Final Report
Prepared for the Privy Council Office of Canada
August 2019
Supplier name: Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc.
Contract Number: 35035-182754/001/CY
Contract Value: $249,535.19 (including HST)
Award Date: 2019-03-20
Delivery Date: 2019-08-12
Registration Number: POR 139-18
For more information on this report, please contact the Privy Council Office at:publications@priv.gc.ca
This public opinion research report presents the results of a series of focus groups conducted by Phoenix SPI on behalf of the Privy Council Office. The research study was conducted with Canadians aged 18 and older between June 6 and June 26, 2019. In total, 12 focus groups were conducted in six locations across the country: Surrey, Fredericton, Sorel, Belleville, Edmonton, and Victoria.
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Privy Council Office. For more information on this report, please contact the Privy Council Office at: publications@priv.gc.ca or at:
Privy Council Office
85 Sparks Street
Room 1000
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A3
Telephone: 613-957-5153
Teletypewriter (TTY): 613-957-5741
Fax: 613-957-5043
Catalogue number:
CP22-177/6-2019E-PDF
International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-32218-6
Related publications (registration number: POR 139-18):
Catalogue number CP22-177/6-2019F-PDF (Final report, French)
978-0-660-32219-3
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Prime Minister of Canada, 2019.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Groupes de discussion printemps 2019 – Troisième cycle
The Communications and Consultations Secretariat of the Privy Council Office (PCO) provides advice and support to the Government of Canada, the Clerk of the Privy Council, as well as federal departments and agencies on matters relating to communications and consultations. One tool used by PCO in order to fulfil this mandate is public opinion research. Phoenix Strategic Perspectives (Phoenix SPI) was commissioned by PCO to conduct a series of focus groups to explore the views of Canadians on current events of relevance to the federal government.
The main objective of the focus groups was to explore the perceptions of Canadians on the state of current events, which included their opinions on the environment, steel, pipelines, fisheries, and vaccines. This input was needed because complex issues are often difficult to communicate to the Canadian public in a manner that is easily and clearly understood. The target population for the focus groups was adult Canadians aged 18 and older. By carrying out this research, PCO was able to ensure a better understanding of the views and concerns of the public. This understanding will be used to develop effective communications strategies and products.
Twelve focus groups were conducted with Canadians, with two groups conducted in each of the following locations: Surrey, Fredericton, Sorel, Belleville, Edmonton, and Victoria. The groups in Sorel were conducted in French and the groups in all other locations were conducted in English. In all locations except Surrey groups were segmented by gender (one group with men and one with women). In Surrey, groups were segmented by home ownership (one group with homeowners and one with renters). All groups included a mix of participants by age, employment status, and education. Groups in Surrey also included a mix by gender.
The following additional specifications applied to this research: eleven individuals were recruited by phone for each two-hour group; participants received an honorarium of $100 in appreciation of their time. All groups were held in a facility that allowed observation of the sessions, either behind a one-way mirror, or via closed-circuit TV in a room adjacent to the meeting room where the focus groups took place.
In total, 109 Canadians took part in this research:
| Location | Language | Audience | Number of Participants | Date and Local Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surrey, BC | English | Renters | 7 | June 6; 5:30 pm |
| Surrey, BC | English | Homeowners | 10 | June 6; 7:30 pm |
| Fredericton, NB | English | Male | 9 | June 11; 5:30 pm |
| Fredericton, NB | English | Female | 10 | June 11; 7:30 pm |
| Sorel, QC | French | Female | 10 | June 12; 5:30 pm |
| Sorel, QC | French | Male | 9 | June 12; 7:30 pm |
| Belleville, ON | English | Male | 9 | June 18; 5:30 pm |
| Belleville, ON | English | Female | 9 | June 18; 7:30 pm |
| Edmonton, AB | English | Female | 9 | June 25; 5:30 pm |
| Edmonton, AB | English | Male | 9 | June 25; 7:30 pm |
| Victoria, BC | English | Male | 9 | June 26; 5:30 pm |
| Victoria, BC | English | Female | 9 | June 26; 7:30 pm |
All steps of the project complied with The Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research.
The investigators for this study were Philippe Azzie and Alethea Woods. Philippe moderated the groups in Fredericton and Sorel. Alethea moderated the groups in Surrey, Belleville, Edmonton and Victoria. Both moderators contributed to the final report.
This research was qualitative in nature, not quantitative. Qualitative research is designed to reveal a rich range of opinions and interpretations rather than to measure what percentage of the target population holds a given opinion. As such, the results provide an indication of participants’ views about the issues explored, but they cannot be generalized to the full population of Canadians. Specifically, these results must not be used to estimate the numeric proportion or number of individuals in the population who hold a particular opinion because they are not statistically projectable.
Asked to identify the biggest health care challenge in their community, participants routinely pointed to a shortage of physicians/difficulty finding general practitioners, a shortage of specialists, and long wait times for procedures, operations or treatments. A number of participants also identified issues related to older Canadians/seniors as a big health challenge in their community. This included an aging population, lack of home care services, and lack of retirement homes/wait times for senior’ homes.
Awareness of federal initiatives in health care was relatively limited. A majority of participants said they were unaware or did not know of anything the federal government had done regarding health care over the past few years. Some participants added or specified that health care is predominantly a provincial jurisdiction and/or that the federal government’s role is primarily to provide funding to the provinces.
Participants were given a handout identifying some possible priorities the federal government could address regarding health care. They were asked to rank the items they believe should be the first, second, and third priorities of the government. The item most often identified as the top priority was addressing doctor and nurse shortages, followed at a distance by making it easier for Canadians to eat healthy by making healthy food more affordable and providing all Canadians with fair/equal access to affordable prescription medications.
Drawing their attention to the item, ‘providing all Canadians with fair and equal access to affordable prescription medications’, participants were asked what they thought ‘fair and equal access’ would entail. In the minds of participants, this expression tended to be associated with one of three things: universal/uniform access (i.e. access applies to everyone, everywhere); basic coverage/minimum standards (i.e. a ‘basic minimum’ covered in terms of public funding of prescription medications); and means-tested coverage (i.e. coverage would be determined and provided according to one’s income).
Participants were given a second handout identifying some possible names that could be used for a government strategy to improve access to affordable prescription medications. Two names led the way in terms of preferences: ‘Canada Prescription Plan’ and ‘National Pharmacare Plan’. Both were preferred by similar numbers of participants and each was identified twice as often as their nearest competitor, ‘Universal Prescription Plan’. Reasons for preferring these two names tended to be similar, namely their inclusiveness.
Participants collectively identified a variety of things they have seen, read or heard about the environment lately. Issues most often identified related to changes in the environment and/or their impact, including, for example, global warming proceeding at a faster rate in Canada than elsewhere, rising average temperatures, glaciers melting at a faster rate than before, and an increase in the number of species at risk of extinction.
Awareness of the issue of plastics pollution was widespread. Positive reaction to the government of Canada taking action to ban single use plastics and perceptions that such action is important were also widespread, though support was sometimes qualified by reference to the need to have effective and convenient alternatives in place in order for the ban to work effectively. Impressions of what such a ban would apply to included the following: water bottles, plastic grocery bags, re-sealable zipper storage bags, plastic wrap, disposable coffee cups, packaging wrap/bubble wrap, milk jugs, straws, plastic utensils, and agricultural plastics (e.g. plastic baling twine).
