In our July 2025 survey, 30% of Canadians said the country is highly polarized, and 62% stated that they are concerned the political left and political right can't speak to each other about political and social issues. However, when we look at how Canadians actually identify politically, the picture is quite nuanced. Most Canadians are ideologically centrist. Within our survey, 66% of Canadians placed themselves in the three middle pillars on a seven-point scale between political left and political right, and only a small minority self-identified at the extremes.
This gap between perception and reality matters. Canadians who perceive high levels of polarization tend to have lower trust in institutions; they are less satisfied with democracy and more likely to feel the country is heading in the wrong direction. Our research also shows that as individuals identify more strongly with the political left or the political right, the further extreme they become, the more they tend to view their own group increasingly positively and the opposing group increasingly negatively. At the extremes, they question the other side's morality.
Disagreement itself is not the problem, nor are strong political viewpoints. We invite differences of opinion in this country. The risk arises when difference turns into division and people begin to see those on the other side of an issue not simply as wrong but as illegitimate or even dangerous.
What is driving this perception of polarization? In our survey, we asked this question.
Politicians and political parties were the most cited cause of polarization by all Canadians. Those on the right were also more likely than other Canadians to point to the political system and the country's diverse makeup as additional causes of polarization, whereas those on the left were more likely to cite social media platforms and online influencers.
Polarization is not a new phenomenon, yet Canadians perceive it and experience it to be increasing. Within this context, unsurprisingly, we should acknowledge the role of social media platforms that are designed to amplify the most extreme and emotionally charged content. They often expose users to the worst representations of opposing views, distorting our perception of the public square and reinforcing an “us versus them” dynamic.
What do I propose we do?
I propose we make Canada's civic resilience a national priority, strengthening civic engagement, rebuilding trust and fostering greater social cohesion. This is not a small task. Achieving this requires a deliberate, non-partisan framework that brings together government, civil society, researchers and the private sector. There are many important efforts already under way across the country, and there have been for years. The opportunity now is to better align them and invest in sustained, long-term initiatives so that, collectively, they deliver a more meaningful and measurable impact for Canadians.
With respect to digital spaces, on which much of my work is focused, we should not limit ourselves to thinking only of reducing online harms. We should also seize the opportunity to actively use these spaces to engage Canadians and strengthen civic resilience. Our work has shown that when people are encouraged to engage thoughtfully with complex and often contentious issues in a respectful, judgment-free digital environment, they become more resilient to polarizing narratives. When individuals feel that their concerns are heard and taken seriously, they are more open to nuanced information and more willing to engage across differences.
Importantly, these kinds of digital interventions allow us to reach Canadians who may not participate in the more traditional forms of civic engagement, broadening both access and impact.
Thank you.
I look forward to your questions.