Timeline of April Announcements

To help place the focus group discussions within the context of key events which occurred during the month, below is a timeline for the month of April 2022.

• April 1-8
  • April 1. The Government of Canada announced $7,555,621 in investments for nine initiatives to support businesses in the Parry Sound and Muskoka region, which will create up to 139 jobs over the next five years.
  • April 1. The Minister of Health and Addictions announced that eligible Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Veterans, including certain serving classes of Reservists, applying for a disability benefit for certain mental health conditions will receive immediate mental health coverage.
  • April 1. The Government of Canada announced $5 million in support for four crime prevention projects in Greater Montreal.
  • April 1. The Government of Canada announced over $214 million in funding to ensure the safety and long-term sustainability of Iqaluit’s water supply system.
  • April 4. The Government of Canada announced an investment of $7.5 million to four organizations in Alberta to support emerging clean technologies.
  • April 5. The Government of Canada announced an investment of over $865,000 to Fort Severn First Nation for a solar project to reduce the need for diesel-generated electricity and increase the reliability of energy systems in the remote northern Ontario community.
  • Focus groups were held with the Ukrainian diaspora in major centres in the Prairies (April 5) and those who were environmentally concerned on Vancouver Island (April 6).
  • April 6. The Government of Canada announced approximately $1 million in funding for 17 Indigenous organizations to support Indigenous-led data projects, with the aim of developing methodologies to better understand the issue of violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
  • April 6. The Government of Canada announced over $82 million in funding to support gender-responsive humanitarian and development assistance and address increasing food and nutrition needs in Sahel and Lake Chad regions.
  • April 6. The Government of Canada announced a $68.5 million investment to support Indigenous Tourism Ontario and 11 Regional Tourism Organizations (RTOs) in southern Ontario.
  • Focus group was held with Francophones in New Brunswick (April 7).
  • April 7. The Government of Canada released Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable.
• April 9-16
  • April 11. The Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada is imposing additional sanctions under the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations in response to the Russian regime’s invasion of Ukraine.
  • April 11. The Government of Canada announced over $110.3 million in joint federal-provincial funding for 57 community, recreation, and green infrastructure projects across British Columbia.
  • April 11. The Government of Canada announced a $445,000 investment in the Regional Municipality of Peel to install 80 electric vehicle (EV) chargers across the region.
  • April 11. The Government of Canada announced a $32.2 million investment through the Low Carbon Economy Fund to Tlingit Homeland Energy Limited Partnership for the Atlin Hydro Expansion Project.
  • Focus groups were held with first-time home buyers in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) (April 12), men, aged 18-34, in southwestern Ontario (April 13) and the general population in the Lower Mainland region (April 13).
  • April 14. Health Canada authorized Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) for the prevention of COVID-19 for use in adults and children (12 years of age and older, weighing a minimum of 40 kilograms) who are not currently infected with COVID-19 and have not had recent known contact with someone infected with COVID-19, and:
    • Who are immune compromised and unlikely to mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination; or,
    • For whom COVID-19 vaccination is not recommended.
  • April 14. The Minister of National Defence announced the immediate deployment of approximately 100 CAF personnel in the following days to assist with efforts to support and care for Ukrainians fleeing violence, with the possibility of an additional 150 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel.
• April 17-23
  • April 19. The Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that additional sanctions under the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations in response to the Russian regime’s invasion of Ukraine. These sanctions impose restrictions on 14 close associates of the Russian regime, including Russian oligarchs and their family members.
  • April 19. The Government of Canada announced over $56 million in combined federal and provincial funding for six projects dedicated to providing high-speed Internet access to more than 6,500 households in rural northern and southwestern Ontario, as well as in First Nation communities.
  • Focus groups were held with seniors, aged 55 or older, in the Kitchener and Waterloo region (April 19) and high income earners in Quebec City (April 20).
  • April 20. The Government of Canada announced $326,700 in funding from the Residential School Children’s – Community Support Funding program, in support of Sipekne’katik First Nation’s “Shubenacadie Residential School Support Project for Sipekne’katik.”
  • April 20. The Government of Canada announced a new Ukraine2Canada Travel Fund, launched in partnership with Miles4Migrants, The Shapiro Foundation and Air Canada to support Ukrainians wishing to travel to Canada.
  • Focus group was held with those concerned with the cost of living in rural Nova Scotia (April 21).
  • April 21. The Government of Canada announced the signing of the Safe Long-Term Care Fund (SLTCF) agreement with Ontario, providing Ontario with over $379 million from the $1 billion investment made in the 2020 Fall Economic Statement (FES).
  • April 22. The Government of Canada announced over $1,075,000 in funding to bring high-speed Internet to over 625 households in Newfoundland and Labrador.
  • April 22. The Government of Canada and the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor) announced over $3.8 million in tourism investments for projects to support Indigenous communities and tourism businesses.
  • April 22. The Government of Canada announced adjustments to ease Canada’s border measures, effective April 25, 2022.
  • April 22. The Government of Canada announced $40 million in additional funding in support of the Global Financing Facility’s (GFF) “Reclaim the Gains” campaign, for a total contribution of $190 million.
• April 24-30
  • April 25. The Government of Canada announced additional funding, from a second solicitation of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) funding, to support 13 distress centres for a total investment of $1,775,000.
  • April 25. The Government of Canada announced that licensed child care fees for New Brunswick families with children under six years of age will be reduced by an average of 50%, starting June 1, 2022.
  • April 25. The Government of Canada announced $300 million toward capacity-building initiatives that Indigenous, rural and remote communities can now apply for.
  • April 26. The Government of Canada announced over $5 million in funding for Clearwater County and Switch Incorporated to bring high-speed Internet to 7,339 households in rural Alberta.
  • Focus groups were held with women, aged 18-34, in the Greater Montreal Area (GMA) (April 26) and low-middle income earners in Edmonton (April 27).
  • April 27. The Government of Canada announced over $2.6 million in an investment to TUGLIQ Energy Co. to address barriers to electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure in Northern Quebec.
  • Focus group was held with low-middle income earners in the Outaouais region in Quebec (April 28).
  • April 28. The Government of Canada introduced Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Government of Canada in the News (All Locations)

At the beginning of each group participants were asked what they had seen, read, or heard about the Government of Canada in recent days. The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia was top of mind among participants, with several closely following the evolving crisis as well as the response from the Government of Canada and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Specifically related to the conflict, many mentioned the sanctions placed on numerous Russian individuals and entities by the federal government, while others recalled the provision of significant amounts of financial and military assistance to Ukraine as well as efforts by the Government of Canada to bring a large number of Ukrainians fleeing conflict into to Canada.

Unrelated to the crisis in Ukraine, participants also recalled a number of other recent actions and announcements from the federal government. These included:

• The tabling of the 2022 federal Budget on April 7^th, 2022. A number of participants mentioned the Budget, with several commenting positively on announcements related to housing affordability, specifically the decision to prohibit non-Canadians from buying residential properties in Canada for two years;
• The decision by the Bank of Canada on April 13^th, 2022 to raise interest rates by 0.50%, responding to concerns regarding the perceived high rate of inflation and rising cost of living throughout Canada;
• The announcement on March 22^nd, 2022, of Delivering for Canadians Now, A Supply and Confidence Agreement, a deal between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party that will last until Parliament rises in June 2025;
• The loosening of some pandemic-related travel measures for fully-vaccinated travellers entering Canada, including reduced testing requirements for travellers arriving by air;
• Increased efforts by the Government of Canada to compel individuals who may have ineligibly received pandemic-related financial supports such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) to repay these amounts back to the federal government; and
• The anticipated roll-out of an additional booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine for certain vulnerable groups of Canadians. In addition, a few mentioned having heard that Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer had recommended that Canadians continue practicing public health measures such as wearing masks, social distancing, and frequent hand-washing, even as provincial and territorial mandates are loosened or removed.

Environment and Climate Change (Vancouver Island Environmentally Concerned)

A group of environmentally concerned participants from Vancouver Island engaged in a discussion on climate change. To begin, participants were asked a general question about the priorities on which they felt the federal government should be focusing. While many participants mentioned issues such as housing affordability, inflation, opioid addiction, and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, several identified the environment and climate change as major priorities requiring increased attention from the Government of Canada. When asked more explicitly about climate change and the environment, all participants felt this was a critical priority for the federal government, with many of the view that these were the most important issues facing the Government of Canada at this time.

Discussing those issues about which they were particularly concerned, participants mentioned the following:

• Pollution – Some identified pollution as an issue of growing concern, linked to increased consumerism and industrial activity. It was suggested that more could be done by the Government of Canada to pass legislation limiting the use of single-use plastics. In addition, some expressed the desire to see additional personnel and resources devoted towards cleaning up coastal and ocean systems, with some expressing the view that these ecosystems in particular needed urgent attention;
• Non-renewable resources – It was strongly felt by several participants that greater efforts needed to be taken to more rapidly transition away from non-renewable energy sources such as oil and gas. A small number also raised questions about zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), expressing concern about the potential negative environmental impact associated with the production and disposal of ZEV batteries. Several recommended greater investments into more renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, and wind; and
• The conservation of existing resources – Some were of the view that the federal government could do more to preserve Canada’s existing natural resources, specifically mentioning freshwater and forests as resources which required greater regulatory oversight and policies to underpin long-term sustainability.

Speaking more generally, a few participants advocated for a more wide-ranging transformation with respect to social and economic practices which would prioritize sustainability and conservation, along with economic growth and prosperity. A small number were of the view that any large-scale societal change would only be achievable through legislation, believing it was unlikely to occur if left up to individuals, including employers and consumers.

Focusing on recent actions taken by the Government of Canada regarding the environment, several recalled the introduction of a federal price on carbon. Others alluded to initiatives such as the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, the Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles (iZEV) Program, and the Canada Greener Homes Grant Initiative, although they did not reference these programs by name. Discussing the Government of Canada’s performance on this front, while several were supportive of what they felt was a greater focus in recent years on environmental issues, participants generally felt that much more could be done. Regarding potential actions that could be taken at the federal level, some expressed a desire to ensure greater accountability for companies that are considered to be major emitters, particularly within the resource extraction industry. It was suggested that the federal government should impose stricter regulations on these companies and their operations. Some commented that, unless more was done to limit the environmental impact of key industrial sectors, any positive steps taken at the individual level would likely have little to no tangible impact.

Dental Care (Kitchener and Waterloo Region Seniors)

Seniors residing in the Kitchener-Waterloo region of Ontario were asked a few additional questions on the subject of dental care. While very few had recently heard anything about this issue, those who had were aware that the Government of Canada had recently announced plans to establish a national dental care program, including coverage for children under the age of 12. Upon hearing this, some expressed curiosity as to how this new federal program would potentially overlap with existing provincially-run programs such as Health Smiles Ontario.

To aid in discussion, participants were shown the following information:

Budget 2022 proposes to provide funding to provide dental care for Canadians. This will start with under 12-year-olds in 2022, and then expand to under 18-year-olds, seniors, and persons living with a disability in 2023, with full implementation by 2025. The program would be restricted to families with an income of less than $90,000 annually, with no co-payments for those with an annual income under $70,000.

All participants felt this to be an important and worthwhile initiative, with several expressing support for the initial strategy of focusing on younger Canadians, seniors, and those with disabilities. It was felt this plan would be particularly helpful for those who were self-employed or did not have dental benefits through an employer. Some commented on the considerable out-of-pocket expenses associated with regular dental care for those who do not have coverage through their employer or a government-funded program. Others questioned what types of dental procedures would be covered via the proposed program and whether it would cover a wide range of dental procedures or only basic care. A few also expressed concern as to whether the current number of practicing dentists across Canada would be sufficient to address the expected increased demand for dental services once the program is operational.

Quebec City-Lévis Tunnel (Quebec City High Income)

Participants residing in Quebec City were asked about the recent announcement by the Government of Quebec of a plan to construct a tunnel providing an additional connection between the downtown core of Quebec City and the nearby municipality of Lévis. Several had heard about the project, specifically remarking on the cost of construction and ongoing discussions as to whether the project would involve the construction of one or multiple tunnels.

Discussing whether they would be personally affected by the tunnel, while a small number expected this could potentially make their daily commutes easier by reducing congestion and traffic on existing roadways, most did not feel it would greatly impact their lives. While a number of participants said they did not know enough of the details regarding the project to evaluate its impact, most ultimately felt it would likely be beneficial in the long-term for those living in the region, creating a third link between Quebec City and Lévis and reducing commute times for those frequently driving in and out of the city centre. At the same time, many also expressed concern about what they perceived to be a high projected cost for the project as well as the potential that construction costs could increase further. All participants felt the federal government had a role to play regarding this project, with some expecting federal funding would be allocated toward its construction as well as for ongoing infrastructure maintenance once the tunnel became operational.

