General Views on the Performance of the Federal Government

At the beginning of each session, participants were asked to write down the most important thing the federal government has been getting right over the past year and the most important thing they have been getting wrong. Two issues were just as likely to land in the “going right” category as they were to land in the “going wrong” category: immigration and the legalization of cannabis.

Other commonly noted areas the federal government had been getting right over the past year included:

•     The federal government’s approach to the NAFTA negotiations.

•     A variety of measures could be grouped under general socio-economic policy: better child benefits, lower taxes, longer parental leave, a focus on gender equality and support for LGBTQ.

Other commonly noted areas the federal government had been getting wrong included:

•     The federal government’s approach to the pipeline issue, especially the recent purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

•     Some measures were seen as anti-small business, including what some saw as increasing taxes on small businesses, and not doing enough to support small businesses.

•     The federal government was not seen as fulfilling its environmental mandate or not doing enough for the environment in general.

Views on the Economy in General

Most would describe the Canadian economy as either “stable” or performing fairly well. Compared to last year, most felt things have been stable, and moving forward, most would agree that the country’s prospects largely depended on the outcome of the ongoing trade negotiations.

When asked to identify the biggest challenges facing the economy these days, negotiating NAFTA, or a lack of a trade deal with the US, was by far the most common theme raised. Other common themes were labour-related (e.g. aging population, skilled labour shortage), debt-related (e.g. national debt, consumer debt) or related to the cost of living or buying a home.

Trade Negotiations

At the time these focus groups were taking place, NAFTA negotiations were ongoing between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Participants generally believed that these negotiations mattered to them and to the country. Many were aware of where things stood in the negotiations and many named Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs by name in their comments. Discussing the negotiations also sparked positive and negative emotions among some participants. Emotions were quite negative towards the negotiation tactics being used by the U.S. administration. Conversely, whereas most were feeling good about how Canada had been approaching the negotiations, both in terms of tact and in terms of tariff strategies. Most also believed Canada was not just doing its best but that it was also holding its own in the negotiations

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

Awareness of the Trans Mountain expansion project purchase was limited although it was higher in Calgary and in Vancouver. Despite a recent setback in the courts, most participants familiar with the project believed it would be built.

Furthermore, there was very little knowledge of the economic facts surrounding this project (e.g. that the purchase included the acquisition of an existing pipeline that is generating profits and that it is a twinning and not an entirely new pipeline). There was also very limited knowledge of the broader economic benefits of directing oil exports to tidewater via British Columbia rather than to the U.S. (e.g. that it would sell at a better price and that it would further diversify the country’s export partners and reduce our dependency on the U.S. as a buyer).

Views on the project became more favourable once participants were provided all the details regarding the project. Some were still opposed to the project believing that the country should be moving away from non-renewable energy, and that the federal government should not be investing in pipelines when it was said to be so committed to the environment.

Labour Supply, Skills and Talent

Participants were somewhat torn as to whether Canada had enough workers. Participants were more likely to focus on shortages in specific sectors or industries and on certain broad types of jobs, including restaurant jobs, trades, “hard labour”, low-paying jobs, jobs in technology and healthcare. Participants expected these issues to worse over time, mostly because of an aging population / Canadians are having fewer children, the significant amount of baby boomers exiting the workforce and high levels of immigration.

The federal government was seen as potentially playing an important role on two specific fronts:

•     In terms of immigration, they could be doing more to target and orient newcomers into specific fields. They could also work harder to foster and develop the potential of established immigrants with specific training or education who are not working in their field in Canada, are unemployed or are underemployed.

•     The federal government could also work closer with post-secondary institutions and with high school students to make sure programs and the new labour force align with what the economy of tomorrow will need.

Many participants recognized that they will need to upgrade or retrain over the course of their careers. In fact, many had already lived it. The challenges associated with this were recognized and appreciated by most participants – they included not having enough time, having to forego income to take training, and, tuition costs.

There was limited awareness of support already available from the federal government for lifelong learning. Participants seemed to believe that current programs were reserved for individuals in specific situations (e.g. on E.I., in the trades, etc.). When the moderator presented the concept of a new financial support for lifelong learning, most participants agreed that this would be relevant and timely and that all Canadians should be eligible. That being said, some would like the program to provide support where support is needed the most, such as those who are unemployed or underemployed and those who can the least afford training.

Business Competitiveness

For most participants, to be “globally competitive” meant being able to sell products and services in other countries because of a price advantage, a quality advantage or because the business is meeting a need that is not being met by anyone else. In other words, the business derives its competitive edge through innovation.

There was strong support for the federal government playing a role in helping Canadian businesses become or remain globally competitive. Possible roles included:

•     Negotiating favourable trade agreements,

•     Stimulating innovation in Canada,

•     Providing financial support to help Canadian companies grow (e.g. taxes, subsidies, etc.),

•     Coordinating trade missions,

•     Helping Canadian businesses identify opportunities abroad,

•     Attracting the right kind of talent into Canada, and,

•     Supporting post-secondary education to stimulate innovation.

General Fiscal Strategy

Most participants recognized, or just assumed, that the federal government was operating with a deficit. Although there was an important contingent of Canadians who were indifferent about this situation, there was a larger one that believed that it would be important that the deficit not increase. This does not necessarily translate into a need for a balanced budget overnight but at a minimum, these participants believed there needed to be a plan.

Participants were asked how they generally felt about the trade-off of running deficits to invest in programs and infrastructure versus balancing the budget which means making cuts and/or raising taxes. This exercise revealed support for a productive deficit that invests in programs and infrastructure to generate greater future returns. The challenge for some was that they were aware that this had been the strategy over recent years and that they were not convinced it had produced the desired outcomes, or at least they had not seen them yet. There were also concerns that if the country was running deficits during “good times,” which most believed we were living these days, the country will see even larger deficits if the economy takes a turn for the worse.

On the topic of taxes, nearly all participants believed federal government taxes had stayed the same in recent years.

Climate Change and Pollution Pricing

“Putting a price on pollution” or “putting a cost on pollution” more often than not meant charging a fee to those who pollute.

In terms of specific measures, few were aware of any steps taken by the federal government to address climate change. Based on a high-level overview of the federal government’s plan to have a national price on carbon pollution, participants were torn when it came to whether or not the federal government should impose a national price on carbon pollution. While nearly all participants felt strongly that climate change needed to be addressed, some were not convinced that a price on carbon would be effective. They either believed that the costs would just be passed down to consumers, further aggravating cost-of-living challenges faced by many, or the measure was simply seen as a license for industry to pollute.

While participants liked that the revenues from the plan were returned to the source provinces and territories, they did not like that these same provinces and territories could do what they wanted with the revenues. There was very strong support for these funds being reinvested into addressing climate change – if this were the case, then there would be broader support for a national price on carbon pollution.

Priorities for the Federal Government

When asked to identify, unaided, the issues respondents believe the federal government should focus on, the most common theme is the economy and jobs. Other themes mentioned include the environment, healthcare, and social issues in general.

Assessment of the Economy

Survey respondents were asked to assess the current state of the Canadian economy, the U.S. economy and their province or territory’s economy. Overall, similar proportions (over a third of respondents) believe each of these economies is doing well. Neutral ratings for the U.S. economy are lower, however more respondents were “not sure” how to rate that particular economy. When specifically asked to rate the current price of gasoline, over half of respondents provided a negative rating while 14% gave a positive rating.

In terms of how concerned Canadians are that they or someone else in their household may lose their job in the next six months, 22% of respondents feel very concerned, 11% are somewhat concerned, and 59% are not very concerned.

Economic Confidence

Respondents were asked how much of an impact various economic factors, trends and measures might have on the economy. Half of respondents were asked to assess the impact of these factors on “job creation”, while the other half were asked the impact of these factors on the “competitiveness of Canadian businesses.”

