Tonight on The Brian Crombie Hour, Brian opens with a reflection on the defining economic and political moment facing Canada today. From rising interest rates and a housing crisis to stalled productivity and growing global pressures, Brian outlines why Canada stands at a critical turning point and what bold action is needed to move forward. Then, Brian is joined by Eric Guntermann, PhD, Chief Data Scientist at Empirical Intelligence, for a data-driven look at how Canadians really see their country’s politics. Together, they explore what Canadians think of Prime Minister Mark Carney, where voters are shifting across party lines, how Americans view Canada, and why understanding public opinion is key to rebuilding confidence and progress.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty Am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Everyone and welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio Hour. I
want to talk for a couple of minutes about what
I think is our current situation in Canada. That we
are at a crossroads and I think we need to
rethink growth in a fragmented world. Canada, I believe, is
standing on the edge of an inflection point as Parliament
prepares for yet another budget showdown. The country's economy is
(00:40):
being pulled in multiple directions. It's squeezed by high mortgage costs,
it's battered by global trade wars, and it's weighed down
by years of policy drift. Over the last month or so,
I on the Brian Crombie Radio Hour have spoken with
many of Canada's top thinkers, from Benjamin Taw and Alba
jay Ibba to Heather externra Pero, Jim Stanford, Rick Anderson
(01:02):
and Paul Cementon. In recent weeks, that conversation has expanded
to include Carl Gomez, Jeff Rubin, j DM Stewart.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Pierre Jean Esmi, Folier.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
And Sam Suregen, as well as Sergio Marqi, recently voices
that together offer I believe a wide range angle for
me and you of Canada's place in a turbulent world.
Taken as a whole. I believe their message is clear.
Canada's problem isn't ideology, it's inertia. Inertia number one the
(01:34):
limits of monetary medicine. Carl Gomez, who is the chief
economist at co Star Capital, He said that he believes
that the Bank of Canada has reached the end of
its influence. After rising rates to five percent to combat
post pandemic inflation, the bank has since eased back to
two point twenty five percent, close to neutral. He says,
but further cuts won't save the economy that's lost its
(01:56):
growth engine. Interest rates can't fix a trade war, go
has told me. They can't fix housing supply, productivity, or
a lack of innovation. Those require structural changes from governments,
not central banks. He warns that sixty percent of Canadian
mortgages will reset within the next eighteen months, adding roughly
one thousand dollars a month to have sold payments. While
most home owners will hang on, the stress will ripple
(02:19):
through consumption and confidence. Retail sales have been surprisingly strong,
he noted, but it's not sustainable when debt servicing is
eating into every paycheck. For Gomez, the housing correction is
both necessary and dangerous. Prices have softened, but construction is stalling.
The cure for high prices is lower prices, but only
(02:39):
if we keep building these said. That means streamlining approvals,
cutting development fees, and focusing on family oriented housing rather
than investor driven condos number two the global chess board.
If Gomez diagnoses the domestic imbalances, Jeff Rubin maps the
geopolitical fault line shaping it. In his new book, A
(03:00):
Map of the New Normal, Jeff Rubin argued that Canada's
dependence on the United States has become a structural vulnerability.
The US isn't the champion of free trade anymore, he
told me, It's the architect of a new protectionist order,
and we're still behaving Like his junior partner, Jeff Rubin
believes that Canada's next wave of growth must come from
trade diversification, not with the slow growth economies of Europe,
(03:23):
but with the expanding brick block Brazil, Russia, India, China,
South Africa and new entrance like Cudi, Arabia and Indonesia.
The future markets, he says, are bricks. They're young, industrializing
and growing fast. But Canada's diplomatic tized our weakest where
the opportunities are the strongest. He also questions Canada's reflex
(03:43):
to mirror US tariff policy, particularly the one hundred percent
tariff on Chinese electric vehicles. When our only ev plant
in Ingersol sits idle, we become America's echo. Rubin said,
we need to rediscover our own economic voice. Looking ahead
to next year's USMCA review, he warns the agreement is
(04:04):
a dead man walking. If Donald Trump returns to power,
Canada could face bilateral negotiations on US terms. If that happens,
Reuben cautioned, or lack of diversification will be exposed overnight.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
Three A leadership deficit. Historian author J. D. M.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Stewart, whose book The Prime Ministers of Canada Canada's leaders
in the Nation They Shape, traces the evolution of leadership
from Johnny MacDonald to mulroney. And he told me that
Canada's crisis is as much moral as it is economic.
Great prime ministers understand how to unite a diverse country.
He said, they practice pragmatism, relied on teamwork, showed courage,
(04:42):
and inspired.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
With a vision.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Stewart argued that contemporary leaders, Mark Carney among them, must
learn from that history.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Courage to make unpopular.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Choices, pragmatism to balance competing interest, teamwork to empower competent ministers,
and inspiration to give Canadians a reason to believe again.
He reminded us all that Loier's optimism that the twentieth
century shall belonged to the century of Canada isn't just rhetoric.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
It wasn't just rhetoric. It was a blueprint for national confidence.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Canada needs leaders, Stewart said, who can once again make
us feel that our best days are ahead. Four lessons
from France's welfare state. To understand what happens when governments
delay were formed for too long, I turned to Pierre
Jean Esmiux Foonier, a French investment banker and cancer survivor
who's seen both the generosity and the limits of France's
(05:32):
welfare state up close. France, he explained, clique sixty four
percent of GDP and taxes and spends lavishly on healthcare,
pensions and subsidies, but the model is buckling under demographic pressure.
My treatment costs three hundred and twenty thousand euros a year,
Pierre said, and he paid nothing. It's humane, but it's unsustainable.
(05:55):
France's debt now exceeds three point six trillion euros. It's
it is six percent of GDP, three times what Canadas is,
and political instability is rampant. Five prime ministers in a
under four years, with twenty percent of ministers under investigations.
Pierre Jean proposes a national referendum to reset expectations, to
reduce some titlements, to raise the retirement age, and rebuild
(06:18):
trust through transparency. His warning for Canada is very sobering.
When citizens believe the state will do everything, they offentially
find that the state can do nothing. His takeaway is clear,
Canada must balance compassion with accountability before debt forces reform
upon us. Five. Fiscal discipline and the Politics of courage.
(06:40):
Sam Servasian, a behavioral scientist, former finance executive, and author
of the Courage to Decide, uted.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
A complimentary review.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Our fiscal problem is really a behavioral one we forgot.
He told us that every generation repeats the same cycle, overspend,
then rediscover discipline. Hard weight Sam argues that Canadians deserve
an honest conversation about the trade offs and public finance,
what we want and what we can afford, and who pays.
He supports separating operational from capital spending the way businesses do,
(07:12):
so governments stop borrowing for everyday costs, and he is
unafraid of unpopular ideas modestly raising the GST to restore
fiscal balance or gradually increasing the retirement age as life
expectancy rises. Leadership isn't about pleasing voters, Sam said, It's
about telling them the truth and trusting that they can
(07:32):
handle it. Six a system stuck in neutral. Both econos
echo what earlier guests have described as a system that
talks about growth but structures itself against it. Benjamin Tell
from CIBC has long argued that Canada's fiscal architecture is
broke broken. The federal government has all the money, the
provinces of all the power, and the cities of all
(07:54):
the problems. He believes that empowering municipalities with stable infrastructure
funding is essential for activity. A led ed Ibuwath OFMC
CMAC warns that the housing shortage is at slow motion,
crisage mortgage delinquencies arising, but the bigger risk is underbuilding
during downturns. When demand rebounds, he told me, supply just
(08:16):
won't be there. Heather extra Proro, of the McDonald Lourie
Institute and author of Constraining Canada, says environmental idealism has
hardened into paralysis. You can't meet our climate goals if
you can't build anything, she argues, calling for reform of
the Impact Assessment Act and faster approval of energy and
mineral projects. Jim Stanford, formerly of the Canadian Autoworkers, believes
(08:38):
that Canada must rediscover its industrial policy muscles. If everyone's
a buyer, he said, who's the seller. He supports tying
market access to domestic production, as we did in the
old Autopact. Paul Smemititon, head of the Canadian Center for
Economic Economic Analysis, coined a term that captures it all, Pondonomics,
a growth model dependent on at immigration and housing inflation
(09:02):
rather than true productivity gains. And Rick Anderson, a veteran
strategist and political advisor, told me that Ottawa is caught
in a political game of chicken with parties poise to
trigger an election instead of tackling structural reform. His warning
was blunt. Each political cycle without courage deepens the country's
(09:23):
malais malaise. We are running out of time to act.