Bay du Nord Development Project (Quebec City High Income, GMA Women, Edmonton Low/Middle Income, Outaouais Region Low/Middle Income)

Four groups (three among participants residing in Quebec and one among those in Edmonton) discussed the Bay du Nord Development Project proposed to be constructed off the eastern coast of Newfoundland of Labrador. Very few participants had heard about the project and those who had knew little of the details other than that it was related to the oil and gas sector. To aid discussion, participants were shown the following information:

Equinor proposed to install and operate a floating offshore oil and gas production facility east Newfoundland and Labrador. As proposed, the Bay du Nord Development Project would be in operation for approximately 30 years, with the potential for additional wells and tie-backs to the production facility. After an environmental assessment concluded it would not cause significant adverse environmental effects, the federal government approved the project.

Overall, most participants supported the project, based on the description provided, although views varied across the groups – those in Quebec City and Edmonton generally favoured the project, while participants in the Outaouais region were more uncertain and those in Montreal were mostly opposed. Participants who were in support of the project underscored the potential economic benefits of increased domestic oil and gas production for Canadians, especially given the recent rise in the price of gasoline across Canada and disruptions within the global oil and gas sector resulting from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. While several of these participants remained in favour of a transition to more sustainable energy production and a ‘greener’ economy, most were of the view that oil and gas remained important in the short-term. For those who were less supportive of the project, it was felt that even if the operation itself did not have a significant adverse environmental impact, any decision to increase the production of oil and gas would likely cause significant environmental harm in the long-run. Many of these participants felt that rather than focusing on expanding oil and gas production, there needed to be a more immediate emphasis from the federal government to transition to renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, and wind.

Discussing the potential impacts of this project, it was felt by most that there would likely be both positive and negative consequences. Focusing on the positive, several felt that by expanding domestic oil and gas production, the Canadian economy would likely experience significant gains associated with increased exports to foreign markets. In addition, some were hopeful that Canadians would also benefit through lower fuel prices domestically. Regarding the environment, several participants reiterated their concerns about the environmental impacts of continued investments in the oil and gas sector, and the possibility of damage to the offshore ecosystem. Some, however, felt that the results of the environmental assessment provided sufficient justification for the project to proceed. Adding to this, several participants commented on the importance of rigorous environmental assessments for proposed oil and gas projects in Canada and were pleased to know that the Government of Canada had followed a strict and thorough evaluation process.

Focusing on what the Bay du Nord project represented in terms of the future for oil and gas development within Canada, a number of participants thought it sent a message that the sector would continue to play an important role in the Canadian economy even amidst a greater transition towards more renewable energy sources. Regarding future projects, it was felt that if the project confirmed the expectations of the environmental assessment and indeed had minimal ecological impact, it would likely lead to the approval of future projects. Alternatively, if unanticipated damage occurred to nearby ecosystems, many expected the federal government would take greater caution in approving similar developments in the future.

CN Rail Board of Directors (GMA Women)

The group from Montreal engaged in a brief discussion regarding the issue of a lack of French-speaking members on the Board of the Canadian National Railway Company (CN Rail). While all participants had heard of CN Rail, very few were aware of this particular issue. To aid in conversation, participants were shown the following information:

CN Railway, Air Canada and third parties providing services on behalf of federal institutions have obligations under Canada’s Official Languages Act to provide services in English and French. CN Railway provides services in both official languages; however there are currently no French speaking directors on its corporate board. CN Railway is Canada’s largest railway company and its head office is in Montreal.

Most felt that the lack of French-speaking directors on CN’s Board was indicative of an underrepresentation of both the French language as well as the unique perspectives of Francophone Canadians when it came to corporate decision-making processes at major organizations such as CN Rail. A few voiced the opinion that this was tantamount to discrimination against Francophones, feeling there to be no valid justification for having no French-speaking directors. A small number felt differently. They were of the view that as Quebec was the only primarily French-speaking province and CN Rail was a national organization, it was not a necessity to have a minimum number of Francophone board members. For these participants, so long as the services offered by the company were available in both English and French, they did not see an issue.

Asked whether this was an important issue to them, several indicated that it was. These participants spoke to a larger concern regarding what they felt to be a lack of Francophone representation in many Canadian institutions and organizations. It was generally felt by these participants that for national organizations such as CN Rail, the linguistic composition of the board of directors should reflect both of Canada’s official languages. They emphasized that there should be an increased focus on the appointment of a greater number of French-speaking board members going forward.

Public Mood (Edmonton Low/Middle Income, Outaouais Region Low/Middle Income)

Two groups took part in an extended discussion regarding the public mood and perceived societal divisions that have emerged in recent years. To begin, participants were asked about their media consumption habits and, specifically, what sources they typically rely on for news and information. While some relied primarily on traditional sources such as televised news (CBC, CTV, Global News), newspapers, and radio, many also reported getting their news from social media platforms (such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and TikTok) as well as blogs, podcasts, and videos posted by a variety of news sources and subject matter experts on platforms such as YouTube.

Most participants were of the view that significant divisions between groups of Canadians were increasingly apparent. Many believed that while these differences had likely always existed, they had been exacerbated in recent months and years and were now being voiced far more openly. In addition, it was felt by a number of participants that the advent of social media and the ‘echo chamber’ effect (in which consumers are mainly exposed to news and information that reinforces an existing point of view or set of beliefs) were combining to create more extremist viewpoints and less common ground.

Asked whether there were any issues on which Canadians were still more or less united, many participants felt there was a general agreement that more needed to be done to address inflation and the rising cost of living in many parts of the country, particularly focusing on providing higher wages for Canadian workers. In addition, most felt that Canadians were currently on the same page regarding the conflict in Ukraine, believing the Government of Canada should continue to support Ukrainians and the Ukrainian defence effort while avoiding entering into a direct confrontation with Russian forces. While most were of the view that Canadians were generally unified on the desire for increased funding to the health care system, particularly given certain gaps which came to light through the pandemic, there were some mixed views as to whether all Canadians remained in support of universal public health care or whether some were now in favour of a mixed, public-private model for delivering health care services.

Discussing the areas where Canadians were the most divided, several mentioned the environment and climate change. A number of participants were of the view that there was a growing division among those who prioritized ongoing development of non-renewable energy sources such as oil and gas and others who felt a great emphasis should be placed on transitioning towards a ‘greener’, more sustainable economy. It was also felt by a number of participants that there were competing perspectives as to the general economic strategies the federal government should pursue, with some Canadians favouring greater spending on social programs while others felt the more immediate priority was fiscal restraint and deficit reduction. In addition to the environment and the economy, many participants identified the COVID-19 pandemic and related public health measures and vaccine mandates as a major source of division in recent years. It was felt that the recent protests which took place in February 2022 in Ottawa and other parts of the country had served to highlight growing divisions amongst Canadians.

Most were of the view that Canadians are more divided at present than was the case in in previous eras. Many emphasized the role of social media, believing that growing numbers of Canadians were engaging in more inflammatory conversations online than they otherwise would in a face-to-face context. They were also concerned about the use of increasingly aggressive rhetoric on these platforms. Some felt that the media had been complicit in fomenting division, with a small number commenting on what they described as an implicit bias in media reports. In addition, it was thought by some that there was a great deal of pressure at present to ‘take sides’ on certain issues which they felt further prevented Canadians from attempts to find common ground with one another.

A few participants were of the opposite view, feeling that Canadians were less divided today. Some expressed the opinion that issues such as the conflict in Ukraine had recently served to unify Canadians, while a few in the group from Montreal pointed to previous eras (such as the time when the Quebec sovereignty movement was more active and vocal) when they felt divisions amongst Canadians had been more pronounced.

Asked if they were concerned about these perceived divisions, many indicated that they were, feeling it contributed to a level of distrust and lack of cohesion that was unhealthy for a society. While some worried that divisive movements similar to the convoy protest may emerge again, bringing with them the potential for violence, others were more hopeful. This latter group anticipated that as pandemic-related public health restrictions continued to be loosened or removed, Canadians would be less frustrated with daily life and any tensions may lessen somewhat.

Discussing the role of the Government of Canada on this front, it was felt more could be done at the federal level to improve education regarding online information, including the ability to recognize so-called ‘fake news’ sources. Participants generally believed that this would significantly reduce the impact of misinformation and disinformation. While a small number in the group from Edmonton suggested the Government of Canada could engage in greater efforts to curtail inflammatory subject matter on social media, many harboured deep reservations about such an action, believing this represented a ‘slippery slope’ and was not an initiative they wanted to see the federal government pursue.

Budget 2022 (New Brunswick Francophones, GTA First-Time Home Buyers, Lower Mainland British Columbia, Southwestern Ontario Men, Kitchener and Waterloo Region Seniors, Quebec City High Income, Rural Nova Scotia Concerned with Cost of Living, GMA Women, Edmonton Low/Middle Income, Outaouais Region Low/Middle Income)

Ten groups discussed the federal government’s 2022 Budget, which was tabled on April 7^th, 2022. Key areas of discussion focused on Budget initiatives regarding housing affordability, economic concerns, climate change and the environment, and innovation, among other issues. All groups were held in the days and weeks following the release of Budget, with the exception of the group from New Brunswick which was conducted on the day it was tabled.

Budget Expectations (New Brunswick Francophones)

Few participants in the group from New Brunswick were aware of the Budget’s release or of any specific announcements or initiatives contained within. Asked to identify which areas they felt the Government of Canada should be primarily focusing on, a number of participants mentioned healthcare. They discussed the need for recruiting and training a greater number of medical professionals, as well as improving long-term and at-home care for seniors. In addition, participants also identified the environment and climate change, increased defence spending, and a greater effort to reduce the federal debt as key areas of focus they hoped the Budget would address.

Initial Impressions (GTA First-Time Home Buyers, Southwestern Ontario Men, Lower Mainland British Columbia, Kitchener and Waterloo Region Seniors, Quebec City High Income, Rural Nova Scotia Cost of Living Concerned, GMA Women, Edmonton Low/Middle Income, Outaouais Region Low/Middle Income)

The nine groups conducted after the tabling of the Budget shared their initial impressions regarding the priorities and announcements set out by the federal government. Across all groups, relatively few participants were aware the Budget had been released, with almost no participants reporting having watched the announcement live. Among those who were at least somewhat aware of the Budget or had seen headlines related to specific announcements, a wide range of focus areas and initiatives were recalled, including:

• Housing affordability – Several participants were of the impression that affordable housing was a key component of the Budget. Many reported seeing headlines regarding key initiatives such as the introduction of a Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) allowing prospective first-time home buyers to save up to $40,000 towards their purchase, the doubling of the First-Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit (HBTC), regulations discouraging property flipping, and a ban on all non-Canadians purchasing rental properties in Canada for two years;
• Healthcare – A number of participants thought healthcare to be a significant area of focus of the federal Budget. Some mentioned having heard the federal government had pledged to increase the number of healthcare workers within Canada, with a particular focus on access to family doctors and primary care services in communities that were currently facing healthcare worker shortages. In addition, some participants also had heard about increased supports for mental health treatment, which was widely felt to be an increasingly prevalent issue;
• Dental care – Related to healthcare, a number of participants recalled having heard that the Government of Canada had announced the creation of a national dental care program. They recalled that it would begin with the provision of dental care for children under 12 in 2022, before expanding coverage to additional cohorts of Canadians in the years to come. Participants were largely positive towards this initiative, though some expressed disappointment that dental care would not be immediately made available to adults, particularly those without dental care benefits at the present time;
• Environment and climate change – Some recalled hearing about a significant investment into zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including investment into ZEV infrastructure and supply chains, as well as increasing the rebates available for those Canadians who purchase these vehicles. In addition, some participants had heard that there was a general emphasis within the Budget of a transition towards a ‘greener’, more sustainable economy, aligning with the priorities set out in the previously announced 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan;
• Increased defence spending – A few participants mentioned hearing that the federal government had announced a commitment of upwards of $6 billion in additional funding over the course of five years to address national defence priorities. This was felt to be particularly important in light of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine;
• LGBTQ2 supports – Some participants recalled hearing about additional support for the LGBTQ2 community within Canada, including the announcement of $100 million in funding (over five years, beginning in 2022-23) to support the implementation of the federal LGBTQ2 Action Plan; and
• Anti-racism initiatives – Participants had also heard the Government of Canada had announced a commitment of $85 million towards a new Anti-Racism Strategy and a National Action Plan on Combatting Hate.

Discussing what they felt to be the overall theme and focus of the Budget, many participants characterized the priorities and initiatives set out by the federal government as proactive, future-minded, and instrumental in terms of its emphasis on innovation and economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous participants also mentioned what they felt to be the Budget’s ‘back to the basics’ approach, with several commenting positively on what they felt to be a major focus from the Government of Canada on everyday issues such as rising inflation and the high cost of living, which had made it difficult for many Canadians to remain financially secure. It was felt that rather than solely focusing on ‘big picture’ goals, the federal government had devoted a lot of effort into understanding and addressing the day-to-day issues facing an increasing number of Canadians. Focusing on specific areas or initiatives they felt particularly positive about, many participants continued to cite actions related to housing affordability, as well as the continued focus on climate change and the environment. Some also mentioned initiatives towards job creation (particularly in the trades), tax cuts for small businesses, and the additional focus on defence spending and international presence of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as areas they were particularly enthusiastic about.

