Latest news with #EKOS
Canada Standard
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Canada Standard
Access to Nature Shouldn't Be a Privilege
In Canadian politics, few ideas cut across party lines as cleanly as how much we love nature. Policies on protecting our environment-and opinions about what harms it-vary widely. But you can bet that any campaign ad, throne speech or holiday message is likely to include a reference to the Maple Leaf along with the Rocky Mountains, our prairies and forests, the Great Lakes, our coastlines or the High Arctic. Nature is used as a kind of shorthand for who we are and what we value, writes Mathieu Roy for Policy Options. But, he adds, when a new government puts that belief as a core item in its agenda, as Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals appear to have done, we must ask: What does it mean to say nature is central to Canadian identity and what would it take to translate that into reality? This is not just a philosophical question. It's a call to action. If we take the claim seriously-and we should-it carries at least three practical obligations: expanding access to nature for all Canadians, protecting more of the land that defines us, and building natural infrastructure, like parks and trails, to connect us to nature-and each other. Most Canadians agree that nature is part of who we are, as evidenced in a recent poll by EKOS, a public-opinion research firm. But for many, being able to enjoy nature daily is limited or out of reach. Urbanization, neighbourhoods with few parks, trails that can only be reached easily with a car and the rising cost of living make it harder for people to experience the physical and mental benefits of time spent outdoors. If nature is a core part of our identity, access to it shouldn't be a privilege. It should be a right. View our latest digests That means investing in public spaces that bring nature closer to where people live, including more green spaces, trails and community-led outdoor programming. Such funding is fundamental to fostering a deeper connection with nature, promoting belonging, improving health and supporting local culture. To protect nature-a pillar of the Liberal campaign platform in the April election-we need more than regulations. Under a global biodiversity framework agreed to in 2022 at the COP15 conference in Montreal, Canada has committed to increasing access to green spaces (forests, parks and agricultural land) and blue spaces (lakes, rivers and wetlands), especially in urban areas. It has also promised to integrate nature into how we live plan and build. This target recognizes that people need to care about nature to protect it and are more likely to do so when nature is a part of their everyday lives. No government can achieve this goal alone. Partnerships with Indigenous communities, non-profit organizations and local experts play an important role in supporting a connection to nature and making conservation a mainstream, dinner-table subject. We need to build natural infrastructure that reflects who we are and what we care about. Prioritizing the country's network of trails is a strong example. They support low-carbon transportation, protect green spaces, act as firebreaks during climate emergencies, provide corridors for wildlife and stimulate local economies. These aren't soft benefits. They are measurable returns on public investment and serve to anchor nature in our daily lives. The ecological benefits of the Trans Canada Trail are valued at an estimated $82 million annually. On top of that are the health benefits for the 2.6 million Canadian adults who use it, estimated to save $1.7 billion in health-care costs. Too often treated as an afterthought, this kind of infrastructure unites a country and reflects public values. It deserves centre stage in our national vision. National parks systems, trail networks or innovative public transportation routes all illustrate how shared infrastructure can transcend utility and become a source of collective pride. The Carney government has an opportunity to lead on this front by championing projects that not only connect Canadians but embody our shared values and reflect our deep connection to the land. Investing in the relationship between people and nature is one of the most powerful and unifying choices the new government can make if it wants to fulfil its promise to protect the environment, grow our economy and embrace our national identity. That means going beyond a mention of the Maple Leaf during question period. It means working to embed nature into the lives of Canadians through improved access, robust protection and sustainable development. This post originally appeared on Policy Options under a Creative Commons licence. Source: The Energy Mix
Canada News.Net
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Canada News.Net
Access to Nature Shouldn't Be a Privilege
