Government of Canada news was not prominent in any of the groups. Whether owing to summer holidays and distractions, or the upcoming election, many said they had not heard or read about federal government public policy news lately.

Of those that had heard about Government of Canada news, the main mentions across the groups were the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the diplomatic and trade-related disputes with China, pipelines, single use plastic initiative, increasing child tax credit amounts, legalized marijuana, and the garbage shipment to the Philippines. The SNC-Lavalin issue also received a few mentions.

In Iqaluit, most participants could not recall hearing much news related to the federal government. There were a few mentions about an announcement involving $71 million for Nunavut infrastructure, the SNC-Lavalin issue, the lack of clean water, and the Government of Canada’s apology for its treatment of Inuit.

In Trois-Rivières issues touching the federal government were raised such as the Phoenix pay system, migrants crossing the border and seemingly overwhelming the government’s capacity to respond, people wanting new Social Insurance Numbers (SINs) following a data breach at a cooperative financial group, the increasing federal debt, and issues with China.

Major Issues

Participants identified a wide range of local issues in common across each of these communities, with major concerns focused on a lack of affordable housing and local jobs, an increase in drug use and crime, and insufficient public services and infrastructure. Scarcity of doctors, hospital services, and local health care options, especially for mental health care issues, were also widely cited as a significant local challenge in most centres.

In Hamilton, there was a lot of discussion about the amount of pollution associated with the steel mills. Participants noted that on some days the pollution can be intolerable and the smell from the steel plants overwhelming. A few participants noted that gentrification is a problem because more affluent people are moving into neighbourhoods and forcing longstanding residents out due to rising prices. A few felt that the City of Hamilton is in a state of crisis given the decreasing tax base.

In Trois-Rivières respondents echoed some of the same issues as in other localities but added, pollution of the rivers and the quality of drinking water, plastic pollution, bad roads, the need to reduce the number of fuel-burning cars and increase the number of charging stations for electric vehicles, as well as a shortage of childcare services and a need to promote tourism, to the list of challenges specific to their area.

In Kentville, some participants cited the low minimum wage as a key local issue, while homelessness was identified as an issue in both Hamilton and Kentville.

In Iqaluit, there were a host of local issues that stood out in the discussion in this community, including concerns about drug addiction, lack of opportunity for local people with respect to government jobs, poor access to clean water, high school dropout rates, lack of dedicated support and facilities to address mental health issues, the time it takes to obtain housing, crowded living arrangements, a lack of understanding of the local Inuit culture from decision makers (including the Government of Canada), trauma created by colonialism, the high cost of living (particularly for food), and the need for more job training.

Local Infrastructure Needs

The issue of infrastructure was raised spontaneously in most communities, but these matters tended to be different depending on the location.

In Hamilton, participants identified public transit, poor and deteriorating building stock in the downtown area, a need for more investment in water and sewage pipes, and congested highways to and from Toronto.

In Trois-Rivières, as in other places, respondents quickly pointed to roads as a major concern, as well as public transit, better management of the bridges and the need for High Frequency Rail (train à grande fréquence).” They also voiced a need for more daycare centres, hospitals and to either renovate or build new schools, in addition to the conservation of historical sites.

Roads, health facilities, and affordable housing were identified as the key local issues in Kentville.

In Iqaluit, people tended to see infrastructure as being both social and physical. There were strong views expressed that their community’s infrastructure needs were significant in light of the population growth, colder weather, and climate change. A number of specific needs were identified – better access to the Internet, water and sewage pipelines, lack of boarding houses, improved health infrastructure, and better roads. One participant suggested that a university located in a Northern community would be highly beneficial.

Federal Support for the Local Community

In Hamilton, Kentville and Trois Rivières, the federal government’s visibility in providing support to communities was low. In these locations, the federal government was perceived as neither having a positive impact nor negative impact. People admitted that the federal government might be doing things in their community, but they simply did not know about it.

About the only visibility a few in Trois-Rivières were able to mention was that the Government of Canada was providing money for infrastructure, without providing examples of specific investments. After some pause, there were single mentions of support to families, a program which provides money for young people and funding start-ups.

In Hamilton, many wanted to see the federal government provide more support to the steel industry with respect to research and development, improved safety, and reduced pollution.

Many in Iqaluit felt that the federal government is not providing sufficient financial resources to their community. Some believed that other groups receive more resources than Northern communities. A few asserted that the government makes political decisions that do not align with local preferences. At the same time, some felt that the federal government needs to be more creative in helping their community become more self-sustaining. There was some criticism of the federal government hiring companies from southern Canada to undertake construction projects in the North.

Despite the low awareness of federal activities, there were perceptions that the federal government was having a positive impact in the Kentville community. The federal government was associated with the establishment of various medical facilities which were viewed as having a positive impact on Kentville. A few believed that the goods and services tax (GST) refunds have been increased, putting more money in people’s pockets. Some were critical of immigration policies, which they viewed as lax, and which they cited as having a negative impact on employment opportunities for locals. In addition, some thought personal taxes were too high and that this was deterring some from seeking employment.

Most Important Local Industries

Participants in Hamilton identified steel milling, automotive, food processing, and real estate development as the key industries driving the regional economy. There was a perception that these industries support a whole range of ancillary businesses that help generate jobs and economic activity in the area. Some noted that high tech companies employing thousands are also moving into the area. No one in the Hamilton groups was aware of any federal government support for local industry.

While pulp and paper and aluminum are considered important industries in Trois-Rivières, men were simply unaware of any federal government support that they might be providing to those two sectors of the local economy, while women felt that they had provided support.

Farming was the primary industry identified in Kentville. The consensus was that the federal government does not offer a lot of support to the farming industry in the Kentville area.

In Iqaluit, some were uncertain about the key industries that underpin the regional economy, while others felt that government, construction, and hospitality were the main ones. There was a belief that the federal government does not provide a lot of support for these industries. Participants did not think that the federal government provides a lot of support for Inuit activities, in general.

Local Government of Canada Services

Participants in Iqaluit tended to be much more aware of a broader range of federal services compared to those in other communities. These residents also tended to be more negative about the service quality being offered by the federal government.

Iqaluit participants cited a range of federal government services that they have used: Service Canada, child and family benefits, public health, Canada Post, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), Employment Insurance (EI), passport services, applying for a Social Insurance Number (SIN), Immigration services, and the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor). A number of participants felt that the service delivery was good, but some wondered about the service quality delivered to Inuit residents, citing poor local language skills among federal workers dealing with local residents. When discussing federal government services, a few also mentioned Canadian Roots Exchange (CRE), a charity focused on youth and reconciliation.

Respondents in Trois-Rivières found it a bit challenging to name services, but after some prompting listed passports, EI, child and family benefits, loans and bursaries for students, federal transfer payments, Social Insurance Numbers, management of the seaway, inspection services and income taxes. Most were generally satisfied with the services offered.

Participants in the Hamilton groups were generally aware of the federal government services – CRA, passport, and pensions. Everyone felt that these services are delivered in an efficient manner. In Kentville, participants mentioned employment insurance, the Canadian Armed Forces, public pensions, healthcare, job training, student loans, and child tax credit. With respect to employment insurance, there were complaints about the long line-ups, lengthy qualification periods and shorter periods to receive benefits. Some were also critical of the quality of the service.

Participants in all locations were provided with a hand-out listing a series of possible broad priorities for the Government of Canada (shown below), and asked to identify two or three among them that they felt should be the over-arching goal for government.

• -- Ensuring Canadians are content
• -- Ensuring Canadians are thriving
• -- Ensuring Canadians live in prosperity
• -- Growing and strengthening the middle class
• -- Improving Canadians’ living standards
• -- Improving Canadians’ quality of life
• -- Improving Canadians’ well-being
• -- Making life more affordable

Across all groups, a consensus emerged around two key goals: “making life more affordable” and “improving Canadians’ quality of life”. For the most part, there was strong alignment in these priorities between both women and men, although there were some differences in the extent to which they were emphasized in each location.

While some priorities were identified as being more or less important than others, the vast majority of participants were hesitant to point to any that they believed the Government of Canada should not focus on.

Higher Priorities

Making life more affordable

Making life more affordable was identified among the top priorities for men and women in both Hamilton and Kentville. In Trois-Rivières, men were more likely to cite this as a top priority, while women were somewhat more inclined to coalesce around the goal of improving Canadians’ quality of life, although making life more affordable was identified as a top priority by about half the group. The opposite was true in Iqaluit where affordability was identified more so by women than by men, who tended to focus on quality of life and strengthening the middle class.

For most participants, making life more affordable suggested there were concrete policies that could be developed and actions that could be taken to address issues such as the cost of food and shelter, providing Canadians’ with a “livable wage” and cutting personal taxes. Participants’ comments underscored the extent to which many personally felt the impact of rising costs – many said they simply can’t get ahead, as the increasing cost of living is significantly outpacing any corresponding increases in wages and salaries. Some men in Trois-Rivières saw a causal relationship between this and a diminished quality of life.

In Kentville, the point was made that making life more affordable suggests “breaking the cycle” of relying on social assistance from one generation to the next. Participants in Kentville also noted that a large share of their pay cheque goes towards rent or housing, leaving very little for other requirements. The issue of “living from pay cheque to pay cheque” was raised in this context.

In Iqaluit, the cost of transportation, lack of public transit, the general lack of infrastructure, the need for “affordable living wages” and the shipping costs for food were all raised as issues which participants felt underscored their desire to see the Government of Canada placing a higher priority on affordability.

Overall, many participants saw affordability as a “higher level goal,” the kind of over-arching goal that others such as quality of life, well-being, prosperity, etc. contribute to.

Improving Canadians’ quality of life

For those participants who identified improving quality of life as a key goal for the Government of Canada, there was general agreement that this had implications for all aspects of one’s life. While affordability was viewed primarily as focusing on the cost of living, quality of life was seen to encompass one’s working life, personal or home life, health, as well as the cost of living and one’s overall sense of financial security.

Some participants indicated that quality of life was a particular concern given Canada’s aging demographics. They were especially anxious about quality of life for Canadian seniors whom they feel have experienced a decline in this respect, although some were equally worried about their own situation as they grow older and the prospects for younger generations. Their sense was that many people are unintentionally being neglected by our social systems.

Mid-Level Priorities

Improving Canadians’ living standards

For many participants, improving Canadians’ living standards was thought to be very similar to improving Canadians’ quality of life, although the latter was more associated with a wider range of possibilities while the former was more associated with establishing wage scales that would permit people to afford to live reasonably well.

In Iqaluit, where women tended to place more emphasis on this goal than men, the focus was mainly on improving living standards specifically through more housing.

Growing and strengthening the middle class

With the exception of Iqaluit, close to half of participants in the other locations identified strengthening the middle class as a priority.

Some participants made the point that societal success is heavily dependent on the success of the middle class, and there was a sense that this group is in decline or, at the very least, finding it more difficult to maintain the status quo or progress. The issue of growing income inequality was specifically highlighted in Hamilton. In Kentville, participants spoke about the importance of strengthening the middle class in order to reduce the numbers on social assistance or income support, which would then mean government funding could be redirected to other priorities.

On the other hand, a downside of focusing exclusively on the middle class meant, for some, ignoring the issues and plight of those most in need, specifically those living in poverty. Several participants commented that it is more important to address the needs of those who are struggling in an effort to ensure all Canadians are on an equal footing.

In the context of this discussion, participants in Iqaluit spoke about historical promises that had been made to the Inuit to ensure they experienced a middle-class existence, whereby the cost of housing and electricity, for example, would be covered and they would not be subject to property taxes. At the same time, strengthening the middle class did strike more of a chord among men, compared to women, in Iqaluit. Men were more inclined to feel that being middle class in Iqaluit didn’t afford any particular advantages, noting that those considered middle class are still struggling.