Participants were asked what benefits they see and concerns they might have with the Government of Canada relying more on technology in the future when it comes to monitoring low-risk food facilities. Participants had no difficulty identifying potential benefits to such an approach. Routinely identified benefits included more vigilant staff (because of the constant surveillance), cost-savings, data capture on a continuous basis, and the ability to track over time/long-term analysis, among others. Concerns about such an approach included cameras not being able to capture everything (e.g. smells/odors), unscrupulous operators finding ways to avoid cameras’ field of vision, technical problems with cameras, potential privacy concerns, and redundancy issues, specifically the need for someone to review video footage.
Most participants were divided when asked what impact using technology in this way would have on their level of trust in Canada’s food system. Some said they would have less trust and others said this would have no impact on their level of trust. A small number of participants felt that they would have more trust in Canada’s food safety system if cameras were used in low-risk facilities.
Participants were informed that another potential future scenario could involve the Government of Canada using a third-party to review data captured by cameras installed in low-risk food facilities instead of Government of Canada analysts doing this. Here as well, participants were divided when asked what impact it would have on their level of trust in Canada’s food system. Once again, nearly all participants were divided between ones who said they would have less trust and ones who said it would have no impact on their level of trust.
The contract value was $249,535.19 (including HST).
I hereby certify, as a Senior Officer of Phoenix Strategic Perspectives, that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not contain any reference to electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.
Signed:
Alethea Woods, President
Phoenix Strategic Perspectives
Participants collectively identified a variety of things they had seen, read, or heard about the Government of Canada recently. The things identified most frequently were pipelines/issues related to Canada’s oil fields/oil production and tension between China and Canada over the possible extradition of a Huawei executive. Other issues included the following:
In the course of the discussion of current issues, participants in Surrey, Fredericton, and Belleville were asked if they had heard anything about certain specific issues. These included money laundering in Surrey, veterans’ services in Fredericton, and the new trade agreement signed between Canada, the United States, and Mexico in Belleville.
Virtually all participants in Surrey said that they had heard something about money laundering, a problem they described as the process through which illicit money enters the sphere of legitimate cash flows and thereby loses all trace of its origins. Put more colloquially, the process is one through which money is ‘cleaned’ or ‘washed’ through various transactions, such as buying chips at casinos with illicit money and cashing out those chips for legitimate money, as well as cash real estate or car purchases.
There was widespread agreement that this is a serious problem in B.C., although some participants felt there were more serious problems facing the province. The seriousness of the problem was based on the impression that money laundering affects everything in the lower mainland of B.C., particularly the high cost of housing, which everyone identified as an issue in Surrey. A clear sense of unfairness was also evident – a feeling that it is unfair that money laundering activities adversely affect the lives of everyone by affecting the cost of living in the lower mainland.
There was no real sense or awareness among participants that the federal government has done anything on this issue, beyond looking into it.
Participants were then informed that the Government of Canada announced in its spring budget that $70 million would be spent on anti-money laundering initiatives, including for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to investigate these crimes, especially in the housing sector. Asked if they thought this was too much, enough, or whether the federal government needed to do more, nearly everyone felt that this was not enough. Some felt that the problem is too large for the federal government to do anything about and/or that the federal government should focus on closing ambiguities or inadequacies in existing laws that allow for money laundering.
Most participants in Fredericton said they had not heard anything lately about veterans’ services. The few who recalled anything, or thought they did, referred to reductions in services for veterans, veterans having difficulty accessing programs, and changes to benefits related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Asked if the Government of Canada has done anything on these issues, most said they did not know, while a few thought that new benefits had been introduced. Asked specifically if they had heard of ‘Pensions for Life’, most participants said they had not. Those who had heard of it, or thought they had, could not comment on it except to say that a pension for veterans is a good thing.
Most participants in Belleville said they had heard of the new trade agreement signed between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Opinion varied as to whether the new agreement, overall, is a good trade deal for Canada. Some said they did not know or did not have enough information to offer an opinion. Others said it was probably the best deal that Canada could get. Finally, some were critical of the trade deal, based on the impression that it could adversely affect Canadian dairy farmers.
Asked specifically if they had heard anything about dairy farmers, including compensation for Canadian dairy farmers, most participants in Belleville said they had not. Participants were then informed that the deal gives U.S. dairy farmers about 3.6 percent access to Canada’s dairy markets (slightly more than what had been given to other countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade deal signed earlier in the year), and that the Government of Canada has said it will provide compensation to Canadian dairy farmers who are impacted. Following receipt of this information, participants were asked how important the issue of compensation for Canadian dairy farmers is. In response, there was a widespread impression that this issue is important or very important for dairy farmers in Canada.
When asked more generally how important the Canada-U.S. trading relationship is when compared to all the issues facing Canada right now, there was near unanimity that this relationship is very important.
Health care issues were explored with participants in all locations except Surrey.
Asked to identify the biggest health care challenge in their community, participants routinely pointed to a shortage of physicians/difficulty finding general practitioners/family doctors, a shortage of specialists, and long wait times for procedures, operations or treatments. A number of participants also identified issues related to older Canadians/seniors as a big health challenge in their community. This included an aging population, lack of home care services, and lack of retirement homes/wait times for senior’ homes.
A host of other challenges was identified, including the following:
Some challenges were identified in specific locations. In Sorel, air quality/air pollution and the centralization of health-related services in larger urban centers were identified as big challenges. In Fredericton, lack of transportation for the disabled and lack of affordable housing were identified as health care or health-related challenges. In Edmonton, opioid addiction and overdoses among youth and young adults, as well as neglect of childhood vaccination were identified as big challenges for the city.
Awareness of federal initiatives or action in health care was relatively limited. Indeed, a majority of participants said they were unaware or did not know of anything the federal government had done regarding health care over the past few years. Some participants added or specified that health care is predominantly a provincial jurisdiction and/or that the federal government’s role is primarily to provide funding to the provinces.
That being said, at least a few participants in most groups were able to identify something that the federal government has done over the past few years in health care. These included the following:
Participants were given a handout identifying some possible priorities the federal government could address regarding health care. They were asked to rank the items they believe should be the first, second, and third priorities of the government, as well as identify anything they thought the federal government should not do. The list included the following items:
The item most often identified as the top priority was addressing doctor and nurse shortages. It was ranked first by half or more of the participants in all but one set of groups (those in Edmonton). In terms of the number one priority, addressing doctor and nurse shortages was followed at a distance by making it easier for Canadians to eat healthy by making healthy food more affordable and providing all Canadians with fair/equal access to affordable prescription medications. No more than a few participants identified any of the other items as the top priority for the federal government.
Reasons given to explain the importance of addressing doctor and nurse shortages focussed on the primary function they play in terms of health care. More specifically, participants routinely provided the following reasons to explain the priority that should be accorded to addressing doctor and nurse shortages:
The only item identified with any frequency as something the federal government should not do was ensuring everyone has access to affordable contraception. Reasons why the federal government should not do this were based on two assumptions: that use of contraception is a personal choice, as opposed to a medical need, so the State has no role to play here; and that lack of access to affordable contraception is not a major health issue or problem in Canada. A few participants were unsure whether the federal government should take steps to ensure all children are vaccinated with the exception of those with allergies or medical conditions that prohibit them from receiving a vaccine.
