POR Registration
Number: 074-18
PSPC Contract Number:
35035-181804/001/CY
Contract Award Date:
November 26, 2018
Delivery Date: March
18, 2019
Contracted Cost:
$218,920 (excluding taxes)
National
Focus Groups – Winter 2019
Second
Cycle
Final Report
Prepared by:
Corporate Research Associates Inc.
Prepared for:
The Privy Council Office
Ce rapport est aussi
disponible en français.
For more
information on this report, please email:
Suite 5001, 7071 Bayers Road
Halifax NS B3L 2C2
1-888-414-1336
Focus Groups –
Winter 2019 – Second Cycle
Final Report
Prepared for the
Privy Council Office
Supplier Name: Corporate Research Associates Inc.
March 2019
This public opinion research report presents the results
of focus groups conducted by Corporate Research Associates Inc. on behalf of the
Privy Council Office. The first cycle of the study entailed a total of ten
focus groups with Canadian residents 18 to 74 years old between February 13 to
26, 2019.
Cette
publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Groupes de
discussion – Hiver 2019 – Deuxième cycle.
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: por-rop@pco-bcp.ca or at:
Privy Council Office
Blackburn Building
85 Sparks street, Room 228
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A3
Catalogue Number:
CP22-177/2-2019E-PDF
International
Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-30472-4
Related
publications (registration number: POR-074-18):
Catalogue Number CP22-177/2-2019F-PDF (Final Report,
French)
ISBN 978-0-660-30473-1
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2019
Table of Contents
Context of Qualitative Research
Top-of-Mind Government Stories
Executive Summary
Corporate Research Associates Inc.
Contract Number: 35035-181804/001/CY
POR Registration Number: 074-18
Contract Award Date: November 26, 2018
Contracted Cost: $218,920.00 (excluding taxes)
Background and Objectives
The Communications and Consultation Secretariat of the Privy Council
Office (PCO) commissioned Corporate Research Associates Inc. (CRA) to conduct
public opinion research using qualitative approaches, to explore the
perceptions of Canadian adults on the state of current events that relate to
the federal government. Findings from the research will be used to develop
effective communications strategies and products, to ensure that communications
with the Canadian public on important issues remain clear and easy to
understand. The study entailed three cycles of focus groups, one for each of
January, February, and March 2019. This report presents the findings from the
second cycle of focus groups. More specifically, objectives of this second
cycle of focus groups aimed to assess opinions and perceptions on the state of
the economy and job market (Kitchener and Saskatoon), youth economic
opportunities (Moncton, North Vancouver and Quebec City), the environment (all
locations), the Canadian Coast Guard (Moncton, North Vancouver and Quebec City),
and Service Canada pull-up screen designs (Kitchener and Saskatoon).
The second cycle of the study consisted of a
total of ten (10) in-person focus groups conducted from February 13th
to 26th, 2019. Two French sessions were conducted in Quebec City
(QC) while two English groups were held in each of Moncton (NB), Saskatoon (SK),
Kitchener (ON) and North Vancouver (BC). Focus group participants included
Canadian residents between the ages of 18 and 74 years old, with a mix of
education, household incomes, and parental responsibilities represented in each
group. In each of Saskatoon, and Kitchener, one group was conducted with males
and one group with females. In each of Moncton, North Vancouver, and Quebec
City, one group included those 18-34 years old and one group was conducted with
those 35 years or older. All participants lived in their respective
markets for at least two years. Across all groups, a total of 98 participants
took part in this research cycle.
This report presents the findings from the study. Caution must be exercised when interpreting the results from this study, as qualitative research is directional only. Results cannot be attributed to the overall population under study, with any degree of confidence.
Political Neutrality Certification
I hereby certify as a Senior Officer of Corporate Research Associates Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications. 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.
Signed 
Margaret Brigley, CEO and
Partner | Corporate Research Associates
Date: March 18, 2019
Key Findings and Conclusions
The following presents a summary of key findings from the Focus Groups – Winter 2019 – Second Cycle for each topic discussed.
The Economy and the Job
Market (Kitchener and Saskatoon)
The state of the economy is considered to be reflective of a number of areas including jobs, the cost of living, employment rate, the gross domestic product, wage levels, and the extent to which businesses are hiring. There is a sense that the Government of Canada can influence the economy, mainly by directing funding to important areas, programming to support industry and through trade policy. That said, it was felt that the government had been reactive to the economy rather than proactively planning for the future. Perceptions are that the job market is the same or worse than a year ago, with many feeling that the job market is currently weak. Looking head, those in Saskatoon were hopeful, citing opportunities in various industries. Those in Kitchener were less optimistic, feeling that the job market would be worsening over the next five to ten years.
Skills training and retraining, and wages not keeping up with the cost of living were identified as the top two priority areas related to jobs. There was strong interest in skill training and retraining because of a recognition that industries are changing and many of the experienced job losses are in ‘older’ industries. In terms of wages and the cost of living, participants noted having experienced an increase in rent, groceries, daycare and education, while salaries had remained consistent. It was felt that these issues could be addressed by government through housing assistance programs, rent control policies, increasing minimum wage, and supporting the diversification of the economy.
Finally, participants did not feel that the current unemployment rate in their city (ranging from 4-6% for Kitchener and Saskatoon), was accurate or reflective of the actual situation. In particular, there was a feeling that the quality of jobs was not being accounted for in the unemployment rate, or that citizens were underemployed and working multiple jobs.
Youth Economic Opportunities (Moncton;
North Vancouver; Quebec City)
Younger
residents generally believe that it is more difficult for them than past
generations, notably in terms of a higher cost of living, access to employment,
financial issues including debt load and housing access, and information
overload as a result of technology. Older participants, by contrast, sometimes
felt that the younger generation has it easier because of access to education,
more career options, and greater parental support, although in some cases older
residents recognized the challenges faced by the younger generation.
Mixed opinions were expressed across groups regarding whether or not the Government of Canada has given more attention to young people as compared to older generations. It was believed that while there are education grants and programs, and support for young families, participants were unable to identify any other specific initiatives put forth to support younger citizens.
A number of challenges faced by young people were identified, including employment, the high cost of education, high debt load, and low wages. Youth felt that government should place priority on aspects that would make life more affordable, including helping with the cost of raising children, making it more affordable to buy their first home, and relieving student debt.
In terms of housing affordability, the high cost of making a down payment was identified as one of the greatest challenges, and there was support for the government developing a program to help people buy their first home.
The Environment (Moncton;
North Vancouver; Kitchener; Quebec City; Saskatoon)
Top of mind environmental issues
include global warming and climate change, plastic use, and carbon pricing. Participants
identified two key actions for the federal government to focus on in terms of
the environment: investing in clean energy and phasing out coal, and keeping
plastic pollution out of the oceans, lakes and rivers.
Changes to weather and climate
have been noticed, including more extreme weather patterns, flooding, lower
water levels, weather fluctuations in winters, longer winters, hotter summers,
changes to wildlife, and an increase in forest fires. These changes have
personally affected participants, with the impact involving a decline in mental
health, changes in lifestyle, flooding in certain areas, and impacts to
agriculture crops.
While there is agreement that
Canadians need to make lifestyle changes to reduce emissions, there is a sense
that companies need to do their fair share as well. Some lifestyle changes had
already been undertaken, but the inconvenience of change, entrenched habits,
and the cost were seen as discouragements.
There is awareness of Canada’s
plan to put a price on pollution, but specific knowledge of the plan is
limited. There is also limited awareness of the Climate Action incentive.
Across locations it was felt that
the government should take a global leadership role in terms of protecting the
environment and fighting climate change. There is a sense that it is Canada’s role
to act responsibly and demonstrate stewardship to others.
The
Canadian Coast Guard (Moncton; North Vancouver; Quebec City)
Familiarity and specific
knowledge of the Canadian Coast Guard was limited in these three cities.
Generally top of mind mentions described areas related to the organization’s
mandate, including safety, protection, and security. The Coast Guard was widely
seen as playing an essential role in ocean safety and access. Opinions were
mixed in terms of the government’s performance in managing the coast guard, and
many felt they were not familiar enough to effectively comment.
When presented with six priority
areas for the Coast Guard, ensuring the safety of Canadians at sea was
considered the most important priority. Participants were also asked to select
the top areas for investment in relation to the Coast Guard, with maintaining
and upgrading existing ships, and recruiting and growing the Coast Guard’s
workforce being seen as the most important.
There was a general lack of
awareness regarding the fleet of icebreakers, with many unable to comment on
whether or not the fleet should be given priority.
Service
Canada Pull-Up Screen (Kitchener and Saskatoon)
When evaluating three new possible design options for Service Canada’s use on banner signage, participants generally felt that “Concept C” (a red-and-white colour scheme with a design that includes a few symbols) worked best, being a more modern representation of the organization’s work. Meanwhile, “Concept A” (featuring a red-and-white colour scheme with colour block features and no images) was felt to strongly align with Service Canada’s current reputation and offered a clean and bold message. “Concept B”, which featured multiple symbols in multiple colours, was liked by participants, but was not felt to clearly communicate Service Canada’s goal of having representatives available at a particular location and was seen as a larger departure from existing Service Canada communications.
Across concepts, nothing stood out strongly as being disliked, though participants identified a number of small issues, namely wanting the Service Canada logo and flag to be more prominent, and some confusion related to the geotag symbol. Further, some of the symbols were confusing to participants, who felt that more clarity could be offered in how the symbols related to Service Canada’s offerings. That said, the breadth of symbols was felt to be inclusive of people across the country, and to represent diversity.
Of the two taglines shown, the phrase “Here for You” was preferred over “People Serving People” for being simple, clear and welcoming of those needing service from Service Canada.
The
URL “Canada.ca” was preferred for its simplicity and memorability, as most
would use a search engine to locate the information they need.
Introduction
To fulfil its role of providing advice and support to the Government of Canada, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office (PCO) and to departments and agencies on matters relating to communications and consultations, the Communications and Consultations Secretariat of the Privy Council Office commissioned Corporate Research Associates Inc. (CRA) to conduct public opinion research through the use of qualitative research.