Lower Priorities

By comparison, relatively few participants identified ensuring that Canadians are thriving, content, or live in prosperity as broad, over-arching goals for the Government of Canada. While the idea of thriving did connote strength and cohesion, overall comments indicated that these goals were either considered too vague or subjective to allow for specific actions to be developed and implemented by government.

Given that individuals make choices which directly affect their overall satisfaction and contentedness, it was thought that striving towards a goal of ensuring that Canadians are content, for example, may not be something that government is fully able to act on or achieve. A number of participants noted that some people will never feel content. In a similar vein, several participants felt it would be difficult to measure societal progress towards these types of objectives.

Improving Canadians’ well-being

Across all groups, fewer than half of participants selected improving Canadians’ well-being among their top priorities. For some, improving well-being signified addressing economic and income disparities, providing a minimum wage, offering access to free education and improving the health of all Canadians, including Indigenous people residing on reservations where boil water advisories are in effect. A number of participants felt that the concept of well-being also included paying more attention to Canadians’ overall mental health or spirituality, in addition to physical health.

On the positive side, as one participant commented, the pursuit of improving Canadians’ well-being clearly focuses on both economic as well as social goals. In this respect, some participants noted that the concept of well-being has the benefit of emphasizing individuals, on a personal level, as well as the broader society including corporate or business interests. It also tended to be associated with a more well-rounded view of the individual, including one’s mental, physical and environmental health, as well as pride in one’s self. One participant in Kentville added that there is a tone of ‘protectiveness’ embedded within this concept which they viewed in a favourable light in terms of addressing the basic necessities of life rather than as oversight. Similarly, as noted by a participant in Iqaluit, well-being means the various necessities are met, such as housing, food, school, clothing, employment, etc. (“just normal stuff”).

While participants generally felt that improving well-being is a laudable goal for the Government of Canada, many found the concept to be overly broad and vague. There was a concern that the wide-ranging nature of this goal and the lack of specificity would deter government from taking more concrete or focused actions. However, others felt that the concepts of well-being and quality of life were very closely tied together. Irrespective of those two points of view, many of the women in Trois-Rivières agreed that ultimately governments will act for the better good of the population and with concern for their well-being.

In almost all locations in which this topic was discussed, about half of participants in each group had some experience with childcare, either currently or in the past.

Key challenges or issues with respect to childcare included:

• Affordability – particularly for families with more than one child in daycare.
• Concerns about unlicensed daycares, typically operating out of private homes, and the quality of care and oversight related to these more affordable options.
• Reliability and safety concerns in general, including questions about the training of daycare operators.
• Availability of spaces.
• Finding employment in the field / accreditation requirements (mentioned by a participant in Hamilton who had a diploma in the field, but not what appeared to be the preferred accreditation of most daycare centres).
• Pay rates for those working in this field.

In Hamilton, the discussion about childcare opened up a much broader conversation about provincial reductions in education spending and the anticipated impact these cutbacks would have on children, particularly those with learning disabilities.

Childcare Priorities for the Government of Canada

Participants were given a hand-out listing four broad goals that the Government of Canada could prioritize when dealing with childcare, and were asked to rank them from 1 through 4, with 1 being the top priority and 4 the lowest.

• --Making childcare more affordable
• --Creating more childcare spots close to where I live or work
• --Reducing waiting lists for childcare spots
• --Improving the quality of childcare

“Making childcare more affordable” and “improving the quality of childcare” were typically ranked as higher priority items. “Reducing wait lists for childcare spots” found some support among participants but was typically ranked as a lower priority, along with “creating more childcare spots close to where I live or work”.

There were some differences by location, and between men and women. In Trois-Rivières, participants were much less focused on affordability as a priority, typically ranking this as the third or fourth priority among the list of four broad goals. Reducing wait lists was a top priority in both groups in this location, while creating more childcare spaces also appeared among the top priorities for men. In Hamilton and Kentville, there was a very clear demarcation between affordability as the top priority and the other items listed. That said, several participants in Kentville also placed great importance on improving the quality of daycare.

Those who identified affordability among their top priorities cited the considerable cost of raising children and expressed particular concern for families with lower incomes. Some participants felt that daycare costs consume a large share of a family’s earnings and, if the costs were lowered, families would have more to spend on other necessities. Some noted that the significant financial implications of daycare deter some parents from re-entering the workforce. Some felt as if they are being forced to make a trade-off between work and having a family.

Others framed daycare as an investment in children during their formative years, and that these childcare costs would pay off as they grow into adulthood. Additionally, participants made the connection between cost and quality, with the assumption that higher quality only comes at a somewhat higher cost to ensure qualified, reliable daycare services.

Ultimately, comments reflected the view that children are valued and should be properly cared for and nurtured at this stage of their lives. More directly, the general opinion was that, as a society, if we value children and youth, we should invest in them.

For those who selected reducing waiting lists as a top priority, their view was simply that regardless of the cost, if parents cannot find a space for their child/children, they are no further ahead. A few participants also felt that reducing waiting lists would generate more jobs in the sector for trained daycare workers.

Some in the men’s group in Trois- Rivières wondered whether these potential federal government goals could encroach into an area of provincial jurisdiction. Assuming this were the case, participants thought it could lead to federal-provincial disputes, particularly for Quebec, thus increasing a perceived sense of isolation within the province. That said, participants were in favour of any increased funding from the Government of Canada to provinces.

On the question of whether the government should focus more on improving the availability and quality of before and after school childcare or childcare for younger children who are not in school yet, about as many favoured the former as the latter. However, virtually all the men in Trois-Rivières believed the focus should be on childcare for children who are not yet in school, while almost all the women thought it should be the opposite. They wished to see a focus on before and after school childcare.

Some argued that, improved before and after school care would ensure children have structured activities and would prevent them from getting involved in potentially unsavoury activities that may put them at risk, especially in communities where after-school activities are virtually non-existent. Participants also commented that school hours often do not align with parents’ work schedules, meaning that parents often have to cobble together other arrangements for care. This was viewed as a particular concern for an increasing number of people who work shifts or extended hours.

By contrast, those who favoured childcare for younger children who are not yet in school did so because they felt children were particularly vulnerable at this stage in their development and would benefit from quality childcare offerings. They were also of the view that this option would provide more opportunities for structured learning for preschool children.

Several participants in Hamilton were reluctant to prioritize one option over the other, indicating that ideally parents should have more choice as to whether they wish to stay home with their children or place them in daycare. However, they noted the challenges for families living on one income, and that this may not be an option for many.

When asked about local challenges and infrastructure needs, earlier in the discussion, participants raised a number of issues pertaining to health care. Mentions of doctor shortages, the need for a hospital and long-term care facilities, as well as a lack of mental health and drug addiction services were predominant.

Later in the groups, participants were specifically asked about the biggest health care challenges they believe to be facing their community and reiterated many of the same concerns. They restated the scarcity of doctors as a major issue in Kentville, along with lengthy wait times. The cost of prescriptions was mentioned in the men’s group. On the whole, however, women were much more engaged in the health care discussion. They mentioned mental health, once again, and specifically the lack of health care workers in that specialty, accessibility to such services, as well as long wait lists. Other issues which women raised around access to care included a shortage of nurses and specialists, not having medical equipment (for example, magnetic resonance imaging), a lack of cancer care services, and an inadequate focus on addiction issues.

Asked if they had heard about anything that the federal government has done regarding health care over the past few years, men could not recall anything specific, while a few women had vague recollections of hearing something about efforts to recruit doctors (from other provinces or outside the country) to the region to help with the shortage.

Health Care Priorities for the Government of Canada

Participants were each given a worksheet with a list of 11 healthcare priorities (shown below) and asked to rank the top three the Government of Canada should address.

• --Addressing doctor and nurse shortages
• --Providing all Canadians with fair and equal access to affordable prescription medications
• --Making it easier for Canadians to eat healthy by making healthy food more affordable
• --Reducing wait time for mental health services
• --Making large investments into research to find new cures and treatments for diseases
• --Providing financial support to caregivers so more people can remain at home while dealing with medical issues
• -- Making palliative care more available and affordable for those who need it
• -- Providing treatment to those addicted to opioids and other illicit drugs
• -- Helping Canadians with the cost of equipment for their disabilities
• --Taking steps to ensure all children are vaccinated with the exception of those with allergies or medical conditions that prohibit them from receiving a vaccine
• --Ensuring everyone has access to affordable contraception

Addressing doctor and nurse shortages was by far the top priority identified by both women and men in Kentville. Reducing wait times for mental health services was also a very high-priority concern for women. Men’s second ranked priority was “providing all Canadians with fair and equal access to affordable prescription medications”, while that was slightly less important for women.

Higher Priorities

Addressing doctor and nurse shortages

No other issue came close to this one as a top priority among both women and men in Kentville. Virtually all participants ranked this in their top-three issues, with most ranking it as number one. Participants said that without doctors or nurses, hospitals, clinics or doctor’s offices are of little help. They also opined that these shortages are likely a root cause of wait times and poor access to care. A number of participants commented that poor access to health care leads to increased illness which leads to greater strains on the system, in a never-ending cycle.

Providing all Canadians with fair and equal access to affordable prescription medications

The issue of access to affordable prescriptions was mentioned, unaided, in the men’s group. Medication, when not covered by an employer’s plan, can be costly, many said, in explaining why they had ranked this as a high priority. This was particularly true among men. While still a priority item for women, it ranked lower overall compared to men.

Reducing wait times for mental health services

The issue of wait times for mental health services was ranked as a top-3 priority by virtually all the women. Personal experience, either direct or indirect, drove the importance that women attached to this issue. A lack of community-based supports, too few health care workers in the area of mental health, inadequate services relating to homelessness and drug addiction were all seen to contribute to making this a higher priority, especially in the women’s group.

Lower Priorities

In addition to being asked to identify the top three priorities, participants were instructed to select any issue on the list that, in their view, should not be priorities for government. There was only one that stood out, described below.

Ensuring everyone has access to affordable contraception

No one selected this as a priority in either of the groups. In fact, many of the women and some of the men indicated that it is something the Government of Canada should not do. They felt that contraceptives are inexpensive and thus affordable for most. Moreover, they noted that many clinics provide free contraception, particularly for those who cannot afford this expense.

Pharmacare

Asked to define “fair and equal access” to affordable prescription medications, most said that it means being able to get the medication you need at a price you can afford, regardless of your financial status or whether or not you have insurance coverage. Many of the men suggested this should mean that everyone pays $5 per prescription.

Few were aware of the Government of Canada doing anything to ensure access to affordable prescription medication, though all the women, and most of the men, said they would be personally affected by this.

When prompted about having heard the term “pharmacare”, almost everyone answered affirmatively. Respondents provided different interpretations of this term, ranging from a system wherein medications were provided free to all Canadians, to a program that was income based or involved some kind of co-payment structure.

Naming Exercise

Participants were provided with a worksheet listing 12 potential names for a federal government program to make affordable prescription medications available:

• --Affordable Drug Strategy
• --Affordable Prescriptions Program
• --Canada Prescription Plan
• --Canadian Drug Plan
• --Comprehensive Drug Care
• --Comprehensive Prescription Plan
• --National Pharmacare Plan
• --National Prescription Insurance
• --Prescription Access Plan
• --Universal Drug Care
• --Universal Pharmacare Program
• --Universal Prescription Plan

Participants were asked to put a check mark beside any names they liked, and to circle the one name they thought would be the best one for this sort of strategy.

Most Preferred Names

While none of the names were preferred unanimously, “Universal Drug Care” and “National Pharmacare Plan” surfaced as the top choices, although “Prescription Access Plan” was also widely selected.