The pattern is clear. We're addicted to expansion without transformation,
a treadmill economy where population growth props up GDP but
not prosperity. So I think we have a leadership and
public service that's in crisis. That leadership deficit is precisely
(09:44):
what the Honorable Sergio Marqui, a former Cabinet minister, ambassador
and author of Pursuing a Public Life, spoke to me
about and believes that we must confront head on. Drawing
on decades in Canadian politics and diplomacy, Sergio argued that
the country's demographic democratic health depends not only on better policies,
(10:05):
but on better people choosing to serve. Public life, he
told us, isn't broken and simply short of good participants.
He worries that too any talented young Canadians are walking
away from politics altogether turned off by toxicity and cynicism.
Yet like the best public servants, he does still remain hopeful.
His book part memoir Manual offers seventy eight lessons on
(10:26):
how to lead listening government decency. He calls for a
renewal of civic education, mentorship and diversity, and a political
recruitment so Parliament can once again reflect the face and
values of modern Canada, which he doesn't believe it does today.
So Gier Marquis's message complements the economist warnings that reforming
our institutions won't matter unless we also reform our culture
(10:46):
of leadership. As he puts it, if you care about
our country, you have to step up, not stand back.
What Canada needs now, I believe is a coherent growth
strategy rooted in productivity, diversification, and courage. That means number one,
cutting regulatory duplication to unleash investment in housing and infrastructure,
(11:08):
particularly energy. Number two, redefining industrial policy to reward companies
that produce in Canada. Number three, investing in AI advanced
manufacturing and digital innovation. Number four, building trade ties with
emerging economies rather than only courting stagnant ones in Europe,
and number five giving cities the fiscal tools to lead
(11:30):
where senior government stall. The last generation of Canadian prosperity
was built on stability, openness and steady institutions. But the
world has changed. The next will require speed, adaptivity and
self reliance. Canada's challenge isn't that we lack ideas, we
lack execution. We know what must be done and power cities,
(11:54):
reform regulations, diversified trade and reward productivity, yet we hesitate,
preferring short term politics to long term policy. If we
continue on this path, the risk isn't collapse.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
It's irrelevance. Irrelevance. Canada needs to take action. We need
to take action.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
That's Brian Crombie for the Brian Crombie Radio Houray it
was everyone back in two.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Minutes stream us live at SAGA nine to six am
dot C.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio War.
Got Eric Gnterman with us tonight. He is the founder
in chief data scientists of accompanied by the name of
Empirical Intelligence, and he's just launched this company that is
doing some really interesting uppolling, surveys and research, et cetera
about a whole bunch of different things, but political attitude
and else otherwise in Canada. He's got a pH d
(13:05):
in political science from the University ted de Moreel.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
He's got a master's degree in political.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Science, and he's one of these nerds that's incredibly well educated,
very knowledgeable, and has done some really interesting research.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Eric, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
Thanks for having me. It's great to be here.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
My pleasure.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
So let's start at the top. You did some research
recently on our new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. What are
you finding, sir.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Yeah, it's really interesting.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
Well, I mean, first of all, Canadians see him as
being different from his predus as Justin Tuto. I asked
Canadians how I mean. One of the Simbus questions is
a left right scale of ideology. From zero means far left,
ten means far right. So it was a zero to
ten scale, and I found that Canadians on average place
(13:55):
Justin Trudeau at three. They placed Mark Karneie at four,
so clearly they see Carney as being a bit more centrist,
and Canadians placed themselves in the center around five. So
basically carne is being pretty close to him. Justin Trudeau
was a bit far to the left for most Canadians,
but carnee is clearly seen as being more centrist, which
where Canadians.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
Are and is that working for him? Do you think.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
It seems to be.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
I mean, his popularity has dropped a bit over the
past few months, which is normal because most new governments,
most new prime ministers have a honeymoon period after they're
elected and for a few months they're very popular.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
But he's still quite popular. He's just gone down by
a few points in the past few months.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
You actually did another research that I thought was kind
of interesting that the vast majority of Americans have no
idea who he is.
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Well, you can interpret those results in different ways. I
was actually expecting fewer Americans to know who he is,
so I asked a sample of Americans with a partner
in the US bear site of pulling from there some
questions actually also some questions with ipsos about their Canadian's
knowledge of sorry American's knowledge of a Canadian politics, and
(15:03):
particularly I asked them about the Canadian Prime minister who
he is? And I expected a very small number of
Americans to know who the Prime Minister of Canada is.
I give them four options, Mark Karney, Justin Trudeau, Doug Ford,
and cost Wandergo. I thought a lot of Americans would
still think that Justin Trudeau was prime minister. Thirty eight
(15:26):
percent were able to identify Mark Karney's being prime minister.
That's I don't depending on your interpretation, it's law less
than the majority. I thought it'd be more like twenty percent. Actually,
so I thought it was slightly higher than I expected.
But yeah, clearly majority of Americans don't know who the
prime minister is. Sixty percent don't know who he is.
(15:46):
Twenty one percent thought it was still Justin Trudeau, which
is a little lower than expected, but still it's high.
I mean, it shows that there's twenty one percent of
people who haven't been following the news over the past
few months.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I was surprised that more people thought Frans while Lego
was was prime Minister then they thought Doug Ford was.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
What do you think of that, Well, I mean it
was a tiny number. It was only if I remember correctly,
it was one percent for doug Ford and two percent
for host Waligo, twice as much. Yeah, but I mean
it's still within the margin of er. It's just a
statistical note noise. I mean my interpretation of that is
that there were maybe some some Americans who thought that
(16:26):
the Prime minister had a sort of French sounding name,
and they saw Hostwita Goo and it sounded French sect
similar to Trudeau.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
And that's that's what they're thinking about it. I mean,
they're very small numbers.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
You also did some interesting research and wrote an article
about Republicans versus Democrats and their attitude toward whether trade
with Canada is a net positive or a negative.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Can you tell us about that please?
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yeah, Well, I asked the question first.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
I mean, I first asked the same question in Canada
about whether because there's something Trump's been saying over over
the past year or so that Canada is being very
unfair with the US, that Canada is, yeah, basically being
unfair in trade with the US. And so I asked
Canadians that question first in April, and I asked Canadians
whether they agreed or disagreed with that, and I found
(17:13):
that an overwhelming majority of Canadians agreed that Canada's treating
the US fairly, so almost no one in Canada agrees
that Canada is unfair with the US. I asked the
same question in the US and in May, and I
found that most Americans agree that Canada's treating the US fairly,
(17:35):
but there's a huge device the Democrats view Canada the
same way Canadians do. Democrats overwhelmingly say Canada's treating the
US fairly. Republicans, the other hand, they're much less clear
on that. It's not that Republicans think that Canada's treating
the US really, there are some but Republicans views tend
to be less clear on the issue. So there's clearly
(17:57):
a partisan divide where Democrats clearly think can as treating
us fairly, Republicans aren't so sure, and it looks like
they're they're torn between. My interpretation of that is that
they really do think Canada is, you know, is you know,
a nice country, We're treating us fairly, But they are
following cues from their president who's saying that Canada's ripping
(18:20):
the US off, and they feel like they should at
least show some support for that when answering these questions.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
You know, historically I would have thought Republicans were more
free traders. How do you explain your current result? It
almost appears like Democrats are more free traders and Republicans
are more at least, if not you know, protectionist, at
least confused about the issue.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
Well, that's that's an interesting point is that with Trump
everything changed. Trump coming out against against free trade and
against the US trading partners like Canada when he first
became president in twenty sixteen. It sort of changed the
whole political dynamic where and one thing we know is
that people tend to follow used from their party's leaders.
