There was low awareness of Government of Canada news overall. The exception to this was the fatal crash of the Ukraine International flight out of Tehran, shot down on January 8th with 86 Canadians and permanent residents on board. Participants in all groups, except Windsor (8 January), mentioned the event as a top-of-mind federal news story. In most groups, it was one of the first issues mentioned. Most participants were aware of at least some of the actions taken by the Canadian government in response to the event. Awareness tended to be specific, with many following the story and evidently up-to-date with the latest developments and media coverage on the day of the groups.

By comparison, among the handful of other issues that received multiple mentions most were broad in nature. After the Iran plane crash, pipelines received the widest mentions and came up in most groups as an issue of particular relevance to Alberta and the West. There were a few mentions of the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project, specifically, with a couple participants aware of recent news about the project going ahead. There were also a few related mentions of Western alienation and “Wexit”. Among other issues, cannabis legalization and “vaping” received a few mentions across locations. SNC Lavalin was also identified in a number of groups, though few were aware of the recent conclusion to the criminal trial and simply noted that they had seen the company’s name in the headlines again recently.

Iran Plane Crash (all locations except Windsor)

Participants were asked whether the federal government’s reaction to this event, to date, had been appropriate, in their opinion. Response was largely positive, especially with regard to the support offered to the families of Canadian victims. There was positive comment about the Prime Minister’s visibility and personal outreach to families. Many were aware of the $25,000 compensation, in particular, and most supported it as an appropriate and compassionate response. Some noted that the Government of Canada should be looking to Iran to reimburse those costs, but few felt that this was imperative or that the compensation offer should not be made unless this happened.

Most also felt that the government had responded appropriately in pushing for answers, accountability, and greater support for victims’ families from the Iranian government. A number of participants noted positively that the government had sent Canadian investigators overseas and requested access to the black box from the downed flight, for instance. There was general agreement that the international issues and relations involved in this event were delicate ones and challenging for the Canadian government to navigate effectively. Most participants, especially in Sydney and among women, felt that the government had done a good job, on balance, managing a measured response with Iran that had been forceful but not aggressive, and wisely staying out of the rising tensions between Iran and the US. The men’s group in Edmonton was the main exception, where participants were least aware of the particular actions taken by the government and generally critical of the government’s response to Iran, believing it had not been forceful enough.

A number of participants in the Western groups felt that the Prime Minister should not have referenced the escalation of tensions in the region, which they felt could harm the US-Canadian relationship. By contrast, a number of participants in the Sydney groups felt that the US had escalated tensions with Iran and created the conditions that led to the tragedy. These participants felt that the Prime Minister’s comments had been accurate and, in their view, wisely restrained.

Asked what more the federal government should be doing, many participants were not sure. Among those with an opinion, some felt that the government should either continue its efforts or do more to hold Iran accountable. Suggestions included imposing sanctions or an embargo on Iran, placing organizations involved on a terrorist list, or cutting existing diplomatic ties, if any, with the country. Men in Edmonton supported some form of military aid or assistance to the US in its conflict with Iran, but few outside this group shared that view. A number of participants in other groups and locations stated the importance of not escalating or getting involved in the conflict. Some participants wanted to know more about what the government had planned in its efforts to hold Iran accountable, and a few recommended as much transparency and communications with Canadians as possible in this regard. Many reiterated their desire to see the Canadian government pursue financial reimbursement from Iran for the money being offered to families of the Canadian victims.

Government of Canada Priorities (Sydney, Trois-Rivières, Windsor)

Top of Mind Priorities (Unaided)

There was little awareness of the Throne Speech from early December. Only a few participants knew of it and none had followed the media coverage or could cite any specifics from the speech.

Asked to identify what the Government of Canada’s broad goals and priorities might be for the next two years, participants widely identified climate change and the environment, with some related mention of a “carbon tax”. There was not much awareness of other priorities beyond environmental ones. The few common mentions included immigration, middle class tax cuts, affordable housing and homelessness, and jobs and the economy.

Asked to identify their desired priorities for the Government of Canada, participants most commonly mentioned jobs and the economy, especially in Windsor and Sydney. Participants in all locations identified health care generally and mental health care specifically as top priorities. In Sydney and, to a lesser extent, Trois-Rivières, the environment and climate change received a number of mentions, as did seniors’ issues. In Windsor, a number of participants said they would like to see the federal government prioritize more support for home ownership and restrict foreign investment in the housing market, which many felt was driving up prices.

Priorities Exercise

All groups were provided with a list of priorities that the Government of Canada pledged to implement in the recent Speech from the Throne. Participants were asked to identify the three priorities on the list most important to them personally (as well as their number-one choice), in addition to any item they thought the Government of Canada should not pursue.

The following list of priorities was provided:

• Banning all assault rifles in Canada
• Conserving and protecting 25% of Canada’s land and 25% of Canada’s oceans by 2025
• Eliminating all long-term drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves by 2021
• Ensuring every Canadian has access to a family doctor
• Implementing a price on pollution on every province that refuses to implement their own
• Implementing a universal Pharmacare program to reduce the cost of prescriptions
• Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15/hour
• Lowering taxes for the middle class
• Planting 2 billion trees in Canada to clean the air
• Reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050
• Reducing the cost of cellphone bills by 25%

Following the exercise, participants were asked to identify and explain their choices. There was also a group discussion about whether or not the government would be able to complete all of these priorities in the next few years, and which, if any, might be most difficult to accomplish. Participants were also asked how they would evaluate whether the government was taking action to complete each of these priorities.

With respect to the broad question of whether the government will be able to complete all the priorities on the list over the next few years, participants felt that this was unlikely. The list was widely viewed as a lengthy one, and many of the individual priorities were perceived to be challenging.

Detailed findings are as follows, with priorities listed in order of importance, based on the number of respondents who placed them among their top three.

Ensuring every Canadian has access to a family doctor

While the need for greater access to family doctors was not top-of-mind when participants were asked to identify Government of Canada priorities unaided, it was the number one priority selected from the list provided. This priority was just slightly ahead of middle-class tax breaks, overall, and only because of results from Windsor, where participants identified it as their top priority by a relatively wide margin

In explaining their choice, many identified personal experiences with the difficulty of trying to find a doctor, either firsthand or through family and friends. Participants spoke about overreliance and strains on emergency departments in their communities, leading to overcrowding and long wait times. A number of participants commented on the costs of failing to provide adequate access to family doctors and preventive care, including costs to personal and public health, the health care system, the economy, and the country’s collective ability to deal with or care about other issues like the environment. Access to family doctors and health care was widely viewed as a fundamentally important issue.