Universal Drug Care: For those who liked this term, the word “universal” meant all-inclusive and without regard to race, gender, disability, health conditions and so on. On the other hand, a few men countered that the term “drug” had negative connotations or was too broad a term. This raised questions about what would be covered and what wouldn’t be, especially with regard to items like test strips, machines and supplies, for example.

National Pharmacare Plan: The word “national” was appealing to some because it suggested that the plan applies across the country. The word “pharmacare”, whether in this name or in the context of other names, also resonated somewhat. In the lead-up discussion, there was some familiarity with the term and a general idea of what it constituted. As for the word “plan”, it suggested something that will be helpful. It was perceived as being thought out, structured and affordable. Conversely, there were those who believed that a plan connotes something that will occur at some point in the future, and as such, thought this term was unsuitable for this kind of strategy.

Prescription Access Plan: Participants felt that the word “prescription” is more accurate, definitive and/or positive than the term “drug”. They also felt this term applied to a variety of treatments, including therapy.

Other Likes and Dislikes

With respect to the word “program”, a few people thought that it suggested something that was temporary in nature.

The word Canadian was interpreted as both applying to the country as a whole and individuals. It also connoted equality.

The word “strategy” in “Affordable Drug Strategy” was viewed as too imprecise, particularly among the women.

A few noted that “Canada Prescription Plan” had the same acronym as the Canada Pension Plan and gave the impression that this plan already existed.

National Environmental Issues

When it comes to environmental issues facing Canada today, participants identified climate change, emissions, air quality and major events, such as forest fires and flooding as the greatest concerns. Participants were specifically concerned about the use of fossil fuels – notably from the oil sands, which they believe to be a major contributor to climate change. Many said they look to government to take leadership and action towards using more clean, renewable energy sources. However, they also believed that battling climate change is more of an international effort, and while Canada has a role to play, other countries need to be involved as well. In particular, they felt that the United States needed to take more action on climate change.

Other important environmental issues that surfaced included pollution, specifically in terms of water pollution. Similarly, there were also concerns about animals and their habitats being disrupted or threatened. This included individual mentions of wildlife, marine life and other species such as bees and other insects. There was some concern about deforestation and forest fires, as well, which received some mentions independent of climate change. Plastic pollution was also mentioned in the men’s group in Trois-Rivières.

Waste management was also at the forefront of many participants’ thoughts on the environment and was commonly identified by at least one or two participants in every group. The primary discussion point was focused on Canada exporting waste or recycling offshore and it being returned.

Local Environmental Issues

Participants were more personally engaged in local environmental issues, which they identiified as affecting them more directly. When asked to identify the most pressing local environmental challenges, there was limited consistency across cities and not much consensus within (or across) the groups on a core set of priorities.

In Trois-Rivières, recent flooding in numerous areas of the province, including in that city propulgated that issue to the top of the list. The use of plastics and dump sites were also mentioned as local issues.

Water pollution continued to be a primary concern for many, especially with respect to chemicals and plastics. In Kentville, some raised specific concerns around the potability of water in their local area. Poor sewage systems were also top of mind in both Kentville and Iqaluit.

In Hamilton, the steel industry was identified as real cause for environmental concern, negatively impacting quality of life and public health. Smog from the industrial plants, for instance, was viewed by many as contributing to a higher risk for respiratory issues and some forms of cancer. Air pollution was also a local concern in Trois-Rivières due to the numerous plants in their vicinity.

Iqaluit participants highlighted a number of different local challenges which included, but were not limited to, improvement of road infrastructure and concerns around the building of sea-ports which may disrupt wildlife.

Overall, participants viewed their local environmental issues as the responsibility of all levels of government, including the federal government.

Environmental News from the Government of Canada

Overall, there was only moderate awareness of recent Government of Canada stories related to the environment, with mostly generic mentions linked to current news stories. While, on balance, many participants stated that they had seen, heard or read something, they could not recall any specifics. The most common mentions, seemed to fall in line with the national environmental issues mentioned above.

As further described in the section below, awareness of the recent announcement on banning single-use plastics was modest, with the majority of participants stating they were aware only after some probing. While most had heard something about the federal initiative, they did not know the details or how the ban would be applied and rolled out.

As mentioned in national issues above, the garbage shipment to the Philippines and its return to Canada received a few mentions across different groups and locations as an environmental story involving the federal government. Participants felt that as a country we should find improved ways to reduce waste and recycle better to reduce the amount being sent offshore.

A few participants in Hamilton and Kentville recalled hearing news related to the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project, but were unsure of its status or any recent actions by the Government of Canada related to this file.

In Iqaluit, there was mention of the federal government’s announcement to create a marine protection area in northern Baffin Island.

Ban on Single-Use Plastics (Hamilton, Trois-Rivières, Kentville)

While few mentioned the federal government wanting to ban single-use plastics unprompted in Hamilton, Trois Rivières and Kentville, when participants were asked if they had heard of anything specifically about the government addressing plastic pollution, the vast majority recalled seeing or hearing something about the proposed ban.

Many had a basic understanding of the initiative, identifying it as a ban on plastics that are considered ‘disposable’, like straws and water bottles, but some were short on the specifics.

For clarification, participants were provided with the following brief description:

“The Government of Canada recently announced that it wants to ban single-use plastic items as early as 2021 in order to reduce plastic pollution.”

Regardless of their awareness, almost all participants viewed this initiative as a positive and important one, with many describing it as “very important”. Many were concerned about the amount of plastic waste being produced and its inability to be properly recycled or disposed of, and thus ending up in lakes and waters. Moreover, some participants were readily able to relate the issue back to stories they had recently seen or heard about in the news, including one about Canadians now finding plastic in the salmon they are consuming.

Asked to identify the kind of products likely covered by the proposed single-use plastics ban, a wide range of items were mentioned, including straws, plastic bottles, and plastic bags, most readily, as well as coffee cup lids, disposable plates and cutlery, and take-out containers. Women, in particular, also commonly cited tampon applicators. A number of participants also indicated their desire to see consumer packaging included.

Participants recognized a series of potential drawbacks with regards to the ban on single-use plastics. Inconvenience was the single most cited drawback, as many felt that consumers might be challenged to switch to an alternative. A common example provided was the use of paper straws, which many found to be less durable compared to plastic versions. This also brought up concerns about reverting to previous approaches of using paper as substitutes, which may cause further deforestation, fixing one problem but creating another. More expensive alternatives or replacements for single use plastics were cited across all groups. Furthermore, some participants stated that they believed the consumer would be the one to bear the cost increase for these alternatives.

Participants felt the effects on employment would be neutral overall. While many felt the demise of the plastics industry could result in employment loss, participants also believed that new product development and technologies for alternatives would counteract this with new, higher skilled jobs replacing the lost ones.

When asked if they foresaw any economic impacts, many felt that there are significant economic benefits that could, if implemented properly, come from the single-use plastics ban. The overall idea of producing less waste was seen as a positive, in particular, with regards to cost savings resulting from reduced waste management. In the same vein, many noted the benefits to Canadian lakes and oceans, as natural resources important to our economy. Overall, considering the damage and pollution believed to be caused by plastic, and the degree of concern that most seemed to share, participants believed that the benefits of this initiative would outweigh the drawbacks.

Asked how they would feel about the federal government introducing legislation that would make companies responsible for cleaning up the environmental damage caused by their disposal of plastic products, most supported the idea, noting that there should be greater corporate accountability for this. Some also anticipatedeconomic benefits if this legislation passed, notably new employment in research and development for plastic alternatives, and a corresponding opportunity for the federal government to invest in combatting other environmental issues. Concerns were raised, however, that this type of policy might discourage companies from operating in Canada.

The majority of participants agreed that the Government of Canada should reduce its own use of plastics across departments and agencies. Many saw it as beneficial for the federal government to lead by example, sharing their outcomes and success, which would then encourage others to take similar actions.

Carbon Sequestration (Hamilton, Trois-Rivières)

Across all groups in Hamilton and Trois Rivières there was very low awareness of ‘carbon sequestration’. A few participants stated they were aware of ‘carbon capture’ but were unable to further define the term during the discussion.

For clarity, the following description was shared with participants:

“Carbon sequestration, also known as carbon capture, is the process by which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored underground, underwater or in depleted oil fields as a method of reducing the level of harmful gases in the atmosphere that contribute to climate change.

Some say carbon sequestration is an innovative new approach to dealing with climate change and Canada is well positioned to develop a leading carbon capture industry due to our large land mass and our old oil fields that could be repurposed to this task. Others say the technology is still too costly to use on a large scale and would discourage people from taking actions to lower their emissions.”

Most were opposed to the idea of carbon capture efforts, for a number of reasons. Primarily, many were concerned with the unknown risks of containment and long-term potential damages to the environment that are unclear with such a new initiative. Concerns focused around the environmental effects on the earth and Canada’s water system, as well as the consequences if the storage system or area is somehow damaged. Many who opposed the idea viewed it only as a temporary, stopgap solution to a larger issue. In principle, for many, it was seen to encourage pollutiing behaviour.

That said, some economic benefits were brought to the forefront. Some viewed this as an acceptable short-term solution to combat the effects of climate change. Some also believed that there is a significant upside to positioning Canada to be a leader in this area, and that new research and development in this area could lead to specialized and skilled areas of employment.

Participants in Trois-Rivières were provided with the following list of actions already taken by the Government of Canada and asked to identify the “most impactful” ones, in their opinion, as well as the ones likely to have the least impact. The list included the following:

• --Announced a plan to ban single-use plastics by 2021
• --Created a policy on scientific integrity that enables federal government scientists to speak about science and their research without requiring approval (from supervisors or managers)
• --Created new marine protected areas so that 10% of Canada’s marine and coastal areas are now protected
• --Invested $1.5 billion in a new Ocean’s Protection Plan to protect Canada’s coasts and waterways with new equipment, research and emergency response capabilities
• --Placed a price on pollution so that big emitters have to pay for their environmental impact, with all proceeds being returned to Canadians through incentive payments or transfers to provinces
• --Signed the Paris Climate Change Agreement to co-operate with the international community on a plan to combat climate change

Most Impactful Actions

Announced a plan to ban single-use plastics by 2021

Participants were unanimous in thinking that the plan to ban single-use plastics by 2021 would have the most impact from the list of environmental actions taken by the Government of Canada. It was also the action that participants felt should be the main focus for the Government of Canada because of the cascading effects of this type of pollution, and because everyone can contribute). Some believed that the announcement itself has already started to make an impact on their behaviour. Furthermore, many liked that this action has a concrete objective and a date attached to it.

Many, but not all, also agreed that the following environmental actions are likely to have an impact:

• Created new marine protected areas so that 10% of Canada’s marine and coastal areas are now protected;
• Invested $1.5 billion in a new Ocean’s Protection Plan to protect Canada’s coasts and waterways with new equipment, research and emergency response capabilities; and
• Placed a price on pollution so that big emitters have to pay for their environmental impact, with all proceeds being returned to Canadians through incentive payments or transfers to provinces.

As for having signed the Paris Climate Change Agreement, most in the men’s group felt that this is likely to be impactful, whereas women were split. Among the women who thought it would have an impact, they cited the global or international nature of the agreement as being significant. Among those who had doubts, some simply felt that it is either too early or too complex to tell, while others were cynical, viewing it as simply a public relations exercise.