(19:02):
In this case Trump, a lot of a lot of
Republicans have to adjust their their opinions to reflect what
their president is saying. And especially the context of high polarization,
there's a lot of that going on, and so it
changed the whole political dynamic where suddenly now Republicans are
are against trade because that's what Trump saying.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
So it's interesting that you do at least you maybe
you don't do it directly, but you look at a
bunch of things in regards to the United States and
their attitudes toward Canada.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
Why, well, at this time, it's fundamental thing, you know,
it's a fundamental issue. This year with Trump, it is
really important to do polling on the issues that matter
to our lives, to our economy. And that's such a
fundamental thing. Now I think we need, we all need
to be concerned about that, and we really need to
(19:51):
care what Canadians think about the US and what Americans
think about Canada as well.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
You published a post looking at someone else's research, but
that you were going through it, and you said that
to Trudeau, even though people thought was incredibly unpopular, he
was less unpopular than Trump was. And you said that
seventy five percent of Canadians disliked Trump, but only forty
(20:16):
five percent dislike Trudeau, and Conservatives, though you thought it,
you found it that it's the opposite, seventy nine percent
dislike Trudeau and fifty seven percent disliked Trump, so that
the Conservative party and their attitude toward Trump is very
different than the Canadian population in aggregate.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (20:36):
Yeah, Conservatives in Canada attend to have very different attitudes
from supporters of the other parties. And I think for
a lot of Conservatives, the priority around the time of
the election wasn't so much Trump. It was more that
they hated Trudeau when they wanted him gone, and they
saw Karne as being another Trudeau, and they also weren't
happy about that. So I think they had a very
different perspective on what was going on in the last election.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
So did they like Trump or did they like Trump's
policies or you know, you know, his policies. Even then
we're negative toward Canada. Why would they have voted for someone,
Why would they like someone that seems to be against Canada,
that called fifty called Canada be the fifty first stake,
you know, called for terrorists against Canada, you know, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
Can you explain that?
Speaker 5 (21:21):
Well, I think it shows the power of ideology and
partisanship that they, as conservatives, felt like they should support
the conservative side of the divide. And the conservative side
was you know, Trump, and the liberal side was formerly
Trudeau and then Carneie, and they were against that because
they are conservatives. And you know, when politics is polarized,
(21:44):
you get people trying to show support for the sides.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
There's a lot of that going on.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Then you wrote an interesting article about Canadians added tode
toward peer Pauliev and whether they thought that he was
Canada's Trump, And I think what you said is that
they actually saw differences, but not an ideology. So the
ideology was the same, it was the personality that was different.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Is that correct? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (22:09):
Well, I mean what's interesting is that so I asked
Canadians to place the different leaders on that I mentioned earlier,
the ideology scale from zero to tent and I found
that Canadian's placements of of of Puliev and of Trump.
I asked about Trump as well, were actually quite similar.
I mentioned earlier that they could distinguish Carlini from Trudeau,
(22:29):
but their distinction, the distinction they made between Qualiev and Trump,
was actually very small, so they saw them as being
very similar ideology. But I also asked a lot of
other questions. I asked whether they thought Qualdiev liked Trump,
I asked whether they thought Trump liked Qualiev, and I
found that generally Canadians didn't think Quliev liked Trump, they
(22:50):
didn't think Trump like Qualiev. I also asked about their
Canadians' perceptions of Qualitiev's views on Canada US issues, trade,
Canada becoming the fifty first state, and I saw the
Canadians overwhelmingly thought that Tulliev supported Canada side on those
issues that Qualief supported not having US tariffs in Canada,
(23:12):
Canada placing retalitory tariffs, Canada not becoming the fifty first state.
So they didn't think Quaaliev was pro Trump on those issues. Interestingly, though,
and I think this is maybe one reason why Karne
end up winning the election. They saw Qualievas being less
supportive of the Canadian side on those issues they than
Carnie was. So they saw probably being on Canada's side,
(23:36):
but not as much as they did Carnee. And that's
what I think. That's what Canadians were looking for in
the last election. They were looking for someone who was
defending Canada, and they thought pauliev was on Canada's side,
but not quite as much as Carnie was.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
You found that Canadians were very supportive of retaliatory tariffs,
but yet of late Carne is backed off on retaliatory tariffs.
Do you think he's making the right decision or going
to guess what Canadians want?
Speaker 5 (24:01):
Well, I haven't asked about that question more recently, so
probably in that case, my guess that Canadians still support them,
maybe slightly less, just because the threat of tariffs. As
I guess, we've sort of gotten used to it, although
there have been some specific sectoral tariffs placed even recently
I think two days ago.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
So I mean my sense is.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
That Canadians are probably slightly less supportive of them. I
think the motivation for removing them is more economic, that
they're high costs in the Canadian economy. They effect in consumers,
Canadian companies that have to buy raw materials in the
US and things like that.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
But yeah, but probably he is it is.
Speaker 5 (24:43):
A policy that was not supported by removing the count
drivers was probably a policy that Canadians did not support them.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
That's my sense, Eric, I really enjoy reading your posts
and your articles.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Thank you very much for this. We're going to take
a break for some messages and.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Come back with a couple of questions about why research
is important and how we I'll stay with us.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Everyone back in two minutes.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
No Radio, No Problem. Stream is live on Sagay ninety
six am dot C.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
A Welcome back everyone to the Brian Cromby Radio. I've
got Eric Gunterman with us tonight. He is the founder
in chief data scientist at Empirical Intelligence. It's a polling
(25:32):
research company that he's launched, and he publishes some really
interesting commentary both on his own research as well as
going through in depth other people's research, which I find
really quite helpful and enjoyable. You posted recently that you
think that doing this research is really important because you
want to give everyone a voice. How does polling give
(25:53):
everyone a voice?
Speaker 5 (25:56):
Well, most fundly, any polster who takes their jobs seriously
focus on trying to get a representative sample and to
get everyone, you know, include everyone who's in the population
that so they want to get have a measure of
everyone's voice so that when they share the results that
everyone's voice reflect them there.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
And if we don't do.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
That, what happens is that when governments are setting policies,
they don't know what people want, and what ends up
mattering are the opinions of the people who are in
government and powerful voice in society, big business or whatever
actors who want some policy very in a very intense way,
and they end up having disportioned influence. But if we
(26:39):
have data on what the population wants, where where those
views reflect everyone in society and not just powerful actors.
People can have a voice and can influence what governments do.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
You also do surveys for business and I found a.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Post that you made really interesting. I wanted to to
go through it.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
And understand it better if we could, and let me
just read some of it if I could. Are you
leaving money on the table with your pricing. Pricing is
one of the biggest drivers of revenue and profit, but
too often companies rely on guesswork or outdated methods. Here
are three common approaches and why they fall short. Cost
plus pricing. It's easy, but ignores what customers are willing
(27:23):
to pay. Competitive pricing. You're assuming competitors know better, but
do they value? Based pricing the gold standard because it
starts with how much consumers value product or service? How
do you measure that value? Now, this is where I
want you to explain direct willingness to pay surveys.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
How do you do that? Sir?
Speaker 5 (27:45):
Well, so what I do is are you run an
experimental surveys called conjoin analysis, which is the way of
putting people through choice experiments where they pick one from
different products and you see what types of products they
tend to buy, so with what features and also at
what price, so you see what price the consumers are
willing to buy different products?
Speaker 2 (28:07):
App Okay, what is conjoint analysis?
Speaker 5 (28:12):
It's that's it's a kind of choice experiment where you
put people through choice exercises where you ask them to
pretend they're buying a product and you give them different
choices and you observe those choices, and.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
You do this what in a focus group, online telephone?
Speaker 4 (28:31):
What through online surveys?
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Then you said another way is something called a Van
Western Dop price sensitivity analysis? What is what the blank
is a Van Western Dop price sensitivity analysis.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
That's another kind of survey analysis where people are basically
asked about how they feel about different prices and whether
it's too high too low. It is not the ideal
way of doing it because people off the don't don't
really have attitudes towards prices that reflect what they be
willing to pay, So it's not it isn't a great
way of doing it.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
And then you say you could do a Garboorer Granger
demand curve. What's a Garber Granger demand curve.