Nearly everyone felt that delivering on this priority would be challenging for the Government of Canada. Most identified it as one of the most difficult priorities on the list. Some noted the complexity and enduring nature of the problem as evidence. A lack of doctors was perceived to be a big barrier to achieving universal access, and a problem that would take significant time to fix. In Windsor and Sydney, a number of participants cited the difficulty of attracting doctors to their communities and said this was a problem for many smaller cities and towns across Canada, especially in the North and for Indigenous communities.

In terms of how they would evaluate government action against this priority, many said they would experience or hear about greater access, reduced wait times for appointments, and less crowding in emergency rooms. Some noted that they would see or hear about more money being invested in local hospitals and clinics, scholarships for aspiring physicians, and training and teaching facilities. Some also noted that they would hear about new immigrant doctors getting fast-tracked into practice.

Lowering taxes for the middle class

Middle class tax relief was also at the top of the list as both a top-three and number-one priority, overall. In Trois Rivieres and Sydney, it was on par with universal access to a family doctor.

In explaining their choice, participants expressed personal frustration and described financial struggles resulting from what they perceived as over-taxation. Some felt that the current system is out of balance, with wealthy Canadians paying too little in taxes, Canadians on social assistance getting free services and average Canadians like themselves getting squeezed. Some felt that they were penalized for working hard, that they could not get ahead, or that they were losing ground financially because of the tax burden. Some said they were not getting enough in return for their taxes when they looked at the current state of health care, for instance, or local infrastructure. Most of the commentary was focussed on these types of frustrations, with only a few commenting that middle class tax cuts, in their view, would also be good for the economy.

Unlike universal access to family doctors, tax cuts were not perceived to be a difficult priority for the federal government to achieve. That said, a few participants did raise concerns about the negative impact on the government’s revenue and ability to pay for other priorities, like healthcare and Pharmacare, for instance.

In terms of how they would evaluate action toward accomplishing this priority, most said that they would see and feel the impact of the tax cuts first hand, in addition to hearing about it in the media.

Implementing a universal Pharmacare program to reduce the cost of prescriptions

Pharmacare was also widely selected as both a top-three and number-one priority. It came in third, overall, at a bit of a distance from the top two but was more widely selected than others in the middle of the pack.

Those identifying Pharmacare as a high priority spoke about the costs of medications. For some, it was personally relevant, owing to a lack of coverage. But for most, it was a matter of fairness, expressed in concern for others who needed access to expensive medication and either struggled to afford it or went without. Pharmacare was seen by most as critical for delivering on the promise of universal health care.

Most believed that successfully implementing a Pharmacare program would be difficult, primarily because of the perceived costs involved. Complexity was also identified as a challenge, and a few participants felt that pharmaceutical companies might oppose the implementation of this priority.

With respect to evaluating action in support of this kind of program, most felt that they would see it directly through increased savings and access to medicine-based treatments, while hearing less about cost barriers for others.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15/hour

Selections of this priority were moderate, overall, placing it in the middle of the list as a top-three priority, with very few putting it in their number-one spot. Regionally, the greatest support for an increase in the federal minimum wage was found in Windsor, where this priority was the second most widely chosen, after access to family doctors.

Those who selected this commitment as an important one for them tended to be concerned about the high cost of living, especially with regard to housing and basic needs. For some it was personally relevant but for others it was a matter of fairness and important to them that everyone earned a livable wage. On the other hand, a number of participants were concerned about an increase to the federal minimum wage and felt that it could hurt the economy and drive up costs for businesses and consumers. Some described it as a “catch 22”and felt that provincial increases to the minimum wage had already had some negative economic effects. That said, few opposed the proposed increase.

Reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050

This was a moderate priority, overall. Very few in Windsor, in particular, identified it as important to them, although few opposed it.

Those who attributed high importance to this goal were concerned about the environment and climate change. They felt it was important for Canada and other countries to get serious about acting in order to “protect the future” and “the basis for life on earth”. Even among these participants, however, most felt that this goal would be challenging to achieve, requiring widespread behaviour change by individuals and organizations. Some stressed the difficulty of getting other countries to work toward this goal. There was also some agreement that transitioning to greener energy sources would require a great deal of effort and faced many barriers.

Conserving and protecting 25% of Canada’s land and 25% of Canada’s oceans by 2025

This priority was also in the middle of the list. Women were more likely than men to identify it as important to them, and participants in Sydney more widely selected it as top priority compared to those in other locations, especially Windsor.

Those who attributed high importance to this goal said that conservation was necessary for protecting the environment and “the future”. Participants in Sydney stressed how important this was for their economy, especially as it related to the fisheries and local jobs.

No one opposed this priority, but many felt it would be difficult to achieve. It was commonly described as a big and costly undertaking, requiring a great deal of time and resources, given the size of the country. Some also felt that the commitment was “vague” and had questions about what was meant by “protecting and conserving” the environment.

Eliminating all long-term drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves by 2021

The wording of this priority caused confusion among some participants. A number of people felt that it should not be pursued because they interpreted it as an intention to stop just the advisories without addressing the underlying problem. This happened most commonly in Trois-Rivières, among participants who appeared to be somewhat uninformed of the issue with clean water on reserves in Canada. In this location, no one identified this as a top priority and many opposed it, placing it at the bottom of the list.

Those who had previous knowledge of the issue, and understood that this priority was about the improvement of water quality, described the current situation as unacceptable and “disgraceful”. Even in Trois-Rivières most shared this view, once the intent of the priority was explained and the issue clarified. A lack of safe water on reserves was widely viewed as a moral issue and failing by Canada. Multiple participants across locations stressed that no Canadian should go without something as basic as clean water. Given the intensity of the sentiments and general consensus regarding the significance of this problem, it is possible that an initial greater understanding of this priority would have pushed it up the ranks of importance, overall.

Asked how they would evaluate action against the successful accomplishment of this commitment, most said they would hear about it in the media, including information about better health outcomes among First Nations communities. Among those already aware of the issue, participants also noted that they would hear less about the problem.

Planting 2 billion trees in Canada to clean the air

This priority was closer to the bottom of the list, though few opposed it. Participants who identified tree planting as an important priority for them felt that it could have a big impact on air quality and was an easier and less costly solution to climate change than reducing GHGs.