Actions that will have No Impact

• Created a policy on scientific integrity that enables federal government scientists to speak about science and their research without requiring approval (from supervisors or managers)

Of all the environmental actions on the list, this is the one that most felt would have no impact, primarily because the meaning or context was not immediately clear to many. Some didn’t readily comprehend what the statement is about, or why this kind of policy was needed. That said, participants noted that government scientists are both a trustworthy and important source of accurate information. This was especially true among the women, while some of the men simply believed that this policy is simply not all that concrete and is unlikely to result in a significant impact on the environment.

Is the Government of Canada on the Right or Wrong Track?

Given the list of environmental actions already taken by the Government of Canada, almost everyone in the Trois-Rivières groups agreed that they were on the right track in terms of managing environmental issues. However, participants also wanted to see additional measures and results, or stressed the importance of the government continuing to take action.

Other Actions to Protect the Environment

In addition to the actions already taken, respondents suggested an array of others that the Government of Canada could undertake to protect the environment. These included the following:

Increased promotion/incentive

• --Increasing public awareness of environmental issues
• --Communicating to Canadians what actions have already been taken
• --Following up and evaluating the effects or results of new laws and regulations
• --Creating financial incentives to encourage environmentally-friendly behaviour

Waste management

• --Doing more with respect to recycling
• --Making composting more accessible
• --Investing in research and development to replace plastics, as well as other pollutants

Land/water protection

• --Taking more measures to protect forests
• --Greater protection for rivers, lakes, and waterways

Carbon emissions

• --Providing additional financial incentives to purchase electric vehicles and further electrification of Canada’s transportation and transit systems
• --Reducing Canada’s dependence on oil

The issue of putting a price on pollution was explored in two groups in Hamilton, Ontario where the federal price on pollution applies.

Unaided Awareness

Top-of-mind awareness of the federal government’s plan to put a price on pollution was low in Hamilton. Very few were familiar with the term ‘price on pollution’ and its association with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, specifically. Most of those who recognized it, which included only a few in either group, assumed that it applied to other/all forms of pollution, as a more general principle or policy, leading to some confusion. There was more wide-spread awareness of the program when the term ‘carbon tax’ was used.

The most common associations with the new federal program skewed neutral to positive. Much of the conversation around drawbacks focused on perceived increased prices at the pumps and in grocery stores. Some participants also expressed concerns about job losses.

Few understood that the price on pollution is a fee borne by business based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce. Instead, most felt that the government was arbitrarily putting the onus on business to remedy the problem. However, most were unsure of, or generally confused about, the details of the program. Furthermore, some participants were generally aware that a price on pollution was being challenged by some provinces.

Perceptions of the Price on Pollution

After gauging unaided awareness, the following description was read to participants:

In 2016 the Government of Canada announced a plan to put a price on pollution across the country, instructing each province to come up with their own plans before the end of 2018.

The federal government announced that they will apply a price on pollution in the four provinces that still do not have a system in place: Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick.

Under this system, what businesses pay will be based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce. All revenue collected in [PROVINCE] will stay in [PROVINCE] – 90% will be given directly to residents in the form of an incentive, with the average household receiving about (ON: $300; NB: $248, MB: $336). 10% will go to small businesses, hospitals, and schools.

Support for this plan tended to be muted. On a positive note, most participants stated that they support action on the environment by the federal government - including efforts to reduce emissions and tackle climate change - which they agreed is both important and necessary. Money staying in the province was also identified as an important and positive aspect of the program.

It was also considered helpful to clarify that the onus was being put on business to remedy the carbon issue. It generated a favourable reaction because the price was targeted at the large carbon emitters. Some felt that businesses would reduce their carbon emissions to reduce the price they pay, since businesses generally focus on trying to increase their profits. However, there were also worries that businesses might not take actions to combat carbon emissions and, instead, would simply pass the cost along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Some expressed concern that businesses might leave Canada to avoid paying for the carbon emissions they produce. A few participants thought that it would be good to know about other case studies of other resource-oriented countries where this policy approach has been successful.

Some Hamilton participants like the idea of the incentive to residents: they thought it was a good idea to offer incentive payments, especially to individuals and organizations that need it most, to help mitigate the impact of any price increases on them. A few people recalled seeing something on their tax forms about this incentive. Some characterized the approach as a “win-win”. However, others were generally confused by the incentive and the rationale for getting it, or felt that the incentive was simply to engender support for this policy approach. A couple of participants felt that these funds should be going to support research and development to develop new technologies to deal with carbon emissions.

However, more commonly, upon hearing the description of the program, most continued to have many of the same questions raised earlier about its fundamentals, in addition to a number of new ones
- about the household incentive, in particular.

While participants in Iqaluit identified a number of environmental concerns and challenges (noted in an earlier section of this report), relatively few identified what they felt to be the key challenges with respect to climate change facing Canada today. A few issues and/or evidence of climate change were flagged, including:

• --Melting of the polar ice cap and reduction of permafrost
• --Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
• --The livestock industry
• --Air quality
• --Depletion of soil quality
• --The impact on animals, specifically polar bears, although there were questions by some women as to whether and to what extent there was a direct link with climate change. Men were more focused on illnesses and disease in animals that may be linked to climate change as well as changes to the caribou cycle/patterns.
• --Changing weather patterns – e.g. earlier spring, more blizzards in winter.
• --Low water levels in some rivers, over-fishing, and water pollution.
• --Larger than usual crop of blueberries due to warmer than normal summer temperatures.

Many were of the view that most people living in the North are not preoccupied with the issue of climate change. Moreover, it was noted that many don’t understand the consequences, how it is impacting the North specifically, or what to do to address this issue. As an aside, a comment was made that there is no recycling program in Iqaluit and, as a result, the environment as an issue tends not to be top-of-mind for residents.

There were also comments about the lack of awareness among people living in the South of the way in which climate change is affecting those in the North. Furthermore, the fact that much of the news and information in the North comes from the South meant that the focus tended to be on issues affecting the South, with little news about specific impacts of climate change in the North.

A number of women questioned whether the science on climate change was clear in terms of presenting solutions. The feeling was that the issue of climate change is still rather “new,” with few in the scientific community having a good grasp of what needs to be done. Similarly, a number of participants questioned what any one individual could do to make a difference, or what impact Canadian action would have when the United States, a much more influential country than Canada, was not taking similar actions.

When asked what they have seen, heard or read about climate change lately, participants cited a number of stories in the news:

• Warnings about the dangers of fossil fuels
• A proposed ban on use of plastic straws, though considered insignificant by a participant who commented that this would not save the planet
• In terms of announcements or initiatives of the Government of Canada related to climate change, some participants referred to a “carbon tax”, although they could not provide more details.

The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami National Inuit Climate Change Strategy

Most participants were familiar with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the national representational organization protecting and advancing the rights and interests of Inuit in Canada.

Participants were told that:

The Government of Canada recently announced support for Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s National Inuit Climate Change Strategy which acknowledges that the Inuit Nunangat is one of the areas in the world most drastically impacted by climate change. The Strategy will support Inuit knowledge and leadership in partnership with climate action in Canada and internationally.

Few were aware of the Strategy and some wondered what supporting Inuit knowledge and leadership meant, although they did feel that Inuit leaders and elders should be consulted more on this issue.

Participants expressed some cynicism about the credibility of the Strategy, asking whether the announcement had been made by the leadership of the ITK or by the Government of Canada, suggesting that the former has more credibility than the latter in their eyes. They also wondered whether the Strategy was intended to support Inuit people. Most withheld judgement about the importance of the Strategy, feeling that they simply didn’t know enough about it. Others pointed out that many strategies have been developed intended to address Arctic or Inuit interests, with little real impact, creating a degree of cynicism regarding this particular one.

The bottom line for most participants was that residents of Iqaluit and Nunavut could benefit from more education about climate change and its impacts, as well as more practical pointers on what actions they could take to help mitigate them. Most participants agreed that those who live and work in the North, in particular elders and hunters, should be more engaged in sharing their views on climate change, how it is affecting people and the community, and what actions should be taken. Moreover, participants emphasized that any stories or information pieces need to have a local perspective and should be told in Inuktitut as well as English and French.

Availability and affordability of housing were identified as key local issues and challenges by participants at the outset of the discussions, and these concerns were reiterated as the conversation focused more specifically on this topic.

Few had heard of anything from the Government of Canada related to housing, although one participant vaguely recalled an announcement several months ago about tax breaks for young people, likely a reference to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) First time Home Buyer Incentive. Another recalled hearing a recent announcement about grants in the order of $150 million, although they could not recall the details but felt this had been previously announced. Participants also debated whether the funding was directed at Iqaluit or the larger geographic area of Nunangat, a territory which encompasses Nunavut, Nunavik in northern Quebec, Nunangit in the NWT, and Nunatsiavut in Labrador. Others recalled hearing about donations of tiny houses, although this was thought to be a territorial rather than a federal initiative.

Participants were then provided with information about a recent Government of Canada announcement, as follows:

The Government of Canada recently announced a new housing agreement with Nunavut providing $290 million over 8 years to protect, renew and expand social and community housing in Nunavut, and repair homes across the territory.

Participants considered the $290 million as insufficient and simply a stopgap solution to the housing crisis in Iqaluit specifically, and Nunavut more broadly. Given the high cost of building a home in Iqaluit, participants calculated that it would only allow for an additional 600 homes, to be built across the territory, at an average cost of $500,000 each (which reflects the average cost of a home according to participants). While some participants acknowledged that the funding is helpful, they felt it does not go far enough, and that even households with two incomes were struggling to purchase and maintain their homes. One participant commented that, with this level of funding, it would take at least 60 years to address the housing deficit in the North.

The point was also made that the housing crisis has put pressure on local shelters – they noted that one has closed and the remaining shelters are full on a nightly basis, forcing some people to live in tents or outside in the cold.

In terms of what the Government of Canada could do to address the housing challenges in Nunavut, participants put forward a number of suggestions:

• Buy abandoned homes and sell them back to residents;
• Listen more closely to the needs of Nunavut residents;
• Implement longer-term agreements with higher levels of funding attached;
• Provide subsidies aimed at both single, lower income households as well as dual income earning households;
• Ensure the wider population is aware of programs that offer housing assistance – concerns were raised that some local residents may not have the capability to find or access these programs without some help;
• Find ways to employ local contractors and trades to erect the homes, rather than having to fly them in from the south; and
• Consider erecting prefabricated homes, which participants felt could done more quickly and at lower cost. Along these same lines, another participant suggested refurbishing, repurposing and re-using shipping containers to create smaller, low cost housing solutions.

One participant in the men’s group also suggested a greater emphasis could be put on building homes that are more energy efficient or undertaking more thoughtful planning about the location of homes and how they are oriented against the prevailing wind.

Most participants in Iqaluit were aware of the Nutrition North Canada (NNC) program. At the outset of the focus group discussion, food insecurity was raised as an important local issue and, within this context, references were made to the Nutrition North program by at least one participant in the women’s group who was somewhat critical of the level of subsidies offered. At the same time, this participant acknowledged, unprompted, there had been improvements to the program in terms of subsidizing traditional country food, specifically noting that bannock-making materials are now covered under the NNC.

When the program was discussed in more detail, some participants, had a reasonable understanding of how it worked, noting that it provides subsidies for a variety of food items, including traditional or “country” foods, for residents in Iqaluit and those residing in other northern locations.

For clarification, participants were provided with the following description of the program:

Nutrition North Canada (NNC) is a Government of Canada subsidy program launched in 2011 to bring healthy food to isolated northern communities. NNC works with stores across the North and food suppliers in southern Canada to help make perishable, nutritious food more affordable and accessible.