Speaker 5 (29:11):
It's sort of a similar type of method where you
ask people about their willingness to pay different prices. What
I prefer to do is have people go through these
choice experiments we can actually give let people choose what
kind of products they want, and then you can observe
their behavior. And that's much more helpful to businesses and
I think for the consumers themselves because it allows them
to go through the they're they're purchasing decisions on their
(29:36):
own as they would and if they were in a
store online.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
So in my experience, it's not just price that's the key.
It's the attributes of a product that are key. Can
you do that through your conjoint analysis as well?
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Let me give you an example.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
You know, in the in the condo development business, right now,
people are really trying to struggle to figure out what
what consumers want, and price is unquestionably one the key aspects.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
But the size of.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
The unit because we had this big trend to very
small units that now people are calling you know, dog
crates has been prevalent over the last couple of.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
Years, and now people are thinking about bigger.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
People were thinking about studios versus one bedrooms. Now people
are talking about how we need two and three bedrooms.
People are asking about, you know, the number of fixtures
or pieces that you need in a washroom. How do
you do that? And do that relative to the price,
because as you want more, your cost goes out.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
Yeah, So content analysis allows consumers to go through those
trade offs. So it shows people products or services that
include various different features. So could be the size of
a let's say, in the case of a condo, the size,
the number of bedrooms, whatever else is included, and then
they will be showing at different prices, and so people
(30:55):
can pick the one they prefer out of all the
different options they're shown, and allows us to learn about
what people want, how much they're willing to pay, and
also what features they want out of whatever the product
or services. And one of the huge advantage of that,
I mean what I mentioned earlier, the advantage of polling
in general for government is that allows everyone's voice to
(31:15):
be heard. The same thing is true as consumers. It
allows everyone as a consumer's voice to be heard so
that businesses can supply what people want, and that's really important.
If we didn't have that kind of data on consumers,
companies would have to guess and they would be producing
things that people don't want.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
So I was intrigued when I read your article about
conjoint analysis and pricing for companies if you can do
it in politics on policies, and I was thinking about
this sort of major project's office that has been talked
about recently, where I think a lot of people would
probably initially say they're in support of a major project office,
but if they were confronted with and are you willing
(31:55):
to have taxes go up or deficits go up, or
debt to go up, or or indigenous rights to be
you know, disregarded, or environmental concerns disregarded, or climate change
problems are created? Would they still have the same attitude
when you're doing political research and policy research? Can you
(32:17):
actually confront people with those kinds of trade offs? No?
Speaker 5 (32:21):
You can? I mean, yes, a conjoin is one way
of doing it. Another way is just pointing out the
trade offs. I mean, like, I asked a question about
government spending, and I ask people if they wanted the
government to spend more money. And if you don't ask,
if you don't mention that requires raising taxes, people are
just gonna say, yes, that sounds great. You know, the
(32:42):
government should spend a lot more money. But then if
you mention, oh, well that means your taxes are going
to have to go up, you know, people are much
less willing to spend more money.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
I mean reversed.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
Also true, if you asked about lowering taxes, people say, oh,
that's great, But then when you point out what that means,
you're going to get last in terms of and services whatever.
People value support for lowering taxes a lot lower. So yes,
we do see those trade offs as well when we
ask questions about policy like that.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Well, it's like that joke that you've seen in the
United States about people desperately wanting tax decreases but and
redict reductions and deficits, but then they say, but keep
your hands off my.
Speaker 4 (33:20):
Social security exactly.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Yeah, So let me ask you a couple of questions
about pulling. Do people lie?
Speaker 5 (33:29):
I'm sure sometimes they do, but in general, I think
people it's more like the opposite. It's more people try
to give us the answers we want, and we have
to part of what we want to encourage people to
to tell us what they really think and and and
generally that's what people do.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
There is evidence for that.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Do you get the the right demographic uh, you know,
overview of Canadians.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
You know, I've heard people complain.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
That, you know a lot of young people don't have
land loans and landlines and uh, and that surveys are
often done through telephone and if you don't get them
on a mobile, you're not going to get it, or
people won't pick up a mobile call from a survey
company or or a non identified company that that that
uh you know online also has got some challenges. So
(34:20):
when you think about the changing way of communicating in
Canada today, can you still get a representative sample?
Speaker 5 (34:29):
Of course, it is a challenge getting a representative sample.
A lot of research now is done online and people
who run online panels of respondents put a lot of
reference to making them representative. So there's some groups who
are harder to get. But when when you run an
online panel, you put more basically you do you see
as a challenge, but you put more effort into getting
(34:50):
those groups who are harder to reach.
Speaker 4 (34:52):
Whether it involves.
Speaker 5 (34:55):
More outreach, putting more ads in the places where they
where you would find them on social media, offering them
a higher incentive, there are ways of reaching out to
groups who are harder to reach. So it is a challenge,
but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to get representative sample.
And the samples I've seen have been in flight representative.
I think everyone who's working on this, or most people
(35:15):
were going to do a pretty good job at making
sure everyone's voice is heard in.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
The alast couple of elections.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
I think people have suggested that polls have gotten it wrong,
that they didn't expect Trump to win as much of
a landslide as he did, and that they were surprised that,
you know, some people thought Carnie was going to win
a majority and he didn't.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
So what do you think are polls accurate?
Speaker 5 (35:38):
Generally they are, I mean, there are some high profile
cases where polls are off by a lot. But also
you have to think that there's also the electoral system
that translates polls into results, and the polls are actually
made for the like let's say, generally a poll of
the Canadan population is made for the Canadian population, whereas
the elections are run at the riding level, and what
(36:00):
matters is the result of the writing level, which means
which determines whether someone is elected as MP or not,
and that determines the overall result. There are also attempts
they're happening over the past few years to project results
at the at the writing level and then to figure
out how that result that has what in fact it
(36:21):
has in the overall result at the national level. That
generally those are are pretty accurate, but they're tough to do.
It's hard because the polls aren't made at the riding
level most of the time. Generally they're at the national level,
occasionally at the provincial level, so they don't necessarily tell
us what the result is going to be.
Speaker 4 (36:41):
Naturally once it's filtered through the electoral system. That's that's
a big challenge.
Speaker 2 (36:45):
What what do you think the future polling is? Some
people have suggested that, frankly, polling is better way of
running our government than by electing representatives that go to
the parliament. You know, the the idea of a riding
riding the name writing was because that's how far someone
could ride on a horse in half a day.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
That is sort of the you know, how how.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
Old the idea of representative democracy is, why don't we
just do polls on every policy and see what people want?
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Well, there does have to be some accountability and and
this is something I think.
Speaker 5 (37:20):
I think people eventually get tired of reversent governments and
then want some change. And if we always had the
same people in government and they were just reading polls,
uh that there would be no accountability. So I do
think that accountability is a big part of why we
have elections, and it gives governments an incentive to to
to do what people want and and and and actually
(37:41):
I think that's one of the reasons why they care
about polls, because they know that they don't they're they're
more likely to lose next time. And if they want
to be re elected, they have to listen to what
people want, and they have to give people good policies.
And it's it's really important for the people in power
to have that kind of incentive which you get from elections.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
What exciting interest in research are you're working on now?
Speaker 5 (38:02):
I'm working on a lot of different a lot of projects,
I mean, especially interesting to see changes in support for
the current governments. It's gone down a bit, uh, but
we'll see, especially with uh the labor situation. Now with
with what's happening in Canada post it'll be interesting to
see if dynamics change there. A lot of the support
(38:25):
for the for the Carni Liberals came from former m
DP voters and we'll see what happens with with with
those former voters. When you know, with what happens with
labor situation and other policies. Is a lot of interesting
developments with the current government and the situation with you
asked as well.
Speaker 4 (38:42):
It leads to a lot of interesting things going.
Speaker 2 (38:44):
On, Eric, I really enjoy, you know, reading your articles
and your posts. What's the best way for people to
follow you if they're they want to get your your
research and your articles.
Speaker 5 (38:56):
Well, my they can go to my website imper Intelligence
dot ca. I'm also on LinkedIn, Eric Benjamin, I'm can
be found pretty easily and I have a company page,
Empirical Intelligence that that you can find as well.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
I find your insights really insightful, and so thank you
very much for for your writing, for your research, and
for joining us today.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
Well, thanks for having me. It's been a pleasure to
be here.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
That's our show for tonight, everybody, thank you for joining.