Respondents who were specifically asked the impact on job creation rated the federal government investments in science, technology, and innovation as having the most impact (59%), followed by NAFTA (58%), federal government investments in infrastructure (56%), and trade agreements with countries other than the U.S. (56%).

Those who were specifically asked the impact on the competitiveness of Canadian businesses show similar response patterns. They rated trade agreements with countries other than the U.S. as having the most impact (59%), followed by federal government investments in science, technology, and innovation (57%), and NAFTA (57%).

General Fiscal Situation

All survey participants were asked their impression on where the federal government’s finances stand. Over three quarters of respondents think the federal government is operating with a budget deficit, just over one tenth thinks it is operating with a balanced budget, and 6% think there is a surplus. As for their expectations of how the federal government’s deficit will evolve in the coming years, 66% believe the deficit will grow, 22% believe it will stay the same, and 9% expect it to get smaller.

Budget Priorities

Respondents rated how important each of several issues and priorities were for the federal government to keep in mind when making budget decisions. Over three quarters of respondents feel it is “very important” that the federal government focuses on job creation and job skills when making budget decisions. Three quarters believe it is “very important” that the federal government considers the middle class (75%) and the environment (74%). Roughly 7 in 10 feel it is “very important” the federal government considers making Canadian businesses successful internationally, balancing the budget, and focusing on innovation, making sure the deficit does not get any bigger, helping women and girls, focusing on science and on business competitiveness. Two thirds of respondents or less feel it is important the federal government considers in their priorities gender equality, helping indigenous people, and feminism.

When asked to choose between two specific budget scenarios, over two thirds of Canadians prefer the scenario whereby the federal government invests in programs and infrastructure that can create jobs and economic growth, even if that means running deficits, while just over a quarter of respondents prefer the alternative option whereby the federal government works towards balancing the budget, even if it means making cuts to programs and/or raising taxes.

Impressions of Trends in Taxes and Financial Support

Canadians were asked whether federal income taxes have been going up or down and whether the financial support from the federal government to Canadians has been going up or down (half were presented one scenario and half the other).

Regarding trends in federal taxes specifically, 48% of those respondents feel federal income taxes have gone up in recent years, while 38% feel they have stayed the same, and 7% feel they have gone down. As for federal government financial support to Canadians, 28% feel it has gone up, 36% feel it has stayed about the same, and 29% feel it has gone down.

Finally, respondents were presented with one of four different financial scenarios – receiving either $20, $50, $100, or $500 additional per month, and asked the extent to which it would impact their personal financial situation. Roughly one tenth or less see the $20 and $50 increase as having a big impact on their personal finances, while one fifth feel the additional $100 per month would have a big impact, and over half of Canadians feel receiving an extra $500 a month would have a big impact.

Other respondents were presented with different financial scenarios in which the same amounts were added up to be received annually instead of monthly ($240, $600, $1,200, and $6,000 per year). Roughly one tenth or less see the $240 and $600 increase as having a big impact on their personal finances, while 29% feel the additional $1,200 per year would have a big impact, and nearly two thirds of Canadians feel receiving $6,000 each year would have a big impact.

Perceptions générales sur la performance du gouvernement fédéral

Au début de chaque séance, les participants étaient invités à noter la principale réussite du gouvernement fédéral dans la dernière année et son plus grand échec. Deux enjeux se sont retrouvés tant du côté des réussites que des échecs : l’immigration et la légalisation du cannabis.

Parmi les autres mentions de réussites du gouvernement fédéral dans la dernière année, notons :

•     son approche dans les négociations de l’ALENA;

•     diverses mesures qu’on pourrait regrouper dans la catégorie de la politique socio-économique générale : de meilleures prestations pour enfants, une réduction des impôts, un congé parental prolongé, des efforts pour favoriser l’égalité des sexes et du soutien pour les LGBTQ.

Parmi les autres mentions d’échecs de la part du gouvernement fédéral durant la même période, notons :

•     son approche dans le dossier des pipelines, notamment l’achat récent du Trans Mountain;

•     certaines mesures perçues comme nuisant aux petites entreprises, y compris ce que plusieurs considèrent comme une hausse des impôts et des efforts insuffisants pour aider les petites entreprises ;

•     son incapacité, selon certains, à respecter son mandat environnemental ou son inertie vis-à-vis de l’environnement en général.

Perceptions générales envers l’économie

La majorité des répondants ont qualifié l’économie canadienne de stable ou fonctionnant relativement bien. Comparativement à l’an dernier, on semble croire que la situation est demeurée stable et qu’à l’avenir, les perspectives du pays dépendront en grande partie des conclusions des négociations commerciales en cours.

Parmi les principaux enjeux économiques mentionnés, les négociations de l’ALENA et l’absence d’accord commercial avec les États-Unis ont été, de loin, les plus souvent mentionnés. Les autres thèmes soulevés étaient liés à la main-d’œuvre (p. ex., le vieillissement de la population et la pénurie de travailleurs qualifiés), à la dette (p. ex., la dette nationale et la dette à la consommation), au coût de la vie ou à l’achat d’une maison.

Négociations commerciales

Au moment où les groupes de discussion étaient réunis, les négociations sur l’ALENA avaient lieu entre le Canada, les États-Unis et le Mexique. De façon générale, les participants étaient d’avis que ces négociations étaient importantes pour eux et pour l’ensemble du pays. Bon nombre d’entre eux savaient où en étaient les négociations et plusieurs ont nommé la ministre canadienne des Affaires étrangères dans leurs commentaires. Chez certains, la discussion sur les négociations a soulevé des émotions, tant positives que négatives. Les sentiments envers les tactiques de négociation de l’administration américaine étaient particulièrement négatifs. D’autre part, la majorité des participants ont apprécié la manière dont le Canada a abordé les négociations, c’est-à-dire avec tact et en respectant ses stratégies tarifaires. La plupart étaient d’avis que non seulement le Canada faisait de son mieux, mais qu’il défendait bien ses positions.

Projet d’expansion Trans Mountain

Dans l’ensemble, les participants étaient peu nombreux à avoir entendu parler du projet d’expansion Trans Mountain, sauf à Calgary et Vancouver. Malgré le récent échec devant les tribunaux, la plupart qui étaient au courant du projet croyaient à sa construction.

Les réalités économiques liées à ce projet sont peu connues (p. ex., le fait que l’achat comprend l’acquisition d’un pipeline existant qui génère des profits et qu’il s’agit d’un projet d’élargissement et non de construction d’un tout nouveau pipeline). Les participants avaient une connaissance très limitée des avantages économiques à diriger les exportations de pétrole vers les côtes en passant par la Colombie-Britannique plutôt que les États-Unis (p. ex., vente du pétrole à meilleur prix, diversification des partenaires exportateurs et dépendance réduite aux États-Unis en tant qu’acheteur).

Les opinions étaient plus favorables lorsque les participants ont été informés de tous les détails concernant le projet. Certains s’y opposaient toujours, invoquant que le pays devrait éviter les sources d’énergie non renouvelables et que le gouvernement fédéral ne devrait pas investir dans les pipelines, puisqu’il s’est engagé à protéger l’environnement.

Main-d’œuvre, compétences et talents

Sur la question à savoir si le Canada avait suffisamment de travailleurs, les avis étaient assez partagés. Les participants ont surtout parlé de la pénurie de main-d’œuvre dans certains secteurs et industries, ou pour certains types d’emploi, comme la restauration, les métiers, les emplois physiquement exigeants ou peu rémunérés, la technologie et les soins de santé. Les participants s’attendaient à ce que la situation se détériore au fil du temps, en raison du vieillissement de la population, du taux de natalité en baisse au Canada, du nombre considérable de baby-boomers qui quittent le marché du travail et des taux élevés d’immigration.

