Award Date: 2016-09-16
Contract Number: HT372-163422/001/CY
POR-042-16
Contact Information: por-rop@hc-sc.gc.ca
Executive Summary
March 29th, 2017
Ipsos Public Affairs
1 Nicholas Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa ON K1N 7B7
Tel: 613.241.5802
Fax: 613.248.7981
www.ipsos.ca
« Ce sommaire est aussi disponible en français »
I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Ipsos 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.
Mike Colledge
President
Ipsos Public Affairs
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), a branch of Health Canada, is pursuing its mandate to prevent unacceptable risks to Canadians and environment from the use of pesticides guided by a new Strategic Plan which outlines a vision in which Canadians are confident that Canada’s pesticide regulatory system protects their health and the environment.
The Strategic Plan sets two Strategic Outcomes to be achieved and measured over the next 5 years and to support the opinion and view among the general public that i) PMRA makes evidence-based regulatory decisions and policies that are protective of human health and the environment, in a timely, open and transparent manner, and ii) Canadians recognize that PMRA makes pesticide regulatory decisions that protect their health and the environment. To support these initiatives, a new Communications and Outreach Strategy has been developed.
While PMRA works diligently to make and implement decisions that protect the health and environment of Canadians, efforts to communicate and engage with Canadians have not kept pace. A more deliberate, proactive, open and transparent engagement of Canadians will help to increase understanding of, and confidence in, PMRA's work. In turn, this will support compliance with the requirements of the PCPA, and the broader effectiveness of PMRA’s efforts to protect the health of Canadians and the environment.
To support the development of approaches for communications and engagement that are evidence-based and supported by meaningful data - so that resources are directed toward activities that deliver real value to Canadians – quantitative and qualitative research was conducted among a sample of the Canadian general public.
This research was conducted to establish a reliable baseline and understanding of Canadians awareness and confidence in Canada's pesticide regulatory system. Specific research objectives for each phase of research included:
Quantitative research
Qualitative research
This research will be used to establish the baseline awareness and opinions of Canadians about the pesticide regulatory system in Canada and will allow the assessment of key messages and techniques as part of the 5-year Communications and Outreach Strategy. This research also will enable future assessments to be repeated in order to determine changes and trends in the intervening years as well as to gauge the effectiveness of communication, engagement and outreach activities.
This report details the results of this research, conducted in two parts (quantitative and qualitative), between October 2016 and November 2016. The total contract value of this research was $74,981.10 including HST.
The key audience for this study include members of the Canadian general pubic, aged 18 or older.
This research was conducted in two phases:
For the quantitative survey, the i-Say panel provides a number of innovative incentive programs to participants tailored to the specific requirements of each survey, depending on the length of the survey, the subject matter of the study, and the time required to complete a minimum number of interviews. A point-based system is used where participants can redeem points for various items.
For the qualitative focus groups, Ipsos provided an honorarium of $75.00 CDN to participants to attend the focus groups in order to encourage full attendance.
This report contains the findings from both the quantitative online survey and the qualitative focus group sessions.
The data were weighted to the Canadian population data by region, gender, and age. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error and measurement error. Where figures do not sum to 100, this is due to the effects of rounding.
Survey respondents and focus group participants generally associate pesticides with negative connotations though the vast majority say they haven't seen read or heard anything about them in the past three months. Survey results show that women and those who report low levels of knowledge about the pesticides regulatory system are more likely to associate them with negative thoughts. Focus group discussions highlighted a similar dynamic among participants. Young people (18 to 34) and those who use pesticide products are more likely to have heard something, as are those who are not confident that the PMRA is doing its job.
While more survey respondents agree that pesticides are necessary and serve a purpose than those who disagree, half say they are unsure. Those more likely to agree include older respondents (55 years of age and older) with higher income levels who use pesticides at least sometimes, those who consider themselves to be knowledgeable about the pesticides regulatory system in Canada, those who are aware that Health Canada regulates pesticides, and those who are confident in the job the PMRA is. Women and younger respondents (18 to 34) are more likely to disagree.
The extent of acceptability of use of pesticides was led by factors such personal control over product use (such as when used by a consumer around the home, compared to industrial or agricultural use) and scale (once again, such as private use in the home, compared to in the commercial forestry sector or public green spaces). Respondents were least comfortable with the use of pesticides on food imported into Canada and on fruits and vegetables, and their products, sold in Canada or exported. Knowledge of the regulatory system, use of pesticides (experience with products) and confidence in the PMRA to protect health and the environment drive higher ratings of acceptability. Older Canadians also tend offer higher acceptability ratings in various areas of use.
Focus groups allowed for a better understanding of survey results with regards to pesticides' usefulness and the role played by the Government of Canada. Discussions thus highlighted that most participants had limited awareness of the positive role of pesticides. They tended to focus on the negative aspects of large-scale commercial and agricultural usage, which they associated with serious health risks for humans and animals. Many believed that there were better, healthier, alternatives to what they viewed as dangerous chemicals. Women and participants in Montreal were more likely to hold this point of view.
Despite their negative outlook on pesticides and lack of awareness in general, most focus group participants felt that the Canadian government must be doing a good job at protecting them from the harmful effects of pesticides. This vague impression was driven by two main elements. One was a simple observation: they rarely heard of issues related to pesticides and therefore, assumed that regulators must be doing something good to protect humans and animals. The second element was a more general belief that the Canadian government probably tried to do what was best for Canadians, although not all participants agreed, especially in Montreal.
Focus groups were also used to test a series of messages that may be used to communicate with Canadians regarding pesticides and pest control products use and regulations in Canada. Overall, the messaging tested in the four groups was well received. Most participants, especially in Toronto, were reassured by what they read and felt that it provided good information. Because they lacked awareness about the regulation system, participants were reassured to know that Health Canada was directly involved in ensuring that pesticides and pest control products used in Canada complied with stringent rules and regulations before they could be used.
Throughout message testing discussions, it was very clear that the mention of scientists or scientific evidence in various messages was reassuring for almost all participants. Participants did not automatically assume that scientists were involved in Health Canada's regulation and investigation efforts and wanted to be told as such because they had a higher degree of trust in scientists than in other spokespersons, whether it be the Health Minister or another person or group.