Canadians' view of leadership in Washington plunges: Gallup poll
Article content
Gallup's latest survey of Canadian opinion, conducted in May and June, found approval of Washington slipping to 15 per cent, statistically in line with sentiment when Donald Trump was president the first time.
Article content
Article content
Canadian opinion of leaders in Washington has fluctuated over time, showing a clear connection with who is sitting in the White House. For example, Canadian approval of American leadership averaged 61 per cent under Barack Obama, compared with 19 per cent in Trump's first term and 41 per cent under Joe Biden.
Article content
Aside from an uptick in 2021, only a minority of Canadians have approved of Washington since 2017.
Article content
Article content
The latest downturn comes in the midst of diplomatic and trade tensions. Since returning to the White House, Trump has introduced high tariffs and continued with rhetoric suggesting Canada should become the '51st state.'
Article content
Gallup asked about four global powers during it recent World Poll. Germany's leadership received the most positive ratings from Canadians. A slim majority of Canadians (54 per cent) approve of Berlin.
Article content
Canadians have a higher approval rating for Beijing than they do for Washington. It sits at 23 per cent, up eight points from last year's poll.
Article content
Otherwise, the 79 per cent of Canadians who disapprove of U.S. leadership is statistically close to the 82 per cent who disapprove of Russia's.
Article content
Meanwhile, Canadians' view of their own leadership has improved considerably, rising 19 points from last year to 59 per cent now. The increase followed Mark Carney replacing Justin Trudeau as Liberal party leader and prime minister in March and his election victory in April.
Article content
Article content
Approval of Trudeau fell from 64 per cent in 2016 — his first full year in office — to a low of 40 per cent in 2024.
Article content
Article content
However, Canadians are gloomy about the state of the economy. Their optimism dropped to a new low in 2025, with 27 per cent saying their local economy is getting better, compared to 63 per cent who think it's getting worse.
Article content
The share of Canadians who say it's a good time to find a new job has fallen sharply down from 74 per cent in 2022 to 32 per cent in 2025. This is the lowest level of job optimism since the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020 and the 2009 financial crisis.
Article content
The housing affordability crisis also remains widespread in Canada. One in four adults are satisfied with the availability of good, affordable housing, compared with 72 per cent who are dissatisfied.
Article content
Weak economic sentiment poses a test for Carney, says the folks at Gallup. 'Sustaining public support may depend on whether his administration can reverse declining optimism and navigate a complicated relationship with Washington.'
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
34 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, Aug. 17: ‘If Canada was a business … it would be bankrupt'
Re 'Nuclear threats, Ukraine's fate cast long shadow as Putin, Trump prepare to meet' (Aug. 8): The Russian and Chinese navies carried out 'a joint drill in which they practised hunting and destroying an enemy submarine.' As a former surface ship sonarman in the Royal Canadian Navy, I can say with some authority that Western allies have been regularly doing this very thing for decades. If asked during the 1960s, the Navy would have admitted that antisubmarine warfare was our raison d'être. Indeed when, a few years into my career, I served in Canada's submarine service, a major part of our job was to act as a target for allied forces trying to hone their skills. It should be noted that in those war games, the submarines usually won. Gord Hunter Regina Re 'Ontario universities must be released from their financial chokehold' (Aug. 11): I believe educating our youth is of paramount importance, and entrance fees must be affordable for all. Allowing our institutions to increase fees as needed would produce a U.S. model of unaffordable postsecondary education. Ontario and Canada are prioritizing government dollars for health care for older citizens over accessible education for the young. This makes no sense to me when about nearly three-quarters of all health care dollars are spent on patients over 60, while a similar amount of all personal wealth is in the hands of the same 60-plus crowd, including myself. It is time to start asking us old folks to open our wallets and free up public