I remember I remind you I'm on every Mind be
through Friday at six o'clock on nine sixty am. We're
at a time, give it.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
No radio, no problem. Stream is live on Sagay nine
sixty am dot Ca.
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty Am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Everyone and welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio Hour. I
want to talk for a couple of minutes about what
I think is our current situation in Canada. That we
are at a crossroads and I think we need to
rethink growth in a fragmented world. Canada, I believe, is
standing on the edge of an inflection point as Parliament
prepares for yet another budget showdown. The country's economy is
(00:40):
being pulled in multiple directions. It's squeezed by high mortgage costs,
it's battered by global trade wars, and it's weighed down
by years of policy drift. Over the last month or so,
I on the Brian Crombie Radio Hour have spoken with
many of Canada's top thinkers, from Benjamin Taw and Alba
jay Ibba to Heather externra Pero, Jim Stanford, Rick Anderson
(01:02):
and Paul Cementon. In recent weeks, that conversation has expanded
to include Carl Gomez, Jeff Rubin, j DM Stewart.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Pierre Jean Esmi, Folier.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
And Sam Suregen, as well as Sergio Marqi, recently voices
that together offer I believe a wide range angle for
me and you of Canada's place in a turbulent world.
Taken as a whole. I believe their message is clear.
Canada's problem isn't ideology, it's inertia. Inertia number one the
(01:34):
limits of monetary medicine. Carl Gomez, who is the chief
economist at co Star Capital, He said that he believes
that the Bank of Canada has reached the end of
its influence. After rising rates to five percent to combat
post pandemic inflation, the bank has since eased back to
two point twenty five percent, close to neutral. He says,
but further cuts won't save the economy that's lost its
(01:56):
growth engine. Interest rates can't fix a trade war, go
has told me. They can't fix housing supply, productivity, or
a lack of innovation. Those require structural changes from governments,
not central banks. He warns that sixty percent of Canadian
mortgages will reset within the next eighteen months, adding roughly
one thousand dollars a month to have sold payments. While
most home owners will hang on, the stress will ripple
(02:19):
through consumption and confidence. Retail sales have been surprisingly strong,
he noted, but it's not sustainable when debt servicing is
eating into every paycheck. For Gomez, the housing correction is
both necessary and dangerous. Prices have softened, but construction is stalling.
The cure for high prices is lower prices, but only
(02:39):
if we keep building these said. That means streamlining approvals,
cutting development fees, and focusing on family oriented housing rather
than investor driven condos number two the global chess board.
If Gomez diagnoses the domestic imbalances, Jeff Rubin maps the
geopolitical fault line shaping it. In his new book, A
(03:00):
Map of the New Normal, Jeff Rubin argued that Canada's
dependence on the United States has become a structural vulnerability.
The US isn't the champion of free trade anymore, he
told me, It's the architect of a new protectionist order,
and we're still behaving Like his junior partner, Jeff Rubin
believes that Canada's next wave of growth must come from
trade diversification, not with the slow growth economies of Europe,
(03:23):
but with the expanding brick block Brazil, Russia, India, China,
South Africa and new entrance like Cudi, Arabia and Indonesia.
The future markets, he says, are bricks. They're young, industrializing
and growing fast. But Canada's diplomatic tized our weakest where
the opportunities are the strongest. He also questions Canada's reflex
(03:43):
to mirror US tariff policy, particularly the one hundred percent
tariff on Chinese electric vehicles. When our only ev plant
in Ingersol sits idle, we become America's echo. Rubin said,
we need to rediscover our own economic voice. Looking ahead
to next year's USMCA review, he warns the agreement is
(04:04):
a dead man walking. If Donald Trump returns to power,
Canada could face bilateral negotiations on US terms. If that happens,
Reuben cautioned, or lack of diversification will be exposed overnight.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
Three A leadership deficit. Historian author J. D. M.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Stewart, whose book The Prime Ministers of Canada Canada's leaders
in the Nation They Shape, traces the evolution of leadership
from Johnny MacDonald to mulroney. And he told me that
Canada's crisis is as much moral as it is economic.
Great prime ministers understand how to unite a diverse country.
He said, they practice pragmatism, relied on teamwork, showed courage,
(04:42):
and inspired.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
With a vision.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Stewart argued that contemporary leaders, Mark Carney among them, must
learn from that history.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Courage to make unpopular.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Choices, pragmatism to balance competing interest, teamwork to empower competent ministers,
and inspiration to give Canadians a reason to believe again.
He reminded us all that Loier's optimism that the twentieth
century shall belonged to the century of Canada isn't just rhetoric.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
It wasn't just rhetoric. It was a blueprint for national confidence.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Canada needs leaders, Stewart said, who can once again make
us feel that our best days are ahead. Four lessons
from France's welfare state. To understand what happens when governments
delay were formed for too long, I turned to Pierre
Jean Esmiux Foonier, a French investment banker and cancer survivor
who's seen both the generosity and the limits of France's
(05:32):
welfare state up close. France, he explained, clique sixty four
percent of GDP and taxes and spends lavishly on healthcare,
pensions and subsidies, but the model is buckling under demographic pressure.
My treatment costs three hundred and twenty thousand euros a year,
Pierre said, and he paid nothing. It's humane, but it's unsustainable.
(05:55):
France's debt now exceeds three point six trillion euros. It's
it is six percent of GDP, three times what Canadas is,
and political instability is rampant. Five prime ministers in a
under four years, with twenty percent of ministers under investigations.
Pierre Jean proposes a national referendum to reset expectations, to
reduce some titlements, to raise the retirement age, and rebuild
(06:18):
trust through transparency. His warning for Canada is very sobering.
When citizens believe the state will do everything, they offentially
find that the state can do nothing. His takeaway is clear,
Canada must balance compassion with accountability before debt forces reform
upon us. Five. Fiscal discipline and the Politics of courage.
(06:40):
Sam Servasian, a behavioral scientist, former finance executive, and author
of the Courage to Decide, uted.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
A complimentary review.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Our fiscal problem is really a behavioral one we forgot.
He told us that every generation repeats the same cycle, overspend,
then rediscover discipline. Hard weight Sam argues that Canadians deserve
an honest conversation about the trade offs and public finance,
what we want and what we can afford, and who pays.
He supports separating operational from capital spending the way businesses do,
(07:12):
so governments stop borrowing for everyday costs, and he is
unafraid of unpopular ideas modestly raising the GST to restore
fiscal balance or gradually increasing the retirement age as life
expectancy rises. Leadership isn't about pleasing voters, Sam said, It's
about telling them the truth and trusting that they can
(07:32):
handle it. Six a system stuck in neutral. Both econos
echo what earlier guests have described as a system that
talks about growth but structures itself against it. Benjamin Tell
from CIBC has long argued that Canada's fiscal architecture is
broke broken. The federal government has all the money, the
provinces of all the power, and the cities of all
(07:54):
the problems. He believes that empowering municipalities with stable infrastructure
funding is essential for activity. A led ed Ibuwath OFMC
CMAC warns that the housing shortage is at slow motion,
crisage mortgage delinquencies arising, but the bigger risk is underbuilding
during downturns. When demand rebounds, he told me, supply just
(08:16):
won't be there. Heather extra Proro, of the McDonald Lourie
Institute and author of Constraining Canada, says environmental idealism has
hardened into paralysis. You can't meet our climate goals if
you can't build anything, she argues, calling for reform of
the Impact Assessment Act and faster approval of energy and
mineral projects. Jim Stanford, formerly of the Canadian Autoworkers, believes
(08:38):
that Canada must rediscover its industrial policy muscles. If everyone's
a buyer, he said, who's the seller. He supports tying
market access to domestic production, as we did in the
old Autopact. Paul Smemititon, head of the Canadian Center for
Economic Economic Analysis, coined a term that captures it all, Pondonomics,
a growth model dependent on at immigration and housing inflation
(09:02):
rather than true productivity gains. And Rick Anderson, a veteran
strategist and political advisor, told me that Ottawa is caught
in a political game of chicken with parties poise to
trigger an election instead of tackling structural reform. His warning
was blunt. Each political cycle without courage deepens the country's
(09:23):
malais malaise. We are running out of time to act.