Implementing a price on pollution on every province that refuses to implement their own

This priority was near the bottom of the list. While opposition was not widespread, more participants opposed it than placed it in their top three.

Among those who did oppose it, there was some discomfort with the idea of the Government of Canada implementing this in the provinces that did not instigate their own policy. In Windsor, in particular, there was general agreement that this was and should be a provincial matter. Other concerns were the potential negative impacts on the economy and costs to consumers, government, and businesses. There was also some evident confusion about this priority, with a number of participants saying they did not understand it, though some assumed it was related to a “carbon tax”.

A number of participants felt that this would be a difficult priority to implement for the Government of Canada. It was viewed as complicated by some and others felt that provincial governments were in a better position than the federal government to implement an effective policy designed to reduce carbon emissions. Many also felt that this would be very challenging, given resistance from the provinces affected. And some were unsure how action against this priority would be evaluated.

Banning all assault rifles in Canada

Banning assault rifles was a very low priority, overall. Only few participants placed it in their top three. In all locations, participants were more likely to oppose it, especially among the men.

While some were opposed to a gun ban in principle as an infringement on personal freedom, more felt that assault rifles were simply not a big concern in Canada and that a proposed ban would be a waste of time, money and effort by the federal government that would fail to address any underlying concern with gun violence and crime. Many agreed that a proposed ban would be controversial and would generate considerable opposition, making it very difficult for the Government of Canada to implement.

Reducing the cost of cellphone bills by 25%

This priority was right at the bottom of the list, overall, with only one participant identifying it as a top-three priority for themselves, and quite a few selecting it as an item on the list that the federal government should not pursue.

While some noted that the government could remove restrictions and increase competition to help bring prices down, many interpreted this priority as the government setting prices for private companies and telephone services, which they felt was not the government’s role. Others said they were not clear how government would achieve a 25% reduction, which made them wary. Most also felt strongly that the Government of Canada simply had much bigger priorities.

Local Challenges (Sydney, Trois-Rivières, Windsor)

Participants identified a wide range of challenges in their respective communities, with some convergence on common themes but some notable divergence as well. In all locations, participants were concerned about the local economy and jobs, as well as access to mental health care and supports for vulnerable populations. Concern about infrastructure needs focused heavily on transportation, from roads, highways and bridges to ports and public transit. To a large degree, however, the real character of the issues and priorities varied by community.

In all locations, there was limited awareness of federal investments, except among the women in Sydney, and some mixed views about the Government of Canada’s impact on the community.

Windsor

In Windsor, issues related to social and economic decline were widely top of mind. Participants spoke about the loss of the auto and manufacturing base, the disappearance of decent paying jobs, and perceived increases in a wide variety of social problems, from poverty and homelessness to violence, crime, addiction and mental health issues. Participants said the cost of housing was compounding financial strains and being driven up by newcomers from other cities looking for more affordable options. Some said the influx of new residents was placing more strains on an already stretched transportation infrastructure. Many felt that the local infrastructure was being neglected, that highways and bridges needed further expansion, and roads were in need of maintenance.

Asked about the impact the Government of Canada has had in their area in the past year, many struggled to identify anything positive or negative. A few participants thought that the federal government might have contributed to highway or bridge expansion but were not sure. There were some scattered positive mentions of the CUSMA trade agreement and to the child tax benefit, and there were several negative mentions of a “carbon tax”. Participants in the men’s group characterized the city as forgotten or overlooked by government.

Most participants agreed that the big local changes in recent years have been largely negative, from the industrial and social decline to the influx of newcomers driving up house prices. Participants in the women’s group, however, also identified some positives associated with “gentrification”, including better restaurants, beautification of the riverside, and an expansion in the number of distilleries and wineries in the area.

Trois-Rivières

There was a gender split in these two groups with respect to the kinds of challenges most commonly identified. The women focused on poor access to healthcare and mental health services, as well as the need to do more to support vulnerable populations in the city, especially with regard to employment. Among the men, economic challenges were more top of mind. Greater supports for local businesses were identified as a priority, along with a need to diversify the economy and create opportunities for more innovation and technology-related industries. In both groups, participants also expressed concern with local environmental issues, from air quality to pollution in the St Lawrence. Some felt that additional tools and educational initiatives are needed to support more environmentally-friendly behaviour among the local population.

Among the infrastructure issues identified, participants wanted to see better upkeep of local roads, one of the main bridges rebuilt, development of the port, and more public transit options (including a high frequency train service). Among the women, improved parks for children and renov ation of local schools were also mentioned.

There was limited awareness of Government of Canada investments in the region and little comment regarding any positive or negative impacts of federal policy. A few participants felt that the federal government may have contributed to work done on the port, or provided some financial assistance for daycare and a local hospital. Some in the men’s group were aware of the child tax credit but felt it was not enough of a tax break for families. Some commented positively that increased immigration added to the qualified local work force.

Among the local changes identified in the past five years, many were positive about growth in tourism. Some cited the development of the waterfront as making a contribution to tourism and economic activity, although others noted that it had created local debt. Increased population growth, new immigration, and residential construction were identified as positives, overall. Along with increased tourism, however, they were seen to have created some negative impacts on green space, trees, and traffic.

Sydney

Unemployment and jobs were top of mind in Sydney along with a feeling that the region was neglected by the provincial government and did not get its “fair share” of provincial investment. Health, mental health, and drugs were identified as big challenges for the city, compounded by long wait times for doctors and short staffing in local hospitals. Participants cited infrastructure deterioration as a significant issue, evident in potholes in local roads, a lack of paved highways, poor public transit options, and problems with sidewalks. Housing was viewed as increasingly unaffordable, and some said that high business taxes were hurting the economy and contributing to unemployment.

Among the women, many felt that Sydney was treated better by the federal government than the provincial one. Participants cited federal funding for the college, downtown revitalization, an expanded waterfront and boardwalk, a nearby First Nations reserve, and job creation. The men, on the other hand, were largely unaware of Government of Canada investments in or impacts on the area. Some thought that local projects might have received federal funding, and a few felt that cannabis legalization had created some opportunities for local businesses. Others, however, felt that the federal government should be playing a bigger role in the area and, like the provincial government, was overlooking Sydney in their view. There were also some negative comments about changes to the rules for employment insurance (EI), which some found unclear.

