Connect with us

Economy

New poll shows Conservatives would win massive House majority to overtake Trudeau’s Liberals

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A Nanos Research poll has conservatives winning 205 seats in the House of Commons, a gain of 91, and the Liberals winning only 53 seats, a loss of 107.

A recent poll shows that were a Canadian federal election held today the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) under leader Pierre Poilievre would win a majority in the House of Commons over Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, whose popularity has taken nosedive.

A Nanos Research poll released November 10 shows that conservatives would win 205 seats, a gain of 91s, and the Liberals would win only 53 seats, a loss of 107.

In a close third, the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP) under leader Jagmeet Singh would win 39 seats, a gain of 14.

When it comes to the overall vote, the CPC’s support stands at 40 percent, with the Liberals showing about half that at 22 percent support, which is only two points ahead of the NDP, which has 20 percent support.

The separatist Bloc Quebecois Party is tied with the Greens at 7 percent support, with Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada showing only 2 percent support.

Interestingly, the Nanos poll indicates that the Trudeau Liberals are now less popular than the Green Party in Atlantic Canada, an area where they have had traditionally large support.

As it stands, the Liberals have 158 seats to the Conservatives’ 117, with the Bloc having 35 and the NDP 25. There are three independent MPs and two Green MPs. One seat is vacant. A party needs at least 170 seats to form a majority government.

The NDP has an informal coalition with Trudeau that began last year, agreeing to support and keep the Liberals in power until the next election is mandated by law in 2025.

‘Election’ soon ‘likely’ observes pollster

“You say no election until 2025, but we’re gonna get it in 2024 and you best believe it will be nothing but chaos,” it posted on X (formerly Twitter) yesterday.

Polling Canada noted how the Trudeau Liberals’ freefall in popularity is on par with 2011, which saw that party win only 77 seats to the Conservatives’ 143.

“Would you believe me if I told you the Liberals in the latest Nanos poll are only 3 points off from their worst electoral performance ever (2011),” wrote Polling Canada on X (formerly Twitter) yesterday.

Reaction to the polling numbers came swiftly from those who both oppose Trudeau and people who still support him.

“The Trudeau Liberals are being absolutely smashed in the polls and may soon fall behind the federal NDP. This epic Liberal implosion is totally deserved for the horrendous things they have done to Canadians,” political commentator Paul Mitchell wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in response to the polling data.

An X user named Wolf noted just how bad the recent polling data is for the Trudeau Liberals.

“The best part about this is that it’s Nanos, the most Liberal friendly pollster of the bunch. This has to sting,” Wolf posted.

Another user questioned whether 40 percent support is enough for the Conservatives to win.

“Need more than 40 these days… I have no doubt libs and ndp would form a coalition if this played out today,” X user Heckled wrote.

Trudeau’s popularity has been in freefall and his government has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, the latest being a controversy around a three-year carbon tax “pause” he announced on home heating oil but only in Atlantic Canadian province.

Even top Liberal party stalwarts have called for him to resign.

Senator Percy Downe, who served as former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s chief of staff from 2001 to 2003, recently said that the “prudent course of action” is for another “Liberal Leader to rise from the impressive Liberal caucus and safeguard those policies [Trudeau] was actually able to accomplish.”

When Trudeau was asked about Downe’s comments, however, he brushed off the idea of stepping down by saying “Oh well.”

Trudeau has also drawn the ire of many of Canada’s premiers, five of whom late last week banded together to demand he drop the carbon tax on home heating bills for all provinces, saying his policy of giving one region a tax break over another has caused “divisions.”

LifeSiteNews reported last month how Trudeau’s carbon tax is costing Canadians hundreds of dollars annually, as the rebates given out by the government are not enough to compensate for the increased fuel costs.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Economy

Trudeau Government Capping the Canadian Economy (and Energy Industry) Just to Impress International Agencies

Published on

From EnergyNow.ca

By Kasha Piquette

The incoming Trump Presidency has promised  to “unleash American energy” with plans to “free up the vast stores of liquid gold on America’s public land for energy development.”  This week, the Trudeau government unveiled the draft details of its plans for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian oil and gas sector. These proposed regulations would cap all greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 35 percent below levels in 2019 with the lofty goal of achieving a 40-45 percent reduction by 2030.

It is a plan that the province of Alberta and others contend would be a cap on production and cause elevated prices for consumer goods across Canada, cost up to 150,000 jobs and reduce national GDP by up to C$1 trillion ($720 billion).

These proposals would make Canada the only oil and natural gas-producing country to attempt an emissions cap on such a scale. The regulations propose to force upstream oil and gas operations to reduce emissions to 35 percent less than they were in 2019 by 2030 to 2032. Notably, while hydrocarbon production increased from 2019 to 2022, Canadian emissions from the sector declined by seven percent.

Perhaps significantly, and much to the apparent annoyance of Alberta’s Premier, the Federal announcement was made slightly ahead of the UN COP29 Climate Summit in Azerbaijan. Per the Paris Agreement, each country submits its climate ambitions to UN as National Determined Contributions (NDCs).  However, the federal government has also passed the Net Zero Accountability Act, which, by December 1st, 2024, could require even more aggressive reduction targets for 2035. Does this mean that the federal government may be positioning itself to announce even more ambitious emission targets – all to be announced at that conference?

It is unclear whether, how and in what form, the emissions cap will come into effect. With the next federal election slated for late October 2025 and polls that show the current Liberal-NDP coalition government to be far behind the opposition Conservatives, the federal carbon tax and the proposed emission cap have an uncertain future.

Other business interests have voiced concerns about Canada’s increasingly discordant, incoherent climate policies and regulations, which have caused the Canadian oil and gas sector to be at a competitive disadvantage in the global energy market.  Clearly, Alberta considers that the Federal government has, once again, overstepped its constitutional bounds with the proposed emissions cap and, along with its victorious Supreme Court challenge against the Impact Assessment Act, has vowed to launch more court challenges.  Alberta and other Provinces have contended that, with regional exemptions, the federal carbon tax is being applied unfairly as a patchwork of standards with Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia, and the opposition Conservative party, mounting a growing chorus against the Liberal government’s broader price on carbon. By contrast, the proposed regulations for an emissions cap have been aimed specifically at one industry sector – one that is largely concentrated in western Canada.

Meanwhile, Canadian oil production, aided by the new export capacity of the TransMountain Pipeline completed this year, has grown to a record 5.1 million barrels per day making Canada the prime (60%) source of US crude oil imports in 2023.  Meanwhile, the industry has been engaged in considerations for the potential development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to trap greenhouse gasses underground. However, this untested technology would cost billions, needs to be proven on a larger scale and requires industry cooperation combined with all levels of government support.

The Federal announcement, and the hostile reaction from Alberta and possibly other oil-producing provinces, mean that once again, Canadian investment in the oil and gas sector will be confronted with ever more uncertainty as they encounter time-consuming court challenges.  These competing political agendas ensure that major Canadian investment decisions will, once again, be deferred while other international jurisdictions race to develop their hydrocarbon export capabilities, investments that are unencumbered by any emissions caps.

Canadians need to consider carefully how these policies and debates are affecting our energy security and standard of living as Canada. In addition to carbon pricing, Canada has already promulgated regulations for EV mandates in the transportation sector, policies that have required tens of billions in subsidies. It has also introduced the complex clean fuel standard and the proposed national clean electrical standards. These policies are affecting not just Canada’s productivity, GDP and exports. By attacking the Western provinces, Ottawa is unnecessarily creating regional tensions and a less politically stable federation. We need to think about how co-operative federalism can be re-established in ways that account for the basic needs of all Canadians – and not just accommodate arbitrary targets for emissions designed to impress international agencies.


Kasha Piquette is an Alberta-based strategic energy advisor and a former Deputy Minister of Alberta Environment and Protected Areas.

Continue Reading

Economy

Ottawa’s new ‘climate disclosures’ another investment killer

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined  significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power.

According to the Trudeau government’s emissions reduction plan, “putting a price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Fair enough, but a reasonable person might wonder why the same politicians who insist a price mechanism (i.e. carbon tax) is the most efficient policy recently announced relatively inefficient measures such “sustainable investment guidelines” and “mandatory climate disclosures” for large private companies.

The government claims that imposing mandatory climate disclosures will “attract more private capital into Canada’s largest corporations and ensure Canadian businesses can continue to effectively compete as the world races towards net-zero.” That is nonsense. How would politicians Ottawa know better than business owners about how their businesses should attract capital? If making climate disclosures were a good way to help businesses attract capital, the businesses that want to attract capital would make such disclosures voluntarily. There would be no need for a government mandate.

The government has not yet launched the regulatory process for the climate disclosures, so we don’t know exactly how onerous it will be, but one thing is for sure—the disclosures will be expensive and unnecessary, imposing useless costs onto businesses and investors without any measurable benefit, further discouraging investment in Canada. Again, if the disclosures were useful and worthwhile to investors, businesses seeking to attract investment would make them voluntarily.

Even the government’s own announcement casts doubt that increasing business investment is the likely outcome of mandatory climate disclosures. While the government says it’s “sending a clear signal to corporate boards and shareholders, at home and around the world, that Canada is their trusted partner for putting private capital to work in the race to net-zero,” most investors are not looking to put private capital to work to combat climate change. Most investors want to put their capital to work to earn a good financial return, after adjusting for the risk of the investment.

This latest announcement should come as no surprise. The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power. Capital per worker in Canada is declining due to weak business investment since 2015, and new capital per-Canadian worker in 2024 is barely half of what it is in the United States.

It’s also fair to ask, in the face of these onerous polices—where are the environmental benefits? The government says its climate disclosures are needed for Canada to progress to net-zero emissions and “uphold the Paris climate target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,” but its net-zero targets are neither feasible nor realistic and the economics literature does not support the 1.5 degrees target.

Finally, when announcing the new climate disclosures, Trudeau Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said they are an important stepping stone to a cleaner economy, which is a “major economic opportunity.” Yet even the Canada Energy Regulator (a federal agency) projects net-zero policies would reduce real GDP per capita, increase inflation of consumer prices and reduce residential space (in other words, reduce living standards).

A major economic opportunity that will increase business investment? Surely not—mandatory climate disclosures will only further reduce our standard of living and impose useless costs onto business and investors, with the sure effect of reducing investment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X