Pour plusieurs, le gouvernement fédéral a un rôle important à jouer à deux niveaux :

•     Sur le plan de l’immigration, il pourrait en faire davantage pour cibler les nouveaux arrivants et les orienter vers des domaines particuliers. Des efforts supplémentaires devraient être faits pour promouvoir et développer le potentiel des immigrants établis qui ont reçu une formation particulière et qui ne travaillent pas dans leur domaine au Canada, qui sont sans emploi ou sous employés.

•     Le gouvernement fédéral devrait également collaborer plus étroitement avec les établissements d’enseignement postsecondaire et les étudiants du secondaire pour s’assurer que les programmes et les nouveaux venus sur le marché du travail répondent aux besoins de l’économie de l’avenir.

De nombreux participants ont affirmé qu’ils devront se recycler ou se perfectionner au cours de leur carrière. D’ailleurs, plusieurs l’ont déjà fait. La plupart ont souligné et reconnu les défis associés à cette réalité, comme le manque de temps, le renoncement à un revenu pour suivre une formation et les frais de scolarité.

Ils étaient peu nombreux à avoir entendu parler des programmes offerts par le gouvernement fédéral pour favoriser l’apprentissage continu. Certains semblaient croire que ces programmes étaient destinés aux personnes dans des situations bien précises (p. ex., les prestataires de l’assurance-emploi, les personnes exerçant un métier spécialisé, etc.). Lorsque l’animateur a présenté un nouveau concept d’aide financière pour l’apprentissage continu, la plupart des participants se sont entendus pour dire que le concept était pertinent et que tous les Canadiens devraient être admissibles. De plus, certains étaient d’avis que le programme devrait surtout venir en aide à ceux qui en ont le plus besoin, comme les chômeurs ou les travailleurs sous employés, et les personnes qui n’ont pas les moyens de suivre une formation.

Compétitivité des entreprises

Pour la plupart des participants, être « compétitif à l’échelle mondiale » signifie être en mesure de vendre des produits et des services à l’étranger parce qu’il est avantageux de le faire, soit en raison du prix ou de la qualité des produits et des services, ou parce que l’entreprise répond à un besoin que personne d’autre n’a encore comblé. Autrement dit, l’entreprise tire son avantage concurrentiel de son innovation.

De nombreux participants ont exprimé leur appui au gouvernement fédéral afin qu’il aide les entreprises canadiennes à devenir ou à demeurer compétitives à l’échelle mondiale. Plusieurs mesures pourraient être prises à cet égard pour :

•     négocier des accords commerciaux favorables ;

•     encourager l’innovation au Canada ;

•     offrir un soutien financier pour favoriser la croissance des entreprises canadiennes (p. ex., des réductions d’impôt, des subventions, etc.) ;

•     organiser des missions commerciales ;

•     aider les entreprises canadiennes à trouver des débouchés à l’étranger ;

•     attirer les talents qu’il nous faut au Canada ;

•     soutenir l’enseignement postsecondaire pour stimuler l’innovation.

Stratégie fiscale

La plupart des participants ont reconnu ou simplement supposé que le gouvernement fédéral affiche un déficit. Même si un nombre important de Canadiens se sont montrés plutôt indifférents, ils sont plus nombreux à croire qu’il serait important que le déficit n’augmente pas. Selon eux, cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’il faut équilibrer le budget du jour au lendemain, mais il faut au moins établir un plan.

Les participants devaient s’exprimer sur les compromis à faire en accumulant un déficit pour investir dans les programmes et l’infrastructure, plutôt que d’équilibrer le budget en coupant dans certains programmes ou en augmentant les impôts. Cet exercice a révélé un appui pour le concept de déficit productif en investissant dans les programmes et l’infrastructure afin d’obtenir un rendement plus élevé pour l’avenir. Certains participants savaient que c’était la stratégie qui avait été adoptée au cours des dernières années, mais ils n’étaient pas convaincus qu’elle avait produit les résultats escomptés ou du moins, ils ne les avaient pas encore constatés. D’autres participants étaient inquiets à l’idée que si le pays accusait un déficit en temps de prospérité économique, comme cela semble être le cas en ce moment, celui-ci serait d’autant plus important en période économique plus instable.

Au sujet des impôts, presque tous s’accordaient pour dire que les taux d’imposition du gouvernement fédéral étaient demeurés stables au cours des dernières années.

Changement climatique et tarification de la pollution

La plupart du temps, l’expression « mettre un prix sur la pollution » signifie imposer des frais aux pollueurs.

En ce qui concerne les actions spécifiques, peu de participants avaient entendu parler des mesures prises par le gouvernement fédéral pour lutter contre le changement climatique. En se basant sur un aperçu général du plan gouvernemental qui vise à imposer un prix national sur la pollution par le carbone, les participants ont hésité à dire si le gouvernement devait ou non adopter cette mesure. Bien qu’environ la moitié des participants croient fermement qu’il est nécessaire de lutter contre le changement climatique, certains n’étaient pas convaincus de l’efficacité de la mesure proposée. Ils avaient l’impression que les coûts seraient refilés aux consommateurs et que plusieurs auraient encore plus de difficulté à joindre les deux bouts, ou que la mesure serait perçue comme un permis de polluer pour les industries.

Bien qu’ils aient apprécié l’idée de verser les revenus générés par ce plan aux provinces et aux territoires d’où proviennent les émissions, les participants auraient préféré que ces provinces et territoires puissent utiliser ces revenus comme bon leur semble. Plusieurs souhaitent qu’on réinvestisse ces sommes pour lutter contre le changement climatique. Si tel était le cas, ils seraient plus nombreux à appuyer un plan national de tarification de la pollution par le carbone.

Priorités du gouvernement fédéral

Lorsqu’invités à décrire spontanément les problèmes sur lesquels le gouvernement fédéral devrait se concentrer, la majorité des répondants ont mentionné l’économie et les emplois. D’autres ont répondu l’environnement, les soins de santé et les enjeux sociaux en général.

Évaluation de l’économie

Les répondants devaient évaluer la situation économique du Canada, des États-Unis et de leurs provinces et territoires respectifs. Dans une proportion similaire (soit plus du tiers des répondants), on a estimé que toutes ces économies se portent bien. Les évaluations « neutres » étaient moins élevées à l’endroit de l’économie américaine. Cependant, ils étaient plus nombreux à être incertains de la note à lui accorder. Invités à évaluer le prix actuel de l’essence, plus de la moitié des répondants ont donné une note défavorable, comparativement à 14 % qui ont donné une note favorable.

Pour ce qui est de l’inquiétude des Canadiens à l’idée de perdre leur emploi ou de voir un proche perdre son emploi au cours des six prochains mois, 22 % des répondants ont dit être très préoccupés, 11 % étaient plutôt préoccupés et 59 % n’étaient pas très préoccupés.

Confiance envers l’économie

Nous avons demandé aux répondants d’évaluer l’impact de divers facteurs, tendances et mesures sur l’économie. La moitié d’entre eux devaient évaluer l’impact de ces facteurs sur la création d’emplois, et l’autre, sur la compétitivité des entreprises canadiennes.

Dans le premier groupe (création d’emplois), les répondants ont conclu que c’étaient les investissements du gouvernement fédéral dans le domaine des sciences, de la technologie et de l’innovation qui avaient le plus grand impact (59 %), suivi de l’ALENA (58 %), des investissements du gouvernement fédéral dans l’infrastructure (56 %) et des accords commerciaux avec les pays autres que les États-Unis (56 %).

