Public Opinion Research on Natural Resources Issues 2018 – Final Report

Methodology

To meet the research objectives, qualitative and quantitative research was conducted with Canadians. This included a series of 10 in-person focus groups in five locations across Canada and an 11-minute random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey of 2,200 Canadians, 18 years of age or older.

Qualitative Research

Ten in-person focus groups were conducted between January 24th and February 1st, 2018. Two sessions were conducted in each of the following cities: Mississauga, Chicoutimi (French), Victoria, Edmonton, and Moncton. Participants were Canadians between 18 and 74 years of age. The groups were segmented by household income. The first group in each city was conducted with Canadians from lower and middle household incomes and the second group was conducted with Canadians from higher incomes. Five to eight participants took part in each group. In all, 76 Canadians attended the 90-minute focus groups. In appreciation of their time, participants received an $100 honorarium. This phase of the research was qualitative in nature and, as such, the results provide an indication of participants’ views about the issues explored, but they cannot be generalized to the full population of members of the general public.

Quantitative Research

An 11-minute random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey was conducted with 2,200 adult Canadians from March 5-25, 2018. An overlapping dual-frame (landline and cell phone) sample was used to minimize coverage error. Interviewing was conducted by Elemental Data Collection (EDCI) using computer aided telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. The margin of error for this sample is ±2.3%, at a 95% confidence level (adjusted for stratified sampling). The survey data has been weighted by region, age and gender to ensure results that are representative of the Canadian population. Population figures from Statistics Canada 2016 Census were used to construct the weights. More information about the methodology can be found in Annex 2b.

Top of mind impressions about Canada’s natural resources

Forests, forestry, lumber, and wood were words mentioned most often by participants when thinking of Canada’s natural resources, followed less commonly by references to water and oil and gas. A number of participants used words to describe the value of natural resources in terms of wealth/revenue generation, and the vastness of Canada’s natural resources. Finally, the words diminished or exploited came to mind to a few when thinking of Canada’s natural resources.

Most important natural resource issues facing Canada

Participants collectively identified a range of important natural resource issues, with clean water receiving the most mentions, followed by overexploitation and depletion of natural resources, with many noting the importance of conservation and proper remediation. A host of other issues was mentioned less frequently, including concerns over global competitiveness and trade barriers, foreign ownership of natural resources, developing export markets, clean energy, post-consumer waste, air quality, global warming/climate change, carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, working with Indigenous People regarding resource development, and enforcement of government environmental regulations.

Importance of natural resource industries to Canada’s economy

There was a consensus that natural resource industries are important to Canada’s economy. Reasons given included their importance as drivers of the economy, the abundance and variety of Canada’s resources, and the international demand for Canada’s resources.

Resource industries currently seen as most important include forestry and oil/oil sands, followed by mining, hydro-electricity, and natural gas. Reasons offered by participants for their perceived importance were that Canada is rich/abundant in all of them, that each one is a huge domestic employer, and that there is a strong demand/need internationally for these resources.

Looking ahead 20 years, participants anticipate a growth in the importance of solar power, followed, to a lesser extent, by wind power. A couple of participants in a number of  groups also noted the potential for the increased use of nuclear energy. Conversely, participants anticipated a decrease in the importance of mining, forestry, and oil/oil sands due mainly to reduced supply and/or demand and heightened environmental concerns. The main reasons provided by participants to explain the increased importance of solar and wind power were similar. Both were generally described as environmentally friendly, renewable, and sustainable, and it was noted that both are already being developed and being advanced further through research and development. A few felt wind power was currently less reliable, with a couple noting that wind farms are large, visually unappealing and/or noisy.

Key points regarding other resource industries in 20 years included the following:

• Mining: Some felt mining would remain important and any decrease in importance will be comparative rather than absolute.
• Forestry: Forestry was also expected to remain an important resource industry in Canada. While some suggested forestry is a renewable resource, others mentioned the effects of clear-cutting, climate change and invasive species like the emerald ash borer or spruce budworm may result in a loss of forests.
• Oil/oil sands: Oil and the oil sands development was seen by some as not sustainable because of the volatility of oil prices, the price required to make its development economically feasible, the environmental costs associated with its development, and the reality that it is a non-renewable resource.
• Natural gas: Natural gas was seen as remaining important in the future, in part as a replacement for oil, but also because of perceived technological advances rendering its development more cost effective.
• Hydro-electricity: Hydro-electricity was perceived as remaining important in the future because it was considered by many as sustainable, and because more dams are being built.
• Nuclear energy: Nuclear energy was described by a few as very efficient and becoming cleaner and safer as a result of research and development (R&D).