The main objective of this research is to explore the perceptions of
Canadian adults on the state of current events to assess where public opinion
stands on issues of importance. Findings from the research will be used to
develop effective communications strategies and products, to ensure that
communications with the Canadian public on important issues remain clear and
easy to understand.
Specific to the second cycle of the study, the following research
objectives apply:
·
Assess
overall opinions regarding the state of the economy and the job market and
identify where government should focus its attention;
·
Examine
opinions regarding the environment, most notably the increases of green gas
emissions, and identify where government focus should be placed;
·
Gauge
perceptions of the Canadian Coast Guard and identify areas of priorities for
the Government;
·
Examine
opinions as it relates to issues of importance to youth and identify where
priority focus should be placed; and
·
Assess
reactions to three designs for a pull-up screen for Service Canada;
This report presents the findings from the second cycle of the research. It includes a high-level executive summary, the description of the detailed methodology used, the detailed findings of the focus group discussions, and conclusions derived from the analysis of research findings. The working documents are appended to the report, including the recruitment screener and the moderator’s guide.
Research Methodology
Target Audiences
The research participants included Canadian residents between the ages of 18 and 74 years old who have lived in their respective markets for at least the past two years. Each focus group included a mix of age, education level and household income, as well as including between 4 and 6 participants who have children at home.
Research Approach
A total of ten (10) traditional, in-person focus groups were conducted in North Vancouver, British-Columbia (February 13, 2019), Moncton, New Brunswick (February 19, 2019), Quebec City, Quebec (February 19, 2019), Kitchener, Ontario (February 20, 2019), and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (February 26, 2019). In each of, Moncton, North Vancouver, and Quebec City, one group was conducted with those 18-34 years old and one group with those 35 years or older. In each of Saskatoon and Kitchener, one group included males and one group included females. Groups in Quebec City were conducted in French, while the discussion in all other locations was held in English.
A total of 12 participants were recruited for each focus group, with a goal of 8 to 10 actually taking part. Across locations, 98 participants attended the discussions. Those who took part in the discussion each received a compensation of $100 as a token of appreciation for their time, as per market standards. In-person group discussions each lasted 2 hours.
The following provides a summary of participation in each location:
|
Location |
Language |
Date |
Audience |
Time |
Number of Participants |
|
North Vancouver, BC |
English |
February 13, 2019 |
18-34 years old |
5:30 PM |
10 |
|
35+ years old |
8:00 PM |
10 |
|||
|
Moncton, NB |
English |
February 13, 2019 |
18-34 years old |
5:30 PM |
9 |
|
35+ years old |
8:00 PM |
10 |
|||
|
Quebec City, QC |
French |
February 19, 2019 |
18-34 years old |
5:30 PM |
10 |
|
35+ years old |
8:00 PM |
10 |
|||
|
Kitchener, ON |
English |
February 20, 2019 |
Females |
5:30 PM |
9 |
|
Males |
8:00 PM |
10 |
|||
|
Saskatoon, SK |
English |
February 26, 2019 |
Females |
5:30 PM |
10 |
|
Males |
8:00 PM |
10 |
|||
|
Total number of participants: |
98 |
||||
All participants were recruited per industry guidelines and per the recruitment specifications for the Government of Canada. Recruitment was conducted through qualitative panels stored on Canadian servers, with follow up calls to confirm the details provided and to ensure quotas were met. An additional confirmation call was done approximately one day prior to each focus group. Participants were also asked to sign a consent form upon their arrival to the focus group. In each location, participants were asked to show a piece of ID to confirm their identity.
Context of Qualitative Research
Qualitative discussions are intended as moderator-directed, informal, non-threatening discussions with participants whose characteristics, habits and attitudes are considered relevant to the topic of discussion. The primary benefits of individual or group qualitative discussions are that they allow for in-depth probing with qualifying participants on behavioural habits, usage patterns, perceptions and attitudes related to the subject matter. This type of discussion allows for flexibility in exploring other areas that may be pertinent to the investigation. Qualitative research allows for more complete understanding of the segment in that the thoughts or feelings are expressed in the participants’ “own language” and at their “own levels of passion.” Qualitative techniques are used in marketing research as a means of developing insight and direction, rather than collecting quantitatively precise data or absolute measures. As such, results are directional only and cannot be projected to the overall population under study.
Detailed Analysis
The following section provides an overview of the findings from the focus group discussions.
Top-of-Mind Government Stories
In
North Vancouver, SNC-Lavelin was the first mention in
each group, though pipeline issues were where participants had more of a focus.
The Huawei situation was also of note, along with the Women’s Memorial March that
was happening during the week of the groups. Carbon pricing and judicial /
political conflicts were also mentioned.
In
Moncton, initial comments related to SNC-Lavelin.
Other areas include NAFTA/trade issues, pipelines, and carbon pricing. In some
instances, participants commented on provincial issues rather than federal,
with mentions of the Francophonie Games and fracking.
In
Quebec City, additional mentions related to the discussions between provincial
and federal governments regarding immigration, recent discussions on merging
the federal and provincial income tax process to mirror what is being done in
other provinces, and Canadians being detained in China.
In
Kitchener, participants referenced provincial issues more so than federal ones,
including controversy around the appointment of the Toronto Chief of Police and
the revisions to the sexual education curriculum. Oher topics mentioned
included a grant for sustainable initiatives, Canadian detainees in China, VIA
Rail’s request for infrastructure improvement funding, CUSMA, and stories on
tariffs on Canadian exports to the United States.
In
Saskatoon, participants also mentioned SNC-Lavallin
and the former Attorney General, recent federal bi-elections, the Indigenous
Languages Act, the Syrian family from Halifax getting federal help with
relatives’ visas, talks regarding reconciliation, and the situation involving
Huawei.
The Economy
In Kitchener and Saskatoon, participants were asked to comment on the state of the economy and the job market.
State of the Economy
Participants
were first asked to describe what is entailed when assessing the state of the
economy. In general, the economy was considered to be reflective of jobs, cost
of living, the employment rate, the gross domestic product, wage levels, and
the extent to which businesses are hiring. Further, a few in Kitchener
mentioned mortgage rates being an indicator of the economy’s well-being, as
well as housing affordability in general. The Canadian dollar exchange rate
(notably against the US currency) and the inflation rate were also mentioned
among a few in Kitchener.
A “good
economy” was generally described as one with high employment rates, higher consumer
spending, a strong retail environment (notably in terms of thriving small
businesses), increased infrastructure spending (notably on schools and
hospitals), high costs of housing, and higher cost of living. Increased
construction in general (e.g., housing) was also mentioned in Kitchener as
being a sign of a good economy, in addition to more and better social programs
and “happier” people in general. In Saskatoon, participants also mentioned
lower taxation rates, lower gas prices, pension plans rising, and lower use of
food banks
In both locations, a “bad economy” was generally identified with high unemployment, downsizing of businesses, and lower wages. Further, in Kitchener, fewer government grants or programs, higher interest rates, higher personal debt, increased homelessness, cuts in public transit and social programs (including fewer public housing), decreasing oil prices and the increased cost of goods were also identified as signs of a poor economy. In Saskatoon, participants mentioned that a bad economy would be indicated by higher use of food banks, a growing divide between classes (as evidenced by closing grocery stores in poorer areas), worsening mental health, higher crime, more poverty, corruption and low commodity prices.
There was a
general sense that the government of Canada can influence the economy, to
varying extents, primarily by directing funding to more important areas. In
addition, Saskatoon participants believed that changing foreign policy and
trade, setting policy on immigration, giving incentives for companies and
individuals to pursue training or work in certain types of industries and
through the management and trade of natural resources would be effective
government initiatives. By contrast, Kitchener participants could think of few
other options, other than managing interest rates and providing greater funding
to small businesses.
Although some
participants in both locations felt that the government had been implementing
some of those measures, there was also a sense that the government is reactive
to situations rather than proactively planning for the future. For example,
Saskatoon participants mentioned the shooting in 2018 at La Loche,
SK, citing this as an incident which could potentially have been prevented if
job training for youth, particularly, had been invested in by government. In
Kitchener, a few participants recalled past programs to support adult
education, though it was mentioned that these programs were no longer
available. Grants to companies such as Road Track and GM were also mentioned as
recent government initiatives to support the economy, as well as job creation
grants, tax rebates from small IT firms, and investment in rail infrastructure
improvements.
Job Market
With a few exceptions, Canadians were concerned with the job market, which was believed to have recently worsened, although they were hopeful for the future.
When asked about the current job market, participants in Saskatoon and Kitchener cited mixed views, largely dependent on industry. Many felt that the job market is bad, weak and depressed, with many people stressed and lots of talk in the media and socially regarding large recent layoffs. In addition, there were mentions of people having to work multiple part time jobs in order to afford the rising cost of living. Some individuals found that job postings generally require a degree and job experience, yet are low paying and competitive to get. Some also felt that there is more contract or part-time work, thus providing less advantageous benefits than full-time employment. By contrast, others (particularly in IT and agriculture, as well as younger participants) cited a steady and growing job market with lots of opportunity.
In Kitchener, it was also mentioned that apart from working conditions having changed, the wage gaps appear to have increased, with fewer jobs between those paying minimum wage and high-paying jobs requiring advanced skills and experience. These conditions (increase in part-time/contract work, lower wages, fewer work hours) were often described as creating a situation of “underemployment”.
Participants were asked to compare the current job market with the situation from one year ago. Compared to the recent past, there was a sense in both locations that the job market was now either the same or worse. That said, participants in Saskatoon did not have a strong opinion, finding it tough to judge based on conflicting reports and complicated situations such as demand in particular industries and outmigration to Alberta for work. A First Nations perspective was that the job market was far worse for those living on reserve compared with the general population, with incredibly high rates of unemployment. In Kitchener, it was believed that the situation has improved in the IT industry, while it has worsened in other industries, notably manufacturing and service industries. Many also felt that the overall job market is changing (not necessarily declining or improving), requiring a more adaptable and flexible workforce and the constant need for skills improvement.
