Submitted to: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
Prepared by: Ipsos Reid Corporation
POR 040-11
Contract award date: 2011-11-28
Contract #: G9178-110001/005/CY
Fieldwork completed: December 6 to December 13, 2011
Contracted cost of research, including GST: $95,768.00
Contact : nc-por-rop-gd@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca
«Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français sur demande»
I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Ipsos Reid that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Alexandra Evershed
Senior Vice President
Ipsos Reid Public Affairs
HRSDC is examining aging and retirement issues with Canadians to ensure Government of Canada programs and services meet the needs of the Canadian public.
The qualitative research was designed to explore:
Ipsos Reid conducted a total of 12 focus groups; two in Halifax, Toronto, Montreal London Ontario, Selkirk Manitoba and Calgary. In Halifax, Toronto, Montreal, Selkirk and Calgary groups were segmented as follows:
In London, groups were segmented as follows:
Qualitative data from focus group discussions are reviewed by the researchers, who draw out continuities and synthesize the main themes, critical "hot buttons", "typical" responses and general levels of agreement/disagreement voiced during the sessions. The analysis of qualitative findings yields tendencies and indications of how the target audience perceives the study issues. However, results are not representative of the general population. Qualitative research involves a limited number of people who are specially selected according to pre-determined attributes. Only quantitative surveys that have a robust number of respondents who have been selected randomly from the target population can be generalized as to represent the broader population.
Participants in the focus groups were asked about issues facing Canada which its leaders should focus upon. They provided an array of issues, with a particular focus on the economy, healthcare, issues related to an aging population, including elder care, poverty among seniors, the impact of an aging society on healthcare, and the need for housing for older Canadians; education, the environment, and issues relating to the cost of living. The issues cited are quite consistent with other research we have conducted, with somewhat more emphasis on issues related to an aging population, which is hardly surprising given that the groups were conducted among Canadians over the age of 40.
When asked for their assessment of the current state of the economy, reactions can be summed up by consensus as “better than most, but not great.” Participants were broadly aware of the European debt crisis and made references to the situation in Greece and Italy, explaining that these countries have been providing their citizens with benefits beyond their means. Most participants also favourably compared Canada’s situation to that of the United States.
When participants were asked to consider Canada’s economic future the following topics were not far from the surface for many: an aging workforce, with its implications for shortages; the need for more immigration; and a growing demand for healthcare and retirement benefits.
Most participants in the lower income group expressed the desire to retire fully or in part by age 65, although a number of participants indicated that that they would likely have no choice but to work longer, given their circumstances. In the higher income group, participants were more likely to say they would retire even sooner.
A number of participants indicated that they did not anticipate retiring at 65, because people are living longer and staying healthier and so there is less need to retire at 65. Nearly all participants were of the view that, barring illness or injury, today’s 65 year old is not the same as yesteryear’s, being considerably more likely to be healthy and active than was the case in the past. However, many participants did not readily make any linkages between Canadians living longer and being healthier and the probability of themselves delaying their retirement.
Most participants did not seem to have a very concrete understanding of how much they would need to have put aside in order to finance their retirement. While many indicated that they have begun to save for their retirement and some mentioned having a concrete plan in place, many others, especially in the lower income group, indicated that they have not yet begun to save.
When participants were asked about federal government social programs for retirees most were aware of the Canada Pension Plan and many were able to name the Old Age Security Program, although knowledge about what the OAS is, and the age at which Canadians are entitled to this benefit were less widespread. There was general agreement that both these programs are necessary and that they should be there not only for those about to retire, but also for future generations. Awareness of the Guaranteed Income Supplement was much lower.
When the CPP and OAS were introduced as part of the same discussion (in the Halifax, Toronto and Montreal groups), participants tended to conflate them, and discuss them interchangeably, referencing their payroll contributions to OAS, for example.
A number of participants raised concerns with the long-term viability of retirement benefits, with many saying they had ‘heard’ that they likely wouldn’t be around when it came time for them to retire. This caused feelings of frustration and concern and raised questions with regard to the management of the programs. While there were strong sentiments of entitlement expressed, very few participants had any real understanding of what their own benefits would be.
A few participants referred to the European debt crisis as a harbinger of what may come if Canada does not act now to address sustainability.