The pattern is clear. We're addicted to expansion without transformation,
a treadmill economy where population growth props up GDP but
not prosperity. So I think we have a leadership and
public service that's in crisis. That leadership deficit is precisely
(09:44):
what the Honorable Sergio Marqui, a former Cabinet minister, ambassador
and author of Pursuing a Public Life, spoke to me
about and believes that we must confront head on. Drawing
on decades in Canadian politics and diplomacy, Sergio argued that
the country's demographic democratic health depends not only on better policies,
(10:05):
but on better people choosing to serve. Public life, he
told us, isn't broken and simply short of good participants.
He worries that too any talented young Canadians are walking
away from politics altogether turned off by toxicity and cynicism.
Yet like the best public servants, he does still remain hopeful.
His book part memoir Manual offers seventy eight lessons on
(10:26):
how to lead listening government decency. He calls for a
renewal of civic education, mentorship and diversity, and a political
recruitment so Parliament can once again reflect the face and
values of modern Canada, which he doesn't believe it does today.
So Gier Marquis's message complements the economist warnings that reforming
our institutions won't matter unless we also reform our culture
(10:46):
of leadership. As he puts it, if you care about
our country, you have to step up, not stand back.
What Canada needs now, I believe is a coherent growth
strategy rooted in productivity, diversification, and courage. That means number one,
cutting regulatory duplication to unleash investment in housing and infrastructure,
(11:08):
particularly energy. Number two, redefining industrial policy to reward companies
that produce in Canada. Number three, investing in AI advanced
manufacturing and digital innovation. Number four, building trade ties with
emerging economies rather than only courting stagnant ones in Europe,
and number five giving cities the fiscal tools to lead
(11:30):
where senior government stall. The last generation of Canadian prosperity
was built on stability, openness and steady institutions. But the
world has changed. The next will require speed, adaptivity and
self reliance. Canada's challenge isn't that we lack ideas, we
lack execution. We know what must be done and power cities,
(11:54):
reform regulations, diversified trade and reward productivity, yet we hesitate,
preferring short term politics to long term policy. If we
continue on this path, the risk isn't collapse.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
It's irrelevance. Irrelevance. Canada needs to take action. We need
to take action.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
That's Brian Crombie for the Brian Crombie Radio Houray it
was everyone back in two.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Minutes stream us live at SAGA nine to six am
dot C.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio War.
Got Eric Gnterman with us tonight. He is the founder
in chief data scientists of accompanied by the name of
Empirical Intelligence, and he's just launched this company that is
doing some really interesting uppolling, surveys and research, et cetera
about a whole bunch of different things, but political attitude
and else otherwise in Canada. He's got a pH d
(13:05):
in political science from the University ted de Moreel.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
He's got a master's degree in political.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Science, and he's one of these nerds that's incredibly well educated,
very knowledgeable, and has done some really interesting research.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Eric, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
Thanks for having me. It's great to be here.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
My pleasure.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
So let's start at the top. You did some research
recently on our new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. What are
you finding, sir.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Yeah, it's really interesting.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
Well, I mean, first of all, Canadians see him as
being different from his predus as Justin Tuto. I asked
Canadians how I mean. One of the Simbus questions is
a left right scale of ideology. From zero means far left,
ten means far right. So it was a zero to
ten scale, and I found that Canadians on average place
(13:55):
Justin Trudeau at three. They placed Mark Karneie at four,
so clearly they see Carney as being a bit more centrist,
and Canadians placed themselves in the center around five. So
basically carne is being pretty close to him. Justin Trudeau
was a bit far to the left for most Canadians,
but carnee is clearly seen as being more centrist, which
where Canadians.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
Are and is that working for him? Do you think.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
It seems to be.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
I mean, his popularity has dropped a bit over the
past few months, which is normal because most new governments,
most new prime ministers have a honeymoon period after they're
elected and for a few months they're very popular.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
But he's still quite popular. He's just gone down by
a few points in the past few months.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
You actually did another research that I thought was kind
of interesting that the vast majority of Americans have no
idea who he is.
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Well, you can interpret those results in different ways. I
was actually expecting fewer Americans to know who he is,
so I asked a sample of Americans with a partner
in the US bear site of pulling from there some
questions actually also some questions with ipsos about their Canadian's
knowledge of sorry American's knowledge of a Canadian politics, and
(15:03):
particularly I asked them about the Canadian Prime minister who
he is? And I expected a very small number of
Americans to know who the Prime Minister of Canada is.
I give them four options, Mark Karney, Justin Trudeau, Doug Ford,
and cost Wandergo. I thought a lot of Americans would
still think that Justin Trudeau was prime minister. Thirty eight
(15:26):
percent were able to identify Mark Karney's being prime minister.
That's I don't depending on your interpretation, it's law less
than the majority. I thought it'd be more like twenty percent. Actually,
so I thought it was slightly higher than I expected.
But yeah, clearly majority of Americans don't know who the
prime minister is. Sixty percent don't know who he is.
(15:46):
Twenty one percent thought it was still Justin Trudeau, which
is a little lower than expected, but still it's high.
I mean, it shows that there's twenty one percent of
people who haven't been following the news over the past
few months.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I was surprised that more people thought Frans while Lego
was was prime Minister then they thought Doug Ford was.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
What do you think of that, Well, I mean it
was a tiny number. It was only if I remember correctly,
it was one percent for doug Ford and two percent
for host Waligo, twice as much. Yeah, but I mean
it's still within the margin of er. It's just a
statistical note noise. I mean my interpretation of that is
that there were maybe some some Americans who thought that
(16:26):
the Prime minister had a sort of French sounding name,
and they saw Hostwita Goo and it sounded French sect
similar to Trudeau.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
And that's that's what they're thinking about it. I mean,
they're very small numbers.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
You also did some interesting research and wrote an article
about Republicans versus Democrats and their attitude toward whether trade
with Canada is a net positive or a negative.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Can you tell us about that please?
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yeah, Well, I asked the question first.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
I mean, I first asked the same question in Canada
about whether because there's something Trump's been saying over over
the past year or so that Canada is being very
unfair with the US, that Canada is, yeah, basically being
unfair in trade with the US. And so I asked
Canadians that question first in April, and I asked Canadians
whether they agreed or disagreed with that, and I found
(17:13):
that an overwhelming majority of Canadians agreed that Canada's treating
the US fairly, so almost no one in Canada agrees
that Canada is unfair with the US. I asked the
same question in the US and in May, and I
found that most Americans agree that Canada's treating the US fairly,
(17:35):
but there's a huge device the Democrats view Canada the
same way Canadians do. Democrats overwhelmingly say Canada's treating the
US fairly. Republicans, the other hand, they're much less clear
on that. It's not that Republicans think that Canada's treating
the US really, there are some but Republicans views tend
to be less clear on the issue. So there's clearly
(17:57):
a partisan divide where Democrats clearly think can as treating
us fairly, Republicans aren't so sure, and it looks like
they're they're torn between. My interpretation of that is that
they really do think Canada is, you know, is you know,
a nice country, We're treating us fairly, But they are
following cues from their president who's saying that Canada's ripping
(18:20):
the US off, and they feel like they should at
least show some support for that when answering these questions.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
You know, historically I would have thought Republicans were more
free traders. How do you explain your current result? It
almost appears like Democrats are more free traders and Republicans
are more at least, if not you know, protectionist, at
least confused about the issue.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
Well, that's that's an interesting point is that with Trump
everything changed. Trump coming out against against free trade and
against the US trading partners like Canada when he first
became president in twenty sixteen. It sort of changed the
whole political dynamic where and one thing we know is
that people tend to follow used from their party's leaders.