Looking farther back, participants cited mixed reactions again, with some finding increasing opportunities now, particularly in construction, IT and agriculture, while others were seeing increasing unemployment and shorter supply of good, full time jobs. In Kitchener, the increasing presence of automation was mentioned as creating a greater need for upskilling and the baby boomers staying longer in the workforce have caused job shortages for younger generations. In addition, it was mentioned that wage increases over the past five to ten years have not kept pace with the increased cost of living.
Looking to the future, participants in Saskatoon were generally hopeful, citing opportunities in technology, automation, IT, and new industries such as cannabis. That said, there were also many concerns about the economic future and job opportunities going forward, including concerns around affordability of housing, the increasing cost of living, automation (resulting in job losses) and global / US political situations that would have an impact on the Canadian market.
The outlook was more gloom in Kitchener, where most participants believed that the job market would be worsening over the next five to ten years, other than the IT sector which would likely continue to grow. It was believed that issues currently experienced – lower-paying jobs, part-time or temporary work, need for constant upskilling, increased automation, less benefits and job stability – would continue to be of concern into the future.
Government Priorities Regarding the Job Market
Skills training and retraining and the wages not keeping up with the cost of living are considered the most pressing priorities related to the job market, and to a lesser extent, job security.
Participants in Kitchener and Saskatoon were each provided with a list of seven issues related to ‘jobs’ and asked to select the two or three they thought was most important for the Government of Canada to pay attention to. The choices provided were the following:
· Jobs disappearing
· Job security
· Lack of jobs
· Lack of job opportunities for young people
· Lack of opportunities for career advancement
· Skill training and retraining
· Wages not keeping up with the rising cost of living
Skill training and retraining, along with wages not keeping up with the cost of living were the top two areas of priority for participants in both Saskatoon and Kitchener. There was strong interest in skill training and retraining because of a recognition that industries are changing and many of the experienced job losses are in ‘older’ industries, resulting in workers who need to be trained in areas where job growth is happening. Further, increased automation and the prevalence of artificial intelligence were considered as requiring that the workforce be more comfortable with computers and technology in general. There was also a recognition that there is a gap in the current education system whereby young people are not learning the necessary skills for those industries where jobs are available, particularly in IT. Kitchener participants suggested that the government could provide more funding for skills enhancement as a means to address this situation.
Wages not keeping up with the rising cost of living was also an area of focus as participants were seeing rent, groceries, the cost of daycare and education all rising, while salaries were remaining stagnant. Participants in Kitchener felt that the government could address issues related to wages not keeping up with the cost of living through housing assistance programs, rent control policies, increased minimum wage, and by supporting the diversification of the economy.
It Kitchener, job security was also identified as a top priority by many in both groups. It was believed that the fleeting nature of jobs – less permanent and less stable – made job security less attainable, thus creating a sense of uncertainty within the workforce. Addressing this issue was considered important, as job security leads to financial security, which in turn leads to greater long- and short-term household spending that supports a strong economy. For example, it was mentioned that consumers are less likely to take on a loan or mortgage if they do not have job security.
Other topics were each identified by a few as being a priority, including jobs disappearing, lack of job opportunities for young people, and lack of opportunities for career advancement. Finally, no one in Kitchener felt that lack of jobs was a pressing issue, while this was mentioned only by a few in Saskatoon.
Unemployment Rate
The unemployment rate was not seen as providing an accurate picture of the health of the job market, notably in terms of the quality and sustainability of jobs.
In Saskatoon, the current unemployment rate was estimated to be low among female participants (e.g., around 4%), while male participants felt that the rate was higher – somewhere between 7 and 11 percent. There was a recognition that the rate could vary widely across the country, with many in Saskatoon feeling that despite recent layoff announcements, that the job market was generally stronger than in other parts of Canada. In Kitchener, the unemployment rate was primarily estimated at between 4 and 6 percent, with only a couple of participants under the impression that it was around 10 percent.
When told the actual unemployment rate (5.6%), Saskatoon participants were surprised and cynical, with many not believing it was accurate or reflective of the actual situation. While not surprised, Kitchener participants felt that this unemployment rate did not provide an accurate picture of the job market situation. In particular, in both Saskatoon and Kitchener, there was a feeling that the quality of jobs was not being accounted for, as well as people who are underemployed in multiple part time jobs. Indeed, it was believed that the unemployment rate does not account for job insecurity, thus not properly reflecting the overall state of employment. Many were incredulous that the rate is the best it’s been in 40 years, and as such were curious to understand how the number was calculated.
Youth Economic Opportunities
In Moncton, North Vancouver and Quebec City, participants were asked to comment on various topics related to youth economic opportunities.
Youth Situation
Youth feel there are a number of aspects that make things harder for them than previous generations, which are generally related to financial hardships.
Participants were asked if they thought that younger Canadians have it easier or harder than past generations. Younger participants were generally of the opinion that things are less easy for them than they are for the previous generation, notably in terms of having a higher cost of living, more difficult access to good employment after graduation, higher stress of dealing with financial commitment (debt management and housing access) and having to deal with more information and information transiting more quickly, which in turn creates stress. It was also mentioned that suicide rates are increasing, and although it seems as though it may be easier for younger generations, mental health issues are on the rise. By contrast, some older participants felt that younger people have it “easier” than older generations, as they have easier access to education, more career options, and greater parental support into adulthood. As well, access to technology was felt to make information and education easier – something that was recognized in both age groups in North Vancouver. In Moncton, it was noted that access to technology did not necessarily make it easier for younger people, as this created less interaction and made things more difficult. That said, there is recognition among older generations that younger people have lower incomes and will have a greater financial burden into the future to cover the cost of public services provided to an aging population (notably health care costs).
Mixed opinions were expressed across groups regarding whether or not the Government of Canada has afforded more attention to young people as compared to older generations. It was believed that while there are education grants and programs (such as Katimavik, student loan forgiveness or educational support for entering trades), and support for young families, participants were unable to identify any other specific initiatives put forth to support the 18-34 years old cohort. In Quebec City, it was mentioned among participants 35+ that the government appears to have focused its attention on the younger and older generations, thus leaving the 35-54 years old generation with less benefits comparatively. In Moncton, it was noted that taxation benefits seem to focus on the middle class and do not benefit younger Canadians. The older participants in Moncton also noted that tax breaks are generally directed at seniors. In North Vancouver, participants in the younger group felt that due to their generation having less money and less influence, the Government was paying less attention to their age group. Older participants in North Vancouver also felt that less attention was being paid to the younger age group, but primarily due to them being less engaged.
Youth Challenges and Opportunities
Key challenges facing youth include employment, the high cost (and resulting debt) of education, as well as a perceived inability to own their own home.
Participants who are 18 to 34 years old were asked additional questions regarding challenges and opportunities young people face today. When asked what the largest challenges facing younger Canadians are these days, youth consistently identified employment, the high cost of education, and the high debt load they have due to student loans, in addition to the low pay of entry-level jobs. In North Vancouver, there were also a few mentions of the lack of ability to save for retirement, or the fears about the effects of climate change, along with universal recognition that they would not be able to enter the housing market due to the high cost of housing. In Moncton, there were also mentions of mental health issues and depression, and the lack of work-life balance as a result of needing to work multiple jobs.
Participants were
shared a list of some things the government could do to help young people and
asked to rank which they felt required priority focus. These items included:
·
Creating
jobs for students so they can get work experience
·
Helping
young families with the cost of raising children
·
Increasing
skills training and apprenticeship programs
·
Making
it more affordable for people to buy their first home
·
Relieving
student debt
·
Strengthening
the Canada Pension Plan to help people save for retirement
Of the six items presented, youth placed the greatest emphasis on
actions that would help to make life more affordable, with priority given to
helping young families with the cost of raising children, making it more
affordable for people to buy their first home and relieving student debt.
Helping young families with the cost of raising children was considered by North Vancouver and
Quebec City participants as an area requiring increased focus, and to a lesser
extent by those in Moncton. Suggested government actions for helping young
people included subsidizing daycare services and subsidizing or providing tax
credits for children’s sporting activities, along with working with employers
to shift hours, give parents more time off, and forgiving student loans.
Making it more affordable for people to buy their first home was considered to be an area where
efforts should be made to help young people across locations. The high cost of
homes in the current marketplace was considered cost prohibitive to most,
especially in North Vancouver and Quebec City. Suggestions on what the government could do to
address the situation included providing more robust financial education to
youth as part of the school curriculum, facilitating property ownership for
young people, and developing programs to support the purchase of a first home.
In North Vancouver there were suggestions to create an affordable housing
program with regulated prices, and to regulate foreign ownership of property.
Moncton participants noted that it was not feasible to save the required down
payment for a home, and there were additional costs to buying a home that were
often not considered, such as lawyer and inspection fees.
Relieving student debt was commonly cited in Moncton and less so in North Vancouver and
Quebec City, as an area of priority. It was believed that relieving students
right after graduation while youth secure permanent employment would be most
helpful. As such, recommendations for government actions included to extend the
reimbursement period and allow for a hiatus right after graduation and until
permanent employment is secured.
Some of the other proposed areas of focus were considered important
but not to the same extent as those previously-mentioned. Creating jobs
for students so they can get work experience was considered an
important stepping stone for young people to gain the experience needed to
secure higher-paying jobs early in their career and thus start their life
financially on the right footing. Recommendations for government action
included providing student employment grants for businesses, and promoting coop
programs as relevant work experiences.
Increasing skills training and apprenticeship programs was considered important to ensure that
young people continually adapt to the changing work environment, especially as
the role of technology is continually changing. There were suggestions for the
government to sponsor apprenticeships and subsidize training. In Moncton it was
noted that the trades are particularly important, as many workers are older and
there is a need to have younger citizens trained in these areas to fill the
employment gaps.
Strengthening the Canada Pension Plan to help people save for
retirement was
considered of importance by a few young people in each location, given the recognition
that savings might be difficult to achieve due to the financial
responsibilities of younger people/families starting in life.
Housing Affordability for Youth
The ability to make a down payment is considered one of the main issues for housing affordability.