Drawing their attention to the item ‘providing all Canadians with fair and equal access to affordable prescription medications’, participants were asked what they thought ‘fair and equal access’ would entail. In the minds of participants, this expression tended to be associated with one of three things:
Few participants recalled having heard anything in the news about the Government of Canada doing something to ensure access to affordable prescription medications. Those who did referred generally to the proposed national pharmacare program. Most participants identified this as an issue that they think would affect them personally, either now or in the future.
There was widespread awareness of the expression ‘pharmacare’, with most or all participants in every group claiming to have heard of it. Asked what the expression means, participants routinely provided variations on the theme of publicly-funded coverage for medications. These variations emphasized the following things: ‘subsidized medications’, ‘affordable medications’, ‘coverage of prescription medications’, ‘a national system’, ‘socialization of prescription medications’, and ‘universal coverage’.
Participants were given a second handout identifying some possible names that could be used for a government strategy to improve access to affordable prescription medications. They were asked to identify any names that they liked, with a focus on the one name that they think would be the best name for this sort of strategy. The list included the following names:
Preferences varied within and across groups. Indeed, in only one group did a majority pronounce itself one way. Nor did most participants collectively (i.e. across all groups) identify a preference for one name. That being said, two names led the way in terms of preferences: ‘Canada Prescription Plan’ and ‘National Pharmacare Plan’. Both were preferred by similar numbers of participants and each was identified twice as often as their nearest competitor, ‘Universal Prescription Plan’.
Reasons for preferring these two names tended to be similar, namely their inclusiveness (captured by the respective terms ‘Canada’ and ‘National’). It was also noted that the terms ‘Canada’ and ‘National’ are comprehensive without being too general or abstract, something that makes them preferable to the expression ‘universal’.
There was a relatively widespread critical reaction in Anglophone groups to the set of names that include the term ‘drug’ because of negative connotations associated with the term. [3] Beyond that, dislike for any specific names or terms was limited, and related to the following:
Local challenges were explored in Fredericton, Belleville, and Victoria, while in Surrey, participants were asked specifically about housing.
Perceptions of local challenges tended to vary by location.
Participants in Fredericton attributed importance to a variety of local issues, with men and women tending to emphasize different issues. The exception (i.e. the issue identified as important by both women and men) was homelessness. Beyond this, men tended to emphasize lack of jobs and unemployment, low wages, and limited accessibility for people with disabilities. Beyond homelessness, women tended to emphasize health-related challenges, including the need for home care, mental health care, physician shortages, and wait times for medical treatments. Women also emphasised a need for affordable housing, senior housing, and improvements to public transportation as local challenges.
When it came to what their city needs in terms of infrastructure, both men and women pointed to affordable housing and road repairs. Men also pointed to the need for flood plains and a new bridge over the St. John river to facilitate traffic flow. For their part, women also highlighted the need to improve accessibility for people with disabilities.[4]
Thinking back over the past year, both men and women pointed to military assistance with flooding as a federal government action that has had a positive impact on Fredericton. Beyond that the only thing mentioned was the suggestion by a few participants that the federal pollution pricing plan might have a positive impact on their city. Most participants could not think of any federal action that will have a negative impact on their city, though a few pointed to reductions in transfer payments and the price on pollution.
Asked what industry is most important to the local economy, both men and women pointed to technology and post-secondary education institutions. Some women also pointed to the provincial government and tourism, while some men pointed to small business in general and farming. Participants were unsure/uncertain about any federal support for local industry recently. Reference was made to a grant for entrepreneurial activity but there was uncertainty as to whether this was provided by the federal or provincial government.
Participants identified a range of services for Canadians provided by the Government of Canada:
Generally-speaking, participants tended to be neutral or moderately positive when asked how satisfied they are with Government of Canada services. Most of the rest were uncertain, with some noting that they have no standard to compare it to.
Participants in Belleville identified unemployment/the need for jobs as a key local issue, with some emphasizing the need to attract more businesses to the area. Women also tended to emphasize a need for housing/affordable housing, with some adding that people from the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are moving to Belleville, something that is driving up housing prices. For their part, men also drew attention to flooding as an important local challenge, some noting that it is happening more frequently than before, and to the need to revitalize the downtown core of the city.
When it came to what their city needs in terms of infrastructure, both men and women pointed to road repairs/new roads and the sewage system. Women also pointed to public transit issues and high speed rail (using existing tracks), while men mentioned a need for homeless shelters and mixed-income housing developments.
Thinking back over the past year, both men and women pointed to the legalization of cannabis as federal government action that has had a positive impact on Belleville. Some suggested that it has freed up the police force to focus on different local issues, while others suggested that it has created spin-off industries and businesses. Beyond that, participants could not think of any recent federal action that has had a positive impact on their city. Most participants could not think of any federal action that will have a negative impact on their city, though a few pointed to the potential for negative effects of legalizing cannabis.
Asked what industry is the most important to the local economy, both men and women pointed to manufacturing and some women also pointed to tourism. Most participants felt that the federal government has been somewhat supportive of manufacturing in the area, though a few pointed to the need to focus more on artificial intelligence methods.
Participants identified a relatively narrow range of services for Canadians provided by the Government of Canada:
Asked how satisfied they are with government of Canada services, participants generally responded favourably.
Participants in Victoria identified housing/affordable housing and transportation as key local issues. One consequence seen to result from the lack of affordable housing was a labour shortage because people are unable to find suitable housing on the wages they earn working in the city. Measures proposed to deal with this issue included the provincial government providing incentives to renters, limiting property speculation, and re-zoning unused public property. Women also tended to emphasize lack of infrastructure/aging infrastructure, lack of resources for mental health, and wildlife encroachment as issues. Some men also referenced municipal political issues.
When it came to what their city needs in terms of infrastructure, participants pointed to more roads and/or light rail transit. Women also mentioned schools, hospitals, public transit as well as more park and ride facilities. Men also emphasized the need for a new bridge, passenger ferries, and/or high-speed rail to connect the West Shore communities to Victoria. It was noted by the men that an alternative to the Malahat Highway is needed. The Malahat is the main commuter route between Victoria and the rest of the Vancouver Island, and when there is an accident or weather that shuts down this highway, residents cannot access Victoria or must take a lengthy detour to do so. There was widespread agreement that sewage and sewage treatment plants is a local problem. By contrast, modernizing the Royal B.C. museum was not seen as a major local issue. No-one felt that this should be a priority.
Thinking back over the past year, women pointed to the legalization of cannabis as federal government action that has had a positive impact on Victoria. Beyond that, women could not think of any recent federal action that has had a positive impact on their city. Federal assistance for first- time homebuyers was described as a good measure in general, but not one that will help people in Victoria. For their part, men pointed to the following federal government actions as having had a positive impact on Victoria: the Mackenzie Interchange project, new lighthouses and Coast Guard search and rescue stations, shipbuilding, and continuing support for health care services. Most participants could not think of any federal action that will have a negative impact on their city, though a few women suggested that legalizing cannabis can/has had negative effects.
Asked what industry is the most important to the local economy, both men and women pointed to tourism. Women also identified technology, education, and government. For their part, men did not think it was the role of the federal government to support local industry (i.e. this was the responsibility of local and provincial governments).
Participants identified various services for Canadians provided by the Government of Canada:
Asked how satisfied they are with government of Canada services, participants generally responded favourably.