Participants were asked to discuss steps that might be taken to ensure the sustainability of federal government programs and benefits for Canadians who have retired. Once again, participants in the Halifax, Toronto and Montreal groups had great difficulty in discussing CPP and OAS separately. Moreover, there was no top-of-mind awareness of the changes made to the CPP in the late ‘90s to ensure its sustainability for at least the next 75 years.
Solutions to ensuring the sustainability of CPP and OAS in the context of a rapidly aging society that were put forward by participants in Halifax, Toronto and Montreal tended to focus first on working within existing budgets, either through eliminating government waste and excess or re-directing spending from less important priorities (examples varied from social assistance to military spending). However, when provided with some statistics about the shrinking ratio of working Canadians to retirees over the next 20 to 25 years, many reluctantly suggested that it might be necessary to make larger scale adjustments. These included, raising contribution levels, raising taxes, restricting the number of recipients, raising the age of eligibility and increasing immigration levels to help maintain the appropriate ratio of workforce to retirees.
Given the tendency by participants to conflate the two issues, after the first three nights of focus groups, the order of the discussion was adjusted, and participants were provided with more information about the CPP and the measures that had been taken to address its sustainability immediately after the issue scan.
Next participants were asked to discuss the Old Age Security program. When provided by the moderator with some factual information about the size of the OAS program, the number of beneficiaries in 2010-2011 and the program’s relative ranking among all federal government transfers to individuals, a number of participants in each session expressed surprise and concern with regard to the long term viability of the program given Canada’s aging population, and the consequently shrinking tax base.
When participants discussed possible solutions to the dilemma facing OAS due to Canada’s aging population, their feedback could generally be grouped into three broad potential approaches: increasing tax revenues; limiting eligibility to OAS to those in greatest need; and raising the age of eligibility somewhat.
The first option was fairly quickly dismissed, except in the context of an increase in corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthiest.
The second option appealed to a few participants, however there were concerns expressed about the fairness of such an approach. Indeed most agreed that given that all Canadians are paying for the program through their taxes, OAS should be there for everyone.
Some participants suggested that raising the age of eligibility could and should be considered. When questioned as to why they felt this way, participants said that although there were some exceptions to the rule, generally speaking those reaching the age or 65 today tend to be healthier and living more active lives than they were twenty or thirty years ago.
While participants felt that raising the age of eligibility might not sit well with some, current demographic trends were hard to contest: more Canadians will be reaching retirement age than ever before, they are healthier and living longer and consequently will likely be collecting retirement benefits for a longer period of time than the generations that preceded them.
Perhaps not surprisingly, those participants closest to the age of retirement were less likely to support the idea of an increase to the age of eligibility. Participants volunteered that at the very least 10 years notice would be required so that Canadians have time to adjust their plans. There was also general agreement that a phased in or incremental approach to increasing the age of eligibility would be a must.
Some participants suggested that rather than raising the age of eligibility, government ought to consider incentives to encourage Canadians to continue working and more incentives to help them save for their own retirement.
When participants were asked what the Government of Canada could do to assist Canadians in their retirement preparedness, they indicated that a higher degree of financial literacy is needed and that this should be starting young and should even be handled through the school systems, with a curriculum that would include budgeting, savings, and investment. Many participants pointed out that there is a need to ensure that Canadians are made aware of what is needed for a comfortable retirement, about the need to look after oneself and strategies to do so, and about what to expect from the Government.
Hello, my name is ______________. I'm calling from Ipsos Reid, a national public opinion research firm. On behalf of the Government of Canada we’re organizing a series of discussion groups to explore various issues of importance to the country.
EXPLAIN FOCUS GROUPS. About ten people like you will be taking part, all of them randomly recruited just like you. For their time, participants will receive an honorarium of $75. But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix and variety of people. May I ask you a few questions?
Your participation is voluntary. We are interested in hearing 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. All opinions expressed will remain anonymous and views will be grouped together to ensure no particular individual can be identified.
1. Do you or any member of your household work in or has retired from:
IF “YES” TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE
2. Are you a Canadian citizen at least 40 years old who normally resides in the [XX] area?
3. How long have you lived in [INSERT LOCATION]?_______[TERMINATE IF LESS THAN 2 YEARS]
4. Are you the head or co-head of your household?
5. Have you ever attended a consumer group discussion, an interview or survey which was arranged in advance and for which you received a sum of money?