While most were largely positive in their initial views towards the Budget, some participants also identified areas they thought had been underrepresented and required greater attention from the federal government. Several had expected to see an even greater focus on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, as well as the environment and climate change. A number of these participants believed these areas should be prioritized above all others. While some felt there were a number of promising initiatives targeted towards low-income Canadians, it was said that more needed be done to assist and increase the wages of middle-income individuals as well. Participants believed this group was also facing significant financial struggles that often did not generate as much attention as those facing other cohorts of society. A few were of the impression that greater actions could be taken to manage and reduce fuel costs for Canadians, with some having remarked that the federal government should seek to continue developing Canada’s non-renewable energy sources, in addition to developing more sustainable alternatives. Other issues participants felt had not been sufficiently addressed by the Budget included perceived long processing times for immigrants arriving in Canada, tax measures targeting major banks (as part of the Canada Recovery Dividend) which were felt by a small number to be unfair, as well as the allocation of significant funding for international and humanitarian assistance. Regarding the latter, some participants expressed the opinion that given the domestic issues currently facing Canadians, the federal government should consider drastically reducing its contributions to foreign aid in the short-term.

Asked to share their overall initial impressions surrounding the Budget, most felt it to be comprehensive, balanced, and liked that it covered a multitude of important issues facing Canadians. While a few felt the Budget focused on too many different areas, more participants felt positively about this aspect as they liked that the Government of Canada had placed a great deal of effort in addressing a wide range of important issues. While some felt more would still need to be done regarding key areas such as housing affordability and the cost of living, it was generally thought the Budget represented a strong first step and the announcements and initiatives contained within would likely have a tangible impact on the lives of many Canadians. With this in mind, many expressed feeling hopeful about the Budget and were excited to see these initiatives begin to be implemented.

Housing Affordability (GTA First-Time Home Buyers, Southwestern Ontario Men, Lower Mainland British Columbia, Kitchener and Waterloo Region Seniors, Quebec City High Income, Rural Nova Scotia Cost of Living Concerned, GMA Women, Edmonton Low/Middle Income, Outaouais Region Low/Middle Income)

Nine groups engaged in an additional discussion specifically regarding housing affordability and the various initiatives and announcements contained within the Budget targeted towards addressing this issue. Asked how important they felt housing affordability was, almost all participants identified it as an issue of the highest importance, with many saying that it was the number one concern facing Canadians at present. A large number of participants expressed the impression that housing had become increasingly unaffordable in recent years and that many Canadians were currently struggling to find housing within their means, both in the homeownership and rental markets. A significant number of participants, particularly those who were younger and/or resided in regions such as the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) or British Columbia’s (B.C.) Lower Mainland, were highly concerned about never being able to afford a home, feeling prices in their area had risen at such a high rate relative to wages that they had been effectively priced out of the homeownership market. Among younger participants, it was shared that, in their experience, only those in their social circles who had significant financial assistance from their parents had been able to buy homes for themselves. Several shared that this sort of support was often necessary for younger Canadians to be able to afford a sufficient down payment. Some participants also expressed the view that housing was an essential human right, and that at present this need was not being adequately addressed by the federal and provincial/territorial governments. Building on this, a few felt that homelessness had become an increasingly prevalent issue in recent years, particularly in the wake of financial hardships experienced by many throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Speaking more broadly, a number of participants mentioned that a significant portion of their (and other Canadians) income was often devoted towards housing-related expenses. It was felt that this had a negative impact on the overall economy, as rising housing costs contributed to a decrease in disposable income for many Canadians, which led to reduced spending in other sectors such as retail and restaurants/hospitality. Housing affordability was said to be a growing issue even among those participants who were long-term homeowners. While some expressed the desire to see their property continue to increase in value, many also mentioned the difficulty this presented, in that even if they sold their current home they would then need to find new housing, which had itself become increasingly expensive. This had led to some participants feeling somewhat stuck in their current housing situation. Though virtually all participants thought housing to be an important issue, a very small number felt that other areas, particularly healthcare, needed to be given higher priority, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. A few also expressed the view that since they had purchased a home of their own and had no plans of selling in the near or long-term, housing affordability was not really an issue that affected them or one they devoted much attention to.

Discussing whether they felt the Government of Canada to currently be on the right or wrong track regarding housing affordability, participants were largely mixed in their opinions. On balance, while more participants felt the federal government was currently on the wrong track in terms of affordable housing, a large number felt differently. Among them, most believed there had been a significant amount of recent progress at the federal level towards addressing this problem. Regionally, while those residing in the GTA, Edmonton, and Quebec City felt the Government of Canada was primarily on the right track (particularly in recent years), all participants from southwestern Ontario and most from Ontario’s Kitchener and Waterloo region, Quebec’s Outaouais region, and the Greater Montreal Area (GMA) felt the federal government was currently heading in the wrong direction on this issue. The groups from B.C.’s Lower Mainland and rural communities in Nova Scotia were more varied in their views, with many feeling that while some improvements had been made, a significant number of challenges continued to exist regarding housing affordability in their local areas.

For those who felt the Government of Canada had been performing better on housing affordability in recent years, Budget announcements such as the new TFSA for first-time home buyers, increased tax credits for first-time home buyers, and the two-year ban on foreign investment in residential housing in Canada were all identified as signs of encouragement. It was felt these actions signified the federal government was becoming more serious about addressing the issue. Additionally, a few identified recent decisions by the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates as a step that would likely help address this issue.

Among the participants who said the federal government was currently on the wrong track, it was felt that even though more attention was now being paid towards the issue, it would not likely be enough to fully address the challenges Canadians were currently facing. Though many acknowledged recent Budget measures related to housing as a step in the right direction, several expressed frustration that such actions had not been taken earlier. A few were of the view that the federal government had previously given too much priority to protecting the value of existing housing investments (primarily of older Canadians) and that this had served to further exacerbate affordability issues for younger Canadians trying to own a home for the first time. Speaking more generally, some participants thought housing to also be a provincial/territorial and municipal responsibility, and wanted to see the development of a multi-level approach to housing affordability.

Participants next engaged in a number of exercises discussing recent announcements and initiatives from the Budget, and were asked to identify which they felt would be most effective towards addressing this issue. Focusing on the issue of providing additional housing, participants were presented with the following initiatives:

• A new Housing Accelerator Fund providing money to municipalities to build 100,000 new homes;
• Repurposing existing infrastructure budgets to prioritize the construction of additional new homes;
• Providing $750 million in new public transit funding to municipalities that commit their own money to building new housing;
• An additional $1.5 billion investment over two years for new affordable housing units for those experiencing homelessness or domestic violence;
• An additional $2.9 billion over four years for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, which creates new low-income housing and repairs existing low-income housing;
• An additional $216 million to incentivize developers to build new rental units that charge less than the average rent in the areas they are built in;
• An additional $500 million investment to expand co-operative housing in Canada, with a pledge to give an additional $1 billion in loans to co-op housing projects; and
• An additional $150 million over two years for housing in the northern territories.

The announcement of an additional $2.9 billion (over four years) for the National Housing Co-Investment fund received a high amount of praise across a number of groups, particularly among those residing in areas such as Edmonton, the GMA, B.C.’s Lower Mainland, and the groups from Ontario’s southwest and Kitchener and Waterloo regions. A number of participants said that this initiative represented the most significant investment towards housing within the Budget and they believed that it would likely help the greatest number of people, especially lower and middle-income Canadians who were presently facing challenges in securing affordable housing. Several also commented positively on the aspect of this statement related to repairing existing housing units. Some believed this represented a more sustainable option in terms of focusing on what has already been built rather than brand new developments. It was also felt a wider availability of affordable housing would be immensely helpful for low-income families, allowing them to reduce their housing expenses and potentially save more towards purchasing homes of their own.

Also related to expanding affordable housing options for low and middle-income Canadians, the initiative to allocate $216 million towards incentivizing developers to build new rental units that charge less than the average rent in the areas in which they are built was identified by a large number of participants as particularly promising. Several felt this action would serve to take a great deal of pressure off the housing market and provide renters with more affordable options, potentially allowing them to save towards a home of their own. This was thought to likely be particularly helpful by those residing areas such as the Edmonton, Quebec City, the GMA, and the Kitchener & Waterloo regions where it was felt rent prices had recently risen to an exceedingly high rate. In addition, some thought that by financially incentivizing developers to create affordable rental projects, it was likely these companies would be encouraged to find new and innovative ways to provide affordable housing for Canadians. Participants felt this initiative would be particularly helpful for younger Canadians, who often made up a high proportion of renters and were likely faced with the issue of housing affordability to a far greater degree than older generations. Despite the largely positive reaction to this initiative, however, several participants were hesitant about the component of incentivizing private developers. Many held the view that these companies were often already quite profitable and did not need additional financial motivation. It was added by some that the Government of Canada should consider using legislation to compel these developers to build more affordable rental housing rather than incentivizing them. A small number raised concerns regarding whether there were any safeguards in place to ensure these rentals would remain affordable in the long-term, as some expressed worry that the homes may revert to market rates after a set period of time. A few others were also critical of the focus of this initiative on rentals, believing the primary goal should be to assist more Canadians in attaining home ownership rather than encouraging renting.

The new Housing Accelerator Fund, which would provide funding to municipalities to build upwards of 100,000 homes across Canada, was also received positively, particularly among participants in the GTA, southwestern Ontario, and rural Nova Scotia. Many liked the significant quantity of new houses being built and felt this would take a great deal of pressure off the housing market in many areas. Several added the opinion that a lack of supply was the key driver behind the present housing crisis, and felt this initiative was a step in the right direction, believing the Government of Canada needed to focus on building as many houses as possible in an expedient timeframe. A few also commented positively on the municipal focus of this initiative, believing local municipalities would be able to use this federal funding to devise localized solutions to the unique housing problems within their regions rather than following a more universal strategy across the country.

More targeted initiatives, such as the provision of an additional $1.5 billion (over two years) for affordable housing for those experiencing homelessness and/or domestic violence, were also identified as important by a number of participants, particularly among those in the GTA and to a lesser extent in the groups from Kitchener and Waterloo, Edmonton, and rural Nova Scotia. Several participants felt that all Canadians deserved access to affordable housing and that, by lessening the number of people forced to live on the street or in dangerous domestic situations, communities would likely become safer and more equitable places to live. A number of participants felt this to be particularly important for those fleeing domestic violence, especially women, who may otherwise be forced to stay with their abusers if no affordable housing option were available to them. It was felt increased access to affordable housing would likely be life-changing for many individuals currently in these situations. While no participants were explicitly against this initiative, some questioned as to whether the federal government should not place a greater focus on what they felt to be the key causes of homelessness such as mental health and addiction. It was felt the provision of housing, while helpful, would likely not be enough to assist these individuals and that further treatment would be necessary.

Several in the group from Kitchener and Waterloo as well as some residing in the GMA and GTA also expressed interest in the announcement of an additional 500 million dollar investment into the expansion of co-operative housing within Canada including the pledge to provide $1 billion in loans to co-op projects. A number of participants were personally interested in living in a co-op housing situation, with a few already having previously done so. It was believed by a number of participants that a greater prevalence of co-op housing would serve to reduce overall housing costs for many individuals, while also creating stronger community bonds within local neighbourhoods. Some also felt this offered a unique and innovative potential pathway to homeownership, and believed an even greater investment may be necessary towards these projects in the future. A small number expressed confusion regarding what co-op housing involved, with a few conflating these housing projects with low-income housing.

A number of participants in the groups from Edmonton, rural Nova Scotia, and southwestern Ontario felt the provision of an addition $750 million in public transit funding to communities which commit their own funding towards building new housing was also an effective component of the federal government’s housing strategy. Many expressed the view that simply building new houses was not enough and that vital infrastructure (such as expanded public transit) would also be necessary in order to connect these new homes to the greater community. Some also felt that this would go a long way towards addressing existing congestion on major local roadways and transit corridors, which was said to be a growing issue of concern with the perceived rise in population in their communities.

Apart from those in the group from the GTA and some residing in Quebec’s Outaouais region, relatively few participants identified the initiative to repurpose existing infrastructure budgets to prioritize the construction of additional new homes as a particularly helpful action. While some felt this would help increase the housing supply, others expressed concern about what other vital infrastructure projects (such as required maintenance on highways and bridges) may be postponed or cancelled due to this action. Additionally, almost no participants mentioned the announcement of $150 million of additional funding over the next two years for housing in the northern territories, with very few commenting either positively or negatively regarding this initiative.