funds for better university access. Those who are not affluent can be dealt with under the tax system to support their needs. If Canada was a business, with inadequate focus on rebuilding its workforce, it would be bankrupt. David Parkes Ottawa Re 'Ontario labour group urges more worker protections amid rising air quality concerns' (Online, Aug. 6): Good for the Ontario Federation of Labour for taking the threat of wildfire smoke seriously and pushing for stronger worker protections. We find ourselves in a time of rapid change, and our policies and procedures should adapt accordingly. I think it's also worth taking a moment to reflect on how summer air quality is now a mainstream concern in Southern Ontario. As recently as three years ago, many would have found the OFL's advocacy radical. 'Smoke days' have only been a regular occurrence here since the summer of 2023. We can sit and ponder the reasons why wildfire season has gotten so much worse, but the science points pretty convincingly toward climate change. Let's remember that smoky skies in Toronto aren't some freak occurrence. If we want to stop this situation from getting much, much worse, we need to fight climate change, and that means reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Mary Blake Rose London, Ont. Re 'It's not a bird! It's a Super Scooper plane, Canada's most powerful waterbombing tool to fight against wildfires' (Opinion, Aug. 9) and 'You can't fly sovereignty on foreign fuel' (Aug. 14): Thanks for publishing creative proposals to shake us out of the plodding complacency that won't cut it any longer in this time of multiple crises. We could use canola oil produced by tariff-battered Prairie farmers to ramp up production of low-emission aviation fuel. At the same time, we desperately need more water bombers to fight forest fires that threaten to become a permanent feature of summer; Canada produces one of the world's best in the 'Super Scooper.' Foreseeing an increase in global demand for water bombers and low-emission fuels, let's invest in our farmers and aerospace sector, strengthening our economy while combatting both the main cause and worst effects of that other existential crisis: climate change. Norm Beach Toronto Re 'Toronto the Grind: Making your way around has never been such a slog' (Opinion, Aug. 9): I think most everybody can agree that, at base, the issue comes down to having either condo construction at a breakneck pace, or the ability to travel around Toronto more seamlessly. We can't have both. Many voices have urged solutions to the traffic problem for years while still being able to build condos, but I find that all these ideas just nibble around the edges. Ultimately, it appears that the 'leadership,' developers and majority of the city's politicians have made one choice in favour of erecting condos – and I believe the vast majority of citizens have made the opposite choice. Ross Hollingshead Toronto I'm always struck by how those who once lived in Toronto, when returning after a long period away, invariably talk traffic chaos. Why is it that those of us who live here simply put up with it and don't demand change and progress? It feels like millions of us are simply the frog in the pot on the stove. We've been in the hot water so long, we've simply accepted it. We shouldn't. Traffic chaos should be an absolute priority at city hall. Stephen Kouri Toronto Blaming Toronto traffic and transit woes on a lack of leadership feels rather a cop-out. Whose leadership? When Toronto consults with residents and produces plans to deal with transportation or housing issues, they most often get shot down by the province. These decisions are then almost always upheld by the courts because, after all, the city 'is a creature of the province.' The province ordering the city to rip out bike lanes? More than 14 years (and counting) for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT? Historic underfunding of public transit? Road and construction deadlock? In whose mind is that acceptable transportation planning for a big city? Unless Toronto has real power under the Constitution to make its own decisions and real authority to raise needed funds, the power and politics and blame games between the city, the province and the feds will continue. And so will Toronto's transportation and transit woes. Monica Franklin Toronto Poor planning, political meddling and financial profligacy has steadily degraded nearly all methods of mobility in and around Toronto. Rather than focusing on transit improvements by studying global best practices and optimizing modal integration, it seems our provincial government