NNC subsidizes:

• A variety of perishable and nutritious food items (fruit, vegetables, milk, eggs, meat and cheese) shipped by air to an eligible community
• “Country” or traditional food commercially-processed in the North such as Arctic char, musk-ox and caribou (important sources of nutrients) shipped by air to an eligible community

Participants were somewhat critical of the program on a number of fronts:

• The level of the subsidy on various items was viewed as minimal, and in some cases almost non-existent, rendering it ineffectual. Based on the subsidy alone, the sense was that the program was not necessarily an improvement to the previous one and, in fact, may be worse. In particular, it was felt that those with very low incomes were not able to benefit significantly from this program.
• Participants noted that the program only covers food items. Subsidies are not applied to other necessities such as diapers or children’s formula, which they believed were items that had been covered in the prior program.
• General concerns were expressed about what is/is not subsidized and who is making the decisions. There was a sense that those outside the region were deciding what people in the North should be eating.
• Participants also commented on the fact that some food suppliers in the South who have expressed a desire to participate in the program are unable to do so, although they did not elaborate on exactly what the barriers to participation are or the process for identifying eligible suppliers.

Participants in both groups questioned whether the subsidies are disproportionately benefiting the local grocery store compared to consumers. Many did not feel or believe that they were getting the extent of the “true” discount from the program that they should, but instead felt that the grocery outlet was recouping most of the savings.

The general consensus, among women participants in particular, was that they could probably purchase products themselves from a store in the south (i.e., online) and arrange to have them shipped for a much lower cost, as compared to what they pay to purchase food items subsidized through the NNC. These participants felt that because shipping costs are so high, it makes sense to increase the subsidy for freight in addition to the actual cost of the food item itself in order to make this program more worthwhile for residents in the North.

An individual in the men’s group assumed that all shipments (still) had to go through Ottawa to Val d’Or, which he noted added to the cost and timeliness of delivery.

In term of benefits of the program, participants felt that it was good that there was at least some subsidy, albeit minimal in their view. On further reflection, participants were also somewhat positive about the inclusion of “country” or traditional foods within the program. Some commented that restrictions on caribou and the price of shipping caribou meat were reasonable (given the costs associated with hunting, etc.), but there seemed to be some confusion as to whether this was a benefit offered by the airlines servicing the North (First Air and Canadian North) or was a component of the NNC.

At least one participant disputed that traditional foods had to be commercially-processed in the North and shipped to eligible communities to be part of the program. It was their understanding that these types of foods are packaged up and sent by individual hunters and fishermen to residents, rather than being commercially-processed and sold by retail outlets.

As noted earlier, the main drawback of the program pertained to the extent of the subsidy which was thought to be relatively insignificant. Participants commented that their grocery receipt indicated how much they saved as a result of the NNC, and these savings were typically negligible (e.g. a ~1% savings on their overall grocery bill ) Many agreed that they don’t really notice the savings month to month, while others felt the program treated northern residents as if they were social assistance recipients.

Several suggestions were put forward as alternatives, or a supplement, to the NNC to address food insecurity in Nunavut, including:

• Subsidizing cargo fees;
• Supporting local hunters by subsidizing the cost of hunting supplies (i.e. bullets, gas, etc.), specifically targeted to those earning under a pre-determined threshold income level;
• Harvesting more country foods (i.e., seal, caribou and musk-ox);
• Establishing a ‘tool/equipment library’ by which hunters could sign-out equipment and use it for a set period of time before returning it so it could then be loaned out to others at no cost. This would address the high cost of purchasing hunting equipment, particularly for low income earners;
• Providing assistance to those wishing to establish greenhouses, farmers’ markets, livestock and poultry operations, encouraging production of local products and promoting locally-owned businesses; and
• Forming partnerships and/or making deals with businesses and airlines to reduce the costs of production and shipping.

Participants generally agreed that some progress was being made on improving the relationship between Indigenous people and the Government of Canada. At the same time, several participants commented that a lack of trust continues to be a barrier to further Reconciliation, based primarily on historical issues and the past treatment of Indigenous people (i.e., forced relocations), as well as commitments which they say have not been kept.

Participants noted that the state of the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Government of Canada varies, underscoring that Inuit are different from First Nations and Métis. Moreover, they also emphasized the state of the relationship may be different depending on location, either between provinces or between provinces and the territories, although participants did not elaborate on specifics.

Suggestions concerning what the Government of Canada could do to support Indigenous communities across Canada, and specifically in the North, reflected many of the issues initially raised as local challenges. Key areas of concern included the need to address water quality issues on reserves, as well as housing and general infrastructure. Participants also stressed the need to provide more support to local businesses.

Among men, the discussion centered more directly on respecting Inuit traditions, culture and language, with particular concerns raised about the tendency for those from the south to presume they better understand and know how to address Arctic issues. The suggestion was made that partners, business people and government officials should learn more about Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles, societal values and traditional knowledge if they wish to collaborate more effectively. One example that was offered involved employing more Inuit cooks in the local shelters and providing residents with country food on a more regular basis.

Another participant ventured that the Government of Canada could do more to respect commitments to deal with Indigenous Peoples on a “nation-to-nation” basis.

Reconciliation

A portion of this discussion also focused on the topic of reconciliation, in particular what it means and what the Government of Canada can do to demonstrate a commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. The term reconciliation was interpreted in various ways by participants, including:

• Righting the wrongs that have been perpetrated on Inuit and other Indigenous peoples. In this regard, a number of participants made reference to the alleged killing of sled dogs by the RCMP during the settlement era and an expectation that the federal government should recognize and apologize for this incident (although it should be noted that both RCMP and Qikiqtani Truth Commission investigations found no evidence of any conspiracy to slaughter dogs)
• Helping Inuit heal in respect of past traumas
• Offering counseling to deal with trauma, addictions, etc. which are viewed as outcomes of systemic mistreatment and oppression
• Providing funding to improve the outlook and prospects for young Inuit people (i.e., tuition, rent, food)
• Recognizing and acknowledging the role and wisdom of elders in the community

A participant also commented that Reconciliation is unlikely to occur unless and until Canadians are educated on and become more knowledge about Canada’s history with Indigenous peoples and the wider implications of past injustices. This begins in school with students being taught more about Indigenous and Inuit heritage, culture and history. Participants saw Reconciliation as an opportunity, and they viewed apologies as a step in the right direction, albeit a first step.

Going forward, a participant suggested that specifically addressing some of the barriers Inuit face with respect to employment or obtaining leases on apartments, for example, would be one way the government could demonstrate its commitment to reconciliation. The participant emphasized that many Inuit people are being overlooked in the labour market, despite their capabilities and talents, simply because they lack formal training or academic credentials.

Partnerships

The following information was shared with participants and they were asked to offer their thoughts and comments:

In 2017, the Government of Canada in partnership with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami established the Inuit Crown Partnership Committee, a permanent bilateral mechanism for respective leadership to advance issues of concern to Inuit. This has led to commitments in a number of areas including work to eliminate tuberculosis and address housing needs.

Most participants, while being familiar with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), expressed some skepticism about the organization, the partnership and the stated commitments.

While some agreed that it was better to have a partnership than not, they questioned what improvements or advancements had occurred since its inception and whether or not the arrangement has been effective in working towards or achieving its goals. For example, a participant noted that the rate of tuberculosis has increased in Nunavut since 2017.

There was also some concern raised about the track record of the federal government in honouring these types of bilateral agreements and, as such, some participants preferred to take a ‘wait and see’ attitude. One participant also questioned the legitimacy of the Committee, and of ITK itself, based on a sense that no consultations with Inuit elders had ever occurred, and that some Committee members are not themselves Inuit.

Recruitment Specifications Summary

• Total of 8 groups
• Each group is expected to last for two hours
• Recruit 10 participants for 8 to show
• Incentives will be $90 per person
• Groups split by gender. Ensure good mix by age (all 18+), marital status, education and income.

Specifications for the focus groups are as follows:

Questionnaire de recrutement

INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is[RECRUITER NAME]. I'm calling from The Strategic Counsel, a national public opinion research firm, on behalf of the Government of Canada/Bonjour, mon nom est[NOM DU RECRUTEUR]. Je vous appelle du Strategic Counsel, une entreprise nationale de recherche sur l’opinion publique, pour le compte du gouvernement du Canada.

Would you prefer to continue in English or French?/Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais?[CONTINUER DANS LA LANGUE PRÉFÉRÉE]

NOTER LA LANGUE ET CONTINUER

INTRODUCTION (10 minutes) ALL LOCATIONS

GC NEWS (5 minutes) ALL LOCATIONS

• What have you seen, read or heard about the Government of Canada lately?

LOCAL CHALLENGES (20 minutes) ASK IN ALL LOCATIONS

• What are the most important local issues in [LOCATION] LIST ON WHITE BOARD
• FOR EACH: Why is it important? What needs to be done?PROBE TO SEE IF OTHERS FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT
• And what does [LOCATION] need in terms of infrastructure?
• What are the biggest concerns/challenges? Is there anything that needs to be done?
• Thinking about everything the federal government has done in the past year, what, if anything, do you think will have the most positive impact on [LOCATION]?
• Have they done anything that you think will have a negative impact on [LOCATION]?
• What industry is the most important to the local economy in your area?
• And do you think the federal government has been supportive of this industry recently? Why or why not?
• Now thinking more broadly, what kinds of Government of Canada services for Canadians are you aware of?

• And in broad strokes, how satisfied are you with Government of Canada services?

GC PRIORITIES (15 minutes) ASK IN ALL LOCATIONS

HANDOUT

• Are there any things on this list you think the government should not be focused on?

The following is a list of broad goals. I’d like you to circle the 2 or 3 things on this list that you think should be the over-arching goal of what Government of Canada tries to do:

• --Ensuring Canadians are content
• --Ensuring Canadians are thriving
• --Ensuring Canadians live in prosperity
• --Growing and strengthening the middle class
• --Improving Canadians’ living standards
• --Improving Canadians’ quality of life
• --Improving Canadians’ well-being
• --Making life more affordable

• Now think of the one on the list you would most like to see government focus on. What does it mean to you?
• Are there any things on this list you think the government should not be focused on?
• When you hear “improving Canadians’ well-being” what does that mean to you?
• Is this a good objective for the government?

NUTRITION NORTH CANADA (15 minutes) ASK IN IQALUIT

• Has anyone heard anything about the Nutrition North Canada program?
• Thinking about the environment, what are the biggest environmental challenges facing Canada today?

• How would you explain what this is?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED:

Nutrition North Canada (NNC) is a Government of Canada subsidy program launched in 2011 to bring healthy food to isolated northern communities. NNC works with stores across the North and food suppliers in southern Canada to help make perishable, nutritious food more affordable and more accessible.

NNC subsidizes:

• --a variety of perishable and nutritious food items (fruit, vegetables, milk, eggs, meat and cheese) shipped by air to an eligible community
• --"country" or traditional food commercially-processed in the North such as Arctic char, musk-ox and caribou (important sources of nutrients) shipped by air to an eligible community

• How do you feel about this program?
• What do you see as the key benefits of the program?
• What do you see as the key drawbacks?
• Other than Nutrition North, what are other ways the Government of Canada can address food insecurity in Nunavut?

CHILDCARE (15 minutes) ASK IN HAMILTON, TROIS-RIVIERES AND KENTVILLE

• How many of you either have a child in childcare, or have used childcare in the past? (SHOW OF HANDS)
• What would you say is the biggest problem with childcare services in your area?

HANDOUT

The following is a list of broad goals the Government of Canada could prioritize when dealing with childcare. I’d like you to rank them from 1 to 4 where 1 would be the item you think should be the top priority and 4 would be the lowest priority item.

• --Making childcare more affordable
• --Creating more childcare spots close to where I live or work
• --Reducing waiting lists for childcare spots
• --Improving the quality of childcare

• Thinking about the item you chose as your first priority, why did you choose it?
• Do you think the government should focus more on improving the availability and quality of before and after school childcare or childcare for younger children who are not in school yet? Why?