Participants next focused on a second set of priorities, this time specifically concerning the issue of housing affordability and creating additional pathways to homeownership for Canadians. Groups were shown the following initiatives:

• A Tax-Free First Home Savings Account allowing prospective first-time home buyers to save up to $40,000 tax-free to put towards their purchase;
• Doubling the existing First-Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit from $5,000 to $10,000;
• A one-time $500 payment to Canadians facing housing affordability challenges;
• Expanding the First Time Home Buyers’ Incentive to allow more flexibility and making it easier for single Canadians to access;
• An additional $200 million to increase rent-to-own housing options; and
• A $562 million investment over two years in funding organizations addressing homelessness, plus $62 million specifically to address homelessness among veterans.

Of these initiatives, those specifically targeted towards first-time home buyers such as the expansion of the First Time Home Buyers’ Incentive and the doubling of the existing First-Time Home Buyer’s Tax Credit from $5,000 to $10,000 received the highest level of support among participants and ranked among the most frequently selected initiatives in almost every group. Discussing the First-Time Home Buyers’ Incentive, several participants were of the view that it would be helpful in providing a pathway to homeownership for those who remained single. It was widely felt that one should not have to be in a relationship or have access to two salaries in order to afford a home and that this increased flexibility would likely assist many Canadians. Regarding the First-Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit, it was thought by many that this would potentially make it easier for prospective home buyers to finalize their purchases and potentially get them closer to affording their own home. Several commented positively regarding the straightforwardness of this initiative, believing it would help a large number of Canadians in an easily understandable way. While some participants, particularly younger and single individuals, expected they would personally benefit from these initiatives, others thought of how this could benefit their own children or grandchildren who would likely face housing struggles of their own in the future. Though generally supportive of these initiatives, a few said they would not be enough on their own and would need to be implemented alongside additional measures to increase the supply of housing and stabilize housing prices at a more manageable level.

A significant number of participants across all groups were largely supportive of the introduction of a Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) allowing prospective home buyers to save up to $40,000 tax free to put towards the purchase of their first home. A number of participants appreciated the straightforward financial numbers included in this initiative. Many also felt this would go a long way towards helping prospective home buyers, especially those with longer time horizons, to save up for the purchase of their first home. While some shared concerns that it would likely take a long time for some to save up to $40,000 given the perceived increasing cost of living, almost all participants were in favour of this initiative, believing it could only help perspective home buyers.

The allocation of an additional $200 million towards increasing rent-to-own housing options was also mentioned by some. In particular, there were higher levels of support for this initiative among those residing in Edmonton, southwestern Ontario, the GTA, the Outaouais region of Quebec, and rural Nova Scotia. Many participants felt this represented a helpful and innovative initiative, potentially providing renters with a pathway to build equity in a property while continuing to rent in the short term. It was believed that this was a more affordable, realistic path towards home ownership for some Canadians who may not be able to afford a significant down payment. In addition to providing an increase in long-term housing options for Canadians, participants thought this initiative would also help to motivate prospective home owners, giving low and middle income Canadians something to work towards while gradually accruing equity in a property.

While most felt the investment of $562 million (over two years) to fund organizations addressing homelessness as well as an addition $62 million specifically addressing this issue among veterans, to be worthwhile initiatives, few identified this as the most pressing issue surrounding affordable housing at present. This being said, however, no participants were opposed to the Government of Canada investing in these areas, believing this to be the right thing to do and something that could help marginalized individuals as well as their overall communities. Though receiving some support in the GMA, the Outaouais region, and southwestern Ontario, few participants thought the one-time $500 payment to Canadians facing housing affordability challenges would have any tangible impact. Many spoke negatively of this initiative, saying that it would be pointless on the part of the federal government, commenting that $500 was far too low to have any tangible impact, especially given the rapid increase in housing prices in recent years.

Participants were next shown an additional set of initiatives, this time focused on protecting Canadians in the housing market. The list of initiatives shown to each group included:

• Ending blind bidding (blind bidding is where home buyers don’t know how much others are bidding);
• Creating taxation penalties to stop landlords from doing ‘renovictions’ (a renoviction occurs when a landlord evicts a tenant by claiming they will complete major renovations);
• A ban on all non-Canadians buying residential properties in Canada for two years;
• New taxation rules to deter house flipping; and
• Making assignment sales of new and renovated housing taxable to deter speculators from buying homes and leaving them vacant (an assignment sale is when a seller sells their interest in a property before they take possession).

On balance, all initiatives received a significant level of support, with a number of participants expressing the view that each of the above priorities would likely have a positive impact on Canadians and the housing market.

Many participants reacted positively to the creation of new taxation penalties to stop landlords from ‘renovicting’ tenants. Regionally, this initiative was particularly popular among those from the Kitchener and Waterloo region, the GMA, and the Outaouais region of Quebec. Several were of the impression that this was an increasingly widespread practice among landlords, with a few recalling having seen rent prices in their own neighbourhoods raise significantly after homes had been renovated. It was added by some, that this action by the Government of Canada would also demonstrate that it was serious about protecting the rights of renters, providing them with greater peace of mind regarding the long-term stability of their rental situation. While most were supportive of this initiative, a few shared the view that this action may be somewhat unfair to landlords. They believed that, in many cases, renovations were necessary and that property owners should ultimately be able to decide what to do with their own units without fear of a financial penalty. A small number also felt that, while likely somewhat helpful, this initiative represented just one of many things that would need to happen to make housing more affordable.

Many participants were also strongly in favour of the decision by the Government of Canada to prohibit all non-Canadians from buying residential properties in Canada for a period of two years. It was felt by several individuals that foreign buyers represented one of the primary driving forces behind the rise in Canadian housing prices, particularly in cases where units were purchased and left vacant, essentially removing them altogether from the supply of available housing. It was felt that, in many cases, foreign buyers were taking advantage of the Canadian housing market to use these properties as investment vehicles rather than as residential housing. Regionally, this initiative was especially popular among those residing in the GTA, rural Nova Scotia, and Edmonton, with many feeling like this action would have an immediate, tangible impact on the housing market in several Canadian cities. While it was widely felt that Canadians needed be prioritized over foreign buyers, many clarified that they took no issue with prospective immigrants purchasing Canadian homes, believing that so long as one was planning on working and settling in Canada for the long-term, that there was no reason to deny them the ability to purchase a home. A small number of participants (particularly from B.C.’s Lower Mainland and the GMA) felt this initiative would likely not have much of an impact on overall housing prices. They felt that large corporations, including those based in Canada, who were buying up blocks of housing units at a time were having a far more negative impact on the housing market than individual non-Canadian buyers. A few were also concerned this action could potentially be seen as discriminatory, feeling it unfairly targeted non-Canadians and somewhat went against the principles of the free market.

Also related to the practice of housing being purchased and left vacant, a large number of participants expressed support for the initiative of making assignment sales of new and renovated housing taxable, serving to deter speculators from purchasing these homes as investments rather than as residential housing. Support for this initiative was especially high among those groups from the Lower Mainland, southwestern Ontario, and the GMA, with many expressing that this was a significant issue in their local communities. A number of participants felt this would go a long way towards protecting Canadians. A few added that that they found it highly contradictory that liveable homes were being left vacant, meanwhile rates of those experiencing homelessness continued to rise each year.

The proposal to end ‘blind bidding’ received a significant level of support in almost every group, with many believing this practice was frequently used by realtors to artificially drive up real estate prices as well as pit prospective home buyers against one another. This was felt to be a growing issue in many regions, with a number of participants recalling seeing properties in their area being sold for far above the initial asking price, driving up housing prices even further. Several were of the view that by taking this action, the federal government would introduce a greater level of transparency to the home buying process. They believed this would go a long way towards protecting Canadians and lessening the pressure on home buyers to place offers beyond their means out of fear of losing out on a property.

Though less broadly popular, the initiative to introduce new taxation rules to deter house flipping was also mentioned by participants, particularly those in the GTA, GMA, and B.C.’s Lower Mainland. While some were skeptical as to whether increased taxation alone would be enough to deter house flipping, this was widely felt to be a growing issue, particularly in more expensive real estate markets such as Toronto and Vancouver. Though most saw house flipping as a growing contributor behind increasing housing prices throughout Canada, a few participants expressed concern that these new rules may be unfairly punitive, especially towards those who made a living renovating and reselling homes. Among these participants, it was felt that (in some circumstances) home buyers significantly renovating a property before placing it back on the market could also be seen as a positive development in that these renovated houses often ended up in a far more liveable condition than they had been previously. While some hoped to see the practice of house flipping further limited by the federal government going forward, few wanted to see it banned outright, as they believed this would go against the free market and limit the ability of homeowners to use their properties as they saw fit.

The three groups from Ontario as well as those residing in Lower Mainland B.C. engaged in a brief additional exercise concerning home retrofitting initiatives announced as part of the Budget. Participants in these groups were presented with the following information:

• A tax credit of up to $7500 for anyone renovating their home to accommodate a senior or adult with a disability;
• A new Canada Green Buildings Strategy, with an additional $350 million over the next 5 years invested in making buildings more environmentally friendly; and
• An additional $458.6 million added to existing grants and low-interest loan programs for green energy retrofits.

Participants reacted largely positively to all three initiatives, believing all could be helpful for homeowners looking to make their homes more accessible or ‘greener’, but for whom cost was a major barrier. Regarding the introduction of the Canada Green Buildings Strategy as well as the allocation of an additional $458.6 million towards existing grants and low-interest loan programs for green energy retrofits, many felt these would assist in reducing home energy costs over the long-term while also mitigating the significant upfront costs for homeowners looking to undertake these renovations. A number of participants also liked the idea of a tax credit of up to $7500 for those looking to make their homes more accessible for seniors or adults with disabilities, with many sharing how this could positively impact their own loved ones, allowing aging or disabled relatives to live with them rather than moving to a long-term care facility. Though a small number felt the costs of such projects may exceed well over $7500, it was generally felt that this represented a significant step in the right direction and would be helpful for a number of Canadian households.

Asked to reflect on their impressions of this housing plan as a whole, participants were largely positive about the wide range of initiatives set out by the Government of Canada, with many stating they were pleasantly surprised at how large a component housing affordability was within the overall Budget. While some expressed that they would wait until the initiatives began to be implemented before determining whether this plan represented a viable path forward, most were optimistic and believed many of these initiatives would likely have a significant impact on stabilizing housing prices and helping more Canadians gain access to affordable housing in their communities. While on balance most participants felt this to be a comprehensive housing plan, focusing on a multitude of areas, a few harboured some concerns. For some, it was felt that even more would need to be done to address the issue of housing supply and that even the 100,000 new homes planned to be built through programs such as the Housing Accelerator Fund would fall far short of what was felt to be required to sufficiently reduce the current high demand for housing. Though many praised the programs targeted towards lower-income and marginalized individuals, it was also felt there needed to be a greater emphasis on assisting middle-income Canadians, who were thought to also be widely struggling with housing expenses, yet generally had less access to the numerous supports available to those in lower income groups. A number of participants also mentioned related issues such as inflation, perceived low wage growth, and the continued prevalence of housing being utilized as an investment vehicle, believing that unless more significant action was taken to address these areas, many of the announcements from the Budget may be rendered ineffective.

While most praised the comprehensiveness of the Budget, a few others felt differently, believing it would be more effective for the Government of Canada to focus on a short list of major priorities rather than trying to address a large number of priorities all at once. In discussing whether it was realistic to expect the Government of Canada to be able to accomplish all of these initiatives in the short-term, many participants remained skeptical as to whether this was possible given the sheer number of new initiatives and announcements contained with the Budget. This being said, most were open to seeing the federal government attempt to do whatever it could to address the issue of housing affordability, and remained enthusiastic about the new initiatives. Some also called for a multi-level approach to housing, feeling it should not solely be the responsibility of the federal government to address this issue and hoping for greater action on the part of provincial/territorial and municipal governments as well.

Tax Initiatives (Quebec City High Income)

The group from Quebec City partook in an additional exercise focused on the various tax initiatives introduced as part of the 2022 Budget. To begin, participants were shown the following tax-related announcements:

• Changing the financial transaction processes to limit the use of corporate structures in tax havens to engage in aggressive tax avoidance;
• Examining a new minimum tax regime, which will ensure all wealthy Canadians pay their fair share of tax;
• Increasing the corporate income tax rate from 15% to 16.5% on the taxable income of banking and life insurance groups above $100 million; and
• Introducing a temporary Canada Recovery Dividend where banks and life insurers’ groups will pay a one-time 15% tax on income above $1 billion for the 2021 tax year.