Participants 18-34
years old were shared a list of five problems relating to housing affordability
and asked to rank which ones they considered the greatest problems. These problems
included:
·
Foreign
buyers buying houses they don’t intend to live in, driving up prices
·
Investors
buying houses and flipping them without living in them, driving up prices
·
The
high cost of making a down payment
·
The
high cost of making mortgage payments
·
The
lack of housing supply
Across locations, the high costs of making a down payment
was considered among the greatest housing challenges facing young people today.
Most notably, young people recognize the difficulty and length of time required
to save enough to make a down payment, which is increasing due to the higher
cost of housing.
Participants in North Vancouver and Moncton also identified the
increasing costs of housing resulting from foreign buyers buying houses
they don’t intend to live in and investors buying houses
and flipping them without living in them as creating barriers to home
ownership for their generation. By contrast, the high cost of making a mortgage
payment was more commonly cited as being problematic by Quebec City
participants.
Finally, across locations, the lack of housing supply
was generally not seen as a major issue compared to other areas listed. That
being said, it was noted in Quebec City that while there is availability of
housing in general, there is generally a lack of sufficient affordable housing
options, especially for young people. In Moncton it was noted that there is not
enough of the right type of housing for youth.
Young people were of the opinion that the government can develop
policies and programs to support access to home ownership for young people,
although they provided limited examples of what could be done in Quebec City. In
Moncton, participants did not suggest concrete actions by government, but
stressed the difficulty of saving for a down-payment on a home, indicating that
any programs to support this aspect of home purchase would be beneficial. By
contrast in North Vancouver, there were suggestions that the government could
implement an empty home tax, restrict who could purchase land in certain zones,
regulate how long people must live in a home before sale, start an affordable
housing program and create residential zones that are available for young
families.
Young people endorsed the idea of the Government of Canada developing
a program to specifically help people buy their first home. They believed that
this could take the form of taxable benefits, and suggestions were made in
Quebec City and North Vancouver to incorporate an educational component to the
program in addition to financial support, to educate young people on how to
purchase a home. In North Vancouver there were additional suggestions to ensure
incentives were in place for local rather than foreign buyers.
The Environment
In all locations (Moncton, North Vancouver, Kitchener, Quebec City and Saskatoon), participants were asked to comment on various topics related to the environment.
Top-of-Mind Issues Regarding the Environment
Global warming/climate change along with plastics use were top-of-mind environmental issues in all locations.
Participants were asked to describe what, if anything, they recalled having recently seen, heard or read regarding the environment. Across locations, issues related to the environment that were top of mind for participants included global warming and climate change, including an impending fear that time is running out to make change, rules and decisions being made with respect to plastic use (particularly straws), the damage caused by micro plastics, and electric vehicles. Across locations, there were mentions of the price on pollution (referred to by participants as the “carbon tax”).
In Saskatoon, participants also mentioned Trans-Mountain pipeline blockades, along with legislation or changes that resulted in no longer sending garbage to China.
In Quebec City, other topics mentioned included water quality especially waste water being dumped in the St-Lawrence river, the prohibition of wood-burning fireplaces on the island of Montreal, use of pesticides, and the reduction of green spaces due to urban sprawl. In terms of environmental issues related to the Government of Canada, mentions included the Trans-Canada pipeline and the price on pollution (referred to as the “carbon tax” by participants).
In North Vancouver, there were mentions of coastal issues such as a need to protect whales, the effects of fish farms and the need to work with coastal and indigenous communities to protect the environment.
In Moncton, there were mentions of pipelines and pollution of the St. John River from a Saint John pulp mill, as well as deer population decline, and protecting the arctic.
In Kitchener, participants recalled having seen or heard stories about the melting of ice in the Arctic, the reduction of the polar bear population in the Artic, and green development initiatives. In terms of Government-related stories, participants mentioned the Paris Summit (notably disagreements between the federal and provincial governments), various sustainability initiative grants, and the government’s green investment strategy (through the promotion of renewable energy).
Government Priorities Regarding the Environment
Environmental priorities for the Government of Canada were considered to be investing in clean energy and keeping plastic pollution to a minimum.
Participants were each provided with a list of ten actions that the Government of Canada is either currently working on, or could consider in the future, as follow:
· Building more than 1,000 public transit projects (for example, light rail trains, buses, transit stations, subway, etc.) to help Canadians get to where they want to go
· Doubling the amount of nature protected across Canada
· Driving new opportunities for business and creating jobs in the industries of tomorrow
· Funding new charging stations for electric vehicles
· Helping communities and families adapt to extreme weather
· Helping families and businesses save money through energy efficiency
· Improving energy efficiency in new low-income housing
· Introducing a price on pollution, so that it’s no longer free to pollute
· Investing in clean energy and phasing out coal for cleaner air and better health
· Keeping plastic pollution out of our oceans, lakes and rivers
Prior to a group discussion, participants were asked to individually select up to three actions they believed were the most important for the federal government to focus on. At the same time, they were asked to identify any they believed were not important or pertinent for government intervention.
When looking at combined results across locations, two of the ten actions emerged as being the most important priorities:
Investing in clean energy and phasing out coal for cleaner air and better health was considered among the most important priorities in all locations with the exception of Quebec City where this was seen as a moderately important issue. Coal energy was often perceived as having a severely negative impact on the environment (being “dirty”) and as potentially causing health issues due to poor air quality.
Keeping plastic pollution out of our oceans, lakes and rivers, was also considered among the top environmental priorities across locations. Preventative actions in this regard were considered important as clean up was deemed as being expensive. Further, the importance of clean drinking water and of preserving wildlife were mentioned to explain interest in focusing on the issue of plastic pollution in our waterways. Plastic pollution was also seen as affecting the health of the food chain, both for animals and humans alike.
A few more of the items identified elicited strong interest in various locations. Most notably, building more than 1,000 public transit projects was considered a key consideration in North Vancouver and to a lesser extent in Quebec City. It was believed that national leadership was needed to encourage provincial and municipal governments to take action in improving the public transit network and service accessibility. By contrast, this was seen as among the lowest priorities in other locations.
Driving new opportunities for business and creating jobs in the industries of tomorrow was among the top choices for Quebec City and Saskatoon participants, and to a lesser extent among those in Kitchener. This item was seen as a lesser priority in other locations. This measure was seen as having a positive impact both on the environment and the economy.
Other areas elicited more moderate levels of interest in select locations. Specifically, moderate interest was expressed in North Vancouver, Quebec City and Saskatoon with respect to the introduction of a price on pollution so that it’s no longer free to pollute, while this was a top-of-mind issue in Kitchener. It was believed that industry should be penalized for polluting, thus encouraging them to be more environmentally responsible for their actions.
Helping families and businesses save money through energy efficiency received moderate interest in Moncton, Quebec City, Kitchener and Saskatoon, while it was even less top-of-mind in North Vancouver. Those who felt that action was needed believed that these measures would encourage individual or household participation in reducing green gas emissions, and that this action would affect them personally (in terms of cost savings) as compared with some of the other actions.
Doubling the amount of nature protected areas across Canada was considered as moderately important by Quebec City and Kitchener participants.
There is little interest across locations to see the government focusing on helping communities and families adapt to extreme weather and improving energy efficiency in new low-income housing. It was believed that these initiatives would have limited impacts on the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Some participants noted that energy efficiency shouldn’t be a priority solely for low-income housing but for all residents.
Finally, funding new charging stations for electric vehicles was consistently seen as more so a private sector initiative than being the government’s responsibility and thus participants do not wish to see the Government of Canada investing in that regard. It was also believed that limited accessibility to electric vehicles at this time meant that financial support to these kinds of initiatives would only benefit a small portion of the population.
Participants were asked to identify anything else they would like included as areas of focus for the Government of Canada as it relates to the environment. Suggestions included promoting participation in the 3 R’s (reduce, reuse and recycle), help municipalities expand their recycling programs and implement residential composting programs, encourage citizens to support local products and services, encourage the reduction of Styrofoam and plastic packaging with industry/manufacturers, improve drinking water conditions for Indigenous communities, and provide a taxable benefit for the purchase of an electric vehicle. Additionally, suggestions included building better railways and maintaining existing ones to prevent environmental accidents, investing in education and communications to ensure a balanced debate on issues such as the Trans-Mountain pipeline, ensuring that there are tariffs or labelling of products that come from trading partners so that the environmental impact of production and trade across borders is more transparent, and that the Government should invest in helping to grow food more sustainably and locally. Finally, some felt that rather than a punitive system like a “carbon tax”, a rewards-based system that incents those acting responsibly with respect to the environment would be more effective.
Weather / Climate Changes and Impact on Residents
Changes in weather pattern and climate have been noticed across locations, and are reported to have had an impact on people’s behaviours and habits.
All participants had noticed changes to weather and the climate, including more extreme weather patterns, flooding, lower water levels, weather fluctuations in winter, longer winters, changes to wildlife (e.g. caribou; increased number of flies) and an increase in forest fires.
Participants were affected by these changes with a decline in mental health, changes in lifestyle to travel less and stay in more, flooding of certain areas, less predictability and lower quality in agriculture crops. It was also mentioned that declining air quality spurred or worsened breathing issues and reduced people’s ability to enjoy the outdoors. More icy conditions increased the risk of falls in winter months.
Lifestyle Changes
There was an openness to changing personal behaviours to contribute to reducing Canada’s green gas emissions, but a sense that companies need to also make changes in order to have an impact.
There was general agreement that Canadians would need to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce emissions, but there was also a high level of expectation that companies should do their fair share as well. Most participants had already made some lifestyle changes, to a greater or lesser degree, including increased recycling, composting, buying used clothes, reducing the use of automobiles (walking or biking when possible), lower heating in homes, turning off lighting when not needed, insulating homes, using metal straws and other reusable food containers and generally reducing consumption. A few were considering buying smaller vehicles.
Motivations for change included a desire not to be wasteful, to do the responsible thing for the environment, as well as achieving personal cost savings. A few also mentioned a desire to improve the environmental situation for future generations, notably thinking of their own children and grand-children.