has a better answer: Make space for more cars and spend tons of taxpayer money in the process – for what? This populist, tail-chasing process ensures that mobility woes remain entrenched. Exacerbating the problem is that new public transportation infrastructure costs in Toronto are among the highest in the world on a per-kilometre basis, and involved provincial departments seem to be doing little to correct this. Who is accountable for the fact that the three-stop Scarborough subway extension cost has now doubled from $5.5-billion to $10.2-billion? Making Toronto into a world-class city would mean replacing populism with foresight and pragmatism, by investing rather than spending. We continue to suffer the consequences. Kenneth Westcar Woodstock, Ont. Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
CBC
34 minutes ago
- CBC
Trump's D.C. makeover: How the president is reshaping Washington in his image
U.S. President Donald Trump is presiding over one of the most dramatic transformations of Washington, D.C., in a generation, as he makes monumental changes to the historic White House complex, federalizes local police as part of a "beautification" campaign, takes over the district's performing arts centre and dictates what should be on display in the national museums. Trump is taking a more hands-on approach to district issues than any of his recent predecessors as he tries to remake the capital in his image, all while rooting out what he calls "wokesters," homeless people, hardened criminals, illegal migrants and others. In Trump's D.C., there will be no more "savagery, filth and scum," he said. As he tightens his grip on the federal district he says has been badly managed for decades, Trump has flatly ruled out granting D.C. statehood. It's something residents have long demanded, and it would stymie his efforts to exert more control over what happens in this city of 700,000 people. "What we want to do is make Washington, D.C., the greatest, most beautiful, safest capital anywhere in the world, and that's going to happen," Trump told reporters at an event on Wednesday. "Already they're saying, 'He's a dictator,'" he said of his Democrat critics. But Trump insisted D.C. "is going to hell. We've got to stop it." This week, federal agents have been out on patrol in parts of the district, arresting dozens of suspected criminals in the first few days of the Trump operation. The city's Democratic mayor, Muriel Bowser, initially called the deployment "unsettling." But she has been largely deferential to Trump, saying she's powerless to stop his efforts and that more officers on the streets "may be a positive." Barbara Perry, co-chair of the presidential oral history program at the University of Virginia and a board member of the White House Historical Association, told CBC News that Trump's D.C. intervention is truly unprecedented. "No other president has taken such an interest in all the different facets of Washington, D.C.," Perry said. "Most presidents usually have a lot more on their plate than worrying about redesigning the White House. And crime and law enforcement — those have long been thought of as local issues," she said, especially after the district was given home rule in the 1970s. New ballroom At the centre of Trump's ambitious plan to spruce up the capital is a massive new ballroom on the White House grounds. While there are strict guidelines for what can be built on that revered site on Pennsylvania Avenue — smaller changes in the past have taken months or even years to study and approve — Trump officials have already said construction on the hulking space will get underway in September. Trump is pitching a $200-million US, 90,000-square-foot structure expected to subsume the existing East Wing and some of the property's green space — a legacy piece for the former real estate mogul. The proposed building is nearly double the size of the existing structure. PHOTOS | Trump's proposed ballroom at the White House: "Part of his real estate developer persona is plastering the name of Trump over anything that he ever owned or wanted to own," Perry said. "He sees himself as a businessman and a developer and the desire to build something like this giant ballroom — it's right in his strike zone." The plan has drawn fierce criticism from architectural purists but praise from others who say the current building is too small for large state functions. His defenders say Trump is right that unsightly tents have to be rolled out onto the lawn when more than 250 people are invited to a formal event. Stephen Ayers, the interim CEO of the American Institute for Architects, which was entrusted