ENVIRONMENT (30 minutes) (15 minutes in IQALUIT) ASK IN ALL LOCATIONS

• Thinking about the environment, what are the biggest environmental challenges facing Canada today?
• What about here in [CITY]? Are there local environmental concerns the federal government needs to pay attention to?
• What have you seen, read or heard about the environment lately?
• And have you seen, read or heard about anything related to the Government of Canada and the environment recently?
• Have you heard about anything the Government of Canada is doing in regards to the environment?
• Has anyone heard anything specifically about the government addressing plastic pollution?

ASK IN HAMILTON, TROIS-RIVIERES AND KENTVILLE

CLARIFY AS NECESSARY:

The Government of Canada recently announced that it wants to ban single-use plastic items as early as 2021 in order to reduce plastic pollution.

• How do you feel about the Government of Canada taking steps to ban single-use plastics?
• What types of products do you think would be affected by this ban?
• Is this important?
• What are the drawbacks?
• What are some possible economic positives or negatives from this?

• How would you feel about the government introducing legislation that would make companies responsible for cleaning up the environmental damage caused by their disposal of plastic products?
• Is this important?
• Can you think of any drawbacks to launching this strategy?
• Would this have any possible economic positives or negatives?

• How would you feel about the Government of Canada launching a strategy to reduce the use of plastics by government departments and agencies?
• Is this important?

ASK IN HAMILTON AND TROIS-RIVIERES

• Have any of you heard of “carbon sequestration” or “carbon capture” before?
• If yes: what have you heard about it?

CLARIFY AS NECESSARY:

Carbon sequestration, also known as carbon capture, is the process by which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored underground, underwater or in depleted oil fields as a method of reducing the level of harmful gases in the atmosphere that contribute to climate change.

• Some say carbon sequestration is an innovative new approach to dealing with climate change and Canada is well positioned to develop a leading carbon capture industry due to our large land mass and our old oil fields that could be repurposed to this task. Others say the technology is still too costly to use on a large scale and would discourage people from taking actions to lower their emissions. Given all this, do you think Canada should be investing in carbon sequestration? Why or why not?
• What do you think might be the drawbacks of investing in carbon sequestration in Canada?
• Some have suggested a large investment in developing the technology could be a smart economic strategy for Canada as well as an environmental one because there is a growing global interest in finding climate solutions and the international community would pay for Canadian carbon capture companies to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Do you think this is likely?
• IF NO: Is it still worth investing in carbon capture technology even if you don’t believe it will become a profitable industry?

GC ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS (15 minutes) ASK IN TROIS-RIVIERES

HANDOUT

The following is a list of some of the actions the Government of Canada has already taken related to the environment in Canada. I’d like you to put a check mark next to the one(s) you think will be the most impactful and an ‘x’ next to any that you don’t think will have an impact.

• --Announced a plan to ban single-use plastics by 2021.
• --Created a policy on scientific integrity that enables federal government scientists to speak about science and their research without requiring approval (from supervisors or managers)
• --Created new marine protected areas so that 10% of Canada’s marine and coastal areas are now protected.
• --Invested $1.5 billion in a new Ocean’s Protection Plan to protect Canada’s coasts and waterways with new equipment, research and emergency response capabilities
• --Placed a price on pollution so that big emitters have to pay for their environmental impact, with all proceeds being returned to Canadians through incentive payments or transfers to provinces.
• --Signed the Paris Climate Change Agreement to co-operate with the international community on a plan to combat climate change.

• Let’s go through the ones you put a check mark beside: why did you think that action will be the most impactful?
• Were there any items you said won’t have an impact? Why not?
• Which action on the list do you think should be the main focus for the Government of Canada? Why?
• Does hearing this list of actions change your opinion about whether the Government of Canada is on the right track or the wrong track in managing environmental issues?
• Are there any other things you think the Government of Canada should be doing to protect the environment that were not on that list?

CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLEAN GROWTH (15 minutes) ASK IN IQALUIT

• Thinking about climate change, what are the biggest challenges facing Canada today?


• What do you think are the two biggest (most limiting) knowledge gaps related to climate action in Canada?


• What have you seen, read or heard about climate change lately?


• And have you seen, read or heard about anything related to the Government of Canada and climate change recently?
• Are you familiar with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami?

IF ANYONE SAYS NO:

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) is the national representational organization protecting and advancing the rights and interests of Inuit in Canada.

CLARIFY AS NECESSARY:

The Government of Canada recently announced support for Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s National Inuit Climate Change Strategy which acknowledges that the Inuit Nunangat is one of the areas in the world most drastically impacted by climate change. The Strategy will support Inuit knowledge and leadership in partnership with climate action in Canada and internationally.

• How do you feel about the Government of Canada making climate action a priority?

• What is the most important priority for Inuit facing the threat of climate change?
• Is Canada’s support of the National Inuit Climate Change Strategy important?
• What are some possible positives or negatives from the Government of Canada making climate action a priority?

PROMPT AS REQUIRED:

• What about the economy: do you think it will help or hurt the economy?
• What about you/your family: do you think it will cost you money?

• Are you/your community doing anything to adapt to the impacts of climate change?
• Do you feel that you have sufficient and reliable information about climate change to make decisions and help your family adapt?
• What type of information on climate change would be most helpful to you, your family or community?
• Whose role do you think it is to educate and raise awareness of climate change in Northern communities?

• IF MENTION GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: Are you aware of anything the Government of Canada is doing to help your city understand and adapt to the impacts of climate change?
• IF AWARE: Do you think the Government of Canada is doing enough?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED:

In 2016 the Government of Canada announced a plan to put a price on pollution across the country, instructing each province to come up with their own plans before the end of 2018.

The federal government announced that they will apply a price on pollution in the four provinces that still do not have a system in place: Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick.

(NOTE: Alberta recently repealed its carbon levy, meaning that it now only partially meets federal requirements. Thus, the federal government has announced that it will apply a price on pollution in Alberta as of January 1, 2020).

Under this system, what businesses pay will be based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce. All revenue collected in [PROVINCE] will stay in [PROVINCE] – 90% will be given directly to residents in the form of an incentive, with the average household receiving about (ON: $300; NB: $248, MB: $336). 10% will go to small businesses, hospitals, and schools.

• • BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE MODERATOR:
  • The federal carbon pollution pricing system puts a price on every tonne of carbon dioxide equivalents produced, and is made of two parts:
  • a trading system for large industry, known as the output-based pricing system; and
  • a regulatory charge on fuel
  • The government expects that although the price on pollution does not apply directly to individuals, some costs will be passed on to consumers through things like increases in the price of heating or electricity.
  • For most families (in these 4 provinces), the value of the incentive will be higher than the costs associated with the price on pollution

• What do you like about this proposed system?
• What do you dislike about this proposed system?

INDIGENOUS ISSUES (15 minutes) ASK IN IQALUIT

• Do you feel like the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada is generally moving in the right direction or the wrong direction? Why?
• What can the Government of Canada do to best support Indigenous communities across Canada? What about Indigenous communities near you?
• What does “reconciliation” mean to you?
• What can the Government of Canada do to demonstrate a commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples?
In 2017 the Government of Canada in partnership with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami established the Inuit Crown Partnership Committee, a permanent bilateral mechanism for respective leadership to advance issues of concern to Inuit. This has led to joint commitments in a number of areas including work to eliminate tuberculosis and address housing needs
• How do you feel about this type of partnership?

HEALTH CARE (20 minutes) ASK IN KENTVILLE

• Thinking about health care, what are the biggest challenges facing your community?
• • Have you heard about anything that the federal government has done regarding healthcare over the past few years?
HANDOUT


The following is a list of possible priorities the federal government could address regarding health care. I want you to put the numbers 1, 2 and 3 beside the items that you think should be the first, second and third priority of the government out of everything on the list. If there are any items that you think the federal government should not do, put an ‘x’ beside those items.

• --Addressing doctor and nurse shortages
• --Ensuring everyone has access to affordable contraception
• --Helping Canadians with the cost of equipment for their disabilities
• --Making it easier for Canadians to eat healthy by making healthy food more affordable
• --Making large investments into research to find new cures and treatments for diseases
• --Making palliative care more available and affordable for those who need it
• --Providing all Canadians with fair and equal access to affordable prescription medications
• --Providing financial support to caregivers so more people can remain at home while dealing with medical issues
• --Providing treatment to those addicted to opioids and other illicit drugs
• --Reducing wait times for mental health services
• -- Taking steps to ensure all children are vaccinated with the exception of those with allergies or medical conditions that prohibit them from receiving a vaccine
• Thinking about the item you ranked as the top priority, why did you choose that item?
• Were there any items you said the government should not do? Why not?
• Looking specifically at this item, “providing all Canadians with fair and equal access to affordable prescription medications”, what do you think “fair and equal access” would entail?
• Have you heard anything in the news about the Government of Canada doing something to ensure access to affordable prescription medications?
• Is this an issue that you think would affect you personally?
• Has anyone heard of the term “harmacare”?
• What does this word mean to you?
HANDOUT


The following are a list of names that could be used for a government strategy to improve access to affordable prescription medications. I want you to put a check mark beside any names that you like, and circle the one name that you think would be the best name for this sort of strategy:

• --Affordable Drug Strategy
• --Affordable Prescriptions Program
• --Canada Prescription Plan
• --Canadian Drug Plan
• --Comprehensive Drug Care
• --Comprehensive Prescription Plan
• --National Pharmacare Plan
• --National Prescription Insurance
• --Prescription Access Plan
• --Universal Drug Care
• --Universal Pharmacare Program
• --Universal Prescription Plan
• Thinking about the name you ranked as the best option, why did you choose that name?
• Were there any names you did not like? Why not?
• Is there another name or a combination of these names that you think would be better than the options listed? Why?

Conclusion (5 minutes)

GUIDE DU MODÉRATEUR – Août 2019

INTRODUCTION (10 minutes) TOUS LES LIEUX

NOUVELLES DU GC (5 minutes)

Ces derniers temps, qu’avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu au sujet du gouvernement du Canada ?

DÉFIS À L’ÉCHELLE LOCALE (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ DANS TOUS LES LIEUX

• Quels sont les enjeux les plus importants à l’échelle locale à [LIEU] ? ÉNUMÉREZ LES ENJEUX SUR LE TABLEAU BLANC.
• POUR CHACUN DES ENJEUX : Pourquoi est-ce important ? Qu’est-ce qui doit être fait ? EXPLORER POUR VOIR SI LES AUTRES ESTIMENT QUE C’EST IMPORTANT
• Quelles sont les infrastructures nécessaires à [LIEU] ?
• Quelles sont les plus grandes préoccupations/quels sont les plus grands défis ? Y a-t-il autre chose qui doit être fait ?
• En pensant à tout ce qu’a fait le gouvernement fédéral au cours de la dernière année, qu’est-ce qui, selon vous, aura les retombées les plus positives pour [LIEU], s’il y a lieu ?
• Le gouvernement fédéral a-t-il fait quelque chose qui, selon vous, aura des répercussions négatives sur [LIEU] ?
• Quelle industrie est la plus importante pour l’économie locale dans votre région ?
• Et croyez-vous que le gouvernement fédéral ait appuyé cette industrie ces derniers temps ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
• Maintenant, de manière plus générale, quels types de services offerts par le gouvernement du Canada à la population canadienne connaissez-vous ?
  • De manière générale, dans quelle mesure êtes-vous satisfait des services offerts par le gouvernement du Canada ?