Homeowners’ main concerns when it comes to housing in their city included affordability, a perceived increase in the number of single-family homes with secondary rental suites (e.g. a basement or in-law suite)[5], a perceived lack of regulations for developers, and infrastructure not keeping up with new housing developments. Renters’ main concern was affordability. Homeowners felt that it is important to be able to own a home if one wants to, and most renters said they would want to own a home if they could.
Most renters said they would be comfortable taking on a mortgage now because they already pay monthly rent, which is not very different from having a mortgage. Those who would not be comfortable taking on a mortgage explained that they are concerned about the volatility of the housing market and whether their purchase would be worth it in the long run (i.e. would the home maintain its value over time).
All homeowners and most renters had heard of the Government of Canada’s First-Time Home Buyers Incentive. The following description of the incentive was read to participants:
The Government of Canada created the First Time Home Buyers Incentive. Under this plan, you can get an interest-free loan from CMHC to cover 5% of the cost of your first home – or 10% if it’s a new build, so as to encourage developers to build more homes. This means First-Time Buyers would not need as large of a mortgage, reducing their payments. For example, on a $500,000 home, this could drop your monthly mortgage payments by over $225 a month. When you sold your house, CMHC would collect 5% of the sale price of the house back, as repayment for this loan.
Reaction to the incentive was similar among renters and homeowners. There was a relatively widespread impression that the premise is good, but that houses are too expensive in the lower mainland for this to be very helpful. It was suggested that the incentive might be good for a young person buying a condominium, but that the threshold is too low for purchasing a single-family detached house.
Most participants had also heard of the mortgage stress test, which was described to participants as follows:
The Government of Canada introduced a stress test in late 2017 that is applied to all new insured mortgages – including those where the buyer has more than 20% for a down payment. The stress test is aimed at assuring the lender that the home buyer could still afford the mortgage if interest rates were to rise. The home buyer would need to qualify for a loan at the negotiated rate in the mortgage contract, but also at the Bank of Canada’s five-year fixed posted mortgage rate, which is an average of the posted rates of the big six banks in Canada.
Reaction to the test among renters was that the premise is good (i.e. it will help to prevent a housing crash similar to what occurred in the U.S.), but that the effect is it prevents a proportion of potential homebuyers from entering the housing market (when previously, this was possible). Homeowners tended to be more critical, suggesting that the test is designed primarily to protect banks from homeowners defaulting on their mortgage when/if interest rates go up as opposed to helping homeowners minimize the financial risks associated with homeownership.
Participants in Surrey, Victoria, and Edmonton collectively identified a variety of things they have seen, read or heard about the environment lately. Issues most often identified related to changes in the environment and/or their impact, including the following:
The following issues were also identified:
Issues related specifically to the Government of Canada and the environment included the following, most of which were identified in Edmonton:
Participants in Fredericton, Sorel, and Belleville identified the following as the biggest environmental challenges facing Canada today:
When it came to local environmental concerns that the federal government should be paying attention to, the following issues were raised in these locations:
Participants in these same locations most often identified banning single-use plastics and pollution pricing when asked about anything the Government of Canada is doing in regard to the environment. Other things identified included controlling/regulating fishing, reviewing the construction/expansion of pipelines, monitoring climate change in the arctic, and monitoring the effects of climate change on whales.
Awareness of the issue of plastics pollution was widespread.[6] Positive reaction to the government of Canada taking action to ban single use plastics and perceptions that such action is important were also widespread, though support was sometimes qualified by reference to the need to have effective and convenient alternatives in place in order for the ban to work effectively.
Impressions of what such a ban would apply to included the following: water bottles, plastic grocery bags, re-sealable zipper storage bags, plastic wrap, disposable coffee cups, packaging wrap/bubble wrap, milk jugs, straws, plastic utensils, and agricultural plastics (e.g. baling twine). Participants in Surrey and Victoria were asked specifically if certain types of single use plastics should be prioritized in terms of being banned or not be banned.[7] Items from this list identified as priorities in terms of being banned included straws, stir sticks, and plastic bottles. Items not on the list but also identified as priorities in terms of banning included yogurt containers and any unnecessary plastic packaging (unspecified). A few participants felt that straws should not be banned but no other items were identified as ones that should be exempted from a ban.
Participants identified potential positives and negatives to banning single-use plastics. Perceived benefits included the following:
Perceived drawbacks or negatives included the following:
Participants in Fredericton, Sorel, and Belleville reacted positively to the idea of the federal government introducing legislation that would make companies responsible for cleaning up the environmental damage caused by their disposal of plastic products. There was a virtual consensus in favour of such a measure and near unanimity that it was important, with a few adding that such a measure was long overdue.
Perceived benefits of such a measure included less pollution/waste, potential investment in new technologies to manage plastics pollution or find alternatives to plastics, the possibility of new jobs/employment, potentially enhancing/boosting tourism in communities where plastics pollution is an issue, and the likelihood that such a measure would reduce negative health effects associated with plastics pollution.
Perceived drawback or disadvantages included the possibility that some companies would try to circumvent the legislation, seek preferential treatment/exemptions, or find ways to limit their responsibility, the possibility that costs would be passed on to consumers, the possibility that such legislation would be more burdensome for smaller companies, and the possibility that some companies might close down operations or move their operations to countries with no such legislation.
Participants in these locations also reacted positively to the idea of the Government of Canada launching a strategy to reduce the use of plastics by government departments and agencies. Once again, there was a virtual consensus in favour of such a measure and near unanimity that it was important because it would show that the government takes the issue seriously and is leading by way of example.
Most participants in Victoria said they had heard about the Ocean Protection Plan. While many were aware of it by name only, some participants had heard that it is a movement for environmental clean-up, or specifically, a movement in which young people volunteer to clean up beaches.
Participants in Victoria and Edmonton were asked about the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Most participants in each group said they had heard about the agreement. Descriptions of the agreement included variations on the notion that it is an agreement, coalition, or effort between countries to work together to deal with climate change/pollution by reducing carbon emissions. Other perceptions of it included the following:
There was some uncertainty about whether certain countries were or were not part of the agreement (e.g. the United States, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Australia), and no one was aware of Canada’s own target under the agreement (though the target was described as aggressive or ambitious).
After being informed that, under the Paris Agreement, Canada has committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, participants were asked if they thought Canada would meet its target. In response, most participants said they were doubtful that Canada would reach this target, though some felt it was possible. Participants collectively identified a variety of factors that could impact whether or not Canada meets this target. They included the following:
Although most participants are doubtful that Canada will meet its target under the Paris Agreement, most (a majority in all groups) nonetheless think it is important for Canada to meet the target or at least try to do so. Reasons why this is considered important included the following:
Participants who felt it was not important for Canada to meet its targets suggested that the impact of Canada meeting its target will be offset by other countries not doing their part, and that the goal for Canada is unrealistic/too ambitious because it ignores the realities of Canada’s climate.
Asked explicitly if they had heard about the Government of Canada’s plan to put a price on pollution, most participants in Edmonton said they had. Things participants had heard included the following:
Participants in Edmonton were provided the following explanation of the Government of Canada’s carbon pricing plan and how it applies to Alberta:
In 2016 the Government of Canada announced a plan to put a price on pollution across the country, instructing each province to come up with their own plans before the end of 2018. The federal government announced that they will apply a price on pollution in the four provinces that still do not have a system in place: Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick.
