The issues that would make people vote for or against a political party who promised that idea. Some of their findings, and the ways that they cut across the political spectrum, are actually pretty surprising. Today I'm joined by David Coletto, the founder, chair, and CEO of Abacus Data to break that all down. David, hey, so good to have you on the show.

So great to be here, Jamie. Thanks for connecting. It's great to have you. So you asked, obviously, a bunch of Canadians how they feel about a bunch of really hot-button issues that you chose. And let's talk about the winning ideas from this poll. These are ideas where more people said basically, if a party promised that idea, I would vote for them than people who said that they would never vote for them. And I was surprised by some of the big ones here, right? Tell me a little bit more about the winning ideas. Yeah. So before I get into those, let's just set the context for why these, I think, turn out to be winning ideas right now. And that is we're living still through a cost of living affordability crisis. Overwhelming numbers of Canadians continue to say that's the top issue for them. And so when we present them with a whole bunch of ideas, the ones that come out at the top,

many of them either might make life more affordable for people. So things like making public transit free in every Canadian city, 40% of Canadians say they would definitely vote for a party that promised that. Making university and college tuition free for all Canadian students, similar numbers say they would definitely vote for that. Interestingly, the idea that gets the most poll, I call, is increasing income taxes

for the richest 1% of Canadians. 46% say they would definitely vote for a party that did that. So, you know, we need the funds to pay for these other things. There's a perception that the rich and inequality is growing. And because most Canadians, 99% of them wouldn't pay this increased income tax, that kind of idea is still very popular and cuts right across the political spectrum. Stuff like free college and university tuition, free public transit, taxing the rich, like these are generally considered to be pretty fiscally progressive, right? And so what does that say to you?

Well, I think it says that one, a question like this has limits because we aren't giving the trade off. We only have so much money we can spend, either run higher deficits or raise taxes or cut spending on other areas. But I think it does show that there is a deep sense of scarcity right now in the public mindset in Canada. And people are looking around and feeling that everything that they need in their life is getting more expensive.

People are looking around and feeling that everything that they need in their life is getting more expensive. So I think that it's all tied to these big issues and this sense of life just being so challenging right now that makes these ideas really appealing to people. David, do you think that this is good news for the left? I mean, I think it's, I think they should be optimistic. I mean, one of the things we've learned over the last two years is a lot of the public policy ideas put forward by the federal government, for example. Dental care program, pharma care program, national food school program, all of those poll incredibly well. People are quite supportive of those. They think those are important programs that help, you know, bridge the gap between those who have access to things like that, food, dental care, prescription drugs, and in this case, you know, post-secondary education, transit that's affordable and easy to get around with. Those are all things that appeal,

not just to those who might vote, let's say, liberal or NDP, but they also appeal to a lot of conservatives as well, which tells me that the left-right issue set that we often think about doesn't always apply because the context matters. And so the context, as I said already, is about this notion that people are just feeling that they need to find a way to get ahead. And so these new programs, these new ways of making life more affordable are incredibly appealing, as is, and we haven't talked about this one, eliminating the federal carbon tax. It is one of those issues that it's deeply popular among conservatives, but there's a lot of support even among the other parties that shows how reducing this tax is perceived to be helpful to people. Yeah, this is often talked about as like a misunderstood policy, right? Since consumers get money back in the form of rebates,

the idea is that in the long run your average taxpayer isn't actually losing money on this tax. Do you think that this is about a communication failure or is it a design failure? Like, was the policy itself always going to be something that was by its nature too hard to communicate to voters? I think it's both a design problem and a communication problem. The design problem is trying to solve a very big problem where it's problem. I mean, the carbon tax alone, no one believes it alone will solve the climate crisis, but it is often used as an example of a tool that can help. We are going to place a price on the pollution that causes climate change from coast to coast to coast. There are lots of different tools that can be used,

and every country will pick their options. But what we can do is show that it's powerful, it's straightforward, and it's impactful. And yet people look around the world right now and they feel that we're making no progress because extreme weather events are happening more often and they're more extreme. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that this is helping. Now, that's a perception problem. But then the communication challenge is exactly as you described, is that for most