The inconvenience of change, entrenched habits, the cost of investing in things such as insulation, and generally being busy and focussed on other priorities were seen as discouragements from making lifestyle changes. The inability to access household composting or proper recycling (in apartment buildings for examples) and the inability to see tangible and immediate benefits for the households were also identified by some as barriers to adopting greener habits. A lack of awareness or education regarding the benefits for adopting more environmentally-friendly benefits, or how to easily incorporate these habits was identified as limiting the scope of household initiatives.
Participants mentioned that their opinions when it comes to making lifestyle changes are most influenced by their kids, the media (particularly local stories and those related to the effects of climate change on wildlife), as well as social media activism in some instances.
Price on Pollution
Although the existence of a plan on putting a price pollution was largely known, knowledge of what the plan entails was limited.
When asked how many had heard about the government of Canada’s plan to put a price on pollution, the level of awareness varied. While there was some awareness that a plan was in place, very few were aware of the details of the plan.
In Moncton, participants felt that they had not heard anything positive about the price on pollution initiative, and felt that it would only result in increase prices for consumers.
In Kitchener and Saskatoon, there was a targeted discussion of the price on pollution and the Climate Action Incentive. After hearing an explanation of the price on pollution system, female participants generally felt that it was unclear, while male participants generally felt it was clear. In explaining it in their own words, participants said that the plan was charging people for fuel, and would deter people from buying products that cause environmental damage. Others phrased it as a way to reward innovation and companies that act responsibly.
Outstanding questions about the price on pollution included:
· What would an average household get back?
· Where will the price on pollution be applied (on what items)?
· How much revenue is expected from this system?
· What will be the increased costs of goods for consumers as a result of the price on pollution?
· What is considered under the concept of “carbon emission”; how is that defined?
· How will carbon emissions be measured?
· How will payment be calculated?
· What will happen to people who can’t afford the price?
· How will the public receive payments – through reduced hydro fees; taxable credits; cash back?
In both groups in Kitchener, there was minimal awareness of the Climate Action incentive beginning this year. In fact, only one or two people had heard the name but were unable to explain the concept. By contrast, fewer than half in each group in Saskatoon were aware they would receive a Climate Action Incentive. When told that the incentive would be greater than the amount paid for 8 in 10 families, many participants felt that they would end up being among the 2 in 10. In addition, there was a general sense that individuals rather than corporations would feel the impacts of a price on pollution, which would mean little result from the efforts. In addition, there was confusion about the calculations and mistrust of the math involved in the calculations. Indeed, participants did not understand how so many would end up receiving more than they put in, and where the money would be coming from.
Canadian Leadership
Across most locations there was support for the Government to take a global leadership role on protecting the environment and fighting climate change.
Participants across locations were asked if they believed that the Government of Canada should take a global leadership role when it comes to protecting the environment and fighting climate change. For the most part, participants support the Government’s leadership position given the respect and credibility Canada enjoys internationally. Most also believe that leadership is required and that Canada should step forward by demonstrating its environmental leadership in a few areas.
Many felt that as a developed country it was our responsibility to act responsibly and demonstrate stewardship to others. In addition, it was felt to be the right thing to do given the large land mass of Canada and the amount of pristine wilderness, in need of protection. That said, a few in each group felt that any actions Canada took would not result in any global change, that other countries wouldn’t pay attention to us, as a relatively small nation, and that there is a lack of willingness to actually affect change, particularly among industry.
Participants had mixed views as to whether Canada was a top, average or low polluter, with some participants feeling Canada was average, while other participants believed the country was high, and very few thinking it was low. In Quebec City and Kitchener, Canada was considered as being among the largest of polluters internationally, in terms of how much pollution is produced per person.
Canadian Coast Guard
In Moncton, North Vancouver, and Quebec City, participants were asked questions regarding the Canadian Coast Guard.
Awareness and Opinion of the Coast Guard
While knowledge of the Coast Guard was generally limited in these three cities, the service was considered important.
Participants generally struggled to write down an adjective that best describes the Canadian Coast Guard. Many referred to “safety”, “protection”, “lifesaving”, “guard”, “watching” and “security” to describe the organization based on its mandate, while others suggested words relating to the quality of work it does (“professional”, “brave”, “useful”, “heroic”, “helpful”, “honourable”) or describing its perceived condition (“old”, “too small”, “lacking”). A few other more generic words were used, highlighting participants’ limited knowledge about the organization (“red”, “seasick”, “recruiting”, “pollution”, “uninformed”, “wet”, “neat”, “enigmatic”, “don’t know”). Regardless of personal opinions towards the Coast Guard, it was widely seen as playing an essential role in terms of ocean safety and access, and there was support for it being described using this term.
Mixed opinions were offered regarding the Government of Canada’s performance managing the Coast Guard, with about half believing that it generally does not do a good job and the other half either thinking it does a good job or were unsure. Most, however, believe that they are not familiar enough with the organization or the government’s role to effectively comment. There was a general sense, however, that the Coast Guard itself does a good job, primarily through not having heard anything negative.
Very few participants recalled having heard, seen or read anything about the Canadian Coast Guard recently, though in North Vancouver there was recollection of the closure of the Kitsilano coast guard station and a recent incident where there was a long response time to an emergency, as well as a a shipbuilding contract awarded a few years ago to a Vancouver-based shipyard. Both of these stories were seen in newspapers and on television. In Quebec City, participants recalled a broken-down ice breaker in the past year and the resulting closure of the St. Lawrence seaway, the aging fleet of ships, and the organization recruiting staff. A few also referred to shipbuilding contracts having been awarded to a shipyard in Halifax a few years ago. In Moncton, there were also mentions of the shipbuilding contract in Halifax, along with fines for dumping off boats, or the sinking of a coast guard boat in Nova Scotia.
Priorities for the Coast Guard
Ensuring the safety of Canadians at sea was considered the most important priority for the Coast Guard.
Participants were provided with a list of six things the Canadian Coast Guard is working towards or could be working towards and asked to circle the two that they believed were most important, including the following:
· Ensuring the safety of Canadians at sea
· Protecting commercial shipping routes
· Tracking and reacting to changes in marine ecosystems resulting from climate change
· Supporting scientific research in marine areas
· Defending Canada’s sovereignty in remote areas
· Stimulating the economy by building and upgrading ships in Canadian shipyards
Ensuring the safety of Canadians at sea was by far considered the most important priority for the Coast Guard as it speaks of the organization’s core function.
To a lesser extent, it was believed that protecting commercial shipping routes was an important priority for the Coast Guard, notably among participants in Quebec City and to a lesser extent in North Vancouver.
In North Vancouver, the Coast Guard was also seen as playing an important role in tracking and reacting to changes in marine ecosystems resulting from climate change. These participants were also more likely to believe that the Coast Guard should play a role in supporting scientific research in marine areas than are participants in other locations.
Finally, defending Canada’s sovereignty in remote areas and stimulating the economy by building and upgrading ships in Canadian shipyards were considered less important priorities in comparison.
Participants were also asked to select two items among a list of seven things they believed should be the top priority for the Government of Canada when investing in the Canadian Coast Guard, including the following:
· Building new ships to renew the Coast Guard Fleet
· Maintaining and upgrading existing ships to renew the Coast Guard Fleet
· Expanding the Coast Guard's mandate to support national security activities
· Buying new, innovative equipment to modernize Coast Guard capabilities
· Expanding the Coast Guard presence in the Arctic to defend our sovereignty
· Investing in the conservation of marine areas
· Recruiting and growing the Coast Guard's workforce
Five of the seven priorities were most commonly mentioned. Maintaining and upgrading existing ships to renew the Coast Guard Fleet was considered among the top priorities across locations. At the same time, recruiting and growing the Coast Guard’s workforce was deemed an important focus particularly among North Vancouver and Quebec City participants.
Buying new and innovative equipment to modernize the Coast Guard capabilities was considered a clear priority in North Vancouver, while it was identified by many in other locations as being of importance. At the same time, participants in North Vancouver and Quebec City believed that recruiting and growing the Coast Guard’s workforce should be the focus of the Government of Canada when investing in the Coast Guard. Finally, most in North Vancouver believed that the Government should consider investing in the conservation or marine areas, while fewer shared similar opinions in other locations.
Participants were informed that the average age of ships currently in service within the Coast Guard is 35 years and asked if knowing this would change their opinion about what should be a priority. Most first questioned the lifespan of ships and indicated that this would be a better indicator of what priorities there might be to renew the fleet of ships than simply referring to an age. Again there was a general lack of awareness of the topic and limited opinion as to whether or not this should be a priority.
Canada’s Fleet of Icebreakers
Opinions were mixed regarding the need to expand the fleet of icebreakers, with limited awareness and understanding of the current situation.
Participants were reminded that there are different types of ships that could be built to renew the Coast Guard fleet, including icebreakers. In Quebec City it was believed that the fleet of icebreakers should be a priority given its importance in opening up commercial waterways in Canada, though the extent to which attention should be afforded to this fleet was mixed. That said, the state of the Canadian icebreakers was largely unknown. In North Vancouver and Moncton, participants did not feel equipped to answer questions about icebreakers, as they felt they had limited knowledge. That said, there were some who felt that if the icebreakers were focussing on scientific efforts, then it would be important to support these types of vessels.
Service Canada Pull-Up Screen
In Kitchener and Saskatoon, participants were asked to comment on three potential designs for a Service Canada pull-up banner sign.
Initial Impressions and Preferences
All three concepts received endorsement from participants, though Concept C was slightly more often preferred over the other two.
Participants were shown three designs options for a refresh of the visuals used on Service Canada’s pull-up screens (or banner signs) that are used at Service Canada Centres, at temporary Service Canada sites in different communities, as well as at career fairs and other similar events across the country. They were informed that the purpose for the screen is to make the public aware that Service Canada representatives are at the particular location and are available to answer questions or provide assistance regarding Government of Canada programs and services. The three versions shown will be referenced as “Concept A” featuring a red-and-white colour scheme with colour block features (no image), “Concept B” featuring multiple symbols in multiple colours, and “Concept C” featuring a red-and-white colour scheme with a design that includes a few symbols.