A few weeks ago, Alberta repealed its carbon level, meaning that it now only partially meets federal requirements. Thus, the federal government has announced that it will apply a price on pollution in Alberta as of January 1, 2020.
Under this system, what businesses pay will be based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce. All revenue collected in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Alberta will stay in each of these provinces – 90% will be given directly to residents in the form of an incentive. In Alberta for example, the average household will receive about $880 in early 2020. 10% will go to small businesses, hospitals, and schools.
Participants were then asked what they liked and disliked about this proposed system. Things they liked included the following:
Things they disliked or questioned included the following:
Participants in Edmonton were asked what impact they thought the federal pollution pricing system will have on the environment, on the economy, and on themselves personally. When it comes to the environment, there were mixed views on the impact of the system. Some felt the impact would be big, but that it would take time and would depend on the steady implementation and enforcement of the system. Some felt that the impact globally would be small, but that Canada needs to be seen as a leader in fighting climate change. Finally, some felt the impact would be small or that there would be no impact, based on the impression that many people will still need to buy things like gas, whatever the price, and because industry will find a way to work around the system.
Views on economic impacts also tended to be mixed. Some felt it could have a positive impact if done properly, but that there would almost inevitably be gains and losses in terms of economic effects. Specifically, it was suggested that there could be job losses and that some companies could be negatively impacted (primarily financially), but that other companies and new employment opportunities would emerge. It was also suggested that farmers would be adversely affected, but that they would gradually adapt over time. Some were of the opinion that the overall effect on the economy would be limited, though it might spur technological developments. It was also observed that partnerships between industry and government would help to facilitate the growth of new industries.
When asked what impact this approach will have on them personally, participants tended to think that it would have a limited impact. There was an impression that the approach would affect household budgets and spending (e.g. the price of food will increase), increase taxes, and that some personal habits might change, but beyond this there was no sense that their personal lives would be impacted in a serious way.
Participants were asked what they know about the environmental assessment process in Canada. While a few had heard about it, associating it generally with pipeline construction, no one claimed to know anything about the process itself, including any changes to these rules or processes.
Participants were asked what they thought of the environmental process after being given the following description of it:
Environmental assessment is the process where the environmental impact of major projects is studied, and then a decision is made to either approve or reject them. The Government of Canada indicated it would review environmental and regulatory processes to address concerns about previous reforms. The government put in place interim principles for project reviews in January 2016 and has introduced legislation that would put in new rules to protect Canada’s environment and grow the economy.
Feedback from participants was relatively limited, some noting or re-iterating that they know little about the process. Given their limited knowledge, participants could not comment in a meaningful way on the current assessment process and whether or not new rules are needed. At the same time, it was suggested that any process had to be clear and transparent, fair or balanced in terms of taking into account both economic and environmental considerations, and efficient in the sense that decisions needed to be taken in a timely fashion.
Asked whether they had heard about the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project, all participants in Victoria and Edmonton indicated that they had. Things mentioned about the project included that the pipeline is owned/was purchased by the federal government, that the main problem or issue about the expansion was the dispute between the governments of Alberta and B.C. (the former supporting expansion and the latter opposing it), that the pipeline expansion will balance environmental and economic concerns, that the goal of the expansion is to get more Alberta oil to markets, that Indigenous groups were not properly consulted, that the expansion is due to the fact that Alberta companies do not want to pay to use existing pipelines (mentioned in Victoria), and that there are concerns that the expansion will result in more tanker traffic on the B.C. coast (mentioned in Victoria).
Other things mentioned by participants included judgments or assessments of the issue, mostly by participants in Edmonton. This included the impression that the expansion has come at a huge cost, that the process has been frustrating, that there is too much pandering to environmental groups, that the expansion has fostered divisiveness in the country, and that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil.
All participants in Victoria and Edmonton were aware the Government of Canada currently owns the TMX. When asked why the federal government purchased the TMX, participants tended to suggest that it was necessary for the government to do so. Explanations as to why it was necessary included the following:
In addition to arguments based on necessity, it was suggested that the federal government purchased the pipeline in order to ensure that it had full control over the project (including revenues) and could more effectively deal with opposition to the project in B.C.
Feelings about the government’s decision to purchase the pipeline varied by location, with participants in Edmonton tending to support the decision and participants in Victoria tending to be critical of it. In Edmonton, support for the decision tended to be based on its perceived necessity (see reasons above) but also on the belief that the project could be profitable. In Victoria, criticism of the decision was based on lack of public consultation prior to the purchase, on the impression that government does not have the expertise needed to own and operate a pipeline, and on the impression that this is outside government purview (i.e. these projects should be left to the private sector). At the same time, it was also noted in Victoria that there are precedents for government intervention in various sectors when the matter concerns issues of national interest.
There was widespread impression that the TMX project has been approved but is still not moving forward in any meaningful way. Mention was also made of court challenges and Indigenous groups possibly becoming part owners of the pipeline.
Participants were asked how they felt about the TMX project, on balance, after being told the following:
Last week the Government of Canada announced that it has approved TMX and that all the money the federal government earns from this project will be invested in Canada’s clean energy transition.
In response, most participants said they would like to see the TMX expansion go ahead, although some described it as a bitter and divisive process and others noted their support was conditional on appropriate safeguards being in place to protect the environment. Reasons offered to explain why they want the TMX expansion to go ahead included the following: the need to capitalize on our natural resources, Alberta deserves to get better prices for its oil, to help ensure resource independence vis-à-vis the U.S., environmental effects/impacts will be taken into consideration, and the economic benefits will reverberate in other sectors of the economy.
While virtually everyone expects or in some cases, hope, the TMX expansion project will go ahead, there was no real sense of when this will happen, with some noting that there are still no actual timelines in place and that further delays could hamper the project. It was also noted that strong leadership and maintaining good relations with Indigenous peoples are required in order to ensure that the project does go ahead now that it has been approved.
While there was widespread support for the idea of using the revenue from TMX to fund investments in renewable energy, there were also questions about what this actually means and what concrete measures in this direction would actually look like. In short, there was a sense that this is an appealing idea but participants wanted to see results from these kinds of investments before endorsing fully. More broadly, participants tended to think that it was possible to fight climate change while still approving pipelines, and that one did not have to choose one or the other. That said, a few specified that while this balance could be maintained to a certain extent, the focus should shift towards alternative sources of energy.
Most participants in Edmonton felt that the Government of Canada has not been supportive enough of the oil and gas sector. In Victoria, participants were unsure how to assess federal government support.
Issues in this section were explored with participants in Surrey, Fredericton, Sorel, and Belleville.
Most groups included a mix of smokers (daily and/or occasional smokers) and non-smokers. The exceptions were the group of women in Fredericton and homeowners in Surrey, all of whom were non-smokers. Among those who are non-smokers, many are former smokers. At least a few participants in most groups said they have tried vaping.
Those who have tried vaping said they did so either out of curiosity, typically in a social setting (e.g. with friends), in order to try to quit smoking, or in order to try to reduce stress. A few added that they believe vaping is expensive and/or more expensive than smoking cigarettes. Those who have not tried vaping identified the following as things they feel they know or have heard about it:
Perceived benefits or potential benefits of vaping included the following:
Some said they could think of no benefits to vaping, while some others said they did not know or did not know enough about vaping to offer an opinion.