Canadians, they are getting more money than they pay. And yet their perception for those who oppose this tax or those who favor eliminating it, that is not how they see it. They do not believe that's true. Trudeau's got this carbon tax going to kick in just in time for Canada Day. It's going to be 13.3. Boo, that's right. Axe the tax! Axe the tax! Axe the tax! Axe the tax! Which goes to both the trust of the political and policy leaders advocating for a policy, but also their ability over time to have communicated this to the public.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about when we're talking about these winning issues, a couple of years ago, I interviewed the American writer Anand Giridharadas about his book, The Persuaders. And in it, he wrote about a bunch of polling in the U.S. that had found that bold, simple, big idea policies often performed better than these kind of like middle of the road, complicated policies that the Democrats were going for. So, for example, free college tuition, which is bold, simple, performed way better in polls and something like reduce college tuition for two years for students whose families made under $68,000 last year, blah, blah, blah, right? The simpler it is, the more exciting it was for voters, the easier it was for them to talk about

with their friends and families. And I mentioned this because you note in your article about the polling that the liberals' changes to the capital gains tax don't seem to have, like, increased their popularity so far, even though that's also kind of a wealth tax, right? And so do you think that could be why, that it's not as bold, it's complicated, it's not something people want to talk about over dinner? It is, yeah, and it took the prime minister himself a few minutes to explain it in a video in which he posted on social media. When that investment banker sells those assets, he only pays taxes on 50% of the profits he makes. He's not paying 50% in taxes.

It means that if he makes a million dollars from selling... Right, if it takes you a few minutes in this world to explain not just what you're doing, but why you're doing it, you're going to miss a big part of the audience. So I think bold works because it's surprising. It's maybe different. It feels impactful, but simplicity also helps, right? So ax the tax cuts, cuts literally right to the chase, right? It goes right to what it is Pierre Paul, even the conservatives are going to do. And it doesn't need nuance to explain it, even though it is a complicated policy area. And the policy itself is full of nuance and requires people to understand the basics of supply and demand that when you raise the price of something, you're less likely to use it or buy it. That's, you know, the economic argument for a carbon price, but it doesn't help when you're

trying to sell it politically. And so, yeah, I do think these bold, big ideas work. The only risk in the bold idea, though, and I think we saw it, for example, a number of years ago in the United Kingdom, when Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the UK Labour Party, is he promised some big, bold ideas that people didn't think were feasible, that they couldn't actually do. And so that's the other side of the coin to some of these big ideas. But if the problem is perceived to be so big, and so deep and so important, well, then I think bold is much more effective in that case, because people are willing to take the chance that it may not even be feasible. Mm-hmm. connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and

industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cups.

One of the other really notable takeaways here is that the very biggest no-go issue in the poll, the one with the least amount of support, was legalize the use of all drugs, including hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. So close to 70% of people said that they would never vote for a party that promises compared to just 8% who said that they definitely would. And I just want to be clear, no party is actually promising to do this right now. But what's really striking is how much this crossed the political spectrum. So 78% of conservative supporters, but 65% of liberals, 50% of NDP supporters were against it. And so why do you think people had such a strong aversion to this particular idea? Well, I think it, and you're

right, no one's proposed it. But there has been conversations about decriminalization, which I think is a nuance the public doesn't really understand, right? Decriminalize, legalize. It means something very different from a legal perspective, but not necessarily from a practical, like how people understand what that means for them in their communities. And I think we've seen, even in this week, governments in Ontario, for example, change the safe supply policy around schools.

The province banning all supervised consumption sites within 200 meters of schools and child care centers. The province is instead promising 19 new addiction treatment hubs with supportive housing. They will not provide safe supply, supervised drug consumption, or needle exchange programs. You're seeing that debate play itself out in British Columbia as they head towards a provincial election.