(19:02):
In this case Trump, a lot of a lot of
Republicans have to adjust their their opinions to reflect what
their president is saying. And especially the context of high polarization,
there's a lot of that going on, and so it
changed the whole political dynamic where suddenly now Republicans are
are against trade because that's what Trump saying.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
So it's interesting that you do at least you maybe
you don't do it directly, but you look at a
bunch of things in regards to the United States and
their attitudes toward Canada.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
Why, well, at this time, it's fundamental thing, you know,
it's a fundamental issue. This year with Trump, it is
really important to do polling on the issues that matter
to our lives, to our economy. And that's such a
fundamental thing. Now I think we need, we all need
to be concerned about that, and we really need to
(19:51):
care what Canadians think about the US and what Americans
think about Canada as well.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
You published a post looking at someone else's research, but
that you were going through it, and you said that
to Trudeau, even though people thought was incredibly unpopular, he
was less unpopular than Trump was. And you said that
seventy five percent of Canadians disliked Trump, but only forty
(20:16):
five percent dislike Trudeau, and Conservatives, though you thought it,
you found it that it's the opposite, seventy nine percent
dislike Trudeau and fifty seven percent disliked Trump, so that
the Conservative party and their attitude toward Trump is very
different than the Canadian population in aggregate.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (20:36):
Yeah, Conservatives in Canada attend to have very different attitudes
from supporters of the other parties. And I think for
a lot of Conservatives, the priority around the time of
the election wasn't so much Trump. It was more that
they hated Trudeau when they wanted him gone, and they
saw Karne as being another Trudeau, and they also weren't
happy about that. So I think they had a very
different perspective on what was going on in the last election.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
So did they like Trump or did they like Trump's
policies or you know, you know, his policies. Even then
we're negative toward Canada. Why would they have voted for someone,
Why would they like someone that seems to be against Canada,
that called fifty called Canada be the fifty first stake,
you know, called for terrorists against Canada, you know, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
Can you explain that?
Speaker 5 (21:21):
Well, I think it shows the power of ideology and
partisanship that they, as conservatives, felt like they should support
the conservative side of the divide. And the conservative side
was you know, Trump, and the liberal side was formerly
Trudeau and then Carneie, and they were against that because
they are conservatives. And you know, when politics is polarized,
(21:44):
you get people trying to show support for the sides.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
There's a lot of that going on.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Then you wrote an interesting article about Canadians added tode
toward peer Pauliev and whether they thought that he was
Canada's Trump, And I think what you said is that
they actually saw differences, but not an ideology. So the
ideology was the same, it was the personality that was different.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Is that correct? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (22:09):
Well, I mean what's interesting is that so I asked
Canadians to place the different leaders on that I mentioned earlier,
the ideology scale from zero to tent and I found
that Canadian's placements of of of Puliev and of Trump.
I asked about Trump as well, were actually quite similar.
I mentioned earlier that they could distinguish Carlini from Trudeau,
(22:29):
but their distinction, the distinction they made between Qualiev and Trump,
was actually very small, so they saw them as being
very similar ideology. But I also asked a lot of
other questions. I asked whether they thought Qualdiev liked Trump,
I asked whether they thought Trump liked Qualiev, and I
found that generally Canadians didn't think Quliev liked Trump, they
(22:50):
didn't think Trump like Qualiev. I also asked about their
Canadians' perceptions of Qualitiev's views on Canada US issues, trade,
Canada becoming the fifty first state, and I saw the
Canadians overwhelmingly thought that Tulliev supported Canada side on those
issues that Qualief supported not having US tariffs in Canada,
(23:12):
Canada placing retalitory tariffs, Canada not becoming the fifty first state.
So they didn't think Quaaliev was pro Trump on those issues. Interestingly, though,
and I think this is maybe one reason why Karne
end up winning the election. They saw Qualievas being less
supportive of the Canadian side on those issues they than
Carnie was. So they saw probably being on Canada's side,
(23:36):
but not as much as they did Carnee. And that's
what I think. That's what Canadians were looking for in
the last election. They were looking for someone who was
defending Canada, and they thought pauliev was on Canada's side,
but not quite as much as Carnie was.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
You found that Canadians were very supportive of retaliatory tariffs,
but yet of late Carne is backed off on retaliatory tariffs.
Do you think he's making the right decision or going
to guess what Canadians want?
Speaker 5 (24:01):
Well, I haven't asked about that question more recently, so
probably in that case, my guess that Canadians still support them,
maybe slightly less, just because the threat of tariffs. As
I guess, we've sort of gotten used to it, although
there have been some specific sectoral tariffs placed even recently
I think two days ago.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
So I mean my sense is.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
That Canadians are probably slightly less supportive of them. I
think the motivation for removing them is more economic, that
they're high costs in the Canadian economy. They effect in consumers,
Canadian companies that have to buy raw materials in the
US and things like that.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
But yeah, but probably he is it is.
Speaker 5 (24:43):
A policy that was not supported by removing the count
drivers was probably a policy that Canadians did not support them.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
That's my sense, Eric, I really enjoy reading your posts
and your articles.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Thank you very much for this. We're going to take
a break for some messages and.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Come back with a couple of questions about why research
is important and how we I'll stay with us.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Everyone back in two minutes.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
No Radio, No Problem. Stream is live on Sagay ninety
six am dot C.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
A Welcome back everyone to the Brian Cromby Radio. I've
got Eric Gunterman with us tonight. He is the founder
in chief data scientist at Empirical Intelligence. It's a polling
(25:32):
research company that he's launched, and he publishes some really
interesting commentary both on his own research as well as
going through in depth other people's research, which I find
really quite helpful and enjoyable. You posted recently that you
think that doing this research is really important because you
want to give everyone a voice. How does polling give
(25:53):
everyone a voice?
Speaker 5 (25:56):
Well, most fundly, any polster who takes their jobs seriously
focus on trying to get a representative sample and to
get everyone, you know, include everyone who's in the population
that so they want to get have a measure of
everyone's voice so that when they share the results that
everyone's voice reflect them there.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
And if we don't do.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
That, what happens is that when governments are setting policies,
they don't know what people want, and what ends up
mattering are the opinions of the people who are in
government and powerful voice in society, big business or whatever
actors who want some policy very in a very intense way,
and they end up having disportioned influence. But if we
(26:39):
have data on what the population wants, where where those
views reflect everyone in society and not just powerful actors.
People can have a voice and can influence what governments do.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
You also do surveys for business and I found a.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Post that you made really interesting. I wanted to to
go through it.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
And understand it better if we could, and let me
just read some of it if I could. Are you
leaving money on the table with your pricing. Pricing is
one of the biggest drivers of revenue and profit, but
too often companies rely on guesswork or outdated methods. Here
are three common approaches and why they fall short. Cost
plus pricing. It's easy, but ignores what customers are willing
(27:23):
to pay. Competitive pricing. You're assuming competitors know better, but
do they value? Based pricing the gold standard because it
starts with how much consumers value product or service? How
do you measure that value? Now, this is where I
want you to explain direct willingness to pay surveys.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
How do you do that? Sir?
Speaker 5 (27:45):
Well, so what I do is are you run an
experimental surveys called conjoin analysis, which is the way of
putting people through choice experiments where they pick one from
different products and you see what types of products they
tend to buy, so with what features and also at
what price, so you see what price the consumers are
willing to buy different products?
Speaker 2 (28:07):
App Okay, what is conjoint analysis?
Speaker 5 (28:12):
It's that's it's a kind of choice experiment where you
put people through choice exercises where you ask them to
pretend they're buying a product and you give them different
choices and you observe those choices, and.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
You do this what in a focus group, online telephone?
Speaker 4 (28:31):
What through online surveys?
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Then you said another way is something called a Van
Western Dop price sensitivity analysis? What is what the blank
is a Van Western Dop price sensitivity analysis.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
That's another kind of survey analysis where people are basically
asked about how they feel about different prices and whether
it's too high too low. It is not the ideal
way of doing it because people off the don't don't
really have attitudes towards prices that reflect what they be
willing to pay, So it's not it isn't a great
way of doing it.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
And then you say you could do a Garboorer Granger
demand curve. What's a Garber Granger demand curve.
Speaker 5 (29:11):
It's sort of a similar type of method where you
ask people about their willingness to pay different prices. What
I prefer to do is have people go through these
choice experiments we can actually give let people choose what
kind of products they want, and then you can observe
their behavior. And that's much more helpful to businesses and
I think for the consumers themselves because it allows them
to go through the they're they're purchasing decisions on their
(29:36):
own as they would and if they were in a
store online.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
So in my experience, it's not just price that's the key.