The most commonly identified harm or potential harm associated with vaping was lack of knowledge/studies about its possible long-term health effects. Other harms associated with vaping included the impression that it was a gateway/pathway to smoking for youth, the danger posed by exploding devices, and the possibility of becoming addicted to it.
Participants tended to express uncertainty when asked about the health effects of vaping, and specifically the harmfulness of vaping compared to smoking tobacco cigarettes. This uncertainty was based on the previously mentioned widespread impression that there is a lack of knowledge/studies about the long-term health effects of vaping. Having said that, the uncertainty in question was often related to how harmful vaping is, not to whether vaping is harmful at all. Indeed, there was a relatively widespread impression that vaping is probably not good for one’s health, even though it is as yet unclear what the health impacts are, and even though it might not be as bad as smoking. Participants made the following points in this regard:
Some participants were more categorical, suggesting that vaping is harmful (pointing to reports that vaping can cause conditions such as popcorn lung and water on the lungs) and/or dangerous (pointing to reports of malfunctioning of devices resulting in explosions).
Finally, some participants did suggest that in their opinion vaping is less harmful than smoking, but it was also observed that this does not mean that vaping is not harmful simply because it is less harmful than smoking.
Most participants in these locations interact with people who smoke. This includes friends, relatives, and colleagues, and the frequency of interaction ranges from rarely, to occasionally, to frequently (e.g. daily). Asked how they feel when people in their social circle smoke in their presence, most said they do not like it, with some going so far as to say they hate it. Other feelings elicited by people in their social circle smoking in their presence included disappointment, and a ‘live and let live’ attitude.
Reasons for critical or negative reactions to people smoking in their presence included the following: the smell of cigarettes, the odor it leaves in their clothes/feeling dirty, not wanting to be exposed to second-hand smoke/health concerns, difficulty breathing, allergies being triggered, the temptation to smoke themselves, not wanting their children exposed to smoking/smokers, and difficulty understanding how people can continue smoking given the dangers it poses to health. Participants who expressed a ‘live and let live’ attitude towards those smoking in their presence sometimes added that people in their circle who smoke do so outdoors (i.e. not in proximity to them in an enclosed space).
There was near unanimity among participants that smoking is a big health issue today. Reasons for this opinion included the following:
Some participants added that smoking is an important issue to them personally, mainly because of personal health issues/concerns (e.g. asthma, allergies, effects of second-hand smoke) and/or because of the impact it has on relatives/loved ones (e.g. cancer).
While there was near unanimity that smoking is a big health issue today, there were differences of opinion about whether the health risks to Canadians generally that is posed by tobacco has increased, decreased or remained about the same over the past five years. Participants tended to be divided between those who think the risk has decreased and those who think it is about the same.
Reasons for the impression that the health risk has decreased tended to be variations on the assumption that the proportion of smokers has been decreasing over time. This decrease was ascribed to various factors which included the following:
Participants who think the risk posed by smoking is about the same as it was 5 years ago provided the following reasons to explain their point of view:
A few participants think the think the health risk posed by smoking may have increased compared to five years ago. Two reasons were given to explain why. One was the impression that the effects of smoking on health can take years to manifest themselves, the result being that more people may now be suffering from the effects of smoking than was the case five years ago. The other was the impression that e-cigarettes (viewed as a form of smoking) that contain nicotine can deliver higher concentrations of nicotine than regular cigarettes.
Participants were asked for their impressions of the opinion that smoking regulations have gone too far, and that those who smoke have no rights at all. The widespread impression among participants was that this was not the case. That being said, there was also a widespread impression that smoking is not (or no longer) socially acceptable. Reasons for this impression included the social censure that smokers often encounter (e.g. negative perceptions in general, ‘dirty looks’, critical comments), legislation limiting where smokers can smoke, and the impression that because smoking is harmful, non-smokers have a right to be protected from its effects. Participants who think it is socially acceptable to smoke, primarily men in Sorel, were of the opinion that there is a ‘live and let live’ attitude that still prevails when it comes to smoking and that smokers and non-smokers have reached a modus vivendi.
Most participants said they have a ‘live and let live’ attitude when it comes to smokers, some adding that people have a right to take decisions regarding their own lives as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. In some instances, participants said their feelings towards smokers vary by age. Specifically, some said they feel disappointment when they see younger people smoking or think that it is stupid for young people to start smoking given all that is known about the health effects of smoking. A few participants said they feel bad for smokers because smokers are often among the more vulnerable members of society (e.g. lower income, less formal education). Participants said their impressions about smokers have not changed considerably in the last 5-10 years. One participant said his impression of smokers changed over this period of time, specifying that after graduating from high school he no longer considered smoking ‘cool’.
Reaction to the statement that that those who smoke could quit if they really wanted to elicited nuanced reactions. There was a widespread impression that people have to really want to quit smoking in order to be successful. In other words, the decision to quit has to be a personal decision and the person in question has to be motivated. At the same time there was also widespread recognition that quitting is not as easy as simply taking the decision to do so, and that various factors come into play. For example, it was observed that smoking is an addiction, that many people need help to break the addiction (e.g. moral support, cessation resources), and that it may take numerous quit attempts before someone is successful.
Most participants overestimated the percentage of the Canadian population aged 15 and older that smokes today (either daily or occasionally). [8] Participants were then read the following statement and asked for their reaction:
Some people say that smoking rates in Canada are decreasing and public focus should now be on other issues such as other health care issues, climate change or balancing the budget. Others say that there are still 4.6 million smokers in Canada and so tobacco should continue to be a high priority. From your own point of view, should tobacco continue to be a high government priority?
Participants were divided in their opinions, though most felt that the public focus should now be on other issues. Reasons given included the following:
Those who think tobacco should continue to be a high priority observed the following:
Participants were informed that Canada’s Tobacco Strategy has committed to reducing tobacco use to 5 percent by 2035 and asked how the Government of Canada/Health Canada could best help Canadians quit using tobacco products, to meet this objective. The most frequently made suggestion in this regard was to subsidize/reduce the cost of smoking cessation resources/strategies (e.g. prescription medications). Other suggestions included the following:
Some participants in Belleville suggested addressing laws that facilitate access to cigarettes in certain circumstances, such as the selling of cigarettes on reserves.
Issues in this section were explored with participants in Surrey, Fredericton, Sorel, and Belleville.
Participants were provided the following contextual information about Canada’s food safety system:
As part of Canada’s food safety system, Government of Canada inspectors visit food facilities, such as food processing plants, to ensure compliance with Canada’s federal food safety laws. How frequently a food facility is inspected is based on food safety risks. Risk is determined based on a number of factors, including past compliance and the type of facility (for example, plants that produce meat products are automatically considered high risk). In essence, low-risk food facilities are inspected less often than high risk ones.
Based on advances in computers and other technology, it may be possible in the future for the Government of Canada to rely more on technology when it comes to low-risk food facilities. For example, cameras could be installed at a low-risk facility, with computer programs using all of the footage captured by the cameras to determine if the facility is compliant. If the low-risk facility is compliant, no on-site visit by an inspector would occur. If the footage indicated that there is reason for concern, an inspector would visit the facility.