Barely a year after BC proudly announced a Canada first in decriminalizing small amounts of illicit drugs, the Premier is now walking it back. This amendment will make public drug use illegal in British Columbia. Questions around drug use and the opioid crisis that are tied to mental health and addiction issues are all kind of raveling together. But the fundamental thing is, I think we've come to a point after, I think, a fairly nuanced public debate around drug policy to one that's become far more simple to people, which is we don't think whatever we're doing is working. And so the very idea that we would legalize more drugs just doesn't make any sense to people. And it doesn't matter whether you're

young or old, you live in Quebec or Ontario or the North, or you are a liberal or a conservative. or the North, or you are a liberal or a conservative. And so that, I think, is why we got here and why we're seeing the conservatives so effectively, right, use this issue, even though the liberals are not promising to legalize all drugs, using it as, I would call it, a political weapon to push support away from the Trudeau liberals and bring it to the conservatives. They want to ban cars.

They want to ban hunting rifles. But they want to legalize crack. They even want to ban plastic straws. If you're allowed to smoke crack, you just can't do it through a plastic straw. If you're going to smoke crack... It's that hot an issue. It's that ultimate third rail right now in Canadian politics. People are really reacting viscerally.

The fentanyl crisis, the toxic drug supply, which in addition to the housing crisis, is probably making this a lot more visible for people as well. Do you think, though, that if that question had had like a... I know we just talked about simple ideas, but had had some more nuance to it. Say it was about regulating hard drugs, only making them available with a prescription at a pharmacy or allowing people to only carry certain amounts of those drugs or something more limited and specific like that, that you would have gotten a different answer. We might have. different answer? We might have. And you might have seen, you know, that if you're looking at the chart that I'm looking at of our report, there's a green bar which says it's a, you know, definitely vote for a red that's definitely never vote for, but there's a yellow bar that says I

might, right? That's the nuance bar. That's the bar of Canadians who say, tell me more. Let's get into the weeds a little bit, right. But when it comes to drug policy and the question that we asked, that number was still very low, which tells me, yes, maybe more people can be brought into having a more detailed, nuanced conversation and look at the conditions around this and the context. But Jamie, that's not how politics works. And, you know, that nuance gets lost, unfortunately. And it's I think it's even harder for us to have thoughtful conversations about really complex issues in an environment where everything's boiled down to, you know, a few hundred characters and the public is kind of like distracted all the time, it makes these big problems hard to solve. Another big loser in this poll is criminalizing abortion, right? Again, no Canadian in-party is promising to abortion, right? Again, no Canadian in party is promising to do that at this time, but it's obviously a very live issue in the US right now. And so how do you think

that may be influencing how Canadian voters are responding to that idea? Well, I think it's first, it's important to note that there are very few Canadians who want us to move in this direction. And there's overwhelming two out of three who say, I would never vote for a party that I thought would do this or promise to do this. And that I thought peace is really important to our debate here. The Conservatives, this is one of their biggest liabilities, is the perception that they or some, and there are members of parliament who are pro-life, but the perception that a conservative government would act on this issue has often been a reason why some people wouldn't consider voting conservative, which is why they will react aggressively against any insinuation that they would.

We will not support reopening the issue. We will not reopen this debate. I will not support any effort to reopen these types of debates. But that's why the liberals have used this issue. And they use it consistently and against the conservatives because of the reaction that this issue gets in our polling and from people. Right, the fear of what a party might do. It's not enough to reluctantly support the law because it's a law. People need to know that their prime minister will defend them, will be there for them.

That's just as important, again, in the things I study in terms of public opinion and voting behavior than what a party would actually promise. If I believe it's going to do something, even if it never says it will, that is a powerful force in preventing me maybe from voting for them. Yeah. Even though Polyev has been pretty clear that he's not waiting into this debate, that it's settled, but yeah, still out there in the ether. Is the member going to take away a woman's right to choose if they ever, and I hope it never happens, becomes a government in this country?

Honorable leader of the official opposition. No. No. I want to preface this next question by acknowledging that some people can see this as a conflict of interest for me, but I do think that it's worth talking about. Pierre Pauliev has pledged to defund the English CBC, which, of course, I work for. And in your poll, eliminate all government funding to the CBC came down in the neutral camp. But when you break down the results further, it's clear that this is really not a neutral issue at all. And so just tell me more about what different groups of

voters told you. Yes. And again, I classify it as neutral, not because no one has an opinion about this, but because it doesn't feel like an issue that's a third rail. Like if you promise it, you don't necessarily going to lose. But it is divisive. 22 percent of Canadians say they would definitely vote for a party that promised this. But a larger group, 30 percent, said they would never vote for a party who promised it. But I do think it's interesting. And the reason I put this here is because I've never been convinced that this is an obvious winner for the conservatives. It may be something that their core base is passionate about. They might be able to raise a lot of money on it. But among those who right now say they would vote for the conservatives, and in this survey,

they had about a 20 point lead over the liberals. One in five conservative supporters say they definitely would never vote for a party that promised it, which tells me they may not know that the party has promised to do this. Oh, there's a suggestion. We could save a billion dollars by defunding the CBC. So I look at this and I say, if you lose one in five of your supporters because this issue becomes central to their decision, that means a lot of supporters, the conservatives could lose. On the flip side, this might be something that motivates them. But the point here is that this would be an example of an issue that could rise up and start to define the choices that people would make

once a federal election comes along. Another one that I want to talk to you about is health care, which I also found really fascinating. Paying for health care assets. It also fell into the loser camp, but just barely, right? This is the part that I found really interesting. 39% of respondents said that they would never vote for a party who allowed people to pay to access both health care procedures, but 30% said maybe they would vote for them, and 19% said that they definitely would. So that's a combined 49% for definitely or maybe. And what does that say to you?

Is this issue becoming less of a third rail over time in Canada? Because I do feel like there was a time where you would not have seen numbers like this. Well, you know, the first election, federal election that I was like aware of in 2000, right, search on online Stockwell Day, no two-tier healthcare, because he went to a leaders debate and held up this sign that said no two-tier healthcare. Because in that campaign, he was, and the Canadian Alliance at the time was, the liberals were basically saying you were going to bring in two-tier healthcare. And it was such a sensitive, as you said, explosive issue that he had to run

as fast away from it as possible. And many think it may have helped the Liberals win that election and hurt the Canadian Alliance from gaining any traction. Since then, though, I do think that the likelihood that it is a third rail issue is declining. And I think it's declining primarily because of how unhappy and disappointed and deeply concerned people are about the capacity of the health system itself. Coming out of the pandemic with labor shortages in the system

and six and a half million Canadians or so not having access to a family doctor has created a scenario where more and more people are now saying, well, is there another way? Could that include some people paying and others not? And so I don't think we're there yet. The reason I put it and I classified it as still like a loser issue is because enough people across the political spectrum, almost three in 10 conservatives say they would never vote for a party that would promise to do this.

But I don't think we're that, if things don't improve in the system now, I think the public will increasingly be open to this conversation. David, for you, when you look at this polling, what were the big takeaways for you? Well, I think first, we're not as divided as we sometimes think we are on some big issues. The upside of all of this is that there are certain guardrails up around what parties can and cannot do, that the public

is thinking about some of this stuff and does react to it. Now, in some cases, that is good, I think. In other cases, it prevents creativity and maybe us actually tackling a problem. One that we didn't talk about was raising the retirement age in Canada. It was one of the third rail issues. But we are an aging population that has, uh, you know, our budgets are increasingly going to support older, uh, Canadians. And is that sustainable? And can we solve that problem if people are not even willing to listen to a political party that perhaps wants to have that conversation?

Ultimately though, Jamie, I think it's about leadership. Uh, someone who studies public opinion all day long, asks thousands of people hundreds of questions every week, I still believe at the end of the day, if you have support, if you have trust, you can lead people still. That leaves me feeling good that if we needed to bring people along, I still think that the right leader in the right situation can still do that today. Okay. David, this is super interesting. Thank you so much for coming on, as always. Thanks for having me. All right, that's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.