by president Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago to be the "perpetual guardian" of the White House's architectural integrity, urges caution. "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the people's house, a national treasure and an enduring symbol of our democracy. Any modifications to it — especially modifications of this magnitude — should reflect the importance, scale and symbolic weight of the White House itself," Ayers said. Trump's proposed structure "raises concerns regarding scale and balance," he said, and any additions should be adjusted so that they align with "the White House's historic character." Others have been more blunt, calling the planned addition " hideous," " ugly," " dumb" and gaudy given the liberal use of gold. "I can see where this ballroom would be helpful and needed. We struggled with guests lists when I was there," said Anita McBride, the former chief of staff to ex-first lady Laura Bush, who helped plan social events. "With tented events, you really can't say you're having dinner at the White House, because you're not. You're on the lawn. It's not as attractive, in my mind." There hasn't been much structural change to the place since the post-Second World War period — and even then it was a comparatively minor addition, as then-president Harry Truman added a balcony to the second floor of the executive residence. Truman also gutted the interior after decades of neglect. Roosevelt knocked down pre-Civil War greenhouses to build the West Wing in 1902. His distant cousin, former president Franklin Roosevelt, added the Oval Office as it's known today in 1934. McBride, who also worked in the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations, said it's the president's prerogative to do what he wants with the place — with some limits, of course. "The building has evolved over 233 years. It's been through changes before and with many of them there were strong feelings on both sides, but we ultimately adapted," she said. "It will take some getting used to." The ballroom project follows Trump's recent decision to pave over part of Jacqueline Kennedy's Rose Garden to install new tiles for an outdoor patio and put two towering flag poles on either side of the White House to boldly fly the Stars and Stripes. In a nod to his Trump Tower apartment, the president has placed gold detailing all over the Oval Office and other interior spaces in a building that was much more modest when it first opened in 1800. "The White House was built by our founding fathers, particularly George Washington, to not be like the palaces of Europe. But I'm not sure they could have envisioned the kind of world we live in today," McBride said. "It's the personal preference of this president. Maybe it's not to everybody's taste, but it is Trump's. While he's there, this is how he wants it." Crime crackdown, Kennedy Center takeover Beyond the White House gates, Trump is promising an ambitious campaign to fix the district's parks, roads and medians, because he said the current setup is "embarrassing" when world leaders come to see him. Bowser, the D.C. mayor, has pushed back on Trump's narrative, saying the city is already more beautiful and safe than it was — tourism numbers are up and business activity has improved after a post-COVID slump. But Trump described the city in dystopian terms as he moved to deploy the D.C. National Guard to the streets of the capital. His D.C. takeover doesn't stop there. Trump commandeered the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts's board of trustees, who then installed him as its chair. He dropped some purportedly progressive programming and promoted a summer schedule of the play Les Misérables, which just finished a five-week sold-out run on his watch. Now, Trump will personally host the centre's annual awards ceremony and give prizes to hand-picked celebrity recipients in a bid to drive up TV ratings. He is leading renovation efforts to that space, too, recently convincing Republicans in Congress to allocate $257 million for an overhaul. Some of his congressional allies are pushing for the building's opera house to be renamed after First Lady Melania Trump. And then there's the Smithsonian, which earlier this year removed a reference to Trump's first-term impeachments from a display in the Museum of American History — it later returned with a modified text. This week, White House officials urged the museum's top administrator to reevaluate what's put on display as the country approaches its 250th anniversary in 2026. The White House wants visitors to see displays that "celebrate American exceptionalism."