Participants were then asked what benefits they see and concerns they might have with such an approach to food inspection. Participants had no difficulty identifying potential benefits to such an approach. Routinely identified benefits included the following:
It was also suggested that installing cameras would be beneficial in high-risk facilities as well.
Routinely identified concerns about such an approach included the following:
In addition to these routinely identified concerns the following concerns were also voiced:
Participants were divided when asked what impact it would have on their level of trust in Canada’s food system if the government were to use such an approach. Many said they would have less trust, a smaller number said it would have no impact on their level of trust, and a few felt that they would have more trust in Canada’s food safety system if cameras were used in low-risk facilities. More women than men said they would have less trust in Canada’s food system if the government were to use such an approach./
Participants were informed that another potential future scenario would involve the Government of Canada using a third party to review data captured by cameras installed in low-risk food facilities instead of Government of Canada analysts doing this. Participants were divided when asked about the benefits of using a third party to analyse the data. A number of participants, primarily males in Fredericton and females in Sorel, said they could think of no benefits in this scenario.
On the other hand, a number of participants identified benefits, which included objectivity/impartial analysis, independent expertise, job creation opportunities, and potential cost savings. Concerns about using a third party to review data included the following: the potential for facilities to influence (illegally) the review process, the potential for preferential treatment by government in awarding contracts/selecting third parties, difficulty ensuring standards/accountability as a result of increasing the number of actors involved, and competition between service providers driving them to cut/lower the wages of their analysts.
Here as well, participants were divided when asked what impact it would have on their level of trust in Canada’s food system if the government were to use a third party to analyze the data. Once again, nearly all participants were divided between ones who said they would have less trust (a view most commonly held in both Sorel groups, as well as the men’s group in Fredericton) and ones who said it would have no impact on their level of trust.
Issues in this section were explored with participants in Surrey and Sorel.
With one exception, most participants in Surrey and Sorel said they have not seen, read, or heard anything about seatbelts on school buses. The exception was in Sorel, where most women said they had heard about the issue, specifically that it was an important issue, that installing seatbelts would be costly, and that it would be difficult to ensure that children buckled up if seatbelts were installed. A few male participants in Sorel recalled hearing about the issue in a general way, noting that the issue is being debated and that there is no agreement about it. In Surrey, the reference to buses elicited recall of the tragic Humboldt Broncos bus crash in 2018, but no one recalled anything specifically about seatbelts on school buses.
Asked which level of government is responsible for regulations related to seatbelts on school buses, most participants in Sorel said they thought it was the provincial level. In Surrey, views were more mixed: many thought the federal government was responsible, some thought it was a provincial responsibility, and some thought responsibility was shared between both levels of government.
Most participants said they were in favour of outfitting school buses with seatbelts, and those who were not in favour were undecided rather than opposed to the idea. Some participants who were undecided added that the issue should be studied seriously. There was near unanimity that buses are safer with seatbelts than without, with just a few unsure as to whether this was true or not.
In the course of this discussion participants pointed to things that would need to be considered including the cost of installing seatbelts, who should pay the costs, what kind of seatbelts should be installed (i.e. shoulder straps or lap belts), and the issue of ensuring that children wear them. Most participants were uncertain or said they did not know when asked if this is a good use of funds given other costs facing schools. Some suggested that this is something that needs to be studied, and some pointed to other important issues that could be funded such as ensuring that kids have healthy food at school.
On the assumption that the decision is made to add seatbelts to school buses, there was near unanimity that the seatbelt rule should apply to all school buses (i.e. it should not depend on what a school bus is used for), but there were differences of opinion as to whether seatbelts should apply only to new buses or whether existing school buses should be retrofitted as well. Most participants favoured applying the rule to existing buses as well, but women in Sorel were unanimously in favour of limiting the installation to new buses. Perceived benefits of only adding seatbelts to new buses included the following:
There was virtual unanimity that there was a difference in cost between retrofitting all existing buses and only adding seatbelts to new buses (the assumption being that it would be more expensive to retrofit all existing buses). Moreover, there was a widespread impression that the difference in cost would be large, with some participants suggesting that the cost of retrofits would be as much as double the cost of outfitting new buses.
Hello/Bonjour, my name is [INSERT]. Would you prefer to continue in English or French? / Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais?
I’m calling from CRC Research, a Canadian research firm. We’re organizing a series of discussion groups on behalf of the Government of Canada to explore 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.
[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.Désirez-vous participer à la discussion en français?». IF YES, CONTINUE. IF NO, TERMINATE AND SAY: « 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. Would you be willing to participate in the discussion in English? IF YES, CONTINUE. IF NO, TERMINATE AND SAY: We thank you for your interest.]
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 eight 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
1. Do you, or any member of your household or immediate family, work in any of the following fields? READ LIST
2. Record gender by observation. 50/50 SPLIT IN SURREY. GROUPS TO BE SEGMENTED BY GENDER EVERYWHERE ELSE.
3. Are you a Canadian citizen at least 18 years old who normally resides in the [INSERT CITY] area?
3b. Is there someone else in the household who is at least 18 years of age?
4. How long have you lived in [INSERT CITY]?
5. We have been asked to speak to participants from all different ages. May I have your age please? RECORD AND CLASSIFY
[ASK Q6. ONLY IN SURREY]
6. Which of the following best describes your housing arrangement? {READ LIST}
7. Including yourself, how many people 18 years of age and over are there in your household?
IF ONLY ONE PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD AT Q7, ASK:
8. Which of the following categories best corresponds to your total personal annual income, before taxes, for 2018? GET MIX
IF A MULTIPLE PERSON HOUSEHOLD AT Q7, ASK:
9. Which of the following categories best corresponds to the total annual income, before taxes, of all members of your household, for 2018? GET MIX
ASK ALL
10. Which of the following best describes your employment situation? GET MIX
11. What is your current occupation? RECORD:
12. Could you please tell me what is the last level of education that you completed? GET MIX
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...
14. Have you ever attended a discussion group on any topic that was arranged in advance and for which you received money for your participation?
15. When did you last attend one of these discussion groups?
16. How many discussion groups have you attended in the past 5 years?
17. The discussion group will be audio/video-recorded. These recordings are used to help with analyzing the findings and writing the report. The results from the discussions will be grouped together in the research report, which means that individuals will not be identified in anyway. Neither your name nor your specific comments will appear in the research report. Is this acceptable?
18. There may be some people from the Government of Canada who have been involved in this project observing the session. They will not take part in the discussion and they will not know your full name, only your first name. Is this acceptable?
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 led by a researcher from the national public opinion research firm, Phoenix SPI. The group will take place on [DAY OF WEEK], [DATE], at [TIME]. It will last two hours. People who attend will receive $100 to thank them for their time. Would you be willing to attend?
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 [INSERT FACILITY]. I would like to remind you that the group is at [TIME] on [DATE]. 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.
As I mentioned, the session will be audio/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 Phoenix SPI research team and will not be shared with others. 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?
INTRODUCTION (10 minutes)
GC NEWS (5 minutes)
MONEY LAUNDERING (5 minutes) ASK IN SURREY
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
In the Government of Canada’s budget this spring, they announced $70 million to spend on anti-money laundering initiatives, including for the CRA and RCMP to investigate these crimes, especially in the housing sector.