Dans le deuxième groupe (compétitivité des entreprises canadiennes), les résultats étaient sensiblement les mêmes. Au premier rang, on retrouve les accords commerciaux avec les pays autres que les États-Unis (59 %), suivi des investissements du gouvernement fédéral dans le domaine des sciences, de la technologie et de l’innovation (57 %) et l’ALENA (57 %).

Situation budgétaire

Tous les répondants devaient donner leurs impressions de l’état des finances du gouvernement fédéral. Plus des trois quarts croyaient que le gouvernement fédéral affiche un déficit budgétaire, alors qu’un peu plus d’un dixième croient que le budget est équilibré et 6 %, qu’il y a un surplus budgétaire. Pour ce qui est de l’évolution du déficit fédéral au cours des prochaines années, 66 % étaient d’avis qu’il irait en augmentant, 22 % ont répondu qu’il demeurerait stable et 9 % s’attendaient à ce qu’il diminue.

Priorités budgétaires

Les répondants ont évalué l’importance de plusieurs enjeux et priorités dans les décisions du gouvernement fédéral en matière de budget. Plus des trois quarts ont répondu qu’il était très important que le gouvernement fédéral tienne compte de la création d’emplois et des compétences professionnelles dans ses décisions budgétaires. Les trois quarts ont dit qu’il était très important que le gouvernement fédéral tienne compte de la classe moyenne (75 %) et de l’environnement (74 %). Pour près de 7 répondants sur 10, il est très important que le gouvernement fédéral démontre une volonté d’accroître la compétitivité des entreprises canadiennes à l’international, d’équilibrer le budget, de favoriser l’innovation, de réduire ou maintenir le déficit, d’aider les femmes et les jeunes filles et de mettre l’accent sur la science et la compétitivité des entreprises. Environ les deux tiers des répondants estiment qu’il est important pour le gouvernement fédéral d’inclure l’égalité des sexes, l’aide aux Autochtones et le féminisme parmi ses priorités.

Invités à choisir parmi deux scénarios budgétaires, plus des deux tiers des répondants ont préféré celui dans lequel le gouvernement fédéral investit dans les programmes et les infrastructures susceptibles de créer des emplois et de stimuler la croissance économique, même s’il doit pour cela afficher un déficit. Un peu plus du quart des répondants ont préféré le scénario dans lequel le gouvernement fédéral s’efforce d’équilibrer le budget, même s’il doit couper dans les programmes ou augmenter les impôts.

Impressions des tendances en matière d’impôts et d’aide financière

Nous avons demandé aux Canadiens si les impôts fédéraux étaient à la hausse ou à la baisse, et si l’aide financière qui leur est offerte par le gouvernement fédéral avait augmenté ou diminué (le premier scénario a été présenté à la moitié des répondants et le deuxième, à l’autre moitié).

En ce qui concerne les impôts fédéraux, 48 % des répondants avaient l’impression qu’ils avaient augmentés au cours des dernières années, 38 % étaient d’avis qu’ils étaient demeurés stables et 7 %, qu’ils avaient augmentés. Pour ce qui est de l’aide financière offerte aux Canadiens par le gouvernement fédéral, 28 % avaient l’impression qu’elle avait augmentée, 36 % étaient d’avis qu’elle était demeurée stable et 29 %, qu’elle avait diminuée.

En dernier lieu, quatre scénarios financiers ont été proposés aux répondants. Nous leur avons demandé s’ils disposaient de 20 $, 50 $, 100 $ ou 500 $ de plus par mois, quel serait l’impact sur leur situation financière personnelle. Un peu moins d’un dixième des répondants ont répondu qu’un montant supplémentaire de 20 $ ou 50 $ par mois aurait un impact majeur sur leurs finances personnelles alors qu’un sur cinq a admis que 100 $ de plus par mois aurait un impact majeur. Pour plus de la moitié des répondants, 500 $ de plus par mois aurait un impact majeur.

Des scénarios différents ont été présentés à un autre groupe, avec des montants calculés sur une base annuelle plutôt que mensuelle (240 $, 600 $, 1 200 $ et 6 000 $ par année). Un peu moins d’un dixième des répondants ont indiqué que des montants additionnels de 240 $ et 600 $ par année auraient un impact majeur sur leurs finances personnelles, alors que 29 % étaient d’avis que 1 200 $ de plus par année aurait un impact majeur. Pour près des deux tiers des répondants, 6 000 $ de plus par année aurait un impact majeur.

General Views on the Performance of the Federal Government

At the beginning of each session, participants were asked to write down the most important thing the federal government has been getting right over the past year and the most important thing they have been getting wrong.

Two issues were just as likely to land in the “going right” category as they were to land in the “going wrong” category.

•     Opinions on how the federal government had been handling immigration were split. Those who felt that this was an area the federal government had been getting right over the past year focused mostly on refugee settlement in general and on the federal government’s overall philosophy towards immigration. In particular, participants appreciated the relatively more open and welcoming approach taken by Canada compared to other countries, notably the United States.

Those who felt immigration was an area the federal government had been getting wrong over the past year seemed mostly concerned with the number of cross-border asylum seekers and how their influx was being managed.

•     Opinions on how the federal government had been handling the legalization of cannabis were also split. Those who felt that this was an area the federal government had been getting right over the past year were generally supportive of the measure and felt it was long overdue.

Those who felt legalization of cannabis was an area the federal government had been getting wrong over the past year were either outright opposed to the measure or they were concerned that legalization was happening too quickly and not enough had been done to prepare citizens, including education.

Among the remaining areas that participants felt the federal government had been getting right over the past year, the following surfaced as some of the more common themes:

•     Participants liked the federal government’s approach to the NAFTA negotiations, both in terms of tariff tactics and counter-measures and in terms of tone.

•     A variety of measures were mentioned across all the sessions that could broadly be grouped under general socio-economic policy. Measures mentioned included better child benefits, lower taxes, longer parental leave, a focus on gender equality and support for LGBTQ.

Other areas the federal government has been getting right but mentioned by only a few participants across all sessions included:

•     Managing the Saudi Arabia issue;

•     International aid;

•     Some participants were confusing measures taken by provincial governments with respect to healthcare and education with the role the federal government plays in these areas. Examples would include: contributing to the education and healthcare systems in general; education for low income families; making sure the healthcare system does not get worse;

•     More support and consultations with First Nations;

•     Trade agreements – finding new ways to sell Canadian goods and services;

•     Investing in infrastructure / Upgrading and renovating government buildings;

•     Addressing climate change;

•     The Prime Minister is doing town hall sessions / public consultations / gauging public opinion;

•     Conciliatory approach to groups that have been wronged in the past; and,

•     Improving Canada’s image on the international stage.

Beyond immigration and cannabis legalization, other common areas that participants felt the federal government had been getting wrong over the past year included:

•     The federal government approach to the pipeline issue, especially the recent purchase of the TransMountain pipeline. Participants were either dissatisfied that they had made the purchase in the first place or they were dissatisfied that not enough had been done to make sure the project happened.

•     Some measures were seen as anti-small business, including what some saw as increasing taxes on small businesses, not doing enough to support small businesses, and in a few rare instances, there were references to specific measures like income sprinkling.

•     The federal government is not seen as fulfilling its environmental mandate or not doing enough for the environment in general. A few specifically referred to not adequately supporting green energy initiatives and not doing enough to address climate change.

Other areas the federal government has been getting wrong but mentioned by only a few participants across all sessions included:

•     Phoenix pay system;

•     Gas prices;

•     Need to improve public transportation;

•     Not being able to close negotiations on NAFTA;

•     Too much violence / crime / Too much poverty;

•     Not enough getting done in general / Unfulfilled platform promises;

•     No Pharmacare in place yet;

•     Addressing the fentanyl crisis;

•     Inefficient tax system;

•     Lack of funding for seniors and children;

•     Managing interprovincial relations;

•     Managing the national debt; and,

•     Tarnishing Canada’s image abroad, e.g. the trip to India.