Reacting to these initiatives, almost all participants were in favour of the plan to change the financial transaction process as a way of limiting the use of corporate structures in tax havens in order to engage in aggressive tax avoidance. While several participants acknowledged only a limited understanding of this issue, it was widely thought this behaviour needed to be curbed. Many were of the opinion that more needed to be done to ensure corporations and wealthy individuals paid their fair share of taxes. Related to this, some were also in favour of the initiative of examining a new minimum tax regime, particularly focusing on high-income Canadians who were felt to be paying disproportionately less in taxes relative to their overall wealth. It was said that while many high-income individuals often paid significant amounts in taxes, others went to great lengths to pay as little as possible. It was felt that any actions to make this situation more equitable would be a step in the right direction. No participants voiced support for the two initiatives targeted towards increasing the taxes payable from major banking and life insurance groups within Canada, with a few expressing the view that a one-time 15% tax on income above $1 billion (during the 2021 tax year) was too steep and unfairly singled out institutions in this sector.

Participants were next shown a second set of tax-related initiatives, including:

• Extend the 50% reduction of the small business income tax rates for zero emission technology manufacturers to include manufacturers of air-source heat pumps (these use outdoor air as a source of thermal energy in heating mode, and as a sink to reject energy when in cooling mode);
• Launch a financial sector review on the digitalization of money (like cryptocurrencies and stablecoins);
• Phase out access to the small business tax rate more gradually, to be fully phased out when taxable capital (retained earnings essentially) reaches $50 million, rather than at $15 million; and
• Provide $1.2 billion over five years for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to expand audits and prosecution of larger entities and non-residents engaged in aggressive tax planning/criminal tax evasion.

While no initiatives from this list received resounding support, some reacted positively to the announcement of $1.2 billion (over five years) in funding for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to expand audits and prosecution of larger entities and non-residents suspected of engaging in criminal tax evasion. It was felt this would be a positive step towards ensuring everyone paid their fair share in taxes and would be helpful in assisting the CRA in recouping a significant amount of missing tax revenue from wealthy individuals and corporate entities. While very few reacted positively to any of the other initiatives, a small number felt greater regulation of cryptocurrencies may be a prudent measure, especially given concerns surrounding the perceived lack of stability of digital currencies in both the short and long-term.

Economic Issues (GTA First-Time Home Buyers, Southwestern Ontario Men, Lower Mainland British Columbia, Kitchener and Waterloo Region Seniors, Quebec City High Income, Rural Nova Scotia Cost of Living Concerned, GMA Women)

Participants in seven groups discussed a number of issues related to the economy as well as ways to achieve future growth and prosperity going forward. Prior to a larger discussion surrounding specific economic initiatives included in the Budget, the group from Nova Scotia who identified as ‘concerned about the cost of living’ discussed the issue of inflation and the perceived general lack of affordability of many essential goods and services. Several expressed having felt shocked in recent months at how much the cost of daily purchases (such as groceries, fuel, and household supplies) seemed to be increasing. A number of participants were concerned prices might continue to rise even higher, with several reporting having already adjusted their buying habits to reduce spending. Asked which were the cost of living pressures that impacted them the most at present, participants identified areas such as fuel prices, electricity, groceries, and housing.

Focusing on specific economic initiatives and announcements, groups were shown a series of quotes taken directly from the tabling of the Budget, and were asked to provide their thoughts on each statement. To begin, participants were presented with the following information describing the state of the Canadian economy at present:

“Our economy has recovered 112 per cent of the jobs that were lost during those awful first months, compared to just 90 per cent in the United States. Our unemployment rate is down to just 5.5 per cent—close to the 5.4 per cent low in 2019 that was Canada’s best in five decades.

Our real GDP is more than a full percentage point above where it was before the pandemic. Think about that: after a devastating recession—after wave after wave and lockdown after lockdown—our economy has not just recovered. It is booming.”

Discussing this statement, very few felt it accurately represented the current state of the Canadian economy. Many took exception to the notion that the economy was ‘booming’, particularly given the perceived economic damage incurred over the past two years as the result of COVID-19 lockdowns and other pandemic-related public health requirements. Several pointed to ongoing supply chain issues, increasing fuel costs, high inflation, and a perceived rapid rise in the overall cost of living, and felt that even if the rate of unemployment was relatively low, this did not matter if Canadians were not earning enough to get by.

Focusing on the matter of federal spending and the national debt, participants were shown the following:

“We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down. This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross.”

While many participants felt reducing the deficit to be important, several were of the opinion that the high levels of pandemic spending had been necessary to keep Canadians safe and financially secure and thus the resulting increase in debt over the past two years was understandable. This being said, a number of participants expressed concern regarding the potential for higher taxes or cuts to social programs that may result from these increased efforts to pay down the pandemic debt. Informed that while Budget 2022 was not a balanced budget, it planned to run a smaller deficit than in recent years, most participants reacted positively. Almost all felt it would be a wiser economic strategy for the Government of Canada to focus on gradually reducing deficits rather than taking more aggressive measures. They believed that significant spending cuts would likely hurt a lot of Canadians who were currently reliant on federal financial supports, particularly following the negative financial impacts felt by many during the pandemic. A small number felt differently, saying the federal government should do all it can to reduce the deficit, with a few adding the impression that high levels of federal spending in recent years had been one of the key drivers of inflation and other economic issues currently being experienced throughout the country.

The next statement shown to participants focused on innovation:

“We are falling behind when it comes to economic productivity. Productivity matters because it is what guarantees the dream of every parent—that our children will be more prosperous than we are.

This is a well-known Canadian problem—and an insidious one. It is time for Canada to tackle it.

We propose to do so, in part, with a new innovation and investment agency—drawing on international best practices from around the world—that will give companies all over the country and across our economy the tools and incentives.”

Participants were mixed in their views regarding the creation of a new innovation and investment agency. Some felt this to be an excellent idea and one that was long overdue. A few participants added that the economic climate within Canada had been somewhat ‘risk-adverse’ and they were excited at the prospect of finding more creative solutions to the challenges currently facing the country. A few also favoured investments into innovation which focused on encouraging domestic production and manufacturing within Canada, believing it was important for the Government of Canada to focus on fostering greater economic self-reliance. Others were more skeptical as to whether a new agency or additional investments were necessary on this front. A number of participants felt Canada was already a relatively innovative country and did not see a lack of innovation as an issue at present. A few were more uncertain, expressing the desire for further details and greater clarity as to the responsibilities and primary objectives of this proposed agency.

Focusing on the environment and a transition towards a ‘greener’ economy, participants were shown the following:

“The world economy is going green. Canada can be in the vanguard, or we can be left behind.

That is, of course, no choice at all—which is why our government is investing urgently in this shift.

Our plan is driven by our national price on pollution—the smartest, most effective incentive for climate action. This budget launches a new Canada Growth Fund which will help crowd in billions of dollars in private capital we need to transform our economy at speed and at scale.”

Many participants responded positively to this statement, with almost all of the view that a transition to a greener, more sustainable economy would ultimately be necessary and that it was important for the Government of Canada to continue to work towards mitigating the impacts of climate change. Some felt particularly strongly about this issue, believing climate change to be the most important issue facing Canadians at present and that the federal government should use every tool at its disposal to protect and preserve the environment. A number of participants were especially interested in pursuing a greater shift towards greener technology, expressing excitement over recent rebates for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) in particular. While most concurred with the sentiment that Canada should be a leader when it came to transitioning to a greener economy, a small number expressed the view that the Government of Canada did not have to be a major driver of this movement on a global scale. These participants felt Canada was not a major emitter relative to countries such as India and China and should not limit itself too much economically by pursuing a more rapid transition. A small number were of the view that, while a transition to a greener economy was important, it was something they felt should happen organically rather than be actively pushed by the Government of Canada through actions such as emissions regulations and a federal price on carbon.

When discussing what they felt may be included as part of the newly announced Canada Growth Fund, participants suggested a number of potential areas for investment including further rebates for ZEVs, more comprehensive recycling programs, infrastructure upgrades, and grants or low-interest loans for private homeowners to retrofit and upgrade their dwellings to become more sustainable. It was thought by a number of participants that while a green transition was important, the necessary actions may be costly for individual Canadians from a financial perspective. With this in mind, it was felt that any support the Government of Canada could provide towards assisting individual Canadians with these changes would be highly useful.

Focusing on skills training and the contributions of new Canadians to the overall economy, participants were presented with the following statement:

“In 2020, Canada had the fastest growing population in the G7. At a time when the world is starved for workers and talent, our country’s unique enthusiasm for welcoming new Canadians is a powerful—and particularly Canadian—driver of economic prosperity. This Budget will make it easier for the skilled immigrants that our economy needs to make Canada their home, and to do the jobs they are trained for. We will also invest in the determined and talented workers who are already here.”

Most participants reacted positively to this statement, with many viewing this as an opportunity to bolster the Canadian labour force and leverage Canada’s position as an attractive destination for prospective immigrants. Several were of the impression that many regions of the country were currently experiencing a labour shortage and felt a greater focus on recruiting non-Canadian workers could go a long way to assist in alleviating this issue. Related to this, a number of participants were of the belief that many skilled individuals migrating to Canada often encountered immense difficulty in attaining the necessary credentials and qualifications necessary to work in their area of expertise. It was felt more could be done on the part of the federal government to ease the credential recognition process for these individuals and, if necessary, provide financial assistance for any supplemental certification or training that may be required for these individuals to work in their fields in Canada. While a few participants were concerned about these workers being prioritized over those already living in Canada, most others felt the Government of Canada should be doing all it can to maximize and leverage the skills of those newly arriving in the country, particularly in highly-specialized sectors where it was felt skilled labour remained in short supply.

Briefly discussing child care, participants in the two groups from Ontario’s Kitchener and Waterloo region and rural Nova Scotia were shown the following quote:

“When we promised—less than a year ago—to make high quality, affordable child care a reality for all Canadians, our plan was certainly welcomed. But the cheers were muted by justifiable skepticism. After all, similar promises had been made and broken for decades—five decades, in fact! That’s why, as I stand here today, I am so proud to say we have delivered. We have now signed agreements on early learning and child care with every single province and territory. This is women’s liberation. It will mean more women no longer need to choose between motherhood and a career. This is feminist economic policy in action. And it will make life more affordable for middle class Canadian families.”

Most participants felt the expansion of affordable child care to be an important initiative, particularly in terms of making life more affordable for Canadian families with young children and providing a financially viable pathway for parents, and women in particular, to return to their careers. While a small number were concerned that lowering child care costs to $10 a day, on average would potentially devalue the work of early childhood educators (ECE), most others felt differently, believing these agreements and the joint support from the federal and provincial/territorial governments would help to ensure affordable child care would be financially beneficial for both parents and ECE workers. Participants were mixed on whether they felt affordable child care represented ‘feminist economic policy’. While many were of the view that women would be affected to a higher degree by these child care agreements than men, a number of participants felt differently, putting forward the view that men were playing an increasingly active role in taking on child care responsibilities and were in many instances the parent who remained home with their children if affordable child care was not available.

Regionally, while most in the group from Nova Scotia concurred with the notion of child care as feminist economic policy, a larger number of those in the group from Kitchener and Waterloo felt the opposite.

Overall Impressions (GTA First-Time Home Buyers, Southwestern Ontario Men, Lower Mainland British Columbia, Kitchener and Waterloo Region Seniors, Quebec City High Income, Rural Nova Scotia Cost of Living Concerned, GMA Women, Edmonton Low/Middle Income, Outaouais Region Low/Middle Income)

All nine groups conducted after the tabling of the Budget concluded these conversations by providing their overall impressions after having discussed a number of the announcements and initiatives contained within Budget 2022. On balance, participants were largely positive in their views, feeling the federal government had done an effective job in creating a comprehensive and ambitious plan towards addressing a number of challenges. In addition, several reiterated appreciation for the federal government’s focus on pressing issues such as housing affordability and the cost of living which were felt to be affecting a significant portion of Canadians. Discussing what they felt may have been missing or underrepresented in the Budget, participants suggested areas such as a greater focus on reconciliation and Indigenous issues (including clean drinking water and infrastructure upgrades), further research into the viability of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in Canada, skills training for those whose jobs had not returned following the pandemic, and more affordable tuition and greater financial assistance for those pursuing post-secondary education. Overall, while participants were hopeful regarding the numerous areas addressed by the Budget, many said that their evaluations would ultimately depend on how successfully these initiatives could be implemented, and were hopeful the Government of Canada would be able to achieve the goals it had set out.

