Together, we have spent years around federal cabinet tables led by different prime ministers from different political parties. We know how quickly policy challenges become partisan choices: Defence or development? Economic interests or Canadian values? The United States or new trading partners?
These contrasts can sharpen debate. They can also distort it. The world Canada must navigate today rarely offers tidy choices.
However, a new national deliberative poll suggests Canadians may be less inclined toward those either/or divisions than political debate sometimes implies.
This spring, 7,491 Canadians completed an online baseline survey on Canada’s role in the world. In keeping with the principles of a deliberative poll, a representative group of 408 was then randomly selected to participate in online small-group discussions about foreign policy choices facing Canada. The research, Foreign Policy by Canadians 2026, was conducted by Global Canada in collaboration with Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab.
The 408 participants reviewed balanced information, discussed competing arguments, questioned experts and, afterwards, completed the survey again for comparison.
The study built on a similar exercise first conducted in 2021, but this year’s version took place in a markedly different world. Canada’s largest trading relationship is less predictable, pressure to invest in defence has intensified, and long-held assumptions about the country’s security and influence are being reconsidered.
Finding common ground
The participants did not emerge with one simple doctrine. Nor did they agree on everything. What they demonstrated was far more useful. They wrestled seriously with competing priorities and found substantial common ground on some of the biggest questions facing Canada.
After their deliberations, 66.5 per cent supported spending 3.5 per cent of GDP on the military, the core-defence component of Canada’s NATO commitment, compared to 60.3 per cent in the first survey. More than three-quarters (76.7 per cent) also supported maintaining development assistance alongside increased defence and security spending, compared to 71.1 per cent before deliberations.
More than four in five (81.5 per cent) supported Canada building on its record in women’s and children’s health to take a leadership role in global health, compared to 76.3 per cent before deliberations.
On trade, participants strongly favoured deeper ties with Europe, the United Kingdom and Mexico. However, they also became less inclined to substantially reduce Canada’s economic relationship with the United States.
Initially, 57.4 per cent opposed prioritizing trade with the U.S., even with concessions. However, opposition dropped to 50.6 per cent while overall support rose to 34.8 per cent from 29.8 per cent. The participants recognized both the need to diversify Canada’s trade and the reality of geography.
Combining principles and practicality
What emerged was an approach grounded in both principle and practicality. Participants supported international co-operation and high standards for Canadian companies abroad, while also considering Canada’s economic and security interests.
They did not abandon values when confronted with practical constraints. Instead, they tried to work out how Canada could honour its commitments and preserve room to act in a volatile world.
They were also willing to reject proposals. Support for creating a separate foreign human intelligence service fell by roughly 11 percentage points after participants considered its costs, benefits and potential overlap with existing partnerships. They were not simply endorsing every proposal that sounded ambitious or patriotic. They were making distinctions.
The most consequential result, however, has little to do with any individual policy.
Before the deliberations, 63.6 per cent of participants rated Canadian democracy at least a six out of 10. Afterward, 78 per cent did.
The 2021 exercise produced a similar increase in democratic confidence. Repeating that result five years later in a more strained political and international environment is significant.
These Canadians did something that happens too rarely in public life. They listened before deciding. They confronted opposing arguments without assuming that disagreement reflected ignorance or bad faith. They found areas of common ground without pretending their differences had disappeared.
The share who agreed with the statement, “I respect the point of view of people who disagree with me,” increased to 77.7 per cent after deliberation from 68.9 per cent. Meanwhile, 77 per cent said they would compromise on foreign-policy issues with people who disagree with them, up from 74 per cent before deliberations.
Lessons for Parliament
Parliament should be capable of doing the same.
Political parties will always disagree – and they should. But political leaders should not exaggerate divisions that Canadians are willing to cross or turn every question about Canada’s place in the world into another test of partisan identity.
Foreign policy unfolds over decades. It requires enough continuity to survive changes of government and enough public legitimacy to withstand difficult choices. That cannot be built if every international question is treated primarily as an opportunity to distinguish one party from another.
The findings do not amount to a Liberal platform or a Conservative one. They point instead to the possibility of a Canadian approach that is engaged but pragmatic, open to co-operation but attentive to sovereignty, and willing to invest in security without abandoning values or established areas of leadership.
The immediate lesson for Parliament is straightforward. Before political leaders claim to know what Canadians will support, they should listen to Canadians directly. They should also take seriously the common ground that emerges.
Canadians are not asking to be shielded from complexity. The survey participants showed they can handle it. Our political institutions should trust them and follow their example.