6. How long ago was it? ______________________________ [TERMINATE IF IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS]
7. How many consumer discussion groups have you attended in the past 5 years? ______________________________ [TERMINATE IF MORE THAN 4 GROUPS]
8. Could you please tell me what age category you fall in to? Are you... [ENSURE GOOD MIX FOR LOCATIONS OTHER THAN LONDON]
9. Do you currently have children under the age of 18 living in the house with you? [RECRUIT MIX]
10. How many people above the age of 18 are there in your household?
11. Could you please tell me what is the last level of education that you have completed? [ENSURE GOOD MIX PER GROUP]
12. What is your current employment status?
13. [IF EMPLOYED/RETIRED] What is/was your current/past occupation? ____________________ (PLEASE SPECIFY)
14. [IF Q10= ONE ASK] Was your household’s income for 2010 greater or less than 75 thousand dollars? [ENSURE GOOD MIX WITHIN EACH OF GROUP 1 AND 2 IN LONDON]
15. [IF Q10= MORE THAN ONE ASK] Was your household’s income for 2010 greater or less than 100 thousand dollars? [ENSURE GOOD MIX WITHIN EACH OF GROUP 1 AND 2 IN LONDON]
16. [IF Q14 = less than $75K OR Q15 = less than $100K ASK] And would that be: ENSURE GOOD MIX PER GROUP
17. DO NOT ASK – NOTE GENDER [ENSURE 50-50 SPLIT]
18. If you won a million dollars what would be the first two things you would do with the money? (MUST HAVE TWO RESPONSES TO ACCEPT. TERMINATE IF FLIPPANT, COMBATIVE OR EXHIBITS DIFFICULTY IN RESPONDING)
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 OR IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN.
Wonderful, you qualify to participate in one of our discussion sessions. Is there anything in particular that we can do to accommodate your participation in the session? [Prompt with: do you have any special needs? i.e. accessibility issues]
The session will be 2 hrs in length. We are reserving this discussion time for you. So if for any reason you cannot attend, please call: XXX-XXXX. We may be reviewing certain print materials so if need be please bring along your glasses.
| Group 1: Age 40+ years, Low/Middle HHI | @5:30 pm | $75 |
|---|---|---|
| Group 2: Age 40+ years, High HHI | @7:30 pm | $75 |
| Group 3: Age 40+ years, Low/Middle HHI | @5:30 pm | $75 |
|---|---|---|
| Group 4: Age 40+ years, High HHI | @7:30 pm | $75 |
| Group 5: Age 40+ years, Low/Middle HHI | @5:30 pm | $75 |
|---|---|---|
| Group 6: Age 40+ years, High HHI | @7:30 pm | $75 |
| Group 7: Age 50-64 years | @1:30 pm | $75 |
|---|---|---|
| Group 8: Age 65+ years (gen pop income range) | @3:30 pm | $75 |
| Group 9: Age 40+ years, Low/Middle HHI | @5:30 pm | $75 |
|---|---|---|
| Group 10: Age 40+ years, High HHI | @7:30 pm | $75 |
| Group 11: Age 40+ years, Low/Middle HHI | @5:30 pm | $75 |
|---|---|---|
| Group 12: Age 40+ years, High HHI | @7:30 pm | $75 |
Bonjour, ici ________________ d’Ipsos-Reid, une firme nationale de recherche d’opinion publique. Nous organisons actuellement des groupes de discussion pour le compte du gouvernement du Canada afin de discuter de certains enjeux importants pour le pays.
EXPLIQUER LES GROUPES DE DISCUSSION. Environ dix personnes prendront part aux groupes de discussion que nous organisons et elles auront toutes été recrutées au hasard comme vous. En guise de remerciement pour leur temps, les participants recevront une somme de 75 $. Mais avant de vous inviter à cette rencontre, je dois vous poser quelques questions pour m’assurer que nous réunissons des personnes de divers horizons. Puis-je vous poser quelques questions?
Votre participation est volontaire. Nous désirons simplement connaître votre opinion. En aucun cas nous ne tenterons de vous vendre quoi que ce soit ni de vous faire changer d’avis. La discussion se déroulera sous forme de « table ronde » animée par un professionnel de la recherche. Toutes les opinions émises demeureront confidentielles et seront regroupées de façon à ce qu’aucun participant ne puisse être identifié individuellement.