Healthcare (New Brunswick Francophones, GTA First-Time Home Buyers, Southwestern Ontario Men)

Three groups engaged in a discussion regarding healthcare priorities for the Government of Canada, as well as challenges currently facing the sector. To begin these conversations, participants were asked to identify the most pressing issues currently facing healthcare in their respective regions. A number of responses were provided, including:

• Personnel shortages – A number of participants identified what they viewed as a drastic shortage of healthcare professionals (such as doctors and nurses) in their area. It was felt more needed to be done by the federal government to recruit and train more workers in this sector, with a specific focus on encouraging a greater number of young Canadians to enter the field;
• A perceived lack of funding – Some were also of the impression that healthcare in many regions was underfunded, with the system suffering considerable strain after two years of the COVID-19 pandemic;
• Delayed appointments and surgeries – Also stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of participants recalled having heard of significant backlogs in appointments and procedures that had been postponed during the pandemic. It was felt considerable work needed to be done to address this issue;
• A lack of mental health services – Participants also identified a perceived lack of access to mental health professionals in their local areas. This was thought to be a rapidly growing issue, especially for the many who have suffered from the isolation and anxiety brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic; and
• Insufficient French-language healthcare services – A number of participants in the group comprised of Francophones residing in New Brunswick expressed that there was a lack of French-language healthcare options in their communities. They felt this negatively impacted the ability of primarily French-speaking patients to communicate with those responsible for their care.

Discussing whether they had recently heard of any actions or initiatives taken by the federal government regarding healthcare, few participants could recall anything. The small number who had heard something, alluded to announcements such as the creation of a national dental care program for Canadians, as well as efforts by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) to hire a greater number of nurses in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, though few specific details were recalled.

To aid in discussion, participants were informed of a number of healthcare priorities recently announced by the Government of Canada including:

• Addressing health worker shortages and reducing wait times;
• Increasing access to family health services;
• Improving long-term care and home care;
• Addressing mental health and substance use; and
• Modernizing health data management and virtual care.

Participants across all groups reacted largely positively to all the priorities presented, with many specifically mentioning addressing healthcare worker shortages and increasing access to mental health and addictions services as issues of particular importance. Regionally, almost all in the group from the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) identified personnel shortages as a major issue. Meanwhile most in the group comprising men from southwestern Ontario felt mental health to be of particular importance in their communities. Among the other priorities, a number of participants felt improvements to long-term and in-home care were long overdue, while several also mentioned the need for increased access to family health services. Regarding the latter priority, some said they had personally struggled to find a family doctor in their area, believing this to be a widespread issue throughout many parts of Canada. While few participants mentioned modernizing health data management as a pressing issue, several were interested in the notion of expanding access to virtual care. They believed that this could be very helpful to those in rural or remote communities, as well as those requiring consultations with specialists unavailable in their local regions. While almost all participants were of the view that each of these priorities were of great importance and worth investing in, a small number questioned why the federal government was setting healthcare priorities, given their understanding that healthcare policy was primarily a provincial/territorial responsibility.

Healthcare Priorities (New Brunswick Francophones)

Participants in the group from New Brunswick engaged in an extended discussion regarding these healthcare priorities, whereby they were asked to identify potential policies or investments that could be implemented by the federal government to address these issues. A number of ideas were offered regarding each priority, including:

• Addressing health worker shortages and reducing wait times – Several suggested creating ways to further encourage and incentivize more individuals to enter the sector. In addition, it was felt more needed to be done for those currently working in healthcare. Some believed that the long hours and extreme stress experienced by many in the field during the COVID-19 pandemic had led many workers to suffer from ‘burn-out’ or contributed to them exiting the sector altogether. A number of participants felt this issue was of personal importance to them, with some recalling having encountered long wait times or having scheduled appointments postponed or cancelled due to staff shortages;
• Increasing access to family health services – Related to the priority above, many felt the key driver of this issue was existing staff shortages and could be solved by greater recruitment efforts, including support on a national level from the federal government. Some suggested possible actions such as financially incentivizing family doctors to practice in rural communities. This could include offering higher wages in exchange for a commitment from healthcare professionals to practice in these communities for a specified period of time;
• Improving long-term and home care – A number of participants felt more needed to be done to keep seniors in their homes as long as possible, believing this would greatly improve the health outcomes for these individuals who were often more comfortable living at home rather than in a long-term care facility. Once again, staff shortages were identified as a key factor contributing to this issue, with some being of the view that few Canadians were interested in pursuing careers in this area;
• Addressing mental health and substance use – Many participants thought this to be an issue of particular importance, with some identifying mental health and addictions as increasingly prevalent issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was felt the Government of Canada needed to place a greater emphasis on expanding accessibility for those seeking treatment, as some believed these services were very limited in their communities at present; and
• Modernizing health data management and virtual care – More participants focused on the virtual care component of this priority, with many feeling that greater investments into this form of care would greatly expand the ability of rural Canadians to communicate with healthcare professionals and specialists. While some felt modernizing health data management could serve to expedite and improve healthcare provisions in their local area, a small number expressed concern regarding the privacy implications of this initiative, questioning how widely accessible their personal health data would be.

Ukraine (Major Centres Prairies Ukrainian Diaspora)

The group comprising participants from the Ukrainian diaspora residing in various locations across the Prairies discussed the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which began on February 24, 2022 when Russian forces invaded Ukrainian territory.

Recounting what they had recently seen, read, or heard about the crisis, participants provided a number of responses, including:

• Continued bombings, missile strikes, and ground-based attacks by Russian forces in multiple locations throughout Ukraine, including the cities of Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kremenchuk. A number of participants recalled hearing from relatives, friends, and acquaintances who were in Ukraine and had witnessed these attacks first hand;
• A massive influx of Ukrainians fleeing westward to escape the heavy fighting and bombardment in the eastern region of the country. This was felt to have created a humanitarian crisis in western Ukraine as well as in neighbouring countries such as Poland which had received a large number of Ukrainians thus far. Some also mentioned hearing about efforts by the Government of Canada to provide safe haven for displaced individuals, streamlining and fast-tracking the process to bring Ukrainians fleeing the conflict to Canada;
• Strong defence efforts from Ukrainian forces in repelling the Russian invasion. A number of participants were of the impression that Russia had been surprised at the tenacity of the Ukrainian defence effort thus far, which had been bolstered by a substantial amount of financial and military aid from the Government of Canada along with other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies;
• Ongoing propaganda employed by Russia towards its own citizens, aimed at justifying the conflict and fostering animosity towards Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Some spoke of the divisions that misinformation and Russia’s disinformation campaign were causing with respect to relationships between Ukrainians with relatives and/or friends residing in Russia; and
• Horrifying scenes in cities, such as Bucha, which had recently been retaken from Russia. It was widely felt among participants that these discoveries, including mass graves and the apparent indiscriminate killing of Ukrainian civilians by Russian forces, were tantamount to war crimes and should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Questioned as to where they had been receiving news regarding the ongoing conflict, almost all participants recalled getting updates first-hand from relatives and personal connections who continued to reside in Ukraine. Many also reported closely following the news from Canadian broadcasters such as CBC and Global News, as well as international broadcasts emanating from countries closer to the conflict (e.g., Poland). In addition, a number of participants said they were regularly watching social media and YouTube videos produced by individuals who were ‘on the ground’ in Ukraine and providing first-hand accounts of the crisis.

Focusing on the actions taken by the Government of Canada in response to the conflict, many recalled significant military and financial aid which had been offered by the federal government to Ukraine in the weeks leading up to and following the Russian invasion. In addition to this direct support, some also mentioned sanctions which had been implemented by the Government of Canada under the Special Economic Measures Act and in concert with NATO allies. These included restrictions placed on numerous Russian individuals and entities which prohibited them from doing business within Canada or with Canadian individuals/businesses. Several participants spoke positively regarding what they felt to be the strong diplomatic efforts by the Government of Canada to condemn these actions by Russia, including the decision to prohibit imports of Russian crude oil into Canada, which was felt to have been particularly impactful from both an economic and diplomatic perspective. A number of participants expressed appreciation regarding the efforts to date by the federal government in support of Ukraine. Participants felt that Canada had been a leader amongst its allies in this regard.

However, most were of the view that far more needed to be done to defend Ukraine and protect those currently displaced by the conflict. Discussing additional actions the Government of Canada could take to provide further support to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, participants put forward a wide array of responses, including:

• Encouraging NATO allies to implement a ‘no-fly’ zone above Ukraine which would prohibit Russian aircraft from entering the airspace. Several felt this was an important step towards protecting those still in Ukraine. Some also suggested the deployment of additional Canadian personnel in the form of an increased presence by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), medical, and mental health professionals. Others suggested the need to deploy additional aid workers to neighbouring nations such as Poland which had taken in a large number of displaced Ukrainians;
• Taking a leading role in brokering a diplomatic peaceful end to the conflict. Some referred to what they viewed as Canada’s history as a peacekeeping nation, believing the Government of Canada was well positioned in this regard;
• Implementing further sanctions on Russian as well as Belarusian individuals and entities. It was felt that the initial measures taken had been effective in placing considerable economic pressure on Russia and its leaders;
• Advocating for a thorough investigation into reported war crimes and atrocities committed by Russian forces upon Ukrainian citizens. It was felt the Government of Canada should be a leading voice in calling for the prosecution of Russian forces and leaders for these actions;
• Assisting with the expedient transportation and settlement of a large number of Ukrainians displaced by the conflict. Many participants felt the federal government should cover the cost of air travel for these individuals, either by purchasing private flights or arranging for chartered flights, to bring these individuals to Canada. It was also widely felt the Government of Canada should devote resources towards assisting incoming individuals with necessary paperwork, obtaining housing, and the provision of healthcare and financial support to ease their temporary resettlement in Canada;
• Creating employment and education strategies to accommodate incoming Ukrainians in finding work as well as continuing their education. It was also felt that resources would need to be allocated for language training and subsidized child care for working parents with young children. In addition, some suggested that the federal government should work to leverage the existing skills of these incoming individuals, finding them employment within sectors in which they have previous experience. Given the impression shared by participants of Ukraine as a primarily agricultural nation, it was believed that a large number of those arriving in Canada would be readily employable within the Canadian agricultural sector, which was thought to be facing a labour shortage; and
• Streamlining the flow of donations from the Canadian public, either through the creation of a federally-run organization or the endorsement of an existing charitable organization with expertise in providing assistance to countries facing a humanitarian crisis. It was thought by many that there was an overabundance of charities soliciting donations in support of Ukrainians and the Ukrainian defence effort and that it was difficult to determine where best to direct personal donations. It was felt that more guidance from the federal government would be helpful in this regard.

Focusing on the potential short and long-term implications of this conflict, most participants felt the impact of this invasion by Russia would be felt on a global scale for a long time to come. In terms of immediate impacts, many predicted the reduction and/or complete loss of Ukrainian agricultural exports would lead to food shortages across Europe and elsewhere. Most also thought there would be an increasing humanitarian crisis as countries around the world sought to accommodate the millions of Ukrainians displaced by this conflict and unable to return to their homes in the near future. Looking further ahead, a number of participants were of the view that unless something was done to repel the Russian incursion into Ukraine, other nearby countries such as Moldova and Georgia may soon be at risk of invasion as well. While participants were more split on whether Russia would be willing to risk direct engagement with NATO forces, many expressed concern this situation would give rise to a new ‘Cold War’ mentality, with a complete withdrawal of Russia and its allies from the international order. Regardless of how this crisis unfolded going forward, many participants expressed a desire to see Russia heavily penalized, believing there needed to be significant consequences for Russia and its leaders, including prosecution for war crimes, increased economic sanctions, and the removal of Russia from international organizations such as the United Nations. At the same time, several participants clarified that they hoped the Russian population and those of Russian heritage would not be persecuted or discriminated against due to the actions of their government, emphasizing their belief that the responsibility for this conflict lay solely with Russian leadership and not its people.

Asked what would need to happen in order for Canada to effectively accommodate a large influx of Ukrainians displaced by the conflict, many reiterated calls for increased financial assistance, including compensation for air travel. It was also suggested that logistical support from the federal and provincial/territorial governments would be required to aid Ukrainians who wished to come to Canada in finding housing and employment as well as completing all the necessary paperwork to start their new lives in Canada. It was widely felt that efforts should be taken to ensuring as smooth a transition as possible to life in Canada for these individuals, with some suggesting the Government of Canada could consider creating a national registry of available housing as well as offering incentives to employers to hire displaced Ukrainians. Additionally, many were of the view that the federal government would need to prepare to address the physical and mental health needs of those arriving, expecting that many would need assistance in processing the trauma they had recently experienced. Some also recommended additional support from post-secondary institutions to those who had been studying in Ukraine prior to the outbreak of conflict in the form of financial assistance to reduce their tuition costs, and avoid having to pay international student fees, as well as fast-tracking their enrolment applications. A number of participants also mentioned the federal government’s previous history in taking in individuals fleeing other conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan, believing this experience should be leveraged and similar procedures reactivated to more efficiently process and settle those arriving from Ukraine. In addition, some specifically mentioned provincially-oriented programs already in place (e.g., Manitoba Start) to assist new arrivals. The view was that these types of programs would also help with the adjustment process for displaced Ukrainians.

To aid in discussion and clarify the steps already taken by the Government of Canada regarding those fleeing Ukraine, participants were shown the following information:

The Government of Canada created the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel (CUAET) to help Ukrainians and their family members come to Canada as quickly as possible and to provide them with the ability to work and study while in Canada.