The most common ways in which participants felt the Government of Canada could support renewable energy industries included through R&D development funding, subsidies and incentives for companies investing in these sectors, and incentives to citizens to motivate them to switch to alternative energy sources. Measures identified less frequently included the following:

• Investing in new clean technologies.
• Leading by example through adoption of energy efficiency and clean energy solutions in crown property and other assets.
• Increasing public awareness of new and emerging technologies.
• Helping industries in new energy sectors find markets and encourage manufacturing spin-offs.
• Providing funding for renewable energy sector job training.
• Updating building codes
• Taxing less efficient energy sources.

Commitment to minimizing environmental impacts

Most participants felt that industries are committed to minimizing the environmental impact of their operations, though some added that they have little awareness of concrete actions taken by industry. Some observed pressure from environmental groups and the public, as well as government regulation and oversight, has made it necessary for industries to demonstrate their commitment. Those who feel that industries are not committed believe they are more inclined to prioritize profits over minimizing the environmental impact of their operations.

There was a general impression that the Government of Canada is committed to developing Canada’s natural resources in a way that minimizes the impact on the environment. Some, however, felt that the Government of Canada would not abandon traditional resource sectors the economic price to pay is too high.

Most important environmental issues

Climate change and issues related to climate change led the way as the environmental issues participants felt the government should focus on most. The most frequently given reason to explain its importance was the perception that climate change is an all-encompassing phenomenon that touches every aspect of life on the planet. Other mentions included water availability/water quality, water/air/soil pollution and, to a lesser extent, post-consumer waste.

Measures participants think the Government is taking to address this issue included setting targets for reduction in carbon emissions, creating a carbon tax, and signing the Paris Agreement.

Changes in energy use

While a number of participants suggested little has changed in their energy use over their lifetime, at least some participants in every group identified changes they have taken regarding their own energy use. Routinely identified measures include the following:

• Purchasing energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs
• Using less heat and air conditioning
• Installing a heat pump
• Upgrading insulation

Measures identified less frequently included the following:

• Installing energy efficient windows and doors
• Using energy during off-peak hours
• Installing smart thermostats
• Biking, carpooling and taking public transportation.

Other mentioned measures related to recycling. A few suggested their energy use had increased over time.

Transition to a low carbon economy

Participants were presented with a list of ways people might describe Canada's approach in working towards a low-carbon economy. The expressions were:

• "Phasing out fossil fuels"
• "Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables"
• "Moving from fossil fuels to renewables"
• ‎"Diversifying our energy mix"
• "Adding renewables to our energy mix"

Below is feedback regarding each of these expressions.

Transition from fossil fuels to renewables

This expression was most preferred in describing Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy.

Positive: Participants who liked this expression said it sounded like a more gradual transition, thoughtful, practical, and done right. Some who liked this expression found it less threatening, more collaborative and felt it suggested there would be a plan and structures put in place to help Canadians adapt.

Negative: Those who did not like the expression suggested it sounded too bureaucratic, and that the meaning of the words “transition” and “renewables” were not clear. Others did not like the implication of discontinuing fossil fuel availability.

Diversifying our energy mix

Participants also liked this expression.

Positive: Many participants liked the expression because it did not suggest a discontinuation of fossil fuel usage. Other positive comments were that it sounded positive, non-threatening and realistic.

Negative: Those who said they did not like the expression felt the meaning of the words “diversifying” and “energy mix” were too ambiguous. Others said the expression belittled the drastic change that is set to take place.

Moving from fossil fuels to renewables

Fewer participants found this expression appealing.

Positive: Some participants liked the expression because it sounded as though fossil fuels would continue to form part of Canada’s energy mix. In addition, to a couple of participants, “moving” sounded like infrastructure is already in place. Finally, a few felt the language was less complex.

Negative: Some participants felt the expression was too harsh and insisted that fossil fuels were here to stay, while others felt more immediate action was required to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

Adding renewables to our energy mix

Very few participants said they liked this expression.

Positive: While some liked that the expression sounded action-oriented, positive, realistic, and softer, some felt it implied adding to and not replacing fossil fuels.

Negative: Those who did not like the expression felt it made it sound as if renewables are not already a part of Canada’s energy mix. Some did not like that it did not suggest reducing Canada’s dependence on fossil fuels. In addition, a couple of participants did not like it because they felt it implied adding even more renewables to the current energy mix (something they did not favour).

Phasing out fossil fuels

Very few participants liked this expression.

Positive: Those who like the expression said that it needs to be done, that it sounds about right, and that Canada needs to eliminate fossil fuels from its energy mix.