Participants were first asked to identify which design they were drawn to, at first glance. Initial impressions of the three signs were varied. Specifically, opinions were divided across concepts in Kitchener, while in Saskatoon, Concept C (red/white with symbols) was considered as standing out more than the other two.
After looking at all three designs a bit longer and sharing broad opinions as a group, participants were asked to identify which of the three options they personally preferred. Opinions were more divided, with none of the three concepts clearly highlighted as best.
When asked which of the designs best represented what Service Canada is all about, Concept A (red/white no symbols) was most closely aligned for being “plain”, “formal” and clear, thus being more representative of a government department. By contrast, Concept B (colours with symbols) was felt to be a departure from existing Service Canada communications, being more reminiscent of Parks Canada or athletic endeavours. The use of symbols in Concept C (red/white with symbols) was considered less aligned with the more traditional and “serious” nature associated with government services in general. That being said, it remained a credible option for Service Canada.
Concept Evaluation
All three concepts were liked for varying reasons, though Concept A was felt to more closely align with Service Canada’s reputation.
Concept A (red/white no symbols) was considered simple, visually-attractive, having a “clean” and somewhat modern design and providing large lettering and great contrast which was believed to grab attention and be easily visible from afar. Its bold design helped make the content clear and easy to understand. That said, others felt that due to its simplicity, this design did not stand out and felt a bit “cold”. It was reminiscent of a sign for the Canadian Red Cross or Blood Services.
Concept B (colours with symbols) was deemed attractive and intriguing for its use of multiple colours and for using symbols that are associated with Canada, its people and culture. In some instances, there was an expectation that the symbols would provide insight into Service Canada offerings. This design was described as fun, colourful, bright, and happy, thus attracting attention. The design was commonly reminiscent of something that may be used on tourism or parks signs.
Concept C (red/white with symbols) was considered as attracting attention and being “easy to look at” for featuring a simple and “clean” design, while providing a whimsical representation of Canada through the use of symbols. It was believed that the images grab attention and show diversity, while not being distracting.
Across concepts, nothing stood out strongly as being disliked, though participants identified a number of small issues, namely wanting the Service Canada logo and flag to be more prominent, and some confusion related to the geotag symbol. Concept B was also often looked at as being too busy, notably due to the number and placement of symbols used.
Symbols
Some symbols were confusing as presented, and participants did not readily understand the link between the symbols and Service Canada’s offerings.
Participants were asked to comment on the symbols used in the design for Concept B (colours with symbols) and Concept C (red/white with symbols). Various icons were misunderstood in each of the options containing icons, namely the “alien ship” (Mountie hat), the toque (not clear to many), the Toronto skyline in front of mountains, the Metis flag (often described as the infinity sign), the green beaver positioning (looking like standing on hind legs) and the relevance of some of the symbols to what Service Canada does (e.g. ducks, tulips and trees). The Metis symbol was not felt to be the correct colour.
By contrast, participants in Saskatoon appreciated showing wheat (representing Saskatchewan), the inclusivity of many of the symbols representing people (First Nations, Metis and Inuit, as well as various ages of people and types of families). There was some questioning of the use of social media icons, in particular LinkedIn, for its relevance to Service Canada.
Regardless of their preferred design, many participants questioned the relevance of using the selected symbols in the context of a Service Canada sign. In was suggested that the symbols would be more relevant if they illustrated the types of services offered by Service Canada rather than providing an illustrative reference to Canada and Canadians. It was believed that people should also be included to reflect the audiences targeted by government services (e.g., families, elderly, etc.).
People Serving People vs. Here For You
The expression “Here for You” was preferred for the banner for being simple, clear and welcoming.
Participants were asked to indicate which of the two phrases “People Serving People” or “Here for You” they preferred, if at all. Across both Kitchener and Saskatoon, both groups expressed a preference for the phrase “Here for You” for being direct, simple, welcoming, short and “to the point”. A few also mentioned that the idea of government staff “serving” people was odd, thus not liking the alternative statement.
The few participants who liked the alternative phrase, “People Serving People”, found it inviting and personal – as though service would be strong. They felt that this expression introduced a more “personal touch” to the service offered.
URL
The URL “Canada.ca” was preferred for its simplicity and memorability, as most would use a search engine to locate the information they need.
Participants were asked which of two URL they would like to see on the banners, namely “Canada.ca” or “Canada.ca/servicecanada”. By far, the shorter version was preferred for being more memorable. It was widely mentioned that if looking for information online, a URL would not likely be used, but rather, participants would use a search engine to locate the information they are looking for and thus the URL did not really matter.
Appendix A:
Recruitment Screener
RECRUITMENT SCREENER FINAL
– SECOND CYCLE
Name:_______________________________________________________________________
Tel. (H):_______________________ Tel. (W):______________________ Tel. (Cell):_______________________
Email: _______________________________________________________________________________________
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FOCUS GROUPS:
|
Moncton, NB (ENGLISH) |
|||
|
Date: |
February
19, 2019 |
Location: |
Corporate Research
Associates |
|
Time: |
Group 13: 5:30pm – 18-34 years old Group
14: 8:00pm - 35+ years old |
|
68
Highfield Street Suite 101 Moncton,
NB |
|
North Vancouver, BC (ENGLISH) |
|||
|
Date: |
February
13, 2019 |
Location: |
Vancouver Focus |
|
Time: |
Group 15: 5:30pm – 18-34 years old Group
16: 8:00pm - 35+ years old |
|
1080
Howe Street Suite 503 Vancouver,
BC |
|
Quebec City, QC (FRENCH) |
|||
|
Date: |
February
19, 2019 |
Location: |
SOM |
|
Time: |
Group 17: 5:30pm – 18-34 years old Group
18: 8:00pm - 35+ years old |
|
3340
rue de La Perade, 4th Floor Quebec, QC |
|
Kitchener, ON (ENGLISH) |
|||
|
Date: |
February
20, 2019 |
Location: |
Metroline |
|
Time: |
Group 19: 5:30pm – Females Group
20: 8:00pm - Males |
|
7 Duke Street West, Suite 301 |
|
Saskatoon, SK (ENGLISH) |
|||
|
Date: |
February
26, 2019 |
Location: |
Insightrix |
|
Time: |
Group 21: 5:30pm – Females Group
22: 8:00pm - Males |
|
1
– 3223 Millar Avenue Saskatoon,
SK |
|
SPECIFICATIONS SUMMARY |
|
|
·
In each of Saskatoon, and
Kitchener, one group with males and one group with females ·
In each of, Moncton,
North Vancouver, and Quebec City, one group with those 18-34 years old and
one group with those 35 years or older ·
All to be Canadian
citizens 18-74 years old (mix of age based on quotas) ·
All have lived in their
respective markets for at least 2 years. ·
Mix of parents of
children 18 years or younger at home and non-parents (4-6 with children and
4-6 without) Must
not personally or have someone in household work or be retired from sensitive
occupations |
·
Mix of occupation,
education and household income ·
Max 6 recruits per group
who have been to focus groups before. ·
Must not have taken part
in a focus group in past six months ·
Must not have taken part
in 5 or more focus groups in past 5 years. ·
Able to take part in
written/visual exercises in English / French (based on location) ·
Recruit 12 per group ·
$100 incentive |
Hello, my name is ____ and
I am with Corporate Research Associates Inc., a market research firm, and I’m
calling today on behalf of the Government of Canada. We are currently conducting a series of small
group discussions and are looking to include people who are at least 18 years
of age or older. Would you be that
person, or is there someone else I could speak with? REPEAT INTRO IF NECESSARY
Would
you prefer that I continue in English or in French? Préférez-vous
continuer en français ou en anglais? [IF FRENCH, CONTINUE IN
FRENCH OR ARRANGE CALL BACK WITH FRENCH INTERVIEWER: Nous vous rappellerons pour mener cette entrevue de recherche en
français. Merci. Au revoir.]
The purpose the small group
discussions is to explore various issues of importance to the country. These
group discussions will be held on <DATE>,
will last two hours and those who attend will receive $100 in appreciation
for their time. May I ask you a few quick questions at this time to see if you
qualify to participate in this study? This will take about 6 or 7 minutes.
Please note, this
information will remain completely confidential and you are free to opt out at
any time. We are not trying to sell you anything. Thank you.
IF A REFERENCE IS REQUIRED
TO AUTHENTICATE THE STUDY, PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Isabelle Côté, Privy Council Office – Tel: (613) 960-4031 / Email: Isabelle.Cote@pco-bcp.gc.ca
THANK & TERMINATE WHERE
REQUIRED IN THE SCREENER: Unfortunately, we will not be able to include you in
this study. We already have enough participants who have a similar profile to
yours. Thank you for your time today.
QUALIFYING QUESTIONS
Do you or any member of your household work in
or has retired from: READ RESPONSES
Marketing or Market
Research.............................................................. 1
Public relations, communications,
graphic design, or creative agency...... 2
Advertising or media (TV,
Radio, Newspaper)........................................ 3
Political Party......................................................................................... 4
Federal or provincial
governments ........................................................ 5
IF YES TO ANY OF THE
ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE
Are you a Canadian citizen at least 18 years old
who normally resides in the [SPECIFY
COMMUNITY] area?
Yes............................................................. 1 CONTINUE
No ............................................................. 2 THANK AND TERMINATE
How long have you lived in [SPECIFY COMMUNITY]?
Response: ____________
TERMINATE IF LESS THAN 2 YEARS
1.
Have you
ever attended a focus group discussion or in-depth interview for which you
received a sum of money?
Yes............................................................. 1
CONTINUE – MAX 6 RECRUITS PER GROUP
No ............................................................. 2
GO
TO PROFILING QUESTIONS
2.
When was
the last time you attended a focus group or interview? _____________
IF
THEY HAVE BEEN TO A GROUP/INTERVIEW IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS - THANK &
TERMINATE
3.
How many focus groups or interviews have you
attended in the past five years? ______
IF
THEY HAVE BEEN TO 5 OR MORE GROUPS/INTERVIEWS IN PAST 5 YEARS - THANK &
TERMINATE
PROFILING QUESTIONS
4.