VETERANS SERVICES (5 minutes)ASK IN FREDERICTON
ENVIRONMENT (15 minutes; 20 minutes in Victoria) ASK IN SURREY AND VICTORIA
ASK IN VICTORIA
Now, moving away from single use plastics…
PARIS AGREEMENT (5 minutes) ASK IN VICTORIA AND EDMONTON
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
Under the Paris Agreement, Canada has committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.PRICE ON POLLUTION (30 minutes) ASK IN EDMONTON
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
In 2016 the Government of Canada announced a plan to put a price on pollution across the country, instructing each province to come up with their own plans before the end of 2018.
The federal government has announced that they will apply a price on pollution in the four provinces that still do not have a system in place: Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick.
READ FOR EDMONTON
A few weeks ago, Alberta repealed its carbon level, meaning that it now only partially meets federal requirements. Thus, the federal government has announced that it will apply a price on pollution in Alberta as of January 1, 2020.
Under this system, what businesses pay will be based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce. All revenue collected in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Alberta will stay in each of these provinces – 90% will be given directly to residents in the form of an incentive. In Alberta for example, the average household will receive about $880 in early 2020. 10% will go to small businesses, hospitals, and schools.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (10 minutes) ASK IN EDMONTON
CLARIFY AS NEEDED:
Environmental assessment is the process where the environmental impact of major projects is studied, and then a decision is made to either approve or reject them. The Government of Canada indicated it would review environmental and regulatory processes to address concerns about previous reforms. The government put in place interim principles for project reviews in January 2016 and has introduced legislation that would put in new rules to protect Canada’s environment and grow the economy.
PIPELINES (20 minutes) ASK IN VICTORIA AND EDMONTON
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
Last week the Government of Canada announced that it has approved TMX and that all the money the federal government earns from this project will be invested in Canada’s clean energy transition.
CUSMA (5 minutes) ASK IN BELLEVILLE
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
The deal gives US dairy farmers about 3.6% access to Canada’s dairy markets, which is slightly more than what had been giving to other countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade deal signed earlier this year. The Government of Canada has said it will provide compensation to Canadian dairy farmers who are impacted.
ENVIRONMENT (15 minutes) ASK IN FREDERICTON, SOREL, BELLEVILLE
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
The Government of Canada recently announced that it wants to ban single-use plastic items as early as 2021 in order to reduce plastic pollution.
HEALTH CARE (25 minutes) ASK IN FREDERICTON, SOREL, BELLEVILLE, EDMONTON, VICTORIA
HANDOUT
The following is a list of possible priorities the federal government could address regarding health care. I want you to put the numbers 1, 2 and 3 beside the items that you think should be the first, second and third priority of the government out of everything on the list. If there are any items that you think the federal government should not do, put an ‘x’ beside those items.
HANDOUT
The following are a list of names that could be used for a government strategy to improve access to affordable prescription medications. I want you to put a check mark beside any names that you like, and circle the one name that you think would be the best name for this sort of strategy:
LOCAL CHALLENGES (15 minutes; 20 minutes in Victoria) ASK IN FREDERICTON, BELLEVILLE AND VICTORIA
ASK IN VICTORIA ONLY
SEATBELTS ON SCHOOL BUSES (20 minutes) ASK IN SURREY AND SOREL
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
Recently, the Government of Canada announced the creation of a task force to look into the possibility of outfitting school buses with seatbelts.
Let’s say the decision is made to add seatbelts to school buses…
HOUSING (20 minutes) ASK IN SURREY
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
The Government of Canada created the First Time Home Buyers Incentive. Under this plan, you can get an interest-free loan from CMHC to cover 5% of the cost of your first home – or 10% if it’s a new build, so as to encourage developers to build more homes. This means First-Time Buyers would not need as large of a mortgage, reducing their payments. For example, on a $500,000 home, this could drop your monthly mortgage payments by over $225 a month. When you sold your house, CMHC would collect 5% of the sale price of the house back, as repayment for this loan.
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
The Government of Canada introduced a stress test in late 2017 that is applied to all new insured mortgages – including those where the buyer has more than 20% for a down payment. The stress test is aimed at assuring the lender that the home buyer could still afford the mortgage if interest rates were to rise. The home buyer would need to qualify for a loan at the negotiated rate in the mortgage contract, but also at the Bank of Canada’s five-year fixed posted mortgage rate, which is an average of the posted rates of the big six banks in Canada.
VAPING/SMOKING (25 minutes) ASK IN SURREY, FREDERICTON, SOREL, BELLEVILLE
MODERATOR NOTE: WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CANNABIS WHEN DISCUSSING VAPING
We are going to switch gears and talk briefly about vaping and smoking…
Let’s turn our attention to smoking cigarettes…
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
The current smoking rate in Canada is at 15% (aged 15+) – roughly 11% smoke daily and 4% are occasional smokers. When thinking about it in terms of the number of Canadians, 15% translates to roughly 4.6 million Canadians who smoke cigarettes.
FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM (15 minutes) ASK IN SURREY, FREDERICTON, SOREL, BELLEVILLE
I’d like to now turn to Canada’s food safety system…
As part of Canada’s food safety system, Government of Canada inspectors visit food facilities, such as food processing plants, to ensure compliance with Canada’s federal food safety laws. How frequently a food facility is inspected is based on food safety risks. Risk is determined based on a number of factors, including past compliance and the type of facility (for example, plants that produce meat products are automatically considered high risk). In essence, low-risk food facilities are inspected less often than high risk ones.
Based on advances in computers and other technology, it may be possible in the future for the Government of Canada to rely more on technology when it comes to low-risk food facilities. For example, cameras could be installed at a low-risk facility, with computer programs using all of the footage captured by the cameras to determine if the facility is compliant. If the low-risk facility is compliant, no on-site visit by an inspector would occur. If the footage indicated that there is reason for concern, an inspector would visit the facility.
Another potential future scenario is that rather than Government of Canada analysts reviewing the data, the government would use a third party to do this.
CONCLUSION (5 minutes)
[1] Health care issues were explored with participants in all locations except Surrey.
[2] One possible explanation for the greater emphasis on this interpretation in Sorel might have to do with the fact that the French translation of ‘equal’ in the expression ‘fair and equal access’ is ‘équitable’ (equitable) rather than ‘égal’ (equal). By definition, treating people equitably does not mean treating them equally, so this may have had an impact on Francophone participants’ interpretation of the meaning of the expression.
[3] Where the English names used the term ‘drug’, the corresponding French versions used the term ‘médicaments’.
[4] Improving accessibility for people with a disability was identified as an issue by both women and men, though men identified it as an important local issue and women identified it as a need in terms of infrastructure.
[5] The concern with secondary suites is the densification of neighbourhoods (more vehicles, more people, etc.) which were originally designed to accommodate single-family dwellings.
[6] This issue was explored in all locations except Edmonton (though the issue was identified there in the context of exploring environmental issues). Participants in Surrey and Victoria were asked if they had heard anything about plastic pollution in general, while participants in Fredericton, Sorel, and Belleville were asked if they had heard anything specifically about the federal government addressing plastic pollution.
[7] The items asked about included plastic bags, water bottles, coffee cup lids, packaging for snacks, straws, single serve baby formula packaging, and stir sticks.
[8] The current smoking rate in Canada is at 15% – roughly 11% smoke daily and 4% are occasional smokers.
[9] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/canada-tobacco-strategy/overview-canada-tobacco-strategy.html