Negative: Those who did not like the expression said it was going too far to suggest the elimination of fossil fuels. They felt Canada’s climate is too harsh and that renewables would be unreliable in fulfilling Canada’s energy needs.  A couple suggested that even renewables could create environmental issues.

Participants often had difficulty identifying the positive and negative impacts of a transition to a low carbon economy on themselves personally, with many suggesting that the real impacts would not affect them but the next generation.

For some, the thought of a low-carbon economy brought a sense of well-being and optimism in Canada’s future. The most frequently identified positive benefits included better health, a healthier environment, and the creation of new jobs in new industries. A few suggested that electric vehicles would become more affordable and there would be less driving and less traffic.

For others, the unknowns of a low-carbon economy brought some anxiety. The most frequently identified negative impacts included both direct and trickle-down costs, mentions of job losses in traditional resource sectors, as well as inconveniences to their current lifestyles. A couple suggested renewable and energy efficient equipment would create more waste disposal issues.

Government of Canada Collaboration

Participants tended to have difficulty assessing the extent to which the Government of Canada works collaboratively with provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous Peoples, and other countries. In fact, many said that they simply do not know what is taking place between the Government of Canada and these actors. Many assumed that such collaborative work does take place, but that the details of such interactions are not well known to members of the general public.

Below is feedback regarding each of these areas of collaboration.

Collaboration between Government of Canada and provincial/territorial governments

Examples of collaboration between the Government of Canada and provincial governments included working on pipeline issues and intergovernmental meetings following the signing of the Paris Agreement.

Perceived barriers/challenges to this type of collaboration included jurisdictional issues between federal and provincial governments, provinces having different/conflicting agendas/priorities and different degrees of power/influence, and both levels of government being approached by various lobbying and advocacy groups with differing agendas.

Collaboration between Government of Canada and Indigenous Peoples

Examples of collaboration included the Government of Canada consulting with Indigenous Peoples regarding resource development issues and the establishment of commissions of inquiry.

Perceived barriers/challenges to this type of collaboration included possible mistrust of the Government of Canada by Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Peoples face other important issues/immediate priorities (e.g. clean water, housing, health), possible conflict between a desire to develop natural resources and the desire to maintain a traditional lifestyle, and issues related to devolution of power from the Government of Canada to Indigenous Peoples.

Collaboration between Government of Canada and other countries

Examples of collaboration between the Government of Canada and other countries included the Paris Agreement as well as ongoing summits/international meetings.

Perceived barriers/challenges to this type of collaboration included difficulty establishing agreement/consensus between so many actors, different perceptions of national interest at play between countries, concerns over protecting national sovereignty, countries being at different levels of economic and technological development, and Canada having limited influence on the international stage.

Most important natural resources issue facing Canada

Canadians were asked, without prompting, to identify the most important issue facing Canada today when it comes to natural resources. A wide range of issues was offered, from environmental stewardship to economic concerns, but none was mentioned with any significant frequency. The top issues, each mentioned by 11% of respondents, were making sure we have enough resources for future generations, protecting forests, lakes, habitats and water pollution/contamination. All other issues were mentioned by fewer than one in 10 respondents, as illustrated in the table below.

Among the top issues cited, the most pronounced subgroup differences related to region. The likelihood of identifying adequate resources for future generations was higher in the North, Atlantic Canada, British Columbia, and Ontario than it was in Quebec and Alberta. Those in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, and British Columbia were more likely to mention protecting forests, lakes and habitat than those in Quebec and Alberta. As well, the likelihood of citing water pollution was lower in British Columbia and Alberta than elsewhere in the country, while Albertans were the most apt to view pipeline approval as the top issue facing Canada.

Government of Canada performance

Canadians are divided when it comes to perceptions of the Government of Canada’s performance on specific aspects of natural resource management. Between three in 10 and four in 10 Canadians said the federal government is doing a good job in each of the areas they were asked to assess. In all but area, working with the Indigenous People of Canada, Canadians who did not provide a positive rating of government performance were more likely to be neutral than to rate performance as poor.

Areas that were assessed most positively include ensuring that natural resources are developed in an environmentally-responsible manner (39%) and in a way that creates economic growth (37%), as well as working collaboratively with provincial and territorial governments (36%).

On the issue of economic growth and working collaboratively with the provincial and territorial governments, respondents from Quebec and Ontario were more likely to provide positive performance ratings. When it comes to developing Canada’s natural resources in a way that respects the environment and providing opportunities to participate in consultations, respondents from the North were less likely than Canadians elsewhere in the country to say the Government of Canada is doing a good job.