Are you
a…
Female; or............................... 1 CONSIDER FOR GROUP
19, 21
Male........................................ 2 CONSIDER FOR GROUPS 20, 22
VOLUNTEERED
Other/refused......................... 3 ASK WITH WHICH GROUP THEY ASSOCIATE
5.
In which
of the following age group do you fall? Please stop me when I reach your age.
Are you [READ]?
Less than 18............................. 1 THANK
& TERMINATE
18 to 24.................................... 2
25 to 34.................................... 3
35 to 44.................................... 4
45 to 54.................................... 5 SEE
QUOTAS
55 to 64.................................... 6
65 to 74.................................... 7
75 or older............................... 8
THANK
& TERMINATE
VOLUNTEERED
Refused................................... 9 THANK
& TERMINATE
AGE QUOTAS:
Groups 19-22: Recruit min 3
between 18-34; min 3 between 35-54 and max 4 between 55-74
Groups 13, 15, 17: Recruit
6 between 18-24 and 6 between 25-34
Groups 14, 16, 18: Recruit
3 in each of 35-44 and 45-54, and 6 in the 55-74
6.
Do you
currently have children under the age of 18 living in the house with you?
Yes............................................................. 1 RECRUIT 4-6 PER GROUP
No.............................................................. 2 RECRUIT 4-6 PER GROUP
7.
How many
people above the age of 18 are there in your household?
One............................................................ 1
More than one........................................... 2
8.
What is
the highest level of education you have finished?
Less than High School.................................. 1
Some High School/Vocational...................... 2
Completed High School............................... 3
Some College / Technical Training ............... 4 AIM
FOR MIX IN EACH GROUP
Completed College / Technical Training........ 5
Some University......................................... 6
Completed university.................................. 7
VOLUNTEERED
Refused...................................................... 8
9.
Are you
currently [READ]?
Employed full time...................................... 1
Employed part-time.................................... 2
Self-employed............................................ 3
A homemaker............................................. 4
Unemployed.............................................. 6 RECRUIT
MAX 3 PER GROUP
A student................................................... 7
10.
[IF EMPLOYED, ASK] What is your current occupation? ___________
[IF
RETIRED, ASK] What was your last
occupation? _______________
TERMINATE IF SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS AS IN Q1 –
RECRUIT MIX OF OCCUPATIONS
11.
Thinking
about the cost of living and your personal financial situation, would you say
you are currently…
Falling behind on your
monthly expenses...... 1 CONSIDER FOR GROUP 25,27,29,31,33,35
Just getting by, with no
savings...................... 2
Getting ahead, with some
savings.................. 3 CONSIDER FOR GROUP 26,28,30,32,34,36
Financially secure.......................................... 4
Don’t know/Refused .................................... 5
12.
Which of
the following categories best describes your total household income? That is,
the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes? READ RESPONSES
Under $20,000............................................ 1
$20,000 to just under $ 40,000..................... 2
$40,000 to just under $ 60,000..................... 3
$60,000 to just under $ 80,000..................... 4
$80,000 to just under $100,000.................... 5
$100,000 to just under $150,000................... 6
$150,000 and above.................................... 7
VOLUNTEERED
Don’t know/Refused.................................. 8
Ensure good mix:
Recruit 2 below $40K category
Recruit 3 between $40 and $80K
Recruit 5 above $80K category
INVITATION
Based on your responses, it looks like you have
the profile we are looking for. I would like to invite you to participate in a
focus group discussion we are holding at [TIME]
on [DATE]. As you may know,
focus groups are used to gather information on a particular subject matter; in
this case, various issues of importance to the country. The discussion will consist of about 10
people and will be very informal. The information provided by participants
during the focus groups will remain anonymous and confidential.
13.
This
discussion will last up to 2 hours; it will begin at [TIME] and end at [TIME].
Refreshments will be served and you will receive $100 as a thank you for your
time. Would you be interested in
attending?
Yes............................................................. 1
No ............................................................. 2
THANK
& TERMINATE
14.
The discussion
you will be participating in will be audio and video recorded for use by the
research team only to analyze the findings.
Please be assured your comments and responses are strictly confidential.
Are you comfortable with the discussion being recorded?
Yes............................................................. 1
No ............................................................. 2
THANK
& TERMINATE
15.
Participants
may be asked to read some materials and write out responses individually during
the group discussion. Would it be
possible for you to take part in these activities in [English/French – based on location] by yourself without
assistance?
Yes............................................................. 1
No ............................................................. 2
THANK
& TERMINATE
16.
[IF PROFESSIONAL FACILITIES
ARE USED] The discussion will take place in a room that is
equipped with a one-way mirror for observation.
[IF
HOTEL MEETING FACILITIES ARE USED] The
discussion will take place in a room equipped with a close-circuit camera
hooked to a television in an adjoining room.
This set up will allow
Government of Canada employees who are involved in this research, and partner
organizations, to observe the discussion without disturbing it. Your
participation will be anonymous and only your first name will be given to these
people. Would this be acceptable to you?
Yes............................................................. 1
No ............................................................. 2
THANK
& TERMINATE
As part of our quality control measures, we ask
everyone who is participating in the focus group to bring along a piece of
I.D., picture if possible. You may be
asked to show your I.D.
As these are small groups and with even one
person missing, the overall success of the group may be affected, I would ask
that once you have decided to attend that you make every effort. In the event
you are unable to attend, please call_____ (collect) at ________as soon as
possible in order that a replacement may be found.
Please also arrive 15
minutes prior to the starting time. The discussion begins promptly at [TIME]. Anyone arriving after [TIME] will NOT be able to take part in the
discussion and will NOT receive the $100 incentive.
Please bring with you
reading glasses or anything else that you need to read with or take part in the
discussion.
Thank you for your interest in our study. We look forward to meeting you and hearing
your thoughts and opinions.
ATTENTION RECRUITERS
- Recruit 12 participants
for each group.
- CHECK QUOTAS.
- Ensure participant has
a good speaking (overall responses) & written ability - If in doubt, DO NOT INVITE.
- Do not put names on
profile sheet unless you have a firm commitment.
- Repeat the date, time
and location before hanging up.
- Ask them to arrive 15
minutes prior to the start time.
- Reminded them of the
discussion start and end time
CONFIRMING
- Confirm at the
beginning of the day prior to the day of the groups.
- Verify qualifying
questions
- Confirm in person; do
not leave a message.
- Verify time and
location (ask if they are familiar).
- Remind participants to
glasses if needed.
- Remind them to arrive
15 minutes prior to the start time
- Remind them to bring
their IDs
Appendix B:
Moderator’s Guide
Moderator’s Guide – February 2019
Focus
Groups – Winter 2019 – Phase 2
Introduction
10
minutes
·
Welcome: Introduce self &
research firm & role as moderator (keep on time/on topic)
·
Sponsor: Groups on behalf of the
Government of Canada
·
Length: Our discussion should last
about 2 hours, excuse yourself if needed during the session
·
Your Role: Share your opinions freely
and honestly; no prep needed; not testing your knowledge
·
Process: All opinions are important;
looking to understand minority/majority of opinions; talk one at a time;
interested in hearing from everyone
·
Logistic: Audio/video taping for
reporting; observation representing the government (mirror/video feed)
·
Confidentiality: Your comments are anonymous;
no names in reports; answers will not affect dealings with Government of
Canada; Once finalized, the report can be accessed through the Library of
Parliament or Archives Canada.
·
Participant Introduction: First name, who they live
with, and favourite hobby/pastime
Government
of Canada News (all locations) 5 minutes
To begin…
·
What have you seen, read or heard about the
Government of Canada lately?
·
We talk a lot about “the economy” and
how the economy is doing. But what does that actually mean?
·
What do you consider the best ways of
telling if the economy is going well if it is going badly?
o What does a “good economy” look like?
o
What does a “bad economy” look like?
·
How much is the government of Canada
able to influence whether we have a good or a bad economy?
o What type of things can they do that have an impact?
o Has the Government of Canada done any of these types of things?
Exercise #1: Take a moment and write down one word, or a few words that
describe the current job market. Don’t overthink it – there are no right or
wrong answers.
·
What words did you use to describe the
current job market? Why those?
·
Is the job market better, worse or the
same as it was a year ago?
o
Why? What has changed?
·
Is it better, worse or the same as it
was 5 years ago?
o
Why? What has changed?
·
Looking ahead, do you think the job
market is going to get better or worse or stay the same over the next 5 or 10
years? Why?
o What concerns do you have when you look ahead?
Exercise #2: I’ve got a handout with different issues all related to “jobs”. A
lot of these are similar, but I want you to circle the 2 or 3 items on this
list that you think are the most important for the government of Canada to pay
attention to.
·
Let’s look at each one individually:
did you circle that one? REVIEW EACH INDIVIDUALLY
o Why do you think this is an issue the government should pay
attention to?
o Why do you think this isn’t important for the government right
now?
o
IF CIRCLED: Is there anything specific the government could do to fix this
problem?
·
Does anyone know what the current
unemployment rate is?
CLARIFY AS NEEDED
The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%,
which is the lowest level since Statistics Canada started measuring comparable
data just over 40 years ago.
·
What do you think when you hear this?
o Does it surprise you?
o Does it paint an accurate picture of job market?
o Does it make you feel better about the jobs situation in Canada?
Environment 30-40 minutes
(Moncton; North Vancouver;
Kitchener; Quebec City; Saskatoon)
·
What have you
seen, read or heard about the environment lately?
o
And have you
seen, read or heard about anything related to the Government of Canada and the
environment recently?
Exercise
#3: I’ve got a handout with
various things the Government of Canada is working towards, or could be doing
to help the environment. I’d like you to circle the three you think are the
most important.
When
you’re done with your selections, please put an ‘x’ next to any items that you
think the government should NOT do, or that you disagree with.
·
Before
we look at which ones you have chosen… Are there any you think that the
government should not do/that
you disagree with? Why?
·
Which ones do
you think are the most important (those you chose)? What makes you say that?