For Ukrainian nationals outside Canada, the CUAET gives them a visitor visa to come to Canada temporarily, until it is safe to return to Ukraine. This visitor visa also gives them the option to apply for a work permit at the same time or to be given status as a student if they are under 18 and want to study in Canada. They can stay in Canada for up to 3 years at a time or until their passport expires. When their status in Canada is about to expire, they will need to apply to extend their stay.

While most reacted positively to the creation of the CUAET, many were of the view that the three-year limit should be removed and that these individuals should be allowed to stay in Canada on a more indefinite basis. Adding to this, several thought there should be a more expedient effort by the federal government to create a pathway to permanent residency and Canadian citizenship for any who wished to stay in Canada permanently. A number of participants expressed concern regarding potential processing delays. Some were of the view that the federal government was already dealing with a substantial backlog of applications resulting from delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was suggested by a few participants that the federal government should engage additional employees to handle the increase in applications, believing this would not only address the volume of Ukrainians seeking assistance, but would also create more jobs for Canadians in the process. Several were of the view that the Government of Canada should also consider expanding the definition of ‘family’ under the CUAET, being of the understanding that under current guidelines only the immediate family of Ukrainians were included in this initiative. A few mentioned having personally encountered difficulties in their attempts to sponsor other relatives wishing to come to Canada and being told that they were not currently eligible under this program. Some were of the opinion that federal officials should focus on ensuring new arrivals were settled in communities all across Canada rather than just major urban centres, with a particular focus on those regions with a large Ukrainian diaspora as well as communities which were experiencing labour shortages.

Discussing what actions the federal government could take to protect the language and culture of Ukrainians living within Canada, while all felt this to be important, many thought it to be an issue better handled by municipalities and organizations at the local level rather than by the Government of Canada. Several felt the large Ukrainian diaspora in Canada would be instrumental in this regard as would Ukrainian-focused organizations such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC). It was generally thought that while federal funding towards local Ukrainian cultural programming would be greatly appreciated, it was the responsibility of the Ukrainian community to uphold their own language and culture and that this would most likely occur organically as these individuals integrated into their new communities.

Emissions Reduction Plan (Vancouver Island Environmentally Concerned)

A group of environmentally concerned participants residing on Vancouver Island discussed their views on the Government of Canada’s Emissions Reduction Plan. At the outset of the discussion on this topic, participants were asked if they had read, heard, or seen recent news or announcements about the Government of Canada’s work on the environment and climate change. Most participants had not heard much recently, although Canada’s plan to reach net-zero emissions was mentioned. Beyond this, participants reiterated announcements or initiatives they had raised in response to a question asked earlier in the discussion, principally the implementation of a federal price on carbon as well as offering grants to Canadians to help fund energy efficiency activities in homes and businesses (e.g., installation of heat pumps). When asked explicitly if they had heard about the Government of Canada’s recent announcement of its 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, participants commented that they were not familiar with the Plan by name.

Additional information on the Plan was shared with participants on-screen, as follows:

The Government of Canada has said it is working with Canadians in all parts of the country and all sectors of the economy to achieve Canada’s climate goals and seize new economic opportunities. The 2030 plan is designed to be evergreen—a comprehensive roadmap that reflects levels of ambition to guide emissions reduction efforts in each sector.

In the 2030 plan, the Government of Canada is taking action by:

• Helping to reduce energy costs for our homes and buildings
• Empowering communities to take climate action
• Making it easier for Canadians to switch to electric vehicles
• Driving down carbon pollution from the oil and gas sector
• Powering the economy with renewable electricity
• Helping industries develop and adopt clean technology in their journey to net-zero emissions
• Investing in nature and natural climate solutions
• Supporting farmers as partners in building a clean, prosperous future
• Maintaining Canada’s approach to pricing pollution

Initial reactions to this list of priority items were generally positive, with participants largely of the opinion that the plan was a step in the right direction. At the same time, however, many felt the Plan to be somewhat ambitious and raised several concerns and/or questions. These included:

• How the various goals and priorities could be achieved within the next few years;
• What specific activities would be undertaken; and
• What would be done if, by 2030, not all of these goals had been met?

Several participants commented that the Plan seemed somewhat vague on details, specifically how the Government of Canada planned to fund and tackle each of the nine priorities listed. A few also expressed some skepticism particularly in regards to those items which suggested Canada would move away from reliance on non-renewable energy sources, such as oil and gas, and shift more predominantly to the adoption of clean and renewable energy sources and technologies. It was felt this would be challenging given that some provinces and territories in Canada continue to generate most of their electricity from these energy sources, such as coal and natural gas. There was a general sense among participants that Canadians and Canadian industry would likely continue to remain highly reliant on non-renewable energy.

In the absence of further details, participants expressed uncertainty regarding the intent of some of these priorities. In particular, some commented on the initiative of ‘empowering communities to take climate action’ with a few questioning how much money would be directed to this area, where it would go, to whom specifically, and for what kinds of activities. On balance, while the Plan itself and the overall goal of reducing emissions was well received by participants, a lack of details with regard to execution left many questioning the extent to which it was achievable within the timeframe.

Participants were next asked to select those priorities (up to three) which they believed were the most important. Responses converged around two priorities in particular:

• Driving down carbon pollution from the oil and gas sectors – Participants all felt that this priority, among those listed, would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions. Many were strongly in favour of taking more direct action towards the oil and gas sector as, in their view, this sector represented one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. It was expected by some that the Government of Canada would hold companies operating in this sector more accountable by applying both positive and negative pressure (e.g., incentives and penalties to reduce or offset emissions). Most participants were convinced that moving in this direction was achievable, although it was also felt that the perceived limitations of existing transportation infrastructure in many areas may prove to be a barrier. Related to this, some felt it was important to build out more extensive public transit networks in major centres across Canada in order to reduce reliance on the oil and gas sector and decrease congestion on the roads. A small number pointed to what they felt to be the significant carbon impact of air travel and the entire North American food transportation network, suggesting that Canadians would need to dramatically rethink their lifestyle, needs, and expectations in order to have a tangible impact on climate change; and
• Investing in nature and climate solutions – Many participants were drawn to this particular priority given what they viewed as its focus on preserving Canada’s natural resources and ecosystems, as opposed to actions that were directed more towards individual Canadians, communities and businesses. While some were not entirely sure about the kinds of investments that would be included in supporting and promoting ‘natural climate solutions,’ the reference to nature and natural solutions generally struck a positive chord among participants. Many expressed support for activities that were felt would likely be encompassed by this priority item, including reforestation initiatives, replenishing fish stocks, and enhancing food security and sustainability.

Several participants also prioritized ‘helping industries develop and adopt clean technology in their journey to net-zero emissions,’ reiterating the perception of manufacturers as among the largest polluters in Canada. As mentioned earlier, there was a sense that taking action in this area would have a significant impact in terms of achieving the goal of net-zero emissions by 2030. Some participants were also of the view that industry should be taking actions to be more environmentally responsible and that incentivizing them to adopt clean technology was a positive step in this direction.

A few participants believed that ‘helping to reduce energy costs for our homes and buildings’ was among the most important actions the Government of Canada could undertake, mainly because it directly benefited end users (e.g., homeowners and businesses). Some also believed that, in doing so, there would be a ripple effect across communities with respect to reducing energy costs, creating new jobs in the renewable and clean technology sector, and building more energy efficient communities. Furthermore, most said that this was achievable and, in fact, already underway via programs encouraging Canadians to undertake energy efficiency retrofits to their homes, such as the Canada Greener Homes Grant (though not mentioned by name). Others cautioned that, even with grants and incentives for home retrofits, the out of pocket costs for homeowners would likely remain considerable, representing a key barrier to progress on this front.

Relatively few participants selected any of the remaining priorities, with many feeling them to be somewhat nebulous. For example, participants questioned what was meant by ‘empowering communities,’ ‘powering the economy’ or ‘Canada’s approach to pricing pollution.’ With respect to ‘making it easier for Canadians to switch to electric vehicles,’ participants raised the issues related to the affordability of ZEVs as well as what was perceived as a lack of investment in the expansion of public transit systems in many major centres, something that was felt by some to be a growing issue requiring further attention from the federal government.

Very few commented on ‘supporting farmers as partners in building a clean, prosperous future,’ again finding this statement somewhat vague. Although some felt that this might be suggestive of support for activities such as syntrophic farming, a few were of the opinion that Canadian dietary habits and food supply chains would have to be dramatically rethought going forward, with a greater emphasis placed on transitioning to domestic food production and self-reliance rather than importation and international trade.

When asked if there were any priorities missing from the list, participants mentioned the need for broader public education and awareness regarding these issues, believing that the driving force for progress on climate action would need to occur at the individual level.

Before concluding this discussion, participants were given several minutes to review the Emissions Reduction Plan Backgrounder via a link to the document (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2022/03/2030-emissions-reduction-plan--canadas-next-steps-for-clean-air-and-a-strong-economy.html). A number of items caught their attention, including:

• A $25-million investment in Regional Strategic Initiatives;
• The reference to $9.1 billion in new investments included in the Plan;
• The goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, and achieving an emissions target of 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030; and
• Extending incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles.

Overall, however, while many appreciated seeing further information on the various initiatives, a significant number remained of the view that these investments would be insufficient and that the proposed timeline did not reflect the urgency of the issue. They also wondered why they had not previously heard about the Plan, given the importance they felt was attached to addressing climate change. Some were overwhelmed by the amount of information provided in the Backgrounder and felt that it would be more newsworthy and easier to understand if aspects of the Plan were shared with the public in a more succinct and compartmentalized manner (e.g., focusing on one priority item at a time). Others commented that many of the items were overly broad in nature so as to render them non-relatable at the level of individuals. In this respect, some said that more could be done to highlight what each Canadian could do on an individual basis to contribute to these action items.

Zero-Emission Vehicles (Vancouver Island Environmentally Concerned)

Environmentally concerned participants on Vancouver Island shared their views on Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), discussing the motivators and barriers to purchasing these vehicles, among other issues. While none in the group currently owned a ZEV, several participants expressed interest in purchasing one sometime in the future. The key drivers of interest in ZEVs were:

• Lower operating and maintenance costs, with many feeling ZEVs represented a more reliable investment on this front; and
• The reduced carbon footprint and sustainable focus of these vehicles, as part of a shift to a larger green economy.

In addition, however, a number of participants identified barriers to purchasing ZEVs, both among those who did and did not express an interest in buying one. These included:

• Price – The price of ZEVs, especially non-hybrid ones, was thought to be significantly higher compared to vehicles with an internal combustion engine (ICE). It was said by several that for many Canadians these vehicles were currently prohibitively expensive;
• Timing of the purchase – Several participants expressed that they were simply not ready at this time to purchase a ZEV. Most were happy with their existing vehicle and/or had not finished paying off existing vehicle-related loans and were not in a position to consider buying a ZEV at present;
• Available ZEV models – Concerns were raised about whether the range of available models of ZEVs would be able to accommodate the varying lifestyles of Canadians. This was thought to be particularly the case for those wishing to purchase a ZEV pick-up truck rather than a sedan or SUV; and
• Additional transit options – Rather than ZEVs or automobiles of any sort, many expressed a preference for other modes of transportation such as bikes, E-bikes, or public transit.

Speaking more generally, a few participants commented that they would like to first transition to a hybrid vehicle. It was felt this would provide additional perspective in determining whether a vehicle that produces no emissions (e.g., battery electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles) would be right for them.

Participants were asked about their reactions to a Government of Canada proposal which would set a target that all new cars sold in Canada would need to be ZEVs by the year 2050. A number of participants were of the impression the federal government had already announced such a target, while others were of the view that it should be advanced much earlier than 2050. In addition to these positive impressions, however, this proposal also raised some concerns. These included:

• Perceptions that the charging infrastructure and networks for electric vehicles in British Columbia and across Canada was currently inadequate and would present challenges for drivers expecting to use their vehicles for more than daily commuting;
• The expectation among some that a full life-cycle analysis of ZEVs would reveal that the technology had a net negative impact on the environment, especially when taking into account the manufacturing and disposal of ZEV batteries; and
• Concerns that a widespread shift to ZEVs would potentially address one problem while creating another. For example, several participants were worried that the mining and extraction of rare earth metals and minerals necessary for ZEV batteries would in itself lead to further environmental degradation.

Some participants emphasized the need for the Government of Canada to undertake a more thorough due diligence prior to investing in and/or promoting a switch to ZEVs, citing examples of other technologies which held some promise but later turned out to not be beneficial to society.

For a number of participants, the high price point of ZEVs was seen as a likely barrier towards the federal government achieving this target. When asked whether they would feel differently if the price of ZEVs was no different than comparable cars on the market, several reiterated additional concerns regarding this technology. Many expressed reservations about battery life, including the cost and environmental impact associated with replacing these batteries, as well as the lack of availability of a wider range of ZEV models. The bottom line for these participants was that price was not the only consideration, nor necessarily the key factor when it came to their decision to purchase a ZEV.