The likelihood of rating Government of Canada performance as good across all these areas was higher among Canadians under 35 years of age and those with annual household incomes of under $40,000. In addition, those living in rural communities were less likely than those from larger communities to rate Government of Canada performance as good when it comes to developing Canada’s natural resources in a way that creates economic growth for the entire country and to providing opportunities for Canadians to participate in consultations.

Current importance of natural resource industries

In terms of the importance of natural resource industries to the Canadian economy at this time, Canadians were most likely to point to hydro-electricity (78%) and forestry (75%). Following this, seven in 10 pointed to the oil industry, while two-thirds rated the natural gas industry as important. Slightly more than half of Canadians surveyed said the mining (58%), solar power (58%), and wind power (53%) industries are important drivers of Canada’s economy. In contrast, fewer than four in 10 (37%) think that the nuclear energy industry is important to Canada’s economy at this time.

With the exception of natural gas and nuclear energy, Canadians age 55+ were less likely than younger Canadians to rate these industries as important drivers of Canada’s economy.

Regional differences were pronounced in this area. The likelihood of attributing importance to the forestry industry was higher in British Columbia and Ontario. Albertans were least likely to say that hydro-electricity is important, and most apt to point to oil and natural gas as drivers of Canada’s economy. The likelihood of attributing importance to mining was higher in Ontario and the western provinces, while residents of Quebec were less likely to attribute importance to solar power. Wind power was more likely to be viewed as an important driver of the economy in Atlantic Canada, and nuclear energy was most apt to be viewed as important in Ontario.

Perceived future importance of natural resources industries

Looking ahead, Canadians were most likely to point to solar (81%) and wind power (70%) as industries that will increase in importance to Canada’s economy. This is followed, at a distance, by hydro-electricity (58%). Conversely, more than four in 10 (44%) Canadians think the importance of the oil industry will decrease.

Respondents who live in Manitoba and Saskatchewan were more likely than those who live in Ontario to say the importance of the hydro-electricity industry will increase. Additionally, those with university degrees were more likely to say this than those with post-graduate degrees , as were Canadians living in urban areas. Residents of Quebec were most likely to say the importance of the oil industry will decrease.

Preferred priorities for guiding decisions about Canada’s energy future

Roughly three in ten (29%) Canadians felt that reducing greenhouse gas emissions should guide decisions about Canada’s energy future. This was followed by one-quarter (26%) saying keeping energy affordable. Additionally, one in five (21%) said making sure our energy is produced, transported and used safely should guide energy-related decisions. Much smaller proportions of respondents cited generating more energy-related jobs (12%) and getting our energy products to market (10%) as preferred priorities for guiding decisions about Canada’s energy future.

Respondents from Quebec, women, as well as those from urban locations were more likely to prefer that reducing greenhouse gas emissions guide decisions about Canada’s energy future. In addition, the likelihood of preferring that this be a priority increased with education levels. Residents of Ontario and Manitoba/Saskatchewan were more likely to prefer that affordability guide decisions about Canada’s energy future, while support for getting our energy products on the market was higher in Alberta. Canadians with post-graduate degrees were more likely to feel that generating more energy-related jobs should be a priority when it comes to decisions about Canada’s energy future.

Views on nuclear, wind and solar power

Most Canadians (78%) agreed that increasing the use of solar power in Canada would help with cleaner air. Additionally, seven in 10 (70%) felt that increasing the use of wind power would help. Fewer than three in 10 (27%) Canadians felt that increasing nuclear power would help with cleaner air in Canada.

Women and Canadians under 55 years of age were more likely to agree that an increase in the use of solar power is needed for cleaner air. As well, Atlantic Canadians, those living in urban locations, and women were more likely to say that increasing wind power is needed for cleaner air.

Affordability of energy for use in homes in Canada

The majority of Canadians surveyed felt that natural gas is the most affordable energy used in homes. Four in five (79%) said it is somewhat or very affordable. Following this, seven in 10 (70%) rated hydro-electricity as somewhat or very affordable. Just over half of Canadians considered solar (59%), oil (55%), and wind (55%) to be somewhat or very affordable energy sources. Conversely, the plurality (44%) said that nuclear is not very or not at all affordable.

Residents of Atlantic Canada and Quebec were less likely to say natural gas is affordable, while respondents in Ontario were less apt to feel that hydro-electricity is affordable. The likelihood of saying that solar power is affordable was higher among residents of Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. Residents of Alberta were more likely to say that oil is affordable, while those in Ontario were more apt to say this about nuclear energy.

Demographics