·
Was there
anything missing from that list?
·
Have
you heard of the government of Canada’s plan to put a price on pollution? SHOW
OF HANDS
o IF YES: What have you heard recently?
KITCHENER AND SASKATOON ONLY:
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.
Under this
system, what people and businesses pay will be based on the amount of carbon
emissions they produce. All revenue collected in Ontario will stay in Ontario –
90% will be given directly to residents in the form of an incentive, with the
average household receiving about $300. 10% will go to small businesses,
hospitals, and schools.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE MODERATOR:
Ø
The federal
carbon pollution pricing system puts a price on every tonne
of carbon dioxide equivalents produced, and is made of two parts:
- A trading system for large
industry, known as the output-based pricing system; and
- A regulatory charge on fuel
Ø
The government
expects that although the price on pollution does not apply directly to
individuals, some costs will be passed on to consumers through things like
increases in the price of heating or electricity.
Ø
For most
families (in these 4 provinces), the value of the incentive will be higher than
the costs associated with the price on pollution
·
Is this system
clear – i.e. do you feel you understand how the federal government plans to put
a price on pollution works? SHOW OF HANDS
o
How would you
explain this plan?
o
What parts of
the plan do you feel you understand?
o What parts are unclear?
·
Had you
previously heard you would receive a Climate Action Incentive beginning this
year?
·
For 8 out of
10 families, the Climate Action Incentive will be more than the costs they pay
through a price on pollution Does this change the way you feel about the
program?
ALL LOCATIONS:
·
Do you
think Canada should take a global leadership role when it comes to protecting
the environment and fighting climate change? SHOW OF HANDS
o
IF YES: How important is it that Canada takes a
leadership role? Why do you say that?
o IF NO: Why do you think Canada should not take a leadership
role?
·
Canada
is a vast country with significant variations to climate and weather. Has
anyone here noticed changes either recently or longer ago to weather/climate
locally?
o
IF YES: What have you noticed?
o Has this affected you? If yes, how so?
·
In terms of how much pollution produced per
person, how do you think Canada ranks globally? That is, do you think we are
one of the top polluters, about average, or one of the lowest producers?
CLARIFY AS NEEDED:
Because of heating our homes in winter, our high
standard of living and high rates of car ownership across Canada, Canadians
produce more pollution per person than most other countries.
·
Some
feel that if we as Canadians are serious about reducing our emissions, we are
going to have to make some lifestyle changes. How do you feel about this – does
this seem valid? Why/why not?
·
Some
Canadians are making lifestyle changes, and some are not. Where do you fall in
this regard - are you making lifestyle changes or is your lifestyle fairly
similar to what it was, say 5 years ago?
o
IF
CHANGED: What motivates you to
make changes?
o IF NOT: What is discouraging you from making changes?
·
When it
comes to climate change, who influences your opinion when it comes to making
any lifestyle changes? How so? Why/why not?
ASK IN ST.
JOHN’S ONLY
Coast Guard 30 minutes
·
Next we’re
going to talk briefly about the Canadian Coast Guard. We will get into some
specifics in a moment, but first I’d like you to write down one adjective that
you would use to describe the Canadian Coast Guard based on what you know about
it.
o
PROBE: Why did you choose that word?
o PROBE: Do you think the word “essential” would be
a good way to describe the Canadian Coast Guard? Why or why not?
·
What, if
anything, have you seen, read or heard about the Canadian Coast Guard lately?
o
And have you
seen, read or heard anything that the Government of Canada has done recently or
is planning to do regarding the Canadian Coast Guard?
o IF YES: And where did you see/read/hear
this? TV, Newspaper, Social media (if so, from which channels, Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram)?
·
Overall, do
you think the Government of Canada is doing a good or a bad job of managing the
Canadian Coast Guard? Why?
·
Do you think the Coast Guard is
doing a good or a bad job? Why? (If
possible)
Exercise
#4: I’ve got a handout with
various things the Canadian Coast Guard is working towards, or could be working
towards. I’d like you to circle the two that you think are the most
important.
·
Choose
one item that you circled – why is this item important?
Exercise
#5: Keeping in mind that the
Government of Canada has many responsibilities and has must make priorities
when deciding how to spend money, please circle the two items on the
below list that you think should be the top priority when investing in the
Canadian Coast Guard.
·
Choose
one priority that you circled – why did you choose this item as a top priority?
·
Where
there any items on the list that you think the Government of Canada should not
be spending money on? Why?
·
If I
told you that the average age of ships currently in service with the Canadian
Coast Guard is 35 years, would that change your opinion about what should be a
priority?
·
We’ve
talked about potentially building new ships, but there are different types of
ships that could be built, including new icebreakers. Do you think building up
Canada’s fleet of icebreakers should be a priority? Why or why not?
o
PROBE
IF NECESSARY: Do you
think the work done by Canada’s icebreakers is important? Why or why not?
Youth Economic Opportunities 30 minutes
·
I want
to talk a bit about younger Canadians. For the purposes of this discussion,
let’s think about people who are roughly 20 to 35 years old.
·
Do you
think younger Canadians have it easier or harder than past generations?
o How so?
·
Do you
think the Government of Canada pays more or less attention to young people,
compared to older age groups?
o
What
makes you say that?
o What has the government specifically done that
benefits younger Canadians?
ASK REMAINDER TO YOUNGER FOCUS
GROUP ONLY
·
What
are the largest challenges facing younger Canadians these days?
Exercise
#6: I’ve got a handout with a
list of some things the government could do to help young people. I want you to
rank the three you feel they should focus on the most 1-2-3.
Let’s review each item individually…
·
Who
ranked this item in their top-3?
o
Why is
this important?
o
What do
you want to see government do to address this?
·
IF LOW
PRIORITY: Why is this a low priority?
Exercise
#7: I want to talk a bit more
about housing affordability. I’ve got a handout with 5 problems listed. I want
you to rank the ones you see as the biggest problems 1-2-3.
Let’s review each item individually…
·
Who
ranked this item in their top-3?
o
Why is
this important?
o What do you want to see government do to
address this?
·
IF LOW
PRIORITY: Why is this a low
priority?
·
Regardless
of how big a problem is, which of the things on this list do you think the
government of Canada could actually do something to fix? And which of the
things do you think are outside of their control?
·
How
would you feel if the government of Canada launched a program to make it easier
for people to buy their first home?
N ST.
JOHN’S ONLY
Service Canada Pull-Up
Screens 15 minutes
I would now
like to show you three designs. These designs are options for a refresh of the
visuals used on Service Canada’s pull-up screens (or banner signs). These
screens are used at Service Canada Centres, at
temporary Service Canada sites in different communities, as well as at career
fairs and other similar events across the country. The purpose of the
screens is to make the public aware that Service Canada representatives are at
the particular location and are available to answer questions or provide
assistance regarding Government of Canada programs and services.
Note: All three designs are to be shown
at the same time to ensure time efficiency and a comparative analysis.
After allowing 1-2 minutes for the
participants to review the designs more closely, pose the following questions.
·
After looking
a bit closer at the designs, which of the three do you prefer? [SHOW
OF HANDS] Would you choose something other than the one at first
impression? Why?
·
Is there one
design presented here which you feel best represents what Service Canada is all
about? [SHOW OF HANDS] Which design do you more closely associate
with Service Canada? Why?
·
Is there anything
in particular that you do not like about any of the designs? Why?
·
Do you think
the use of icons on the second and third designs is appealing?
o
Are there any
icons you particularly like?
o Are there any icons you do not think are
appropriate?
·
Do you have a
preference between using the wording ‘People Serving People’ or ‘Here for You’
or nothing at all? Why?
·
Do you have a
preference between the use of the url Canada.ca or
the url Canada.ca/servicecanada
on the designs? If so, why?
Thanks
& Closure
That concludes our discussion. On behalf of the
Government of Canada, thank you for your time and input.
Exercise Sheet
Exercise #1 – The Job Market
Exercise
#2 – The Job Market
Jobs disappearing
Job security
Lack of jobs
Lack of job opportunities for young people
Lack of opportunities for career advancement
Skill training and retraining
Wages not keeping up with the rising cost of
living
Exercise #3 – The Environment
Building more than 1,000 public transit projects (for example, light
rail trains, buses, transit stations, subway, etc) to
help Canadians get to where they want to go
Doubling the amount of nature protected across Canada
Driving new opportunities for business and creating jobs in the
industries of tomorrow
Funding new charging stations for electric vehicles
Helping communities and families adapt to extreme weather
Helping families and businesses save money through energy efficiency
Improving energy efficiency in new low-income housing
Introducing a price on pollution, so that it’s no longer free to pollute
Investing in clean energy and phasing out coal for cleaner air and
better health
Keeping plastic pollution out of our oceans, lakes and rivers
Ensuring the
safety of Canadians at sea
Protecting
commercial shipping routes
Defending
Canada’s sovereignty in remote areas
Supporting
scientific research in marine areas
Tracking and
reacting to changes in marine ecosystems resulting from climate change
Stimulating
the economy by building and upgrading ships in Canadian shipyards
Exercise #5 – The Canadian Coast Guard
Building new ships to
renew the Coast Guard Fleet
Maintaining and
upgrading existing ships to renew the Coast Guard Fleet
Expanding the Coast
Guard’s mandate to support national security activities
Buying new, innovative
equipment to modernize Coast Guard capabilities
Expanding the Coast
Guard presence in the Arctic to defend our sovereignty
Investing in the
conservation of marine areas
Recruiting and growing
the Coast Guard’s workforce
Exercise
#6 – Young People
Creating jobs for
students so they can get work experience
Helping young families
with the cost of raising children
Increasing skills training
and apprenticeship programs
Making it more
affordable for people to buy their first home
Relieving student debt
Strengthening the
Canada Pension Plan to help people save for retirement
Exercise
#7 – Young People
Foreign buyers buying
houses they don’t intend to live in, driving up prices
Investors buying
houses and flipping them without living in them, driving up prices
The high cost of
making a down payment
The high cost of
making mortgage payments
The lack of housing
supply