PRIORITÉS DU GC (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ DANS TOUS LES LIEUX

DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER


Voici une liste d’objectifs généraux. J’aimerais que vous encercliez les deux ou trois éléments de cette liste qui, selon vous, devraient être l’objectif supérieur de ce que le gouvernement du Canada essaie de faire

• -- Faire en sorte que les Canadiennes et les Canadiens soient satisfaits
• -- Faire en sorte que les Canadiennes et les Canadiens s’épanouissent
• -- Faire en sorte que les Canadiens vivent dans la prospérité
• -- Favoriser la croissance et le renforcement de la classe moyenne
• -- Améliorer le niveau de vie des Canadiennes et des Canadiens
• -- Favoriser la croissance et le renforcement de la classe moyenne
• -- Améliorer la qualité de vie des Canadiennes et des Canadiens
• -- Favoriser la croissance et le renforcement de la classe moyenne
• -- Améliorer le bien-être des Canadiennes et des Canadiens
• --Rendre la vie plus abordable
• Maintenant, pensez à l’élément sur la liste dont vous aimeriez le plus voir le gouvernement se concentrer. Qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour vous ?
• Y a-t-il des choses sur cette liste sur lesquelles vous pensez que le gouvernement ne devrait pas se concentrer ?
• Lorsque vous entendez « améliorer le bien-être des Canadiennes et des Canadiens », qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour vous ?
• Est-ce un bon objectif pour le gouvernement ?
NUTRITION NORD CANADA (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ À IQALUIT
• Qui a entendu parler du programme Nutrition Nord Canada ?
  • De quelle façon expliqueriez-vous ce que c’est ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN :

Nutrition Nord Canada (NNC) est un programme de contribution du gouvernement du Canada lancé en 2011 pour offrir des aliments sains aux collectivités isolées du Nord. NNC travaille avec les magasins du Nord et les fournisseurs d’aliments du sud du Canada pour aider à rendre les aliments périssables et nutritifs plus abordables et plus accessibles.

NNC offre une contribution pour ce qui suit :

• -- Une variété d’aliments périssables et nutritifs (fruits, légumes, lait, œufs, viande et fromage) expédiés par avion à une collectivité admissible ;
• -- Des aliments « prélevés dans la nature » ou traditionnels transformés à des fins commerciales dans le Nord, comme l’omble chevalier, le bœuf musqué et le caribou (sources importantes de nutriments) expédiés par avion vers une communauté admissible.
• Que pensez-vous de ce programme ?
• Quels sont, selon vous, les principaux avantages du programme ?
• Quels sont, selon vous, les principaux inconvénients ?
• Outre Nutrition Nord, quels autres moyens existe-t-il pour le gouvernement du Canada de lutter contre l’insécurité alimentaire au Nunavut ?

LA GARDE DES JEUNES ENFANTS (15 minutes)DEMANDEZ À HAMILTON, TROIS-RIVIÈRES ET KENTVILLE

• Combien d’entre vous ont un enfant ou ont déjà utilisé un service de garde d’enfants dans le passé ? (MAINS LEVÉES)
• Selon vous, quel est le plus gros problème des services de garde d’enfants dans votre région ?
DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER

Voici une liste d’objectifs globaux auxquels le gouvernement du Canada pourrait accorder la priorité en ce qui a trait aux services de garde d’enfants. J’aimerais que vous les classiez de 1 à 4, où 1 serait l’élément qui, selon vous, devrait être la priorité la plus importante et 4, à la priorité la moins importante.
• --Rendre les services de garde d’enfants plus abordables
• --Créer plus de places dans les services de garde d’enfants près de mon lieu de résidence ou de travail
• --Réduire les listes d’attente pour les places en garderie
• --Améliorer la qualité des services de garde d’enfants
• En pensant à I ‘élément que vous avez choisi comme étant la priorité la plus importante, pourquoi avez-vous fait ce choix ?
• Pensez-vous que le gouvernement devrait se concentrer davantage sur l’amélioration du nombre de places ainsi que de la qualité des services de garde d’enfants avant et après l’école ou bien sur les services de garde des jeunes enfants qui ne sont pas encore à l’école ? Pourquoi ?

ENVIRONNEMENT (30 minutes) (15 minutes à IQALUIT)DEMANDEZ DANS TOUS LES LIEUX

• Que pensez-vous des mesures que prend le gouvernement du Canada pour interdire les plastiques à usage unique ?
  • Selon vous, quels types de produits seraient visés par cette interdiction ?
  • Est-ce important ?
  • Quels en sont les inconvénients ?
  • Quels effets positifs ou négatifs pourrait-il y avoir sur l’économie ?
• Que penseriez-vous de l’adoption par le gouvernement d’une loi visant à imposer aux entreprises la responsabilité de nettoyer les dommages environnementaux causés par leur élimination des produits de plastique ?
  • Est-ce important ?
  • Pouvez-vous penser à des inconvénients associés au lancement d’une telle stratégie ?
  • Est-ce qu’il pourrait y avoir des effets positifs ou négatifs sur l’économie ?
• Que penseriez-vous du lancement par le gouvernement du Canada d’une stratégie pour réduire l’utilisation de plastiques par les ministères et organismes gouvernementaux ?
  • Est-ce important ?

ENVIRONNEMENT (30 minutes) (15 minutes à IQALUIT) DEMANDEZ DANS TOUS LES LIEUX

• En pensant à l’environnement, quels sont les plus grands défis environnementaux auxquels le Canada est actuellement confronté ?
• Qu’en est-il des défis ici à [Ville] ? Y a-t-il des préoccupations environnementales locales qui devraient retenir l’attention du gouvernement fédéral ?
• Dernièrement, qu’avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu au sujet de l’environnement ?
  • Et récemment, avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu quoi que ce soit en ce qui a trait au gouvernement du Canada et de l’environnement ?
  • Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet de ce que fait le gouvernement du Canada en matière d’environnement ?
  • Est-ce que quelqu’un a entendu parler précisément des mesures du gouvernement pour lutter contre la pollution par le plastique ?

DEMANDEZ À HAMILTON, TROIS-RIVIÈRES ET KENTVILLE

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN :
Le gouvernement du Canada a récemment annoncé qu’il désirait interdire l’utilisation d’objets en plastique à usage unique dès 2021 afin de réduire la pollution par le plastique.
• Que pensez-vous des mesures que prend le gouvernement du Canada pour interdire les plastiques à usage unique ?
  • Selon vous, quels types de produits seraient visés par cette interdiction ?
  • Est-ce important ?
  • Quels en sont les inconvénients ?
  • Quels effets positifs ou négatifs pourrait-il y avoir sur l’économie ?
• Que penseriez-vous de l’adoption par le gouvernement d’une loi visant à imposer aux entreprises la responsabilité de nettoyer les dommages environnementaux causés par leur élimination des produits de plastique ?
  • Est-ce important ?
  • Pouvez-vous penser à des inconvénients associés au lancement d’une telle stratégie ?
  • Est-ce qu’il pourrait y avoir des effets positifs ou négatifs sur l’économie ?
• Que penseriez-vous du lancement par le gouvernement du Canada d’une stratégie pour réduire l’utilisation de plastiques par les ministères et organismes gouvernementaux ?
  • Est-ce important ?

DEMANDEZ À HAMILTON ET TROIS-RIVIÈRES

• Est-ce que quelqu’un a déjà entendu parler de « séquestration du carbone » ou de « capture du carbone » ?
  • Si oui : Qu’avez-vous entendu dire à ce sujet ?
ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN :
La séquestration du carbone, aussi appelée le captage du carbone, est un processus par lequel le dioxyde de carbone est retiré de l’atmosphère et stocké sous terre, sous l’eau ou dans des champs de pétrole épuisés, afin de réduire le niveau des gaz nocifs qui contribuent au changement climatique.
• Certains disent que la séquestration du carbone est une nouvelle approche novatrice pour faire face aux changements climatiques et que le Canada est en bonne position pour développer une industrie de pointe du captage du carbone en raison de notre grande masse terrestre et de nos anciens champs pétroliers qui pourraient être réaffectés à cette tâche. D’autres affirment que la technologie est encore trop coûteuse à utiliser à grande échelle et découragerait les gens de prendre des mesures pour réduire leurs émissions. Compte tenu de tout cela, pensez-vous que le Canada devrait investir dans la séquestration du carbone ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
• Selon vous, quels pourraient être les inconvénients d’investir dans la séquestration du carbone au Canada ?
• Certains ont suggéré qu’un investissement important dans le développement de cette technologie pourrait représenter une stratégie intelligente sur le plan économique aussi bien qu’environnemental pour le Canada, car il existe un intérêt mondial grandissant pour trouver des solutions climatiques et la communauté internationale paierait les entreprises canadiennes qui capturent le carbone pour le retirer de l’atmosphère. Pensez-vous que c’est probable ?
  • SI NON : Cela vaut-il encore la peine d’investir dans la technologie du captage du carbone, même si vous ne croyez pas qu’elle deviendra une industrie rentable ?

MESURES ENVIRONNEMENTALES DU GC (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ À TROIS-RIVIÈRES

DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER
Voici une liste de certaines des mesures que le gouvernement du Canada a déjà prises en matière d’environnement au Canada. J’aimerais que vous mettiez un crochet à côté de celle(s) qui, selon vous, aura le plus d’impact et un 'x' à côté de toute autre dont vous croyez n’aura pas d’impact.
• - L’annonce d’un plan d’interdiction des plastiques à usage unique d’ici 2021.
• - La création d’une politique sur l’intégrité scientifique qui permet aux scientifiques du gouvernement fédéral de parler de la science et de leur recherche sans avoir à obtenir une approbation (des superviseurs ou gestionnaires).
• - La création de nouvelles aires marines protégées de sorte que 10 % des aires marines et côtières du Canada sont maintenant protégées.
• - Un investissement de 1,5 milliard de dollars dans un nouveau « Plan de protection des océans » pour protéger les côtes et les voies navigables du Canada au moyen de nouveaux équipements, de nouvelles capacités de recherche et de nouvelles capacités d’intervention d’urgence.
• - A mis un prix sur la pollution pour que les grands émetteurs doivent payer pour leur impact sur l’environnement, dont tous les revenus seront redistribués à la population canadienne sous forme de paiements incitatifs ou de transferts aux provinces.
• - A signer l’Accord de Paris sur le changement climatique pour coopérer avec la communauté internationale dans le cadre d’un plan de lutte contre le changement climatique.
• Commençons par celle(s) que vous avez cochée(s) : pourquoi avez-vous pensé que cette action aurait le plus d’impact ?
• Y a-t-il des éléments dont vous diriez qu’ils n’auront pas d’impact ? Pourquoi pas ?
• Selon vous, quelle mesure figurant sur la liste devrait être au centre des préoccupations du gouvernement du Canada ? Pourquoi ?
• Est-ce que le fait d’entendre cette liste de mesures change votre opinion à savoir si le gouvernement du Canada est sur la bonne voie ou sur la mauvaise voie en ce qui concerne la gestion des questions environnementales ?
• À votre avis, y a-t-il d’autres mesures que le gouvernement du Canada devrait prendre pour protéger l’environnement qui ne se trouvaient pas sur cette liste ?

CHANGEMENT CLIMATIQUE ET CROISSANCE PROPRE (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ À IQALUIT

• Pensant aux changements climatiques, quels sont les plus grands défis auxquels le Canada fait face aujourd’hui ?
• Selon vous, quelles sont les deux lacunes les plus importantes (les plus limitatives) dans les connaissances sur l’action climatique au Canada ?
  • Qu’avez-vous vu lu ou entendu au sujet des changements climatiques dernièrement ?
• Et avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu quelque chose au sujet du gouvernement du Canada, et des changements climatiques récemment ?
• Connaissez-vous Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami ?
SI QUELQU’UN DIT NON :
L’Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) est l’organisme représentatif national qui protège et fait progresser les droits et les intérêts des Inuits au Canada.