Official Language Challenges and Priorities (New Brunswick Francophones)

Participants in the group comprised of Francophones living in New Brunswick discussed the topic of official languages, focusing both on the challenges facing the French language in primarily English-speaking communities as well as perceptions of the Government of Canada’s priorities related to official languages.

To begin this discussion, participants were asked to express their views concerning the state of the French language in their own communities in New Brunswick. Most felt that the French language was currently under threat, with some expressing sadness about this. Many held the view that French remained a minority language in their communities and was not spoken as frequently relative to English, which was seen as a more universal language. A few were of the impression that despite New Brunswick’s standing as an officially bilingual province, it was evident that there remained many areas where it was not necessary for one to be able to speak both English and French. Unprompted, some participants shared the view that a contributing factor to this issue was the propensity for children and youth to favour speaking English in everyday conversations as well as decreased enrollment in French immersion programs in schools. Among the few participants who did not believe the French language was under threat, it was expressed that in their personal experience French remained a regular part of daily life and that their communities (particularly those in northern New Brunswick) still primarily utilized French as the primary language.

Participants were next shown a list of numerous items related to living as a Francophone in New Brunswick and were asked to select which (up to three choices) they felt represented the most significant challenges. These included:

• Accessing child care services in French;
• Accessing information from the Government of Canada in French;
• Accessing media content (e.g., radio, television, Internet, newspapers) in French;
• Attracting Francophones from outside the region to move here;
• Ensuring the Francophone community remains strong in the future;
• Feeling part of the Francophone community here;
• Keeping young Francophones in the region;
• Living in French in your region (e.g., participating in sports/activities, shopping, etc.);
• Speaking in French to a Government of Canada representative;
• Transmitting the French language and culture to the next generation; and
• Accessing services from businesses in French.

Among participants, many identified challenges related to children and youth continuing to learn and retain the French language as the priority area in greatest need of attention. Related to this participants focused on two principle challenges:

• Transmitting the French language and culture to the next generation – While some individuals reported primarily speaking French in their own households, a number reiterated concerns that their children tended to speak English more often socially and in addition were more likely to consume English-language media (e.g., music, television shows) relative to content in French; and
• Accessing child care services in French – Some also recalled having trouble finding child care services that were purely bilingual in their neighbourhood. A few were of the view that it was important for children to be cared for and taught in both official languages from a young age, and that limitations in this regard would only further limit the use of French in primarily English-speaking communities.

Other major challenges, also selected by a number of participants, centered on ensuring a high Francophone presence in primarily French-speaking regions of New Brunswick. Some selected ‘keeping young Francophones in the region’ , expressing the opinion that more needed to be done to address the limited job opportunities currently felt to be available to youth in their communities as well as the need to create greater incentives for young people to stay. While many were of the view that it was a more important priority to encourage Francophones to remain in New Brunswick, some also believed more needed to be done to address the challenge of ‘attracting Francophones from outside the region’.

A few participants also said that the ability to ‘speak in French to a Government of Canada representative’ was a significant issue for them. Individuals selecting this option remarked that in interacting with federal employees, they often felt that the first language of these representatives was typically not French and, as such, it was difficult to communicate at times. This being said, participants also expressed the understanding that it was likely difficult to fill all such roles in the federal government with Francophones, given their limited population across the country relative to Anglophones.

Participants were next shown a selection of potential priorities from the Government of Canada related to official languages. These included:

• Creating a strategy to support entrepreneurs in official language minority communities;
• Ensuring every Canadian can be heard and understood by a judge in their official language of choice when before a court;
• Ensuring that the private sector provides services in the preferred official language of Canadians;
• Guaranteeing the equality of the English and French languages in Canada;
• Increasing funding for schools for Francophone communities outside of Quebec; and
• Making investments to improve access to French immersion and French second-language programs across the country.

Asked to select which of these priorities they believed were the most important for the Government of Canada to focus on, almost all participants selected ‘increasing funding for schools for Francophone communities outside of Quebec’. Participants felt that in order to retain the French language in Canada, it was important to first invest in educating future generations.

Related to this, many also believed that ‘making investments to improve access to French immersion and French second-language programs across the country’ was important. Some viewed it as vital that all Canadians, even in communities comprised of primarily Anglophones, had access to French immersion programs so that they would have an equal opportunity to learn the language. Others believed that investments were needed to improve current immersion and second-language programs to allow them to have a more lasting impact.

A few participants felt that ‘guaranteeing the equality of the English and French languages in Canada’ was also important. While some had a more difficult time explaining why they selected this option, it was said by a few participants that Canada’s official languages were not evenly balanced at present and that the federal government had not been proactive enough in ensuring equality for the French language.

Questioned as to whether there was anything missing from the list provided, some suggested greater emphasis could be placed on the promotion of the French language through French culture and music. Many in the group reacted positively to this suggestion. Asked if they believed there was anything more the Government of Canada should be doing to support the Francophone community, no participants had anything further to add.

PacifiCan Branding (Lower Mainland British Columbia)

Those residing in the Lower Mainland region of British Columbia were presented with two branding concepts developed by the Government of Canada as part of a proposed campaign for Pacific Economic Development Canada (PacifiCan) – a federal agency designed to support economic growth in British Columbia. Prior to viewing the concepts, participants were informed that they were designed to be viewed across a wide range of media including brochures and signage, websites, and various social media platforms. No participants had any previous knowledge of PacifiCan prior to this discussion.

Concept A

Concept A is composed of three slides. The first outlines the colour scheme, including a dark ‘forest’ green (60%), light blue (25%), light grey (10%), and beige (5%). In addition, various versions of a logo (all of different combinations of the above colours) are presented. The second slide includes two versions of the same design. Both include a Pacific Economic Development Canada (‘Développement économique Canada pour le Pacifique’ in French) header, accompanied by the Government of Canada wordmark. On the left side, each design features the image of three businesswomen speaking, accompanied by text on the right: “Building a brighter future for tomorrow’s industry leaders”. The design on the left utilizes a white background with faded silver geometric designs and a dark green logo in the bottom-right corner, while the one on the right utilizes forest green, with the same designs in a darker shade of green, and a white logo in the same bottom-right position. In a text box below utilizing the inverse colour schemes of the images above and with ‘PacifiCan’ in the upper left corner, each design version includes the following information: “Fraser River Discovery to receive $150,000 to provide strong post-pandemic recovery and access to Indigenous events and exhibits”. The final slide features the same photo as the second, taking up the entire right side of the page. On the left side is a large section of text (unspecified at this time), accompanied by the same logo and the word ‘PacifiCan’.

On balance, participants reacted somewhat negatively to this concept. While some disliked the colour scheme in particular, others expressed the opinion that the design as a whole was not particularly captivating.

Discussing the colours, participants expressed confusion as to what they felt to be the lack of the traditional red, white and black colour palate they expected to see in communications from the Government of Canada. Some were particularly opposed to the dark green colour prominent within the concept, feeling that it was not visually appealing and did not prompt one to think of an agency of the federal government. When prompted, however, many did associate dark green with the environment, and the forestry sector in particular. Speaking more generally, a few individuals also commented that they felt the colour scheme to be somewhat muted and unlikely to be very eye catching. A few others were of the opinion that there was too much blank white space incorporated in the layout of this concept.

Discussing the organization of the concept, some mentioned having trouble initially determining where their attention was meant to be drawn. Participants remarked that the layout did not draw attention to any specific part of the concept and therefore may be confusing for those who came across the creative to understand what they were looking at. A few said that the design felt disconnected in general, giving the impression of several different concepts that had been combined together.

Along with these more critical comments, however, several reacted positively to some of the elements contained within this concept. These included:

• Bolding certain portions of text to emphasize specific words or phrases;
• The font selection; and
• Concise and easy-to-read text (with the exception of the third image, which was noted to be somewhat ‘text-heavy’).

Speaking specifically about the logo presented within this design, participants generally thought it to be somewhat generic and lacked memorability. The use of various versions of this logo was also confusing for some, who believed this added unnecessary complexity to the branding.

Concept B

Concept B is composed of three slides. The first outlines the colour scheme, including a dark blue (60%), pink (25%), white (10%), and light grey (5%). In addition, various versions of a logo (all of different combinations of the above colours) are presented. The second slide includes two versions of the same design. Both include a Pacific Economic Development Canada (‘Développement économique Canada pour le Pacifique’ in French) header, accompanied by the Government of Canada wordmark. On the left side, each design features the image of three women and one man speaking in a business context, accompanied by text on the right: “Building a brighter future for tomorrow’s industry leaders” and a watermark-type logo. At the top left of each version there is an ‘upside-down L’ geometric shape, in dark blue on the left and pink on the right. The background on the left version is white, while that of the right version is dark blue. In a text box below utilizing the inverse colour schemes of the images above and with ‘PacifiCan’ in the upper left corner, each design version includes the following information: “Fraser River Discovery to receive $150,000 to provide strong post-pandemic recovery and access to Indigenous events and exhibits”. The left-hand portion of the final slide features a cropped image of the photo from the previous slide, featuring only the three women. The right side of the slide features a large portion of text, accompanied by the word ‘PacifiCan’ at the bottom.

Participants reacted relatively positively to Concept B. In particular, many felt that the colours and tone of this design did a significantly better job at capturing their attention relative to the previous concept.

Positive comments generally focused on the following:

• Design – Most participants preferred the overall look and feel of this compared to the previous concept. It was generally felt to be a sleeker, more modern-looking design. Some also remarked positively regarding the general layout, as well as the use of geometric shapes and contrast which they felt brought more attention to the information contained within the concept. A few individuals reacted positively to the positioning of the logo in this version, feeling it to be more akin to a watermark than a focal point of the advertisement;
• Colour scheme – Participants generally liked the selection of colours used in this concept, particularly the blue/green colour and the use of whites and greys. Some believed that the use of pink, which they described as vivid, helped to attract attention to the branding. A few, however, were less fond of the pink, feeling it did not really fit with the other colours and might not match the overall style and tone of the imagery; and
• Highlighting – A few spoke positively regarding the use of framed and/or highlighted text (for example, behind the ‘$150,000’), feeling this helped make the text more prominent to the viewer.

In addition to these positive comments, some also identified areas they felt could be improved, including:

• Logo – While many said they liked the simplicity of the logo, some believed that the image looked quite similar to a snowflake, feeling this could provide confusion as to the purpose of PacifiCan; and
• Density of text – As with the previous concept, some commented that the text in the last image was overly dense and could be presented in a more inviting way. It was also suggested that for the print version in particular there should be more than one photo included within the design, providing greater context regarding the types of initiatives supported by PacifiCan.

Having now seen these concepts, participants were asked how they would best describe PacifiCan. Most were of the impression that it focused on serving economic issues in British Columbia, particularly those affecting the province’s coastal regions. Expanding upon this, some expected the agency likely had a more nature-based focus, specifically involving sectors such as forestry and ocean systems.

Asked which concept would be more likely to catch their own attention on social media or in a printed publication, almost all felt Concept B was the most memorable, with many citing the more modern design and vivid eye-catching colours utilized in the design. Discussing which concept better represented the essence of British Columbia, however, participants were more mixed in their opinions. While several selected Concept A, primarily relating the colour scheme of forest greens and light blues to the environment of B.C.’s forests and coastal regions, a roughly equal number selected Concept B, reiterating their preference for the more vivid colour palette and generally feeling it to be the more visually-appealing concept.

Youth Issues (GMA Women)

Women residing in Montreal under the age of 35 engaged in a brief discussion focused on issues specifically relevant to younger Canadians. Discussing what they viewed as the most important issues for youth in Canada, a wide range of responses were provided. These included:

• Climate change – Participants felt this to be an issue of great importance, believing significant action needed to be taken to preserve natural resources and the environment for future generations;
• Housing affordability – It was felt that housing in many regions of the country was becoming prohibitively expensive and that more needed to be done to ensure all Canadians had access to affordable housing;
• Mental health supports – Some were of the view that many Canadians, and youth in particular, required increased access to mental health supports. This was felt to particularly the case for those who had suffered due to the isolation and other aspects brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic; and
• Ongoing discrimination against racialized Canadians and other marginalized groups – This was identified as an important issue by several participants, a number of whom believed discrimination against certain groups continued to be a major issue in Canada, both on an individual as well as systemic level.

Discussing whether the Government of Canada was currently on the right or wrong track regarding addressing those priorities most important to younger Canadians, many felt it had been relatively ineffective in this regard. Several suggested the need for greater outreach to younger Canadians, feeling a significant portion of young people were largely disengaged from society at present, and had little influence when it came to crafting solutions to the challenges currently facing the country. While some were of the view that the federal government had been making some progress as of late towards identifying the issues impacting younger Canadians, it was felt a greater emphasis needed to be placed on devising ways to prioritize youth in its decision-making going forward.