In Canadian politics, few ideas cut across party lines as cleanly as how much we love nature. Policies on protecting our environment-and opinions about what harms it-vary widely. But you can bet that any campaign ad, throne speech or holiday message is likely to include a reference to the Maple Leaf along with the Rocky Mountains, our prairies and forests, the Great Lakes, our coastlines or the High Arctic. Nature is used as a kind of shorthand for who we are and what we value, writes Mathieu Roy for Policy Options. But, he adds, when a new government puts that belief as a core item in its agenda, as Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals appear to have done, we must ask: What does it mean to say nature is central to Canadian identity and what would it take to translate that into reality? This is not just a philosophical question. It's a call to action. If we take the claim seriously-and we should-it carries at least three practical obligations: expanding access to nature for all Canadians, protecting more of the land that defines us, and building natural infrastructure, like parks and trails, to connect us to nature-and each other. Most Canadians agree that nature is part of who we are, as evidenced in a recent poll by EKOS, a public-opinion research firm. But for many, being able to enjoy nature daily is limited or out of reach. Urbanization, neighbourhoods with few parks, trails that can only be reached easily with a car and the rising cost of living make it harder for people to experience the physical and mental benefits of time spent outdoors. If nature is a core part of our identity, access to it shouldn't be a privilege. It should be a right. That means investing in public spaces that bring nature closer to where people live, including more green spaces, trails and community-led outdoor programming. Such funding is fundamental to fostering a deeper connection with nature, promoting belonging, improving health and supporting local culture. To protect nature-a pillar of the Liberal campaign platform in the April election-we need more than regulations. Under a global biodiversity framework agreed to in 2022 at the COP15 conference in Montreal, Canada has committed to increasing access to green spaces (forests, parks and agricultural land) and blue spaces (lakes, rivers and wetlands), especially in urban areas. It has also promised to integrate nature into how we live plan and build. This target recognizes that people need to care about nature to protect it and are more likely to do so when nature is a part of their everyday lives. No government can achieve this goal alone. Partnerships with Indigenous communities, non-profit organizations and local experts play an important role in supporting a connection to nature and making conservation a mainstream, dinner-table subject. We need to build natural infrastructure that reflects who we are and what we care about. Prioritizing the country's network of trails is a strong example. They support low-carbon transportation, protect green spaces, act as firebreaks during climate emergencies, provide corridors for wildlife and stimulate local economies. These aren't soft benefits. They are measurable returns on public investment and serve to anchor nature in our daily lives. The ecological benefits of the Trans Canada Trail are valued at an estimated $82 million annually. On top of that are the health benefits for the 2.6 million Canadian adults who use it, estimated to save $1.7 billion in health-care costs. Too often treated as an afterthought, this kind of infrastructure unites a country and reflects public values. It deserves centre stage in our national vision. National parks systems, trail networks or innovative public transportation routes all illustrate how shared infrastructure can transcend utility and become a source of collective pride. The Carney government has an opportunity to lead on this front by championing projects that not only connect Canadians but embody our shared values and reflect our deep connection to the land. Investing in the relationship between people and nature is one of the most powerful and unifying choices the new government can make if it wants to fulfil its promise to protect the environment, grow our economy and embrace our national identity. That means going beyond a mention of the Maple Leaf during question period. It means working to embed nature into the lives of Canadians through improved access, robust protection and sustainable development.
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Mark Carney strong, yet just short: How Liberals fell short after a stunning comeback in Canada polls
Before polls opened on April 28, Mark Carney had already staged a remarkable comeback. In mid-January, the Conservatives held a commanding 27-point lead over the Liberals. But by election night, Carney's party had surged to 168 seats, just four shy of the 172 needed for a majority. Some projections, including one by EKOS on April 27, had even forecast the Liberals crossing that crucial threshold. In the event, however, they fell four seats short. A late-campaign softening of President Trump's anti-Canada rhetoric helped narrow Carney's early advantage and allowed Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives to close the gap to a mere two percentage points in the popular vote. Julie Simmons of the University of Guelph, while speaking to , argues that the fading of outside pressure and Canada's voting system explain why a once-likely majority didn't happen. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AI guru Andrew Ng recommends: Read These 5 Books And Turn Your Life Around in 2025 Blinkist: Andrew Ng's Reading List Undo A majority in sight By the final week of campaigning, national trackers regularly showed the Liberals polling around 44 per cent to the Conservatives' 39 per cent. Julie Simmons believes Carney's credentials fuelled that surge: 'It was in large part to the coalescing of support around the new leader (Carney), who seemed more qualified, as a former Bank of Canada governor, than the career politician (Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre) to take on Donald Trump and counter the President's musings about Canada becoming the 51st state. Carney's message of 'Canada Strong' resonated with anxious voters.' Trump's tonal shift tightens the contest Yet just as the Liberals appeared poised for a slim majority, the external threat that underpinned Carney's appeal began to recede. Simmons notes that after a private phone call between Carney and Trump, the US president largely dropped his public threats against Canada. 'Poilievre returned to his messages about being tough on crime, increasing housing supply, and offering tax cuts to Canadians. Some voters were more receptive to these messages because the chaos south of the border seemed muted,' Simmons said. A Reuters poll on 24 April showed the race tightening to within 3.6 points as domestic issues reclaimed prominence. Without the drumbeat of tariffs and annexation talk, voters drifted back towards Conservative-style platforms enough to clip Carney's majority hopes. Parliamentary arithmetic When the final count was announced, the Liberals led the popular vote by only 43 per cent to 41 per cent, a margin too slim to translate into a majority under first-past-the-post. Their slightly more 'efficient' vote distribution yielded a 10–15 seat edge over the Conservatives, but still left Carney four seats short of the 172-seat mark. As Simmons explains, 'Were the campaign to have continued for a week or two more, it is possible that the gap between Poilievre and Carney would have narrowed entirely, and we may have had a Conservative minority government .' What a minority government for Carney means Economists Jimmy Jean and Randall Bartlett at Desjardins told Reuters that a confirmed Liberal minority will force Carney into negotiations with opposition parties, especially the New Democratic Party, to enact his agenda. 'If a minority Liberal win is confirmed, Prime Minister Mark Carney will need to negotiate with the opposition parties to implement his policy agenda,' they said. 'In terms of executing the Liberal Party platform, this configuration could lean toward the social and cultural measures, and against broad tax cuts and fossil-fuel development.' Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo in Singapore, warned that political fragmentation could limit fiscal stimulus just as Canada faces rising recession risks and tougher US trade talks. 'Canada's likely Liberal minority outcome adds to uncertainty at a delicate time,' she said With 168 seats to the Conservatives' 144, Carney must now navigate a minority parliament. He is expected to seek confidence and supply support from the NDP and Bloc Québécois, and to shepherd through priorities such as reducing interprovincial trade barriers, refining immigration levels and diversifying Canada's trade portfolio beyond the United States. In the end, Carney's 'Canada Strong' message helped the Liberals claw back from a polling disaster, but not quite to a majority. Voters endorsed his crisis-management credentials, yet showed they remain deeply responsive to domestic concerns once external threats fade.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Canada's Conservatives are the latest losers from the return of Donald Trump
Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have trailed Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives in the polls for over two years. When Poilievre was elected Conservative leader on Sept 10 2022, he immediately took the lead and moved ahead by double digits later that month. The gap continued to widen to 20 points or more. Until now. According to EKOS, the Conservative lead was down to just three points (35.7-32.7 per cent) on Jan 29, rising to five points on Feb 15. Pallas Data had them leading by only 37 to 31 on Feb 6. Nanos suggested that the gap was 38 to 30 per cent on Feb 7. To be fair, the polls are all over the place. Innovative Research pointed to a 13-point Conservative lead (40-27 per cent) on Feb 7, while Abacus Data put them ahead by 19 points (46-27 per cent) on Feb 13. But something has clearly shifted. Canadians could be reconsidering their options with a new election looming. Trudeau will soon be political history, and voters may be taking another look at the Liberals as they choose a new leader. But the biggest factor is surely Donald Trump. Canadians are furious about the president's threat of imposing 25 per cent tariffs on their products. Although he granted a 30-day reprieve on Feb 3, the people of Canada have vented their frustrations ever since. Trudeau's retaliatory plan of a tariff-for-tariff approach with the US is supported by most of the provincial premiers. Canadians have threatened to stop travelling to the US, have said they will remove the likes of Amazon and Netflix from their lives, and have jeered the US national anthem at sports matches. This terse political environment has given Liberal MPs an opportunity: they are outrageously suggesting that Trump and Poilievre are two sides of the same political coin. It's not a new strategy. Poilievre was accused of using 'Trump-type tactics' by Liberal MP Jennifer O'Connell in 2023. Trudeau, when asked by reporters that same year about Poilievre's accusations of Canada being broken under his leadership, responded, 'They tried that down in the United States. Someone who said he was going to fix everything and fed into anger and disconnect, frustration by so many people in the United States. It didn't leave them any better off.' But this comparison is as ridiculous now as it was then. Poilievre and Trump may both use populist language and creative messaging techniques, but they have vastly different political ideologies, personalities and policies. The former is very much a mainstream conservative, advocating small government, low taxes, private enterprise and free markets. Trump may share those stances, but he is also an economic nationalist who has embraced tariffs as a tool of geopolitical and trade policy, while seeking to rip up old certainties as part of his plan to disrupt the US establishment. There was never any question that the gap between the Conservatives and Liberals was going to narrow when Trudeau announced his resignation. I and others have long suggested that the polls were going to get closer when the Liberals finally removed their political albatross. But Poilievre is now the unwitting victim of a smear campaign by a rudderless Liberal party, which is selling an imaginary connection between their main political rival and an unconventional US president. Voters are likely to be disappointed, however, if they end up deciding that their best choice for handling Trump is not a principled conservative like Poilievre, but the likes of Mark Carney. They can't say they weren't warned. Michael Taube, a columnist for the National Post, Troy Media and Loonie Politics, was a speechwriter for former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Canada's Conservatives are the latest losers from the return of Donald Trump
Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have trailed Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives in the polls for over two years. When Poilievre was elected Conservative leader on Sept 10 2022, he immediately took the lead and moved ahead by double digits later that month. The gap continued to widen to 20 points or more. Until now. According to EKOS, the Conservative lead was down to just three points (35.7-32.7 per cent) on Jan 29, rising to five points on Feb 15. Pallas Data had them leading by only 37 to 31 on Feb 6. Nanos suggested that the gap was 38 to 30 per cent on Feb 7. To be fair, the polls are all over the place. Innovative Research pointed to a 13-point Conservative lead (40-27 per cent) on Feb 7, while Abacus Data put them ahead by 19 points (46-27 per cent) on Feb 13. But something has clearly shifted. Canadians could be reconsidering their options with a new election looming. Trudeau will soon be political history, and voters may be taking another look at the Liberals as they choose a new leader. But the biggest factor is surely Donald Trump. Canadians are furious about the president's threat of imposing 25 per cent tariffs on their products. Although he granted a 30-day reprieve on Feb 3, the people of Canada have vented their frustrations ever since. Trudeau's retaliatory plan of a tariff-for-tariff approach with the US is supported by most of the provincial premiers. Canadians have threatened to stop travelling to the US, have said they will remove the likes of Amazon and Netflix from their lives, and have jeered the US national anthem at sports matches. This terse political environment has given Liberal MPs an opportunity: they are outrageously suggesting that Trump and Poilievre are two sides of the same political coin. It's not a new strategy. Poilievre was accused of using 'Trump-type tactics' by Liberal MP Jennifer O'Connell in 2023. Trudeau, when asked by reporters that same year about Poilievre's accusations of Canada being broken under his leadership, responded, 'They tried that down in the United States. Someone who said he was going to fix everything and fed into anger and disconnect, frustration by so many people in the United States. It didn't leave them any better off.' But this comparison is as ridiculous now as it was then. Poilievre and Trump may both use populist language and creative messaging techniques, but they have vastly different political ideologies, personalities and policies. The former is very much a mainstream conservative, advocating small government, low taxes, private enterprise and free markets. Trump may share those stances, but he is also an economic nationalist who has embraced tariffs as a tool of geopolitical and trade policy, while seeking to rip up old certainties as part of his plan to disrupt the US establishment. There was never any question that the gap between the Conservatives and Liberals was going to narrow when Trudeau announced his resignation. I and others have long suggested that the polls were going to get closer when the Liberals finally removed their political albatross. But Poilievre is now the unwitting victim of a smear campaign by a rudderless Liberal party, which is selling an imaginary connection between their main political rival and an unconventional US president. Voters are likely to be disappointed, however, if they end up deciding that their best choice for handling Trump is not a principled conservative like Poilievre, but the likes of Mark Carney. They can't say they weren't warned.