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN :
Le gouvernement du Canada a récemment annoncé son appui à la Stratégie nationale inuite sur les changements climatiques de l’Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, qui reconnaît que l’Inuit Nunangat est l’une des régions du monde les plus durement touchées par les changements climatiques. La stratégie appuiera les connaissances et le leadership des Inuits en partenariat avec l’action climatique au Canada et à l’échelle internationale.
• Que pensez-vous du fait que le gouvernement du Canada fasse de l’action climatique une priorité ?
  • Quelle est la priorité la plus importante pour les Inuits menacés par les changements climatiques ?
  • Est-ce que l’appui du Canada à la Stratégie nationale inuite sur les changements climatiques est important ?
  • Quels pourraient être les aspects positifs ou négatifs du fait que le gouvernement du Canada fasse de l’action climatique une priorité ?
    • AU BESOIN, DEMANDEZ :
      • Qu’en est-il de l’économie : pensez-vous que cela aidera ou nuira à l’économie ?
      • Qu’en est-il de vous et de votre famille : pensez-vous que cela vous coûtera de l’argent ?
• Est-ce que vous ou votre communauté faites quelque chose pour vous adapter aux effets des changements climatiques ?
• Pensez-vous avoir suffisamment d’information fiable sur les changements climatiques pour prendre des décisions et aider votre famille à s’adapter ?
• Quel type d’information sur les changements climatiques serait le plus utile pour vous, votre famille ou votre communauté ?
• Selon vous, à qui revient le rôle d’éduquer et de sensibiliser les collectivités nordiques aux changements climatiques ?
  • À votre connaissance, y a-t-il quelque chose que le gouvernement du Canada fait pour aider votre ville à comprendre et à s’adapter aux effets des changements climatiques ?
    • LE CAS ÉCHÉANT : Pensez-vous que le gouvernement du Canada en fait assez ?

LOGEMENT (10 minutes) DEMANDEZ À IQALUIT

• Quels sont les plus grands défis en matière de logement dans votre communauté ?
• Avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu quoi que ce soit récemment au sujet du gouvernement du Canada et de la question du logement ?
Le gouvernement du Canada a récemment annoncé une nouvelle entente sur le logement avec le Nunavut qui prévoit 290 millions de dollars sur huit ans pour protéger, renouveler et agrandir les logements sociaux et communautaires au Nunavut en plus de réparer les logements sur l'ensemble du territoire.
• Que pensez-vous du fait que le gouvernement du Canada investisse pour traiter des questions liées au logement au Nunavut ?
• Y a-t-il autre chose que le gouvernement du Canada peut faire pour s’attaquer aux défis en matière de logement au Nunavut ?

TARIFICATION DE LA POLLUTION (30 minutes) DEMANDEZ À HAMILTON

• (SI LA TARIFICATION DE LA POLLUTION N’EST PAS SIGNALÉE : Avez-vous entendu parler ; SI ELLE EST SIGNALÉE : Combien d’entre vous ont entendu parler) du plan du gouvernement du Canada pour tarifier la pollution ? (Mains levées)
  • SONDEZ : Et qu’est-ce que vous avez entendu récemment ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN

Le gouvernement du Canada a créé l’Incitatif à l’achat d’une première propriété pour permettre aux gens d’obtenir un prêt sans intérêt de la SCHL en vue de couvrir 5 % du coût de leur première propriété – ou 10 % s’il s’agit d’une nouvelle construction afin d’encourager les promoteurs à construire d’autres maisons. Cela signifie que les acheteurs d’une première propriété n’ont pas besoin de contracter un prêt hypothécaire aussi important, ce qui permet de réduire leurs paiements. Par exemple, pour une maison de 500 000 $, vos versements hypothécaires mensuels pourraient être réduits de plus de 225 $. Au moment de vendre votre propriété, la SCHL prélèverait 5 % du prix de vente de la maison à titre de remboursement pour le prêt. En 2016, le gouvernement du Canada, qui a annoncé un plan pour tarifier la pollution à l’échelle du pays, a demandé à chaque province de mettre au point son propre plan avant la fin de 2018. Le gouvernement fédéral a annoncé qu’il se chargera de mettre en application sa tarification de la pollution dans les quatre provinces qui n’ont toujours pas mis en œuvre leur système : l’Ontario, la Saskatchewan, le Manitoba et le Nouveau-Brunswick.

(À noter : L’Alberta a récemment abrogé sa taxe sur le carbone, ce qui signifie qu’elle ne se conforme maintenant que partiellement aux exigences fédérales. Ainsi, le gouvernement fédéral a annoncé qu’il appliquera un prix sur la pollution en Alberta à compter du 1er janvier 2020).

Dans le cadre de ce système, les tarifs que les gens et les entreprises devront payer seront fondés sur la quantité d’émissions de carbone qu’ils produisent. Tous les revenus perçus en/au [PROVINCE] demeureront en/au [PROVINCE] — 90 % seront remis directement aux résidents sous forme de mesure incitative. Un ménage moyen recevrait donc autour de (ON : 300 $ ; NB : 248 $, MB : 336 $). 10 % seront remis aux petites entreprises, aux hôpitaux et aux écoles.


• INFORMATION CONTEXTUELLE POUR LE MODÉRATEUR :
• Le système fédéral de tarification de la pollution par le carbone attribue un prix à chaque tonne produite d’équivalents de dioxyde de carbone, et il comprend deux volets :
• Même si la tarification de la pollution ne s’applique pas directement aux particuliers, le gouvernement s’attend à ce que certains coûts se répercutent sur les clients, par exemple dans le cadre des augmentations du prix du chauffage ou de l’électricité.
• Pour la plupart des familles (résidant dans ces quatre provinces), la valeur de la mesure incitative sera supérieure aux coûts consécutifs aux mesures de tarification de la pollution.
• Même si la tarification de la pollution ne s’applique pas directement aux particuliers, le gouvernement s’attend à ce que certains coûts se répercutent sur les clients, par exemple dans le cadre des augmentations du prix du chauffage ou de l’électricité.
• Pour la plupart des familles (résidant dans ces quatre provinces), la valeur de la mesure incitative sera supérieure aux coûts consécutifs aux mesures de tarification de la pollution.
• Quels sont les aspects du système proposé que vous aimez ?
• Quels sont les aspects du système proposé que vous n’aimez pas ?

ENJEUX AUTOCHTONES (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ À IQALUIT

• De façon générale, croyez-vous que la relation entre les peuples autochtones et le gouvernement du Canada avance dans la bonne direction ou dans la mauvaise direction ? Pourquoi ?
• Que peut faire le gouvernement du Canada pour apporter le meilleur soutien possible aux collectivités autochtones partout au Canada ? Qu’en est-il des collectivités autochtones près de chez vous ?
• Qu’est-ce que la « réconciliation » signifie pour vous ?
  • Que peut faire le gouvernement du Canada pour démontrer son engagement envers la réconciliation avec les peuples autochtones ?
• Connaissez-vous le Comité de partenariat entre les Inuits et la Couronne ?

En 2017, le gouvernement du Canada, en partenariat avec Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a mis sur pied le Comité de partenariat entre les Inuits et la Couronne, un mécanisme bilatéral permanent pour permettre aux dirigeants respectifs de faire avancer des enjeux qui touchent les Inuits. Celui-ci a mené à des engagements communs dans un certain nombre de domaines, y compris la lutte visant à éradiquer la tuberculose ainsi qu’à répondre aux besoins de logement.


• Que pensez-vous de ce type de partenariat ?

SOINS DE SANTÉ (25 minutes) DEMANDEZ À KENTVILLE

• En pensant aux soins de santé, quels sont les plus grands défis auxquels est confrontée votre collectivité ?
• Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet des mesures prises par le gouvernement fédéral en matière de soins de santé au cours des dernières années ?
DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER
La liste suivante énumère des enjeux en matière de soins de santé auxquels le gouvernement fédéral pourrait accorder la priorité. J’aimerais que vous inscriviez les numéros 1, 2 et 3 à côté des éléments qui, selon vous, devraient être classés au premier, au deuxième et au troisième rang des priorités du gouvernement parmi toutes les options de la liste. Veuillez indiquer un « x » à côté des éléments qui ne devraient pas, à votre avis, constituer une priorité pour le gouvernement fédéral.


• - Remédier à la pénurie de médecins et de personnel en soins infirmiers
• - Veiller à ce que tout le monde ait accès à des moyens contraceptifs abordables
• - Aider financièrement les Canadiennes et les Canadiens à se procurer l’équipement nécessaire pour composer avec leurs déficiences
• - Aider les Canadiennes et les Canadiens à adopter de saines habitudes alimentaires en rendant les aliments sains plus abordables
• - Prévoir des investissements importants en recherche pour trouver de nouveaux remèdes et traitements pour des maladies
• - Rendre les soins palliatifs plus accessibles et abordables pour les personnes qui en ont besoin
• - Fournir à toutes les Canadiennes et tous les Canadiens un accès juste et équitable à des médicaments sur ordonnance abordables
• - Offrir un soutien financier aux fournisseurs de soins pour permettre à un plus grand nombre de personnes malades de demeurer à la maison
• - Offrir un traitement aux personnes dépendantes des opioïdes et d’autres drogues illégales
• - Réduire les temps d’attente pour obtenir des services en santé mentale
• - Prendre des mesures pour s’assurer que tous les enfants sont vaccinés, sauf ceux ayant des allergies ou des problèmes médicaux et qui ne peuvent être vaccinés
• Pour ce qui est de l’élément que vous estimez le plus prioritaire, pourquoi l’avez-vous choisi ?
• Y a-t-il des options qui ne devraient pas être mises en œuvre par le gouvernement ? Pourquoi pas ?
• En ce qui concerne l’élément « Fournir à toutes les Canadiennes et tous les Canadiens un accès juste et équitable à des médicaments sur ordonnance abordables », que signifierait, selon vous, « un accès juste et équitable » ?
  • Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit dans l’actualité au sujet des mesures du gouvernement du Canada pour assurer un accès à des médicaments sur ordonnance abordables ?
  • À votre avis, est-ce qu’il s’agit d’un enjeu qui vous toucherait personnellement ?
• Est-ce que quelqu’un a entendu parler de la « simulation de crise » relative au prêt hypothécaire ?
  • Qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour vous ?
DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER
La liste suivante propose des noms qui pourraient être utilisés pour une stratégie gouvernementale visant à améliorer l’accès à des médicaments sur ordonnance abordables. J’aimerais que vous indiquiez un crochet à côté des noms que vous aimez et que vous encercliez le meilleur nom, selon vous, pour ce type de stratégie.


• - Stratégie pour des médicaments abordables
• - Programme de médicaments sur ordonnance abordables
• - Régime des ordonnances du Canada
• - Régime canadien des médicaments
• - Assurance-médicaments globale
• - Régime global des ordonnances
• - Régime national d’assurance-médicaments
• - Assurance nationale pour les médicaments d’ordonnance
• - Régime d’accès aux médicaments sur ordonnance
• - Assurance-médicaments universelle
• - Programme universel pour l’assurance-médicaments
• - Régime universel des médicaments sur ordonnance
• Pour ce qui est du nom qui vous semble la meilleure option, pourquoi l’avez-vous choisi ?
• Y a-t-il des noms que vous n’aimiez pas ? Pourquoi pas ?
• Y a-t-il un autre nom ou une combinaison de ces noms qui, selon vous, serait une meilleure option que celles proposées dans la liste ? Pourquoi ?

Conclusion (5 minutes)