Views on the Economy in General

Most participants would describe the Canadian economy as either “stable” or performing fairly well. Only a small number would say that it is struggling or headed in the wrong direction. Some of those sensing the economy was not performing well explained that the economy was not working well for them personally rather than the economy not working well in general. More specifically, an increasing cost of living and an unaffordable housing market were both seen as indicators that the economy was not performing well, whereas these indicators typically suggest a strong economy overall in the Canadian context.

Participants typically looked at broad economic indicators like employment (or the unemployment rate) to gauge the status of the economy, or they would look at their own economic situation, including cost of living, housing affordability and the disconnect between salaries and inflation.

Admittedly, assessing the overall Canadian economy was difficult for many so they tended to describe their regional or provincial economy instead. Some regional highlights from this discussion included the following:

•     In Moncton, participants felt the economy was performing moderately well. On the one hand, employment rates were seen as decent and the minimum wage had been increased. On the other hand however, participants were concerned that many of the jobs were low paying and precarious, that inflation was persistent and that salaries in general were not keeping pace with inflation.

•     In Toronto, the high cost of living and of housing dominated the discussion, especially in the low to middle income group, where participants tended to feel the current economy was a struggle. The higher income group was generally more positive about the state of the economy by referring to indicators such as full employment, robust consumer activity in general (e.g. people shopping, nice cars, etc.), robust commercial property activity, and high levels of construction activity.

•     In Calgary, there were still side-effects of the recent provincial economic downturn, although participants in the higher income group seemed to feel that the situation had been improving compared to the same time a year ago. Low- and middle-income participants explained how their economy was still struggling, that those employed were still living pay cheque to pay cheque and that a household cannot get by on just one income (or just one job).

•     In Vancouver, the general sense was that the economy was doing well as seen by low unemployment, lots of job fairs, and increasing interest rates. However, this was largely being offset by the high price of housing, by inflation in everyday consumables, and the growing gap between the cost of living and wages.

•     In Quebec City, participants were fairly united in their view that the local economy was doing very well. They largely based this assessment on the low level of unemployment, on robust construction activity in the region and the fact that, despite increases in the price of housing, demand remains strong.

Compared to last year, most participants felt the economy had been stable. Those more likely to feel the economy had improved compared to a year ago included high income earners in Calgary and low/middle-income earners in Quebec City. Those feeling the economy had worsened compared to a year ago, a sentiment particularly common among low/middle-income earners in Toronto, based this mostly on the fact that inflation was making it more challenging for them, those who cannot afford a home in the city now need to travel further to work, and consumer debt levels had worsened.

Moving forward, most believed the economy will remain fairly stable although most also agreed that the country’s prospects largely depend on the outcome of the NAFTA trade negotiations (negotiations that were ongoing at the time of the research). Other economic concerns for the next year included rising interest rates that will challenge Canadians with lots of debt, the continuing gap between inflation and wages, and automation putting people out of work.

Trade Negotiations

At the time these focus groups were taking place, NAFTA negotiations were ongoing between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Participant awareness of these negotiations was quite high although not all participants could speak to the finer details of the deliberations. Participants did argue however that very little information was being made available about what was happening since the negotiations were largely a closed-door affair.

In terms of what was known about the negotiations, many seemed aware of where things stood in the negotiations including the fact that various tariffs and counter-tariffs had been imposed by both the U.S. and Canada and that the dairy industry and supply management were a main issue. Many named Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs by name in their comments and many also knew that the U.S. had come to bilateral terms with Mexico.

Discussing the negotiations also sparked positive and negative emotions among some participants. Emotions were entirely negative towards the negotiation tactics and rhetoric being used by the U.S. administration. A few were not convinced Canada was doing a good job of the negotiations, however this was not the most common view - most were feeling good about how Canada had been approaching the negotiations, both in terms of tact and in terms of tariff strategies. Most also believed Canada was not just doing its best but that it was also holding its own in the negotiations.

Participants generally believed that these negotiations mattered to them and to the country. Few, if any, argued that Canada would be better off outside a NAFTA deal. Much to the contrary, most would probably agree that Canada would be worse off if no deal were to be struck, even if a good number of respondents could not make a direct connection between a NAFTA deal and their own personal economic reality. Most seemed to believe that this deal is important for the country overall.

•     Among those who could connect with the outcome of the negotiations, many explained that if Canada were not part of a North American pact, that they would pay more for certain products (e.g. automobiles) and a few explained that some products might no longer be available to Canadian consumers.

•     There was moderate awareness of the possible U.S. tariffs on the automobile industry and many appreciated that if these were to be applied, the automobile industry in Ontario specifically would suffer. Awareness of these tariffs was low in Toronto.

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

Participants were asked what they had heard, if anything, about the TransMountain expansion Project. It is important to note that the discussion did not explicitly explore who supported and who opposed the project, it focused more on what participants knew or did not know about the project. Awareness of the project purchase was limited and understanding of the issues and underlying reasoning behind the purchase was quite superficial. Awareness was higher in Calgary, Vancouver and Quebec City compared to Toronto and Moncton.

Very few felt comfortable providing an explanation for the purchase, with many in this narrow group believing the federal government needed to proceed with the purchase in order for the project to actually happen, either because the private sector was going to pull out, or because this was the only way to over-rule objections in British Columbia. Some had also heard that the purchase was necessary because the federal government felt it was important to get Canadian oil to tidewater and that this project was important for the Canadian economy: “Sounds like the project falling through altogether would have been a blow to our economy so it sounded like our government had to step in.”

A small number of participants seemed familiar with the recent court ruling putting a halt to the project. Despite this recent setback in the courts, most participants familiar with the project believed it will get built.

In each session, the moderator gauged awareness and understanding of specific aspects of the TransMountain expansion project. Feedback revealed that there is very little knowledge of the economic facts surrounding this project. For instance, there was next to no awareness that the purchase included the acquisition of an existing pipeline that is generating profits. There was also very low awareness that the expansion involves a pipeline twinning and not an entirely new pipeline.

The moderator also explored in each session two possible economic benefits of transporting oil to tidewater rather than southwards to the United States. Here again, participant knowledge and understanding of the complete economic picture was very weak. More specifically, there was very limited knowledge that Canadian crude oil would sell at a better price if exported to international markets other than the United States. Participants were also unaware of the extent to which current oil exports are oriented to the United States and that having a pipeline to tidewater would help diversify the country’s export partners and reduce its dependency on the United States as a buyer.

•     As part of this discussion, the moderator asked participants to guess the proportion of Canadian oil exports currently going to the United States. Participants significantly underestimated this proportion, and many were taken aback by the fact that it is roughly 99%. In light of the ongoing negotiations with the United States, the argument of reducing the country’s dependency on that trade partner particularly resonated with participants.

The views of a good number of participants changed once they were provided all the details regarding the project. One participant in Quebec City made a point of explaining that he would have appreciated if more of this type of information had been provided to him because all he hears in the media are the reasons for not going ahead with the project.

In the end, participants who continued to oppose the project seemed to object in principle rather than objecting to anything specific or unique about the TransMountain Expansion Project. These participants generally believed that the country should be moving away from non-renewable energy, and that the federal government should not be investing in pipelines when it was said to be so committed to the environment. A few also objected to the idea that public funds were used to purchase a project that should have remained, in their opinion, in the private sector. If the private sector saw the project as too risky, then public funds should not be exposed to such risk either.

Labour Supply, Skills and Talent

This research explored two aspects of labour in Canada – whether there are enough workers for the positions available, and, whether the country’s workforce has the right talent and skills to meet the needs of today’s economy.

Business Competitiveness

The focus groups involved an exercise in terminology interpretation related to business competitiveness. For most participants, to be “globally competitive” means being able to sell products and services in other countries because of a price advantage, a quality advantage or because the business is meeting a need that is not being met by anyone else. In other words, the business derives its competitive edge through innovation.

There is strong support for the federal government playing a role in helping Canadian businesses become or remain globally competitive. A wide range of roles and activities were proposed, including:

•     Negotiating favourable trade agreements,

•     Stimulating innovation in Canada, for instance by investing in research and development,

•     Help develop areas of expertise and specializations in Canada that can then be exported,

•     Providing financial support to help Canadian companies grow (e.g. taxes, subsidies, etc.),

•     Coordinating trade missions,

•     Helping Canadian businesses identify opportunities abroad,

•     Support businesses that want to export, especially small businesses,

•     Attracting the right kind of talent into Canada, and,

•     Supporting post-secondary education (e.g. through bursaries) to stimulate innovation.

General Fiscal Strategy

Participants were asked whether the federal government is operating with a budget deficit or surplus or if the budget is balanced. Most recognized, or just assumed, that the federal government was operating with a deficit.

There was an important contingent of Canadians who were indifferent about this situation. They did not believe that budget deficits had any impact on their daily lives and again, many assumed that governments always have and always will operate with a budget deficit. There is however a larger contingent that believed, often on principle, that it would be important that the deficit not increase. This did not necessarily translate into a need for a balanced budget overnight but at a minimum, these participants believed there needs to be a plan to work back towards equilibrium. The desire to get back to a balanced budget was most common in Calgary.

Participants were asked how they generally feel about the trade-off of running deficits to invest in programs and infrastructure versus balancing the budget which means making cuts and/or raising taxes. This exercise revealed support for a productive deficit that invests in programs and infrastructure to generate greater future returns. The challenge for some was that they are aware that this has been the strategy over recent years and that they are not convinced it has produced the desired outcomes, or at least they had not seen them yet. There were also concerns that if the country was running deficits during “good times,” which most believed we were living these days, the country will see even larger deficits if the economy takes a turn for the worse.

On the topic of taxes, participants were asked whether they felt federal government taxes had been going up, going down, or staying the same in recent years. Nearly all participants believed federal government taxes had stayed the same in recent years.

Climate Change and Pollution Pricing

The focus groups involved an exercise in terminology interpretation related to pollution pricing. “Putting a price on pollution” or “putting a cost on pollution” more often than not meant charging a fee to those who pollute – in other words it reminded participants of the polluter pays principle. A few participants were reminded of what they called a “carbon tax” and a few were also reminded of the broader price paid by society because of pollution, such as higher healthcare costs, higher environmental remediation costs, etc.

Few participants were aware of any steps taken by the federal government to address climate change. A few did mention a “carbon tax” and a few also recalled signing the Paris Agreement.

Based on a high-level overview of the federal government’s plan to have a national price on carbon pollution, participants were torn when it came to whether the federal government should impose a national price on carbon pollution. While nearly all participants felt strongly that climate change needed to be addressed, some were not convinced that a price on carbon would be effective, or they could not see the direct link between a price on carbon and reducing GHG emissions. They either believed that the costs would just be passed down to consumers, further aggravating cost-of-living challenges faced by many, or the measure was simply seen as a license for industry to pollute.

While participants liked that the revenues from the plan are returned to the source provinces and territories, they did not like that these same provinces and territories could do what they wanted with the revenues. There was very strong support for these funds being reinvested into addressing climate change – for instance investing in environment-related research and development, developing renewable sources of energy, incenting polluting industries to reduce their emissions, etc. If this were the case, then there would be broader support for a national price on carbon pollution.

Priorities for the Federal Government

When asked to identify, unaided, the one issue respondents believe the federal government should focus on, the most common theme is the economy and jobs (as noted by 24%) of respondents. The next most common themes include the environment (12%), healthcare (7%) and social issues in general (6%).

The economy and jobs was a theme more common among men compared to women (28% vs. 21%), as well as respondents at least 35 years of age compared to younger respondents (28% vs. 16%). The environment was more likely to be mentioned by women than men (13% vs. 10%), as well as respondents in Quebec (25%), and British Columbia (15%). Women are also more likely to mention healthcare (10% vs. 4%), as are respondents in Atlantic Canada (14%).

When asked to identify, again unaided, any other issues they believe the federal government should focus on these days, the most common theme is again the economy and jobs (as noted by 15%) of respondents. Again, this theme was more common among men compared to women (17% vs. 13%).

Healthcare was also more common among women than men (12% vs. 7%), as well as respondents at least 55 years old compared to respondents under 35 (11% vs. 7%). Respondents in Quebec and Atlantic Canada are the most likely to have mentioned healthcare as another issue on which the federal government should focus (13% and 12% respectively).

Assessment of the Economy

Survey respondents were asked to assess the current state of the Canadian economy, the U.S. economy and their province or territory’s economy. Overall, similar proportions believe each of these economies is doing well (providing a rating of at least 7 on a 10-point scale). Neutral ratings for the U.S. economy are lower, however more respondents were “not sure” how to rate that particular economy. When specifically asked to rate the current price of gasoline, the majority of respondents (57%) provided a negative rating (a rating of 1 to 4) while 14% gave a positive rating.

Perceptions of the Canadian economy are very consistent between men and women. Women are slightly more likely to feel “neutral” about the current state of their province’s or territory’s economy and are less likely to provide a positive rating when it comes to the current state of the U.S. economy (27% vs. 48% among men). Sentiments towards the current price of gasoline are almost identical between men and women.

Alberta residents are the least likely to feel positive about the Canadian economy (18%), and, along with Atlantic Canada residents, are the least likely to feel positive about the current state of their province or territory’s economy (18% and 19% respectively). Those most likely to feel negative about the current price of gasoline are respondents in British Columbia (70%), Alberta (62%), Quebec (61%) and Atlantic Canada (60%).

Job Security

Respondents were asked how concerned they were that they or someone else in their household may lose their job in the next six months, again, using a scale from 1 to 10. Over one fifth (22%) of respondents feel very concerned (a rating of 7 to 10), 11% somewhat concerned (rating of 5 or 6), and 59% are not very concerned (rating 1 to 4).

Respondents 18 to 34 years old are more likely to be “very” concerned (29%) as are those 35 to 54 (23%), compared to those at least 55 years old (16%). This sentiment is also high among respondents in Alberta/Northwest Territories (30%), Ontario (26%), and Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nunavut (23%).

Economic Confidence

Respondents were asked how much of an impact various economic factors, trends and measures might have on the economy, including government investment, trade agreements, foreign investment, the global economy, among others. Half of respondents were asked to assess the impact of these factors on “job creation”, while the other half were asked the impact on these factors on “competitiveness of Canadian businesses.”

Respondents who were specifically asked the impact on job creation rated the federal government investments in science, technology, and innovation as having the most impact (59%), followed by NAFTA (58%), the federal government investments in infrastructure (56%), and trade agreements with other countries other than the U.S. (56%).

Respondents at least 55 years old are the least likely to see an impact of investments in science, technology and innovation on job creation (53% vs. 62% of younger respondents. Those in Quebec are the least likely to see investments in infrastructure having an impact on the economy (46%), as well as those at least 55 years of age (49%).

Respondents who were specifically asked the impact on the competitiveness of Canadian businesses rated trade agreements with countries other than the U.S. as having the most impact (59%), followed by federal government investments in science, technology, and innovation (57%), and NAFTA (57%).

Residents of Alberta are the least likely to see an impact of trade agreements with countries other than the U.S. (47%). Respondents more likely to see an impact of investments in science and technology on the competitiveness of Canadian businesses are residents of Quebec (64%) and Ontario (62%), as well as those under 55 years of age (62%).

General Fiscal Situation

All survey participants were asked to give their impression on where the federal government’s finances stand. Over three quarters (76%) of respondents think the federal government is operating with a budget deficit, 11% feel it is operating with a balanced budget, and 6% with a budget surplus.

Respondents at least 35 years old are more likely to say the federal government is operating with a deficit, compared to younger respondents (80% vs. 66%). The latter are more likely to say it is operating with a balanced budget (18% vs. 9%).

In terms of regional differences, Quebec residents are the least likely to say the federal government is operating with a budget deficit (69%), and the most likely to say it is operating with a balanced budget (16%).

Next, respondents were asked their expectations on how the federal government’s deficit will move in the coming years. Two thirds believe the deficit will grow (66%), while 22% believe it will stay the same, and 9% expect it to get smaller.

Analysis based on demographics show respondents at least 35 years of age are more likely to say the deficit will get bigger (69%) compared to younger respondents (59%). Additionally, men are more likely than women to say the deficit will get smaller (10% vs. 7%), as are respondents under 35 years of age (12%), compared to older respondents (8%).

In terms of regional differences, Quebec residents are the least likely to say the deficit will grow (57%), and the most likely to say the deficit will stay the same (32%), compared to residents in other provinces or territories.

Budget Priorities

Respondents were then asked how important several issues and priorities were for the federal government to keep in mind when making budget decisions. Over three quarters of respondents feel it is “very important” that the federal government focuses on job creation (81%) and job skills (77%) when making budget decisions. Three quarters feel it would be important that the federal government considers the middle class (75%) and the environment (74%). Roughly 7 in 10 feel it is important the federal government considers making Canadian businesses successful internationally (72%), balancing the budget (72%), focusing on innovation (72%), making sure the deficit does not get any bigger (69%), helping women and girls (69%), focusing on science (69%) and focusing on business competitiveness (69%).

Two thirds of respondents or less feel it is important the federal government considers in their budget priorities gender equality (66%), helping indigenous people (59%) and feminism (51%).

In the graphs and data tables in this section, it is important to note that the results for certain issues and themes were presented to split samples – for instance, half of all respondents were presented “science” and the other half “innovation.”

Demographic analysis reveals women are more likely than men to believe it is “very important” to consider job creation (83% vs. 79%), and job skills (80% vs. 74%) when making budget decisions, as well as the environment (80% vs. 69%), gender equality (73% vs. 58%), and helping Indigenous Peoples (65% vs. 53%). Men are more likely than women to believe it is important for the federal government to focus on businesses competitiveness (73% vs. 65%).

In terms of age, respondents under 35 years of age are more likely than older respondents (especially those at least 55 years old) to believe it is important to consider the environment (80% vs. 72%), the middle class (78% vs. 71%), innovation (77% vs. 68%), helping women and girls (82% vs. 61%), and helping Indigenous Peoples (66% vs. 55%) when making budget decisions.

Regionally, residents in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and British Columbia/Yukon, are more likely to assign higher importance to the middle class and science when making budget decisions. Residents of these same provinces along with those in Quebec are the most likely to assign higher importance to helping indigenous people, gender equality and the environment. Making sure the deficit does not get any bigger is important for residents of Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta/NWT.

Respondents were asked to choose between two different statements regarding government investment, programs and raising taxes. Over two thirds (68%) of Canadians prefer a scenario whereby the federal government invests in programs and infrastructure that can create jobs and economic growth, even if that means running deficits. Just over a quarter (26%) of respondents prefer the alternative option whereby the federal government works towards balancing the budget, even if it means making cuts to programs and/or raising taxes.

Respondents under 35 years old are more likely to prefer running deficits that lead to job creation and economic growth, compared to those at least 35 years old (75% vs. 66%). Atlantic Canada residents are the most likely to prefer the deficit option (74%), especially compared to residents from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nunavut (65%), and Alberta/Northwest Territories (62%).

Impressions of Trends in Taxes and Financial Support

Respondents were asked whether federal income taxes have been going up or down and whether the financial support from the federal government to Canadians has been going up or down (half were presented one scenario and half the other).

Regarding trends in federal taxes specifically, nearly half of those respondents (48%) feel federal income taxes have gone up in recent years, while 38% feel they have stayed the same, and 7% feel they have gone down. As for federal government financial support to Canadians, 28% feel it has gone up, 36% feel it has stayed about the same, and 29% feel it has gone down.

Regionally, Albertans are the most likely to believe federal taxes have increased (61%). Quebecers are the most likely to believe both federal taxes (47%) and federal government financial support to Canadians (45%) have stayed the same.

Respondents were asked to specify which taxes or financial supports have gone up or down. The main taxes that respondents believe to have gone up were personal income tax (36%), federal taxes in general (11%), GST (11%), provincial tax (10%), and HST (10%). The main taxes that respondents believe to have gone down include personal income tax (31%), federal tax (15%), GST (5%), and provincial tax (5%).

As for federal financial supports, the main items identified as having gone up include social assistance (29%), followed by child care tax benefit (24%), and “child support” in general (17%). Financial supports believed to have gone down include social assistance (25%), healthcare or medical (17%), income tax (12%), support for students (10%), and support for seniors (10%).

Respondents were presented with one of four different financial scenarios and asked the extent to which it would impact their personal financial situation. Having an extra $20 per month would have a big impact on 6% of Canadians, a small impact on 29%, and no impact on 63% of respondents. An increase of $50 per month would have a big impact on one tenth of Canadians (13%), a small impact on 44% of Canadians, and no impact on 43% of Canadians. One in five Canadians (20%) feel an extra $100 per month would have a big impact on their financial situation, while an increase of $500 per month would have a big impact on 60% of Canadians.

Respondents at least 35 years of age are more likely than younger respondents to say an increase of $100 per month would not have an impact on their personal finances (29% vs. 19%). Women are more likely than men to say receiving $500 extra per month would have a big impact on their finances (69% vs. 51%).

In terms of regional differences, residents in Quebec are the most likely to say an extra $20 per month would have no impact on their finances (72%), and those in Atlantic Canada are the most likely to say receiving $500 extra per month would have a big impact in their finances (71%).

Respondents were presented with one of four additional scenarios and asked how these would impact their financial situation. In this case the amounts were the same but instead of receiving the money on a monthly basis, they would receive it annually.

Receiving an extra $240 per year would have a big impact for 7% of Canadians, 38% feel it would have a small impact, and over half (54%) believe this would have no impact on their financial situation. Receiving $600 per year would have a big impact for one tenth of Canadians (13%), a small impact for 50% of Canadians, and no impact for 36% of Canadians. Over one quarter of Canadians (29%) feel an extra $1,200 per year would have a big impact on their financial situation, while receiving $6,000 per year would have a big impact for 65% of Canadians.

Women are more likely than men to say receiving an additional $1,200 per year would have a big impact in their finances (35% vs. 22%), as well as receiving $6,000 yearly (71% vs. 58%). Those at least 55 years of age are more likely to say an additional $240 per year would have no impact on their finances.

Quebec residents are the most likely to say an additional $600 per year would have a big impact on their finances (25%), while those in Alberta are the most likely to say this amount would have no impact on their situation (50%). Those in British Columbia/Yukon are the least likely to say receiving an amount of $1,200 would have a big impact on their finances (14%), and Quebecers are the most likely to say $6,000 would have a big impact on their financial situation (75%).

Methodology

Focus Group Screener

•     Recruit 12 participants.

•     Participants to be paid $75.

•     1 group in each location will be held with participants from low/middle income households and the other with participants from high income households.

•     “High income” is defined as anyone with a personal annual income of over $80,000 or anyone in a household with multiple incomes with an annual household income of over $100,000.

•     “Low/middle” income is defined as anyone with a personal annual income of up to $80,000 or anyone in a household with multiple incomes with an annual household income of under $100,000.

•     Specific considerations have been taken to accommodate for single vs. multi-income households.

A. Introduction

Hello/Bonjour, my name is           . Would you prefer to continue in English or French? / Préférez-vous continuer en anglais ou en français?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: FOR ENGLISH GROUPS, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN FRENCH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH, "Malheureusement, nous recherchons des gens qui parlent anglais pour participer à ces groupes de discussion. Nous vous remercions de votre intérêt." FOR FRENCH GROUP, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN ENGLISH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH, “Unfortunately, we are looking for people who speak French to participate in this discussion group. We thank you for your interest.”]

I’m calling from Quorus, a Canadian research firm. We’re organizing a series of discussion groups on behalf of the Government of Canada to discuss current issues of interest to Canadians. The groups will last up to two hours and people who take part will receive a cash gift to thank them for their time.

Participation is completely voluntary. We are interested in your opinions. No attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The format is a "round table" discussion led by a research professional with up to ten participants. All opinions will remain anonymous and will be used for research purposes only in accordance with laws designed to protect your privacy.

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF ASKED ABOUT PRIVACY LAWS, SAY: “The information collected through the research is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act, legislation of the Government of Canada, and to the provisions of relevant provincial privacy legislation.”]

Before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix of people in each of the groups. This will take 5 minutes. May I continue?

Yes                               CONTINUE

No                                THANK/DISCONTINUE

B. Qualification

1.      Do you, or any member of your household or immediate family, work in any of the following fields?  READ LIST

Marketing research, public relations firm, or advertising agency,

The media (radio, television, newspapers, magazines, etc.),

A federal or provincial government department or agency

A political party

Yes                               THANK/DISCONTINUE

No                                CONTINUE     

2.       We have been asked to speak to participants from all different ages. May I have your age please? _________. RECORD – OBTAIN A RANGE ACROSS THE 2 SESSIONS IN EACH CITY

Under 18                     THANK/DISCONTINUE

18 to 24 years                                                                        

25 to 34 years                                                                        

35 to 44 years                                                                        

45 to 54 years                                                            

55 to 64 years                                                            

65 to 74 years                                                

75 years or older        THANK/DISCONTINUE

3.       Record gender by observation. 50/50 SPLIT

Female                                                                       

Male   

4.       Are you the head or co-head of your household?

Yes                   CONTINUE

No                    THANK AND TERMINATE

5.       Are you working?

Full Time (35 hrs. +)              4 minimum

Part Time (under 35 hrs.)       2 max.

Homemaker                            1 max.

Student                                    1 max. ONLY QUALIFIES FOR GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

Retired                                    2 max.

Unemployed                            1 max. ONLY QUALIFIES FOR GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

**STUDENTS SKIP TO Q10

6.       [ASK FULL AND PART TIME ONLY] What is your current occupation? RECORD:

Type of Job:                 ______________

Type of Company:       ______________

7.       How many people, including yourself, earn an income in your household?

One                             ASK Q8

Two                             SKIP TO Q9

Three                           SKIP TO Q9

Four or more               SKIP TO Q9

IF ONLY ONE PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD ASK:

8.       Which of the following categories best corresponds to your total personal annual income, before taxes, for 2017? READ

      Under $30,000                        GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

      $30,000 to $60,000                 GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

      $60,000 to $80,000                 GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

      $80,000 to $100,000               GROUPS 2, 3, 6, 7, 10

      $100,000 to $150,000             GROUPS 2, 3, 6, 7, 10

      $150,000 and over                  GROUPS 2, 3, 6, 7, 10

      REFUSE/DK/NA                   TERMINATE

ASK ALL FROM HOUSEHOLDS WITH MORE THAN ONE PERSON

9.       Which of the following categories best corresponds to the total annual income, before taxes, of all members of your household, for 2017? READ

      Under $30,000                        GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

      $30,000 to $60,000                 GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

      $60,000 to $80,000                 GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

      $80,000 to $100,000               GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

      $100,000 to $150,000             GROUPS 2, 3, 6, 7, 10

      $150,000 and over                  GROUPS 2, 3, 6, 7, 10

            REFUSE/DK/NA                  TERMINATE

ASK ALL

10.   Could you please tell me what is the last level of education that you completed? READ LIST; GET MIX

Some High School only

Completed High School

Trade School certificate

Some Post secondary 

Completed Post secondary

Graduate degree

11.   Do you consider yourself to be a member of a visible ethno-cultural group?

Yes                               CONTINUE

No                                GO TO Q13

12.   What is your ethnic background? RECORD:

Ethnicity:         ______________

In each city, recruit at least two per group who are of non-European descent or who are other visible minorities (i.e. Chinese or South Asian, but could include aboriginal people or Afro-Canadians as well).

13.   Participants in group discussions are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts, how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others?   Are you... READ OPTIONS

            Very comfortable                                MIN 5 PER GROUP

            Fairly comfortable

            Not very comfortable                         TERMINATE

            Very uncomfortable                            TERMINATE

14.   Have you ever attended a discussion group or interview on any topic that was arranged in advance and for which you received money for your participation?

Yes                                                     MAXIMUM 5 PER GROUP

No                                                         GO TO INVITATION

15.   When did you last attend one of these discussion groups or interviews?

Within the last 6 months                    TERMINATE

Over 6 months ago                

16.   How discussion groups or interviews have you attended in the past 5 years?

Fewer than 5

5 or more                                            TERMINATE

17.   Sometimes participants are also asked to write out their answers on a questionnaire.  Is there any reason why you could not participate? If you need glasses to read, please remember to bring them. (Add hearing impairment.)

          Yes                                                         TERMINATE

          No         

TERMINATE IF RESPONDENT OFFERS ANY REASON SUCH AS SIGHT OR HEARING PROBLEM, A WRITTEN OR VERBAL LANGUAGE PROBLEM, A CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY. 

C. INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

I would like to invite you to attend the focus group session where you will exchange your opinions in a moderated discussion with other Canadians from your community. The discussion will be lead by a researcher from the national public opinion research firm, Quorus Consulting. The session will be taped and observed but your participation will be confidential. The group will take place on [DAY OF WEEK], [DATE], at [TIME]. It will last two hours. People who attend will receive $75 to thank them for their time. Would you be willing to attend?

            Yes                                                      

            No                                                       TERMINATE

Do you have a pen handy so that I can give you the address where the group will be held? It will be held at:

We ask that you arrive 15 minutes early.

At the facility, you will be asked to produce photo identification, so please remember to bring something with you (for example, a driver’s license). If you use glasses to read, please remember to bring them with you. Participants may be asked to review some materials in [ENGLISH/FRENCH] during the discussion.

The session will be video recorded for research purposes and representatives of the Government of Canada research team will be observing from an adjoining room. You will be asked to sign a waiver to acknowledge that you will be video recorded during the session. The recordings will be used only by the Quorus Consulting research team and will not be shared with others. As I mentioned, all information collected in the group discussion will remain anonymous and be used for research purposes only in accordance with laws designed to protect your privacy.

As we are only inviting a small number of people to attend, your participation is very important to us. If for some reason you are unable to attend, please call us so that we can get someone to replace you. You can reach us at [INSERT NUMBER] at our office. Please ask for [INSERT NAME].

Someone will call you the day before to remind you about the session.

So that we can call you to remind you about the focus group or contact you should there be any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me?