A new poll says Canadians are divided on whether the US is an 'ally' or 'enemy' country
Faced with a trade war they didn't start, Canadians are divided on whether they see the United States as an "enemy" or an "ally," a new poll suggests.
The Leger poll, which was conducted online and can't be assigned a margin of error, surveyed more than 1,500 people between May 30 and June 1.
Almost a third of respondents said they view the US as a "neutral country," while 27 per cent said they consider it an "ally" and 26 per cent see it as an "enemy country."
Just over a third of men said they consider the US an ally, compared with one in five women. Almost 30 per cent of women said they view the US as an enemy, compared with 22 per cent of men.
Older Canadians, those at least 55 years of age, were more likely to consider the US an enemy than younger Canadians. Regionally Albertans were most likely to consider the US an ally while Ontarians and British Columbians were most likely to see it as an enemy.
The difference is starkest between political party supporters, with 44 per cent of Conservative supporters saying they view the US as an ally, compared with 17 per cent of Liberal supporters and 12 per cent of NDP supporters said the same.
Comparatively 16 per cent of Conservative supporters said they view the US as an enemy country, while 36 per cent of Liberal supporters and 41 per cent of NDP supporters said the same.
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday to double his levies on steel and aluminum to 50 per cent. He claimed the measure will protect the country's national security and domestic industries.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has said his government will need to take "some time" to craft a response to the increased US tariffs.
The number of Canadians that report seeing the US as an enemy country has dropped by six points since mid-March. At that time, 32 per cent of survey respondents told Leger they viewed the country as an enemy.
The number of Canadians that view the US as an ally also decreased by two percentage points since March, from 29 to 27 per cent, while the number that view it as a neutral country increased by six percentage points, from 24 to 30 per cent.
Andrew Enns, Leger's executive vice-president for Central Canada, said that, broadly speaking, the patterns haven't changed much since the organization asked the question in February — when 27 per cent of respondents said they viewed the US as an enemy and 30 per cent said they viewed it as an ally.
Enns said the decline in the number of people saying the US is an enemy likely reflects the overall sentiment on tariffs.
"It's still obviously there and, you know, clearly now we're dealing with higher steel tariffs, but the commentary coming from the White House and the Trump administration seems to have dissipated a bit and that's probably helping just tone things down," he said.
Enns said Canada also has a new prime minister with a mandate that might "take the edge off things."
"I think that just keeps things more at a moderate level, and I think that reflects in people maybe feeling a little less threatened by the US," Enns said.
Enns said political and business leaders have also sent a consistent message that the US remains an important trading partner. He said that may encourage Canadians to believe there's a way to "work things out."
The polling industry's professional body, the Canadian Research Insights Council, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. judge blocks National Science Foundation from slashing universities' federal funding
A federal judge on Friday prevented the National Science Foundation from sharply cutting research funding provided to universities in the latest legal setback to efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to slash government support of research at major academic institutions. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston invalidated a policy NSF adopted in May that limited the ability of universities to be reimbursed for administrative and facility costs that indirectly support grant-funded research, ruling that it was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Spokespeople for NSF and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. NSF, a US$9 billion agency that funds scientific research, adopted the policy after having already canceled hundreds of grants out of step with the Republican president's priorities. His administration has also been freezing billions of dollars in government funding for numerous universities, including Harvard. NSF's policy, which was announced on May 2, set a cap on how much grant funding could go to cover indirect costs. NSF said funding for such costs could equal no more than 15% of the funding for direct research costs, regardless of what the costs actually were at universities. Historically, universities had negotiated with NSF and other agencies over the rate at which indirect costs could be reimbursed. The cap meant that for every $100 in funding going directly to a research grant award, universities would receive just $15 to cover overhead, such as the costs of maintaining lab space and paying for electricity and staff. The Trump administration said it sought through the policy to rein in spending on administrative overhead, which had grown to consume US$1.07 billion of NSF's annual US$4.22 billion grant-making budget for higher education institutions. That rate, though, is significantly lower than the indirect cost that many of the 69 research universities belonging to Association of American Universities had negotiated, which was often in the 50 per cent to 65 per cent range, the group's lawyers said. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said in her Friday decision that the administration's 15 per cent rate was unlawful. The association along with two other academic trade groups and 13 schools sued in May to block the policy, after earlier convincing judges in Boston to block similar funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Energy. The association did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Friday decision. Among the schools that challenged NSF's funding cuts were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, Brown University, the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania. They argued that NSF's action, if allowed to stand, 'will badly undermine scientific research at America's universities and erode our nation's enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.' The U.S. Department of Defense has since also adopted a 15 per cent cap, which a judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked pending a hearing on July 2. He did so a day after a different judge in Boston ordered NIH to reinstate hundreds of grants for research on diversity-related topics nixed as part of the administration's purge of initiatives viewed as supporting 'diversity, equity and inclusion.'
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil freed from immigration detention
JENA, La. (AP) — Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was released Friday from federal immigration detention, freed after three months by a judge's ruling after becoming a symbol of President Donald Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The former Columbia University graduate student left a federal facility in Louisiana on Friday. He is expected to head to New York to reunite with his U.S. citizen wife and newborn son.
The Province
3 hours ago
- The Province
Opinion: Plastics threaten human health, but solutions are under political fire
Opinion: There is a good reason for concern over the mounting levels of plastics in our food and in us — they can cause metabolic disorders and interfere with immune and reproductive systems Canadians use 15 billion plastic bags annually and nearly 57 million straws daily, yet only nine per cent of plastics are recycled — a figure that is not expected to improve. Photo by JONATHAN HAYWARD / THE CANADIAN PRESS Negotiations toward a global, legally binding plastics treaty are set to resume this summer, with the United Nations Environment Programme announcing that an intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastic pollution will reconvene in August. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors The committee was established to develop an international legally binding instrument — known as the plastics treaty — to end plastic pollution, one of the fastest-growing environmental threats. Globally, 40 per cent of plastics production goes into the production of single-use plastic packaging, which is the single largest source of plastic waste and is a threat to wildlife and human health. Without meaningful action, global plastic waste is projected to nearly triple by 2060, reaching an estimated 1.2 billion tonnes. As the world prepares for another round of talks, Canada's own plastic problem reveals what's at stake, and what's possible for the future. Canada's plastic problem Canada is no exception to the global plastic crisis. Nearly half (47 per cent) of all plastic waste in Canada comes from the food and drink sector, contributing 3,268 million tonnes annually. Canadians use 15 billion plastic bags annually and nearly 57 million straws daily, yet only nine per cent of plastics are recycled — a figure that is not expected to improve. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Most of Canada's plastic — except for plastic bottles made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) — is uneconomical or difficult to recycle because of the complexity of mixed plastics used in our economy. As a result, 2.8 million tonnes of plastic waste — equivalent to the weight of 24 CN Towers — end up in landfills every year. This is not a trivial problem. Plastic pollution poses growing risks to both urban and rural infrastructure. In addition to landfill overflow, around one per cent of Canada's plastic waste leaks into the environment. In 2016, this was 29,000 tonnes of plastic pollution. Once in the environment, plastics disintegrate into tiny particles called microplastics (small pieces of plastic less than five millimetres long). Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. We drink those tiny microplastic particles in our tap water, and eat them in our fish dinners. Some are even making their way into farmland. Plastics are everywhere, including inside us More than 93 per cent of Canadians have expressed concerns over single-use plastics used in food packaging and have supported government bans. There is a good reason for concern over the mounting levels of plastics in the environment, in our food and in us. Growing evidence indicates that plastics can cause harmful health effects in humans and animals. Microplastics and smaller nanoplastics (less than one micron in length) have been found in humans, including infants and breast milk. They can cause metabolic disorders, interfere with our immune and reproductive systems and cause behavioural problems. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. These health problems may be caused by chemicals added to plastics, including single-use plastics, of which 4,200 chemicals have been identified as posing a hazard to human and ecosystem health. It is for these reasons that the Canadian government introduced a ban on single-use plastics in 2022 as part of a plan to reach zero plastic waste in Canada by 2030. The decision was based extensive public and industry consultation, as well as decades of data on plastic pollution gathered from the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup. This data shows the most common plastic litter items found in the environment across Canada, known as the 'dirty dozen' list. Six of these items were included in the federal ban. The politics of plastic Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, debates around plastic pollution are becoming increasingly politicized. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In February in the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. government to 'stop purchasing paper straws and ensure they are no longer provided within federal buildings.' Trump told reporters at the White House: 'I don't think plastic is going to affect a shark very much, as they're munching their way through the ocean.' Almost 2,000 peer-reviewed studies have reported, however, that more than 4,000 species have ingested or been entangled by plastic litter. In Canada, plastic has also become a political flashpoint. During the recent federal election, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would scrap the federal government's ban on single-use plastics and bring back plastic straws and grocery bags. He argued the government's ban was about 'symbolism' rather than 'science,' saying, 'the Liberals' plastics ban is not about the environment, it's about cost and control.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. His promise would have harmed Canadians by dismissing the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that plastics in our bodies are linked to health impacts. Legislation to ban single-use plastics can be highly effective, ranging from 33 to 96 per cent reductions in plastic waste and pollution in the environment, depending on the policy and jurisdiction. Canada's single-use plastics ban is a great example of evidence-based policymaking. The latest data from the conservation group Ocean Wise shows there was a 32 per cent drop in plastic straws found on Canadian shorelines in 2024 compared to the previous year. Science-based policies are needed It is indisputable that growing plastic production is directly related to plastic pollution in the environment and in human beings. Increasing plastic pollution is a global threat to human and ecosystem health, regardless of borders and political affiliation. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. As negotiators gear up for another round of talks to finalize a Global Plastics Treaty to end plastic pollution, the need for policies that are supported by scientific evidence is more urgent than ever. Future generations deserve a healthy and sustainable planet. The path towards a healthy and sustainable planet requires supporting action based on scientific evidence, not misinforming people with catchy phrases and political rhetoric. Tony Robert Walker is a professor in the School for Resource and Environmental Studies at Dalhousie University. Miriam Diamond is a professor of environmental science at the University of Toronto. This commentary is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.