It's the attributes of a product that are key. Can
you do that through your conjoint analysis as well?
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Let me give you an example.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
You know, in the in the condo development business, right now,
people are really trying to struggle to figure out what
what consumers want, and price is unquestionably one the key aspects.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
But the size of.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
The unit because we had this big trend to very
small units that now people are calling you know, dog
crates has been prevalent over the last couple of.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
Years, and now people are thinking about bigger.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
People were thinking about studios versus one bedrooms. Now people
are talking about how we need two and three bedrooms.
People are asking about, you know, the number of fixtures
or pieces that you need in a washroom. How do
you do that? And do that relative to the price,
because as you want more, your cost goes out.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
Yeah, So content analysis allows consumers to go through those
trade offs. So it shows people products or services that
include various different features. So could be the size of
a let's say, in the case of a condo, the size,
the number of bedrooms, whatever else is included, and then
they will be showing at different prices, and so people
(30:55):
can pick the one they prefer out of all the
different options they're shown, and allows us to learn about
what people want, how much they're willing to pay, and
also what features they want out of whatever the product
or services. And one of the huge advantage of that,
I mean what I mentioned earlier, the advantage of polling
in general for government is that allows everyone's voice to
(31:15):
be heard. The same thing is true as consumers. It
allows everyone as a consumer's voice to be heard so
that businesses can supply what people want, and that's really important.
If we didn't have that kind of data on consumers,
companies would have to guess and they would be producing
things that people don't want.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
So I was intrigued when I read your article about
conjoint analysis and pricing for companies if you can do
it in politics on policies, and I was thinking about
this sort of major project's office that has been talked
about recently, where I think a lot of people would
probably initially say they're in support of a major project office,
but if they were confronted with and are you willing
(31:55):
to have taxes go up or deficits go up, or
debt to go up, or or indigenous rights to be
you know, disregarded, or environmental concerns disregarded, or climate change
problems are created? Would they still have the same attitude
when you're doing political research and policy research? Can you
(32:17):
actually confront people with those kinds of trade offs? No?
Speaker 5 (32:21):
You can? I mean, yes, a conjoin is one way
of doing it. Another way is just pointing out the
trade offs. I mean, like, I asked a question about
government spending, and I ask people if they wanted the
government to spend more money. And if you don't ask,
if you don't mention that requires raising taxes, people are
just gonna say, yes, that sounds great. You know, the
(32:42):
government should spend a lot more money. But then if
you mention, oh, well that means your taxes are going
to have to go up, you know, people are much
less willing to spend more money.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
I mean reversed.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
Also true, if you asked about lowering taxes, people say, oh,
that's great, But then when you point out what that means,
you're going to get last in terms of and services whatever.
People value support for lowering taxes a lot lower. So yes,
we do see those trade offs as well when we
ask questions about policy like that.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Well, it's like that joke that you've seen in the
United States about people desperately wanting tax decreases but and
redict reductions and deficits, but then they say, but keep
your hands off my.
Speaker 4 (33:20):
Social security exactly.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Yeah, So let me ask you a couple of questions
about pulling. Do people lie?
Speaker 5 (33:29):
I'm sure sometimes they do, but in general, I think
people it's more like the opposite. It's more people try
to give us the answers we want, and we have
to part of what we want to encourage people to
to tell us what they really think and and and
generally that's what people do.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
There is evidence for that.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Do you get the the right demographic uh, you know,
overview of Canadians.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
You know, I've heard people complain.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
That, you know a lot of young people don't have
land loans and landlines and uh, and that surveys are
often done through telephone and if you don't get them
on a mobile, you're not going to get it, or
people won't pick up a mobile call from a survey
company or or a non identified company that that that
uh you know online also has got some challenges. So
(34:20):
when you think about the changing way of communicating in
Canada today, can you still get a representative sample?
Speaker 5 (34:29):
Of course, it is a challenge getting a representative sample.
A lot of research now is done online and people
who run online panels of respondents put a lot of
reference to making them representative. So there's some groups who
are harder to get. But when when you run an
online panel, you put more basically you do you see
as a challenge, but you put more effort into getting
(34:50):
those groups who are harder to reach.
Speaker 4 (34:52):
Whether it involves.
Speaker 5 (34:55):
More outreach, putting more ads in the places where they
where you would find them on social media, offering them
a higher incentive, there are ways of reaching out to
groups who are harder to reach. So it is a challenge,
but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to get representative sample.
And the samples I've seen have been in flight representative.
I think everyone who's working on this, or most people
(35:15):
were going to do a pretty good job at making
sure everyone's voice is heard in.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
The alast couple of elections.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
I think people have suggested that polls have gotten it wrong,
that they didn't expect Trump to win as much of
a landslide as he did, and that they were surprised that,
you know, some people thought Carnie was going to win
a majority and he didn't.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
So what do you think are polls accurate?
Speaker 5 (35:38):
Generally they are, I mean, there are some high profile
cases where polls are off by a lot. But also
you have to think that there's also the electoral system
that translates polls into results, and the polls are actually
made for the like let's say, generally a poll of
the Canadan population is made for the Canadian population, whereas
the elections are run at the riding level, and what
(36:00):
matters is the result of the writing level, which means
which determines whether someone is elected as MP or not,
and that determines the overall result. There are also attempts
they're happening over the past few years to project results
at the at the writing level and then to figure
out how that result that has what in fact it
(36:21):
has in the overall result at the national level. That
generally those are are pretty accurate, but they're tough to do.
It's hard because the polls aren't made at the riding
level most of the time. Generally they're at the national level,
occasionally at the provincial level, so they don't necessarily tell
us what the result is going to be.
Speaker 4 (36:41):
Naturally once it's filtered through the electoral system. That's that's
a big challenge.
Speaker 2 (36:45):
What what do you think the future polling is? Some
people have suggested that, frankly, polling is better way of
running our government than by electing representatives that go to
the parliament. You know, the the idea of a riding
riding the name writing was because that's how far someone
could ride on a horse in half a day.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
That is sort of the you know, how how.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
Old the idea of representative democracy is, why don't we
just do polls on every policy and see what people want?
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Well, there does have to be some accountability and and
this is something I think.
Speaker 5 (37:20):
I think people eventually get tired of reversent governments and
then want some change. And if we always had the
same people in government and they were just reading polls,
uh that there would be no accountability. So I do
think that accountability is a big part of why we
have elections, and it gives governments an incentive to to
to do what people want and and and and actually
(37:41):
I think that's one of the reasons why they care
about polls, because they know that they don't they're they're
more likely to lose next time. And if they want
to be re elected, they have to listen to what
people want, and they have to give people good policies.
And it's it's really important for the people in power
to have that kind of incentive which you get from elections.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
What exciting interest in research are you're working on now?
Speaker 5 (38:02):
I'm working on a lot of different a lot of projects,
I mean, especially interesting to see changes in support for
the current governments. It's gone down a bit, uh, but
we'll see, especially with uh the labor situation. Now with
with what's happening in Canada post it'll be interesting to
see if dynamics change there. A lot of the support
(38:25):
for the for the Carni Liberals came from former m
DP voters and we'll see what happens with with with
those former voters. When you know, with what happens with
labor situation and other policies. Is a lot of interesting
developments with the current government and the situation with you
asked as well.
Speaker 4 (38:42):
It leads to a lot of interesting things going.
Speaker 2 (38:44):
On, Eric, I really enjoy, you know, reading your articles
and your posts. What's the best way for people to
follow you if they're they want to get your your
research and your articles.
Speaker 5 (38:56):
Well, my they can go to my website imper Intelligence
dot ca. I'm also on LinkedIn, Eric Benjamin, I'm can
be found pretty easily and I have a company page,
Empirical Intelligence that that you can find as well.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
I find your insights really insightful, and so thank you
very much for for your writing, for your research, and
for joining us today.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
Well, thanks for having me. It's been a pleasure to
be here.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
That's our show for tonight, everybody, thank you for joining.
I remember I remind you I'm on every Mind be
through Friday at six o'clock on nine sixty am. We're
at a time, give it.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
No radio, no problem. Stream is live on Sagay nine
sixty am dot Ca.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.