Participants cited both positive and negative changes to their community in recent years. On the negative side, they pointed to population aging and decline, the closure of local businesses and hospitals, the flight of young people looking for economic opportunity elsewhere, and increased social problems, such as drug use. On the positive side, participants pointed to an increase in seasonal tourism and influx of foreign students contributing to the economy.

Exercise

Participants in the Western groups were asked to write down on a sheet of paper words that they would use to describe the relationship between the Government of Canada and their province.

While there was some similarity across locations, especially with regard to feeling forgotten or overlooked, there were notable differences as well.

In Abbotsford, most felt that their province and its interests were neglected by the federal government in favour of Ontario and Quebec, where the majority of Canada’s population was located. Many commented on a “disconnect” between British Columbia and the federal government with regard to their respective priorities, with the Government of Canada perceived to be far more attuned to the needs of manufacturing versus resource industries, for instance. Some said that the Government only paid attention to BC when necessary. While comments tended to be negative, participants in Abbotsford were more disappointed than angry at what many perceived to be unfair treatment of their province by the federal government.

By contrast, in Edmonton, negative attitudes were more visceral and pronounced. Most felt that Alberta was treated unfairly, especially in the men’s group where there was widespread sentiment that their province was singled out or came last. Some described Alberta as the “step child” of Confederation. A number of participants in both groups said they felt hated, isolated, angry, or lied to by the Government of Canada. As in Abbotsford, there were quite a few comments regarding perceived preferential treatment for Ontario and Quebec. Many felt that the federal government and the rest of Canada were happy to receive equalization payments based on revenues collected from Alberta, while ignoring the province’s concerns and economic suffering. They felt that most of the rest of Canada opposed pipelines and were not strongly supportive of the oil and gas industry thus handicapping Alberta’s economy. While most had negative perceptions of the federal government’s treatment of their province, a number of participants allocated blame to their own provincial government as well, commenting on a lack of cooperation, communications and constructive engagement by both sides.

In Winnipeg, descriptions of the relationship between the Manitoba and federal government were more varied. Some described it as “testy” or “abrasive” in regard to disputes over a “carbon tax”. A few felt that their province is overlooked by the federal government in favour of those with more money, including Alberta and BC in addition to central Canada. Others, however, described Manitoba’s relationship with the federal government more favourably, as “amicable” and “necessary”, emphasising the importance of national unity and saying that Manitoba had a role to play in this regard as “a bridge” between the West and the rest of Canada. Despite highlighting some challenges, and acknowledging that there were issues, most when asked felt that Manitoba was treated fairly.

When asked what the federal government could do to demonstrate that they were in touch with the concerns of their province, participants in Abbotsford and Edmonton offered similar suggestions. Many said they simply wanted their province and its contribution to the country and the national economy to be acknowledged. Specific suggestions included the federal government being seen as more actively and frequently profiling the contributions of the West in its communications, highlighting the importance of their industries, such as forestry and oil and gas, to Canada’s economic success and growth and explaining to the rest of Canada the important role that pipelines played, in particular. Some wanted the federal government to stop what they viewed as disparagement of Western resource-based and extractive industries By contrast, they felt there should be more emphasis and acknowledgement that these industries are already taking steps and actions to ensure they are and continue to be good stewards of the environment.

In both Abbotsford and Edmonton, there was a desire for the federal government to listen to and communicate more effectively with citizens and political leaders in their respective provinces. Based on a perception that federal election results were available prior to the polls closing in their region, there were also comments about making changes to this approach. In Edmonton, there was a desire for the federal government to show greater understanding that people in the province of Alberta were scared for their livelihoods, to do more to help with retraining and new skills development, and to be more transparent about government spending. In Winnipeg, by contrast, there were only a few suggestions. These focussed on helping with the cost of living, especially hydro rates, and doing more to support Indigenous communities, especially with regard to safe drinking water on reserves.

1 The hours of voting for a general election are staggered so that the majority of results are available at approximately the same time across the country. However, some participants believed that voting hours ended later in Alberta and BC, and that results were revealed once polling venues closed in Ontario, before many in Alberta and BC had had the opportunity to vote, effectively rendering their vote inconsequential in terms of the final outcome.

TMX Pipeline

In addition to discussing the relationship between the Government of Canada and provinces, the Western groups included discussion of a set of specific issues affecting Western Canada, the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMX) pipeline being one of them.

Most participants were aware of the controversies and opposition surrounding the building of the TMX pipeline, or pipelines in general, and knew that there had been a series of delays. Some were not sure to which pipeline TMX referred. Awareness of whether or not the project had been approved or started was mixed across locations. In Abbotsford and Winnipeg most were unsure of the current status of TMX, while in Edmonton most were aware that it had been approved and believed that work had already begun. In Abbotsford and Edmonton, a few participants referred to a recent court decision against BC related to the TMX. This likely referred to the Supreme Court decision to refuse an appeal by the BC government to regulate oil flow through the province along the TMX, as this happened just before the groups were held.

Regardless of their overall awareness of the current status of the TMX project, few believed that it would be built on schedule. Many felt that it was already behind, and some said they were not aware of any updates to the time lines. Many agreed that ongoing opposition would likely create more obstacles and delays. Some questioned the degree of support from the federal government and its willingness to advance the project. Moreover, many felt that large projects like this are rarely completed on time and typically encounter challenges along the way, even without the kind of controversy and opposition encountered by pipeline projects.

Bills C-69 and C-48

Few participants in these groups were familiar with these bills by name or number, except in Edmonton where most women and some of the men said they had heard of them. Even here, however, few could describe what the bills were about.

In each group, participants were provided with the following descriptions of the bills for clarity, with some of the debate about them briefly outlined, before being asked for their opinion:

“Bill C-69 is a recently enacted federal government law that strengthens the requirements for environmental assessments and consultations with local communities before large scale infrastructure projects can be built. While some say this law provides important protections to ensure local communities know the environmental risks of new projects and have a say in whether they go forward, others say it creates too much red tape and may slow or stop important projects, including pipelines from going forward.”

“Bill C-48 is also another recently enacted federal law, which prevents oil tankers from transporting large amounts of oil to and from the North Coast of BC. Some say this law will reduce the risk of oil spills in delicate marine ecosystems, while others worry it will restrict Canada’s ability to export oil to markets overseas by limiting which ports can be used by oil tankers.”