CBC
34 minutes ago
- CBC
Who controls the food supply? Proposed changes to seed reuse reopens debate
It's a small change that risks cultivating a big debate. On one side is the principle of farmer's privilege — the traditional right of Canadian farmers to save seeds at the end of a growing season and reuse them the next year. On the other is the principle of plant breeders' rights — the right of those who develop new seeds and plants to protect and profit from their discoveries. The issue has been dormant for a decade. Now, proposed changes to government rules regarding plant breeders' rights are reviving that debate. It also raises questions about how Canada gets its food and who controls what is grown. "Ultimately, it's about food security," said Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The group supports the changes, which include narrowing the scope of farmer's privilege. "Not only keeping us competitive to keep food costs down, but also to make sure that we maintain new varieties coming forward for that food availability." In a notice dated Aug. 9, the government announced proposed changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations — a form of intellectual property protection for plants, similar to a patent. The regulations give plant breeders a monopoly over the distribution of their product for a set period, as a way to to encourage investment and innovations such as varieties with higher yields or more resistant to drought or pests. It's a big business. Estimates of the economic impact of the seed industry in Canada range from $4 billion to $6 billion a year. The right to reuse The changes would remove the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds and cuttings from protected "fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation and hybrids." For most plants recognized under the law, the protections last for 20 years. Personal gardens and many other kinds of crops such as wheat, cereals and pulses, where seed saving is more widespread, would not be affected. Among the other proposed changes is to extend the protection for new varieties of mushrooms, asparagus and woody plants like raspberries and blueberries to 25 years from the current 20 years. A public consultation on the changes runs until Oct. 18. NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns says the changes raise an important issue for Canadians. He questions why the government is holding the consultation in summer when most farmers are focused on growing and harvesting crops — not drafting submissions for public consultations. "They keep doing this over and over again," said Johns of the federal government. "They announce regulatory changes that impact farmers and their livelihoods [and] they schedule the consultation period during the busiest time of the year for farmers." Johns said companies producing new kinds of seed should be adequately compensated for their innovation and intellectual property. But he said farmers who grow and harvest the food Canadians eat shouldn't "be starved by big corporations choking off their seed supply." He wants the House of Commons agriculture committee to hold hearings and take a closer look at the changes being proposed. A spokesperson for Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald said the government is "committed to encouraging innovation, investment, research and competitiveness in Canadian agriculture, horticulture and ornamental industries." The spokesperson said the government "will review all feedback before determining next steps." Access vs. innovation Former prime minister Stephen Harper's government triggered a debate in 2015 when it adopted measures to bring Canada's rules more in line with guidelines adopted by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV 91. The rules are separate from patent law or technology use agreements which some seed companies use to prevent farmers from saving and reusing seeds. Changes to plant breeders' rules are now again on the table. Last year, a government consultation resulted in 109 submissions, the majority supportive of change. Meanwhile, lobbyists have been busy behind the scenes. According to the federal lobbying registry, 13 people from several different groups or companies are currently registered to lobby on plant breeders' rights including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and Swiss-based Syngenta, owned by Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Cathy Holtslander, director of research and policy for the National Farmers Union, says the proposed changes risk hurting farmers while increasing profits and the power of seed-producing companies — often multinationals with foreign ownership. While the changes are focused on an area of agriculture where seed saving is less common, Holtslander warns the changes are a "slippery slope" that could lead to an erosion of the rights of farmers. "If they were to go after wheat with the amendment, there would be a huge uproar and people would really be angry and push back," Holtslander said. She said what's being proposed "paves the way" for other crops to be included later. "The seed industry does not want farmers' privilege to exist for any seed. They want to be able to require people to buy new seed every year," she said. Holtslander's group plans to fight the proposed changes. She said the issue goes beyond the question of individual farmers reusing seed. "If the big multinational companies control the seed, they control our food supply," she said. Lauren Comin, director of policy for Seeds Canada, acknowledges the issue can be controversial but argues Canada needs strong intellectual property protection if it wants access to the newest innovations to compete on the world stage. "It's incredibly important to have these frameworks to encourage investment companies, businesses, public entities, to know that they are going to somehow be compensated and protected," Comin said. She said that while the changes "provide that certainty and that incentive for investment," she wants them to go further. While acknowledging there isn't enough certified seed for all of Canada's cereals and small grains crop, Comin would also like to see farmers compensate plant breeders when they reuse seeds, as they do in Europe. "The farmer's privilege does not say that that use is free," she said. "[Farmers] can choose to buy the latest and greatest product of innovation, which means that there is a tremendous amount of investment and effort that went toward developing this improved variety. Or they can decide that they don't value innovation, and they can go back to a variety that's unprotected and grow that." Currie, an Ontario grains and oil seed farmer who saves and reuses seeds, says Canada needs to balance the two principles. He says farmer's privilege is key to Canada's competitiveness, but so is access to new varieties of seeds and plants. "While I do understand where some of the multinationals want to have better control, I believe in order for the industry to be viable, farmers have to have some control as well," he said.