1. Est-ce que vous-même ou un membre de votre foyer travaillez dans un des domaines suivants ou en êtes retraité :
SI « OUI » À L’UN OU L’AUTRE, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE
2. Êtes-vous un citoyen canadien d’au moins 40 ans qui réside normalement dans la région de [XX]?
3. Depuis combien d’années habitez-vous [INSÉRER L’ENDROIT]?_______[CONCLURE SI MOINS DE DEUX ANS]
4. Êtes-vous la personne responsable ou conjointement responsable de votre foyer?
5. Avez-vous déjà participé à une entrevue, un sondage ou une discussion de groupe de consommateurs, organisé à l’avance et pour lequel vous avez reçu une somme d’argent?
6. À quand remonte votre participation?_____________________[CONCLURE SI AU COURS DES SIX DERNIERS MOIS]
7. À combien de groupes de discussion de consommateurs avez-vous participé au cours des cinq dernières années?_____________________[CONCLURE SI PLUS DE QUATRE GROUPES]
8. Pouvez-vous me dire à quel groupe d’âge vous appartenez? Avez-vous... [ASSURER UN BON MÉLANGE POUR LES ENDROITS AUTRES QUE LONDON]
9. Y a-t-il des enfants de moins de 18 ans qui habitent avec vous à la maison en ce moment? [RECRUTER UN MÉLANGE]
10. Combien de personnes de plus de 18 ans votre foyer compte-t-il?
11. Pouvez-vous me dire quel est le niveau de scolarité le plus élevé que vous avez terminé? [ASSURER UN BON MÉLANGE DANS CHAQUE GROUPE]
12. Quelle est votre situation d’emploi actuelle?
13. [SI EMPLOYÉ/À LA RETRAITE] Quel emploi occupez-vous à l’heure actuelle/occupiez-vous dans le passé? ____________________(VEUILLEZ PRÉCISER)
14.[SI Q10=UNE, DEMANDER] En 2010, le revenu total de votre foyer a-t-il été supérieur ou inférieur à 75 000 dollars? [ASSURER UN BON MÉLANGE DANS LES GROUPES 1 ET 2 DE LONDON]
15. [SI Q10=PLUSIEURS] En 2010, le revenu total de votre foyer a-t-il été supérieur ou inférieur à 100 000 dollars? [ASSURER UN BON MÉLANGE DANS LES GROUPES 1 ET 2 DE LONDON]
16.[SI Q14 = inférieur à 75 $K ou Q15 = inférieur à 100 $K, DEMANDER] Le revenu total a-t-il été de : S’ASSURER D’OBTENIR UN BON MÉLANGE DANS TOUS LES GROUPES
17. NE PAS DEMANDER – INSCRIRE LE SEXE [ASSURER UN MÉLANGE 50-50]
18. Si vous gagniez un million de dollars, quelles seraient les deux premières choses que vous feriez avec votre argent? (IL FAUT DEUX RÉPONSES POUR ACCEPTER LA PERSONNE. CONCLURE SI LA PERSONNE EST IMPERTINENTE, OFFENSIVE OU A DE LA DIFFICULTÉ À S’EXPRIMER)
CONCLURE SI LE RÉPONDANT DONNE UNE RAISON COMME UN PROBLÈME D’OUÏE OU DE VISION, UN TROUBLE DU LANGAGE ORAL OU ÉCRIT OU S’IL CRAINT DE NE PAS ÊTRE CAPABLE DE COMMUNIQUER DE FAÇON EFFICACE OU SI VOUS LE CRAIGNEZ.Fantastique, vous êtes admissible pour participer à l’un de nos groupes de discussion. Que pourrait-on faire pour faciliter votre participation à la discussion? [Sonder en demandant : Avez-vous des besoins particuliers, p. ex., en matière d’accessibilité?]
La rencontre durera deux heures. Nous réservons ce moment pour discuter avec vous. Si, pour une raison ou une autre, vous ne pouvez pas être présent, veuillez nous en aviser en appelant au : XXX-XXXX. Lors de la rencontre, il est possible que vous ayez des documents à lire. Donc, si vous avez besoin de lunettes, veuillez les apporter.
| Groupe 3 : 40 ans et plus, revenu du foyer faible/moyen | 17 h 30 | 75 $ |
|---|---|---|
| Groupe 4 : 40 ans et plus, revenu du foyer élevé | 19 h 30 | 75 $ |