There was slightly more recognition of these bills following the descriptions. Even in Edmonton, however, where many said they recognized the bills by name, a number of participants said they were hearing about these proposed new regulations for the first time. Overall support for these bills was somewhat split. Most in Edmonton and the women’s group in Abbotsford were either wary of these bills or opposed to them outright, based on their perceived potential harm to the economy and jobs.

Most of the men in Abbotsford supported them as necessary protections for the environment, although not without qualification. Some were concerned that the passage of these bills could simply amount to a public relations exercise or excessive rules and complexities. In Winnipeg most felt these bills were a good idea but had concerns that they would interfere with economic progress, fail to work as intended, or create unintended consequences, if not implemented thoughtfully.

The proposed restrictions on oil tankers elicited the most concerns or questions from participants in all locations. Some in Edmonton and Winnipeg were under the impression that this proposed restriction might not apply to US tankers, thereby disadvantaging Canada. In Abbotsford, a number of participants in the women’s group were concerned that this bill, in particular, would impede trade with Asia. Some in the men’s group, on the other hand, wanted to know if the south coast, near their community, would be similarly protected.

With regard to Bill C-69, many in Edmonton felt it was contradictory for the federal government to pledge to consult if their intention was to advance the TMX pipeline progress regardless, which many assumed or hoped it was. In the men’s group in Abbotsford, some wanted to know if this commitment to consult was genuine, while in the women’s group in Abbotsford, many felt that it was counterproductive to oppose pipeline construction on safety grounds, believing pipelines to be a safer form of transportation than rail.

Equalization Payments

Most were familiar with the notion of, if not the specific term ‘equalization payments’, but very few could describe how the system worked with much confidence, details or accuracy. Most of the explanations revolved around a sense that provinces contributed money to a national fund which was then redistributed back to the provinces based on a formula which was outdated or should be reviewed. Many in Edmonton felt that Alberta pays too much, A number of participants elsewhere said they were aware of Alberta’s concern about the fairness of the equalization system. Quebec was referenced in a number of groups, as well, as a province that, in some participants’ view, received “too much”.

Based on these descriptions from others in the groups, and their own limited knowledge, most were not sure if the equalization system should change. Many felt it should be reviewed, at least, to ensure it was fair and reflected the circumstances of Alberta. Most of the women in Abbotsford and the men in Edmonton, however, overwhelmingly believed that the system was unfair and should be changed.

Due to their lack of knowledge about how the system of equalization payments worked, no one had any concrete suggestions for how it might be changed or improved.

China’s Boycott of the Canadian Canola Industry

There was mixed awareness of this issue across groups and locations. In Winnipeg, many participants had heard something about it. In Abbotsford, participants were split between those who had heard something and those who had heard nothing, while in Edmonton only a few of the women but most of the men said they had seen, read or heard something about the boycott of the Canadian canola industry by China. Most did not know any of the details, beyond the headlines they had seen in the media, but some felt it was part of a larger diplomatic and trade dispute between Canada and China that was related to the house arrest of a Chinese business executive. Few were aware of the regional impact the boycott was having, with the exception of a small number of participants in Winnipeg, or what the federal government had been doing in response to the issue, either with respect to support for farmers or its relationship with China.

All groups were provided with a bit of background on the issue, for clarity, and then asked for their opinion about what the Government of Canada should do. They were given three options to consider:

• Make concessions so that China will buy our canola again;
• Retaliate against China by imposing our own sanctions on their products; or
• Continue to financially support farmers while trying to negotiate a solution with China that does not involve concessions or retaliation.

Most felt that Canada should choose the last option, and continue to negotiate with China, without retaliation or concessions, while continuing to support farmers, which they widely felt to be the most reasonable, constructive, and “Canadian” approach to the problem. Most agreed with both aspects of this approach – that negotiation was wise and constructive and that Canada needed to continue to take care of its farmers.

With respect to making concessions, a few said that this might be the pragmatic option, given the size of the Chinese market and the country’s importance to Canada as a trading partner. But most felt that it was simply a bad idea that would hurt Canadian interests and embolden China to exploit Canada’s willingness to capitulate. A few opted for retaliation as a show of determination and force, but most felt this would be counterproductive and even perilous, given Canada’s size, serving only to escalate the dispute and lead to further retaliation from China.

Top Federal Priority for Western Canada

Of various issues discussed with these groups that specifically affect Western Canada – the TMX pipeline, Bills C-69 and C-48, equalization payments, and China’s boycott of Canola – participants were asked to select one of them as their top priority for the Government of Canada.

In Edmonton and among the women in Abbotsford (who consistently prioritized economic concerns over environmental ones), there was a consensus that the TMX pipeline, and getting it built, should be the top priority for the federal government, given its importance to the economy and jobs. Many also felt that Bill C-69 had a direct role to play in enabling this project and was therefore important too. Among the men in Abbotsford, where concerns about the environment were relatively heightened, most opted for negotiating with China to resolve the Canola boycott, as did most of the men in Winnipeg. The women in Winnipeg provided a mix of responses across the full set of options, with no onsingle issue emerging as the top priority.

Awareness of Environmental News

Asked what they had seen, read or heard about the environment lately, most participants demonstrated low levels of awareness of current events and news coverage. There were one or two high information participants in each group who appeared to be following issues and news stories on environmental topics. Many had little or nothing to say but most had general awareness of the broad themes and issues mentioned. Among them, climate change was most widely top of mind, with general comments in most groups, and references to events such as melting ice caps and glaciers, high temperature records, and extreme storms, as well as climate activism and Greta Thunberg. A “carbon tax” received a mention in most groups, with some attending comment on opposition and controversy surrounding it. Pipelines were widely mentioned, as well, in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, opposition, and Alberta. In Abbotsford and Edmonton, participants referenced the Supreme Court rejection of an appeal by British Columbia regarding pipelines (TMX). The fires in Australia were mentioned in most groups. And the proposed ban on single-use plastics, and plastic straws, specifically, was also noted by a few participants in various locations.

Asked if they had seen, read or heard about anything related to the Government of Canada and the environment recently, there was very low awareness of any recent news. The most common mentions were related to pipelines, a “carbon tax”, and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which most participants had heard something about. The little commentary that emerged around these mentions tended to focus on controversy and opposition, as well as trade-offs between the economy and environment. There were also a few mentions of the proposed ban on single-use plastics, straws and bags, as well as a few mentions of Canadian firefighters going over to Australia to assist with the efforts there.

Price on Pollution

Participants in all groups were asked if they had heard anything about the Government of Canada introducing a national price on pollution. The question elicited very limited recognition and response. A few participants in each group said they had heard something about this but were not sure of the details. Some asked whether this was the same as “the carbon tax” or remarked that it was. Based on a sense that “a national price on pollution” and “carbon tax” were synonymous, most said they were aware of the initiative and continued to use the more familiar term for the duration of the discussion.

Asked what they had heard about this federal initiative, most associated it with controversy and opposition from some provincial governments, increased costs to businesses and consumers, and an added charge at the gas pumps. A few commented that the goal was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and most seemed to understand this when the point was made. Some said that it was meant to be applied to businesses, in particular, to get them to reduce emissions. A few participants mentioned rebates.

Most, however, had very little awareness of details regarding how the national price on pollution worked, and a number of participants were critical of the lack of clarity, saying that the federal government had not done enough to explain the program to the public. Many offered up commentary instead, much of it negative, saying they were opposed to the initiative, viewed it as a “tax grab”, or felt that it would make life more unaffordable and pose a threat to the economy. A few participants offered up some positive commentary, describing the federal initiative as necessary or “an important start” to getting emissions under control and meeting targets for reduction.

There was very little understanding regarding how the national price on pollution is collected. When asked about it directly, many said they did not know. Where participants had an opinion, most associated it with collection at the gas pumps or on utility bills. Some guessed that it would be an environmental fee charged to consumers on products tied to pollution, like electronics and tires. Only a few knew that the charge applied to businesses directly based on the amount of C02 they generated. A few described it as a cap and trade system.

Similarly, most were unsure or confused about where the money went. Many assumed that it would go toward environmental initiatives aimed at reducing emissions, including research and development for new technology, green energy development, or public education programs. Some felt that the money would simply go back to federal government to be used for program spending or deficit reduction. A few participants had heard that the initiative was designed to be revenue neutral but either did not understand what that meant or were skeptical of the claim.

For clarity, the following description was read to participants in all groups:

In 2016 the Government of Canada announced a plan to ensure a price on carbon pollution across the country, giving each province and territory the flexibility to develop a system that works for their circumstances, provided it meets the federal standard. In the five provinces that currently do not meet this standard – Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick*, and Alberta – the federal pricing system is currently in place. The Government of Canada has conducted annual carbon pricing benchmark assessments and has found that British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Northwest Territories all have carbon pollution pricing systems of their own that fully meet the federal benchmark stringency requirements for 2020.

All proceeds collected from the federal system in [PROVINCE] will stay in [PROVINCE] – 90% will be returned directly to residents in the form of an incentive payment, with a typical household receiving about (ON: $448; MB: $486; SK: $809; AB: $888). Individuals will be able to claim these amounts through their 2019 personal income tax returns. 10% will go to small businesses, hospitals, and schools.

For many, the description above did not serve to clarify their understanding of the policy. Instead, it tended to give rise to a litany of questions. Most commonly, participants wanted to know where they could get more information, why the revenue being collected was going toward consumer rebates instead of efforts to further reduce emissions, and how outcomes would be evaluated, monitored, policed and reported on to the public. Many were admittedly confused. Some reiterated their opposition to the policy, including implementing the federal pricing system in provinces that did not meet the federal standard, which they felt was unwarranted or counterproductive.

Naming Exercise

On the basis of the description above, participants were asked to consider a list of potential names or phrases that could be used to describe the policy. Participants were asked to identify the two names or phases they liked the best and identify any they disliked. They explained their choices in a discussion that followed.

The list of names and phrases provided to participants included the following:

• --Putting a Price on Pollution
• --Carbon Tax
• --Carbon Pricing
• --Taxing Pollution
• --Taxing Big Polluters
• --Penalizing Those Who Pollute More
• --Raising Taxes on Companies with High Carbon Emissions

Overall, participants strongly favoured the two names or phrases already in use: Carbon Tax and Putting a Price on Pollution. Between the two, Putting a Price on Pollution was viewed as more palatable to the public and a better description of the policy. Most who chose the Carbon Tax did so primarily because it was already widely established and familiar.

The following provides a rank ordering of the names or phrases based on the first-choice selections, with accompanying commentary from participants explaining their selections and views about what they liked and did not like about each option.

Carbon Tax

The big driver of choice for this name had to do with familiarity and the fact that this term was already established and well-known to the public. Many felt that referring to the plan as something other than a carbon tax would only serve to confuse matters. Beyond that, participants liked the fact that this name was short and simple. Some said they chose it because it was less negative than some of the other phrases that placed the emphasis on penalizing big polluters or companies. Some who were opposed to the policy said they preferred this term because it was honest, based on their sense that the plan was a tax and thus felt that calling it something other than a tax was misleading to the public. Nearly as many people said they disliked this name, however, as those who placed it among their top two choices (for nearly all names and phrases on the list at least as many participants opposed as favoured them). Those who disliked the name were primarily averse to the word ‘tax’, which they felt would be broadly unpopular and/or gave rise to their own resentment that Canadians, in their view, were already taxed too much. Some did not like the word ‘carbon’ and felt that this was vague, confusing, or complicated.

Putting a Price on Pollution

Those who selected this term commonly felt that it was a good description of the policy and easier to understand, relate to, and support, than “carbon tax”. Many felt that it had a better ring to it, overall, and liked that it not only avoided the word ‘tax’ but the word ‘carbon’ as well, which they found vague or confusing. Indeed, some liked it because they felt it could be applied broadly, beyond just carbon emissions. Nearly as many participants disliked it, however, because they felt it was an effort by government to shift opinion on the policy by avoiding the word tax. Some also felt that the phrase was too broad and suggested that it might apply to all forms of pollution when the policy itself was targeted exclusively at carbon emissions, which was validated by some of the comments from those who liked the term.

Carbon Pricing

Compared to Carbon Tax and Putting a Price on Pollution, relatively few identified this as their number-one choice, but nearly as many placed it in their top two. Those who liked this term liked both the specificity of the word ‘carbon’, because that was the form of pollution being targeted by the policy, and the avoidance of the word ‘tax’, which many felt was not just an unpopular term but an inaccurate description of the policy that made it sound like a payment that couldn’t be avoided with changed behaviour. ‘Pricing”, said some, sounded more voluntary or “discretionary”. In the view of many who selected this name, Carbon Pricing not only had a better ring to it than Carbon Tax but was the most accurate description of the policy compared to others on the list. Just as many disliked the name, however, primarily because they did not like the word ‘carbon’, describing it as confusing, “vague,” or “government jargon.”

Taxing Pollution

Like Carbon Pricing, this name was not a strong first choice, compared to Carbon Tax and Putting a Price on Pollution, but nearly as many placed it in their top two. Those who liked this name felt that it was clearer and more readily understood than Carbon Tax with its focus on ‘pollution’ and just as simple and direct. Some liked the fact that it was “all-encompassing” and could be applied broadly to all forms of pollution, while others disliked it for the same reason, describing it as imprecise. For that reason, primarily, as many disliked this name as liked it.

Taxing Big Polluters

Compared to the options above, relatively few identified this as a number one or top two choice. Those who liked it, liked the emphasis on big polluters and felt that they should be the target of the policy and the ones who paid. Some said they did not mind the word ‘tax’ in this context, or the idea of applying a tax to big polluters, as they were the ones, in their view, creating the problem. Many felt that this kind of approach and name made more sense than others. Nearly twice as many participants disliked this name as liked it, however, because of the focus on big polluters, with participants in a number of groups stressing that the message and policy need to be broader than this because everyone was contributing to the problem and had a role to play in the effort to reduce emissions. A number of participants also found this name to be negative or counterproductive by pointing the finger at certain polluters.

Raising Taxes on Companies with High Carbon Emissions

As with Taxing Big Polluters, relatively few placed this in their top one or two choices. Those who liked it tended to be more informed regarding how and to whom the policy applies, and liked the clarity provided by this phrase with its emphasis on companies versus consumers. These participants felt that this phrase was the best and most complete description of how the policy works. About twice as many disliked it as liked it, however, because they found it to be too long and unwieldly for a name and did not like the emphasis on raising taxes on companies. Some felt this was anti-corporate and could have negative impacts on the willingness of companies to support or comply with the policy, and that it could dissuade foreign companies from investing in Canada.

Penalizing Those Who Pollute More

Very few liked this phrase. Participants were overwhelmingly more likely to dislike it, generating the greatest number of dislikes of any option on the list. What participants seemed to object to most was the perceived negativity of the phrase and the word ‘penalize’, in particular. Participants described this phrase using words like “punitive,” and “divisive”.

Perceived Goals and Outcomes of the Policy

Following the naming exercise, participants were asked what they thought the main goal should be of a strategy that puts a price on pollution. A wide range of responses were given. Most fundamentally, many said it should be about reducing emissions and tackling climate change. Participants felt that the goal should be changing behaviours and getting everyone to do their part, which involved everything from raising public awareness and establishing new norms to holding companies accountable, developing new technologies and green energy sources, and transitioning the economy. These types of comments were made to general agreement in most groups. Not everyone shared these views. Some reiterated their opposition to the policy, dismissing it, variously, as a tax grab, unnecessary, or ineffectual.

Asked directly if they felt this policy would be likely to reduce Canada’s overall carbon emissions, responses were mixed. Some were hopeful, while acknowledging that it would be tough; most felt that it would take time and require big changes in behaviour, along with significant advancements in technology and considerable costs. Others were more skeptical, largely for the same reasons, feeling that public support, technology, and the commitment from companies were currently inadequate. Some were unsure and did not feel educated enough to judge or wanted to see more evidence that the government’s plan was feasible. A few felt strongly that the policy would not work and dismissed it as a "tax grab" that would hurt the economy and drive up prices for consumers. Some felt that the policy was not tough enough and that the price needed to be higher to force the kind of emissions reductions required. Some felt it was a start and might stabilize emissions, at least.

Most agreed that the public needs more information on this initiative and more education, tools, and support to make the kind of behaviour changes required to reduce overall emissions. Most also agreed that industry needs to be monitored and overseen to ensure that it follows through.

Participants were provided with some background on the federal government’s pledge to reach a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. They were told that it included a national price on carbon pollution, phasing out coal-fired electricity, cutting emissions from vehicles and trucks, and reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.

There was very low awareness of this commitment and most were unfamiliar with the concept of “net-zero”. Asked what they thought the term meant, many assumed it meant zero emissions. Only a few understood ‘net’ to mean that some kind of deductions or offsets would be subtracted from total emissions to achieve a balance of zero.

The following explanation was provided for clarity:

“Net-zero means Canada’s total GHG emissions are balanced by actions that remove an equivalent amount of emissions from the air. Such actions could include planting new trees, carbon capture and storage, and buying carbon credits.”

Participants were asked if they felt that a 30-year time span was appropriate for achieving this net-zero goal. Responses were mixed. Some were unsure. Some felt this might not be enough time, while others thought it was too long, given the urgency of climate change. Asked whether they thought it was possible for Canada to achieve this goal by 2050, responses were similarly mixed.

Among those who were doubtful, many pointed to continued debate and disagreement on the goals and means for achieving carbon reductions. They felt that the public is resistant to change and lacks the tools and information needed to support the effort. These participants pointed to the economic costs, reliance on oil and gas, and the enormity of the challenge – for individuals, industry and society as a whole. They felt that industry is resistant and unlikely to comply, and that the technology required to achieve net zero emissions is “not available yet”. Some pointed to the lack of progress so far or our collective inability to solve issues that, unlike emissions reductions, have broad support, such as improving access to healthcare. Some felt that longer-term government strategies were generally not feasible, given our electoral system.

Many were simply unsure if the net-zero goal was possible, for the same reasons mentioned above. Some felt it was possible if we all pulled together and made the effort, but unlikely in the absence of a big shift in behaviours and attitudes.

Others were more optimistic. They felt that a shift in attitudes and behaviour was already underway and that most had accepted the necessity of reducing carbon emissions and transitioning the economy. They felt that public pressure was being brought to bear on industry, which was already engaged in carbon reduction initiatives and the investments needed to support it. Some pointed to the economic advantages and benefits of making the shift to new technology and a low carbon economy, such as the creation of new sectors and jobs. A few were excited about the possibilities of pursuing a “stretch target” and mobilizing around that goal, with scientists, industry and government working together to advance human accomplishment - the way they did in the 1960s, one said, to some enthusiasm by others, when the goal was to send astronauts to the moon.

Regardless of where they stood on Canada’s likelihood of achieving net-zero by 2050, most agreed this was a necessary effort, requiring broad-based support and concerted effort by everyone. Many liked the idea of “net-zero” and felt that it was far more practical and achievable than simply reducing emissions and attempting to reach targets without offsets.

Asked whether the reduction of carbon emissions should take priority over the growth of the economy, few thought so. There were one or two participants in each group who felt that it should, and in a couple of groups, such as the men’s groups in both Winnipeg and Trois-Rivières, most agreed that protecting the environment is essential to the economy. Many felt that we can and should do both, and that shifting the economy to a more environmentally-sustainable model offered economic benefits and would spur investments in the technology required.

They understood that there would be some inherent trade-offs but did not perceive it as a forced choice between one or the other. Some others, however, were very strongly in favour of supporting the economy, no matter what, especially in the men’s group in Edmonton and the women’s group in Abbotsford. And many felt that, all things considered, Canada cannot lose sight of economic imperatives. In a couple of groups participants argued that if the economy suffers due to actions taken to reduce emissions, and people lose jobs and have to start worrying about subsistence issues, we will lose both the capacity and willingness to tackle environmental issues.

Perceived Impacts of the Transition

When asked about it, many said they had concerns about moving swiftly away from traditional energy sources such as oil and natural gas to alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. In most groups participants voiced concerns about the impacts on the economy, industry, and jobs, especially in Edmonton and Sydney. Many felt that we did not yet have the technology or alternatives sufficiently developed to support this transition and fuel the economy or provide for personal energy needs. Some raised concerns about the environmental impact of green energy sources not being fully understood or factored into the equation, referencing toxins in batteries, windmills generating noise and killing birds, and the emissions associated with construction of solar panels, for instance.

Many were concerned that the public did not yet have the tools or support needed to undertake the changes required without significant cost, or disruption to their current way of life. Some downplayed or pushed back against these concerns, arguing that alternative energy sources are, indeed, much better on balance, stressing the need to move swiftly away from reliance on oil and gas, and underscoring the economic opportunities this represents. Despite some debate on these points, however, most agreed that moving swiftly to transition the economy will require considerable effort and investments by all actors, and significant support and leadership from government to assist with the changes required.

Asked if they were concerned about the impact of a swift transition from fossil fuels on their lives and communities, many said they were. Most commonly, participants were concerned about the impacts on jobs and the cost of living. Household heating and transportation costs were mentioned by many. In Winnipeg, participants stressed that this would be particularly hard on people and communities in the North already struggling with high costs. The expense of electric vehicles (EVs) and lack of infrastructure, in particular, were mentioned in a number of groups, as was the expense for households in moving toward greater energy efficiency and new sources of energy, requiring new investments. Many wanted to know if government would help subsidize some of the costs and felt that both government and industry needed to help make it easier for people to make the transition.

In terms of the impact on communities, many were concerned that economic disruption and increased costs and unemployment would have a universally negative effect, reducing the money available for infrastructure, social programs and government services, across the board. In Edmonton, many felt that the impact on the economy and communities in Alberta would be dire. In Winnipeg, as well, participants in the women’s group felt that the transition would hit Alberta quite hard, negatively affecting their own province and others that rely on equalization payments (payments they believed came from Alberta). In Trois-Rivières there was some concern that wind turbines would change the scenery and harm tourism.

In most groups there were participants with more positive outlooks concerning a swift move to alternative energy sources as a response to climate change. They felt that the shift would create new sectors and businesses, new investments in research, development and innovation, and new jobs and technologies. Some stressed that we do not have a choice, and that it was better to pay the economic price of progress than to pay the price for doing nothing and allowing environmental deterioration to harm the economy, our way of life, and human health.

Behaviour Change

Asked if they would personally be willing to change their behaviour to help Canada achieve its net-zero goal, many said they would, without reservation. Some said they already had changed their behaviour, by getting rid of second cars, buying more energy efficient appliances or fuel-efficient cars, or reducing energy uses in other ways. Some referenced the welfare of their children and grandchildren, or future generations, as the big motivators for supporting the effort to reduce emissions. Most others said they would be willing to make changes if more tools and support were offered by government, including financial incentives and information and tips about what to do and what the benefits were.

Some said it depended on what was required and whether it was “doable” without sacrificing their wellbeing and the welfare of their families. Some wanted to know more about the government’s plan in order to be convinced that it would accomplish its goals, and that their efforts would be worthwhile. Some participants were more resistant or opposed to making personal changes because they lacked confidence in the ability of the government’s plan to accomplish its stated goals and felt that the costs to them would be too high. A few felt that Canada’s effort would not make a difference because other countries, especially the big polluters, were not sufficiently in agreement.

Evaluation

Asked how they would evaluate progress toward the goal of net-zero, many were unsure. Some felt it was beyond the scope of their understanding, while others were skeptical about the feasibility of effectively evaluating and monitoring progress. Among those with ideas, many said they would want to see updates on progress in the news from independent sources based on scientific data and comparative studies over time. Many said they would not trust the data offered by government.

Most wanted to see actions from government, and a wide range of examples were given. Some wanted to see an agreed upon plan in place, and all levels of government working together. Others said they wanted to see a commitment of funds in new technology, green energy, public transit, electric vehicle infrastructure and other forms of energy efficiency. Some agreed that government should be taking the lead and providing information to the public on what it was doing to reduce its own footprint. Some wanted to see more “clear and concise” information from government about goals and targets, as well as incentives being made available to the public and more high-profile public education programs aimed at supporting the goal of emissions reductions. More recycling programs were mentioned, as were more regulation of industry and initiatives like restricting or banning the use of plastics.

Others felt that the best evidence of progress would be seeing or hearing about broad societal changes taking place, including more uptake of electric vehicles and solar energy by consumers, more investment by industry in green energy and technology, and more organizations moving toward sustainable models of operation. Some also said they would expect to hear about improvements to the environment, including less pollution, more trees being planted, and healthier fisheries and wildlife, and less about disasters, rising temperatures and negative effects on the North.

Few had heard about nature-based solutions in the context of fighting climate change. Those who said they had heard this term struggled to explain it with any accuracy or confidence, beyond reference to trees. Most understood or quickly grasped that trees cleaned the air and converted C02 to oxygen, acting as a carbon sink.

For clarity, the following description was read in all groups:

Nature-based solutions and maintaining natural environment are ways to protect biodiversity and provide wildlife habitat protