The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - After A Month Of This Crisis - How Do You Feel About The Role of Government in Your Life?

Episode Date: April 9, 2020

One of the first major studies of how we are reacting to the Covid-19 crisis sheds some interesting light on how we may be changing our attitudes towards the role of government.One of the study's main analysts is our guest tonight - Bruce Anderson, the chair of Abacus Data.

and hello there peter vansbridge here once again with the latest edition the latest episode of the bridge daily well a special program today i've been telling you about it for the last couple of nights, and we're going to get to it in about a minute's time. But first of all, I want to make note of this day. It is April 9th, and it's an important anniversary in the history of our country. And it is, of course, the anniversary of Vimy Ridge, the battle in the First World War that was 103 years ago. Today, it started. It lasted a couple of days. It had significant impact on the war at that time and the reputation of Canada as a country and as a military force. It came at great expense in terms of human lives.

Canada lost almost 4,000 young men in the Battle of Vimy Ridge. And that is just one of the reasons why we should remember those young men and the significance of this day even 103 years later. If you want to know more of my personal recollections of Vimy Ridge, go back in the podcast history here to March 24th. 203 years later. If you want to know more of my personal recollections of Vimy Ridge, go back in the podcast history here to March 24th, where I told a story about Vimy Ridge that a lot of you found. Well, you liked it. You liked the story and it helped you understand the meaning of that time

and how, in a way, it relates to the time we're going through right now. Now, the special broadcast that I've been mentioning for the last couple of days that we wanted to do was one where we would try to get a sense of what the mood of the country is after an intense last four weeks and more, but certainly intense for most Canadians in the last month. As many have been staying at home, have been going along with the suggestions, and stronger than that even, from governments across the country, municipal and provincial and federal,

about what we should do to try and combat the coronavirus. So how do we feel about that? What does it say about us? What does it say about the country? What does it say about how we feel about the way we have been governed through all this, not on a partisan way, but the very nature of government. And how is it changing us, or is it changing us, and what may we be thinking about the future? So a number of research firms

have been doing some work on this, and certainly one of them is abacostata in ottawa and the chair of abacostata is a friend of mine bruce anderson and you may recall bruce he was one of the team on the at issue nights when i was hosting the national along with Andrew and Chantel. And Bruce has been a friend for a long time. And we wanted to talk about this. And I know that he had just come out of the field this week. I think Tuesday night was the last night they were doing some polling, some research on the part of Canadians. And over a few nights, they did 3,000.

So it's a big survey. I asked him, like, how did you do this? And he said, well, we did it online. What do you think? We went door to door? Stupid question, right? From me. So it was an online survey of approximately 3,000 Canadians.

So let's find out. I'll point you in the direction of where you can find out more on all this. But I wanted to isolate Bruce on a number of particular areas. And that's what we did in this conversation. And I think you'll find it quite informative and a reflection of the country as of this moment in this crisis. So let's get right to it. So Bruce, this is a huge survey, almost 3,000 people contacted.

When you look at the results, what jumps out at you? What strikes you in terms of how people are feeling about what they're going through right now? Well, Peter, I think that, you know, I've been in the polling business for 35 years, and there has never been something that has had this much impact on how people think about themselves, their lives, their loved ones, their future. Never been anything even close to having this degree of impact. And I did a lot of polling around 9-11, around the 2008 economic disruption. You know, I've looked at elections. I've never seen anything that has had this profound and deep an impact on how people are feeling. And I think probably some really lasting changes as well.

So we are very interested in learning more about it and helping our clients and friends know more about it as well. All right. Well, pull something out of that in terms of, especially on this issue of lasting change. When you look at these results, what is it telling you about how we are changing as a people? Well, there's, you know, we've probably got a list of about 10 things that I'm focused on right now, but I'm going to highlight one or two right off the top.

For a lot of people, it's been easy to imagine for many years that politics was about which party was going to form government, but ultimately government wasn't going to be able to do very much to change your life, to improve your circumstance. Politicians said that they would do that, but you ended up feeling, if you're an average Canadian, that maybe nothing much happened if the government changed, or if it did, it was at the margin. We're seeing a 15 point increase in two weeks, very short period of time. And a number of people who say, government adds value to my life, government is essential to the kind of life that I want to have. And that's a direct consequence of people feeling there's a series of threats, economic and health, that are so big that we can't solve them on our own, that we can't rely on the private sector to do that.

And that all of a sudden we know now why we needed government all along. So that's a very profound change. It's going to change politics, I think, for quite a long period of time. When you use that term government, you're cutting across a lot of different levels of government and a lot of different political parties who are represented in different provinces and obviously in the federal government. But you're talking about governments generally, right? Yeah, the idea of government, that we pay money to people to make choices on our behalf that affects all of us for the better or if they make the wrong choices for the worse. So it is across all governments.

But one of the things that I think is really important as a distinction here is that people are talking about the governments that represent them. And I make the point here that when they look at governments in other countries, and in particular, the United States, what they're saying is you can look around the world and see the consequence of governments making right decisions or poor decisions. And that really reinforces the value of our governments that we elect making the right decisions for us. So it's about Canadian governments, local, regional, provincial, and national. But the same sense of all governments can do better for us

isn't a view that people have about the United States, for example, right now. Now, you know, support for government actions can be tenuous, right? Things can change. We've seen at times of crisis, both in our country and elsewhere, that people tend to rally around government and look to government to help solve situations. But that kind of support can disappear fairly quickly. Well, I make a distinction here between support for specific measures that government chooses to take or doesn't choose to take and whether or not we'd be better off if there was no government right now. And I know that's kind of an extreme hypothetical, but the point really remains is that for pretty much everybody, I think, in Canada,

there would be a feeling that if we didn't have governments to make decisions about what we should be doing right now, if we didn't have governments that had the fiscal capacity to provide money for people to live on who otherwise don't have that money, that would be a pretty dire situation. So I'm not really talking about whether people like the CERB or believe that the government has done everything that it needs to do to support the oil industry or is taking the right measures about the airline sector. It's really about whether or not we come away from this experience believing that we need government and the choices that we make on election day are even more important than perhaps we thought they were before i think that's a profound change because i don't think for many

people there has ever been a circumstance where they said holy, what would this be like if we didn't have public officials able to enact policy choices on our behalf, whether those choices are exactly right, mostly right, or will turn out in some cases to be wrong. One of the other major institutions that is a part of everybody's life right now is media and how they're gathering information and how often they gather information. What I'm hearing from, you know, some of my listeners is, man, I can't, you know, I can't deal with this the way I was dealing with it in the first week. I can't listen or watch or read all the time like I was. I just find it too difficult. Are you seeing that? Yeah, we are. We're seeing a lot of evidence of that. I mean, I think there's a few things that are going on that are quite instructive. One is that the sheer consumption of information about this has two dimensions. On the one hand, people want to know know as you know it's a lifelong newsman Peter people want to know the latest dramatic and challenging things that have gone that have gone on they always will want to know about

those things those stories capture public attention and the thing there's another line of information that people want which is that what can I do to protect my health do to protect my health or to protect my financial circumstances? That's a form of information in the news today that people desperately need as well. But what they're telling us is that the information about the health consequences, the risks, the downsides, the people who are suffering, the number of people who are dying, that too much of that is adding to their stress, is adding to an already near overwhelming level of anxiety for many people, and they want to turn it off. It's not that they dislike the reportage, it's that they can't feel

themselves getting better as a consequence of consuming too much of it, and they do worry that it's damaging to their mental health and maybe to their physical well-being as well. I would make a distinction also around opinion columns. I think that maybe we just see this in the social media space, but there's been a growth of opinion columns, I think, over the last number of years, opinion writing, opinion commentary, if you like. And maybe the balance between opinion commentary and news reportage has gotten a little out of kilter for many people. But it wasn't

something that people minded right now. And I think now we're seeing evidence of people saying, not I just want opinion pieces that reinforce my predispositions or my prejudgments, but at least I want opinion pieces that are based on some degree of expertise. columnist calling into question the competency of accomplished public officials in the health sector, for example. I mean, that's a debate that occurred this week, as you may have seen. I think there's a little bit more of a raising of expectations about opinion pieces and the quality that they should adhere to in a time like this where people are saying, don't just give me an opinion because you are paid to write one. Give me something that's useful for me. Yeah, I think you're referring to those questions that were raised about Dr. Tam on the part of some people. Yes, I am. That met a real backlash on the part of those who

stood up in her defense and called a lot of the attacks racist and sexist. But it was interesting to see how quickly some writers, often news writers, but also some opinion writers, who rose to her defense in a hurry and kind of slammed down the critics, or at least attempted to slam down the critics. Well, you know, it's not surprising to me that opinion writers would rise to the defense of other opinion writers that I suppose that's a little bit like partisans in

politics sometimes. I actually meant some opinion writers rising to her defense as opposed to the critics. Oh yes, I see what you mean. Yeah. Yeah. I do think that that was interesting, because I think that that in a situation like this, I say that thinking that there,

you know, there are other analogs that I can think of, and there really aren't. But in this circumstance, people are sensitive to the fact that there are people who are working flat out to try to keep us safe, whether those are people who are working in grocery stores, in assessment centers, in hospitals, and yes, even in government. They're working 24-7, some of these folks, and they're trying to make the best judgments that they can. And so if you have an opinion piece that says, I want perfect accuracy and I want more humility, I think that for many people that just kind of strikes them as being a bit unfair, a bit unreasonable, that you can find fault with a choice that they've made, but asking for more humility, implying that they're not really up to

the job when their credentials are obviously pretty good. I think that there's a test of fairness that people apply to these pieces now in this context where they look on the one hand at people who are really working hard on our behalf as they see it and others who are kind of taking chip shots from the sidelines. And so I think that there's a signal there for media about what is expected of them in terms of their role in this situation. Yeah, listen, it's never easy being in the media and at times like this,

trying to find that line between providing information, providing smart, reasonable analysis, and touching on that side of media which is responsible for some degree of accountability, that can be a fine line. And we're witnessing the debate around that develop, you know, almost on a daily basis. I know I get a lot of mail from listeners who don't like the tenor of some of the questions that are being thrown at the various first ministers, whether it's the prime minister or the premier, trying to weigh, you know, a month ago you said this, and now you're saying that. And, you know, that, that is part of the job, but the question becomes, is it part of the job today?

Or is it going to be part of the job, you know, when and if we ever see the end of this? Anyway. Yeah, I think that's the right point is accountability is something that people say, well, let's not have any of it. They're saying, let's not have it every 10 minutes and let's not require our public officials to spend all of their time answering questions because there's a industry that's built up around asking those questions. All right. Let me let me wrap up with this question. I know that you and I have over many years debated this issue about whether pollsters and researchers should predict, and I think we are in general agreement that they should not. But that's not what the data is for. But let me ask the question this way. And I'm wondering if you're seeing in the results you have a sense of what we're going to be like when this is all over.

You know, there is this feeling that, you know, there won't be a return to normalcy as we knew it. There'll be a new normal, and we've heard those phrases before in our lifetimes. But what do you see that suggests significant change on how we are going to act with each other within the country beyond this issue of how this newfound belief, I guess, in some sense of government. Beyond that, is there something you can see in these results that tells you something

about us in the future? Yeah, there's a few things. And I appreciate the measure of caution about using polling to predict the future. But it is one of the things where, as you know, I'm never really a fan of doing that. But I also think that we're in such an unusual circumstance that people are reevaluating their lives on a daily basis in ways that probably will have pretty profound impact. So some of the things that I think seem evident to me right now is that when you have this many people who go through an economic existential crisis, wondering whether or not they will have enough money to retire when two months ago they were sure they would,

wondering whether they're going to be able to pay the rent or hold on to the house that they bought with the mortgage payments that they've got and their job in some sort of limbo. In those situations, we can pretty well be sure that people are going to focus more on the basics and a little bit less on the luxury. So some of the markets that have built up over the last 10 years of bull markets, that sort of thing, luxury vehicles, I expect that it's going to take a long time, if ever, that we're going to see those things come back. Another thing that's very clear is that people are experiencing

the virtual connectivity world to a degree that they never have before. And a lot of people are saying they don't miss the idea of going to a degree that they never have before. And a lot of people are saying they don't miss the idea of going to a physical workplace. And so I think for workplaces that can afford and can maybe even benefit from shifting the way that their labor force operates, there's going to be a change that comes there. I also think that, Peter, on the whole question of status and income, we're seeing the world through a different lens right now. The idea of jobs in service areas where we would have an argument where a significant portion of the population would say, well,

we couldn't possibly see those folks have a 50% an hour increase in minimum wage. I don't think those attitudes are there now. And I don't think they're going to be there in the future. And we hear more discussion about a universal basic income becoming a more permanent part of public policy. I think that that conversation will find deeper and stronger roots as a consequence of that. So I think all of those things, and then there are others that are maybe a little bit more kind of tactical, but I think that the enjoyment of crowd experiences,

whether cinema or music festivals, that kind of thing, I think those things are going to be hard for people to decide to get back into. And so some of those things are going to be hard for people to decide to get back into. And so some of those things are going to change. And finally, mental health and our understanding of what it takes to be happy and what causes unhappiness and loneliness and stress. We're going through something that for many people is causing them to experience stress levels and anxiety levels and loneliness levels that they've never known before. And they've got time to figure out what to do with it. And some people I'm sure are making the most of that and

others are suffering and we see rising levels of loneliness and rising levels of despair. And so those are things that we're going to be grappling with, I think, going forward too. Yeah, I'm afraid you're right about that. It's a difficult time and it's not going to get any easier in the short term. Bruce, thank you so much for this. We really appreciate getting a sense of what you're discovering through the data that you've been compiling. Well, it's been very good to talk to you, Peter. That was Bruce Anderson, the chair of Abacus Data. Now, there's a lot of information in the survey that Bruce did, and you can get more of it by going online to abacusdata.ca.

That's abacusdata.ca if you want more information. I'm glad we had that opportunity because I think there was a lot of stuff in there about, I guess, how we feel, how Canadians feel about what's going on around them right now. A couple of points before I close for tonight on this special broadcast. Tomorrow will be our weekly, your questions, comments, thoughts on the week.

It's a holiday weekend, so that one will be out tomorrow evening and available all weekend for you. And obviously, if something comes up on the weekend that you need to know about, there will be a special edition of The Bridge Daily. This was a day where a lot of numbers came out, as every day is, and there were some very difficult ones to hear, the number of unemployed in Canada, over a million, the number of deaths going up in almost every region of the country, the number of cases going up, but some projections suggesting

we are heading towards, in certain areas, the beginning of the flattening of the curve. That would be great if that is the case, and that would be something to embrace, but we keep in mind, as we must, that even with signs of hope, that doesn't mean, okay, game over, let's get back out there and have a good time. that even with signs of hope, that doesn't mean, okay, game over, let's get back out there and have a good time.

We're a long way from that. We're weeks away, if not months away from that. So please keep that in mind. There are some hopeful signs, and hope is something we cherish and want to embrace. But we have to be realistic. The struggle will continue for some time yet. And the one other sign of hope was the topic of our podcast two nights ago, and that was Boris Johnson.

Still in hospital in London, but moved out of intensive care. That is a hopeful sign. Never was put on a ventilator. Has now been moved out of intensive care to a regular hospital room. I mean, as regular as they get for a prime minister of the UK. But let's take some hope in that as well. All right. That's it for the Bridge Daily for this day.

If you have questions or comments or thoughts, please get them in because we will be using them this weekend. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Don't be shy. I'm Peter Mansbridge. This has been The Bridge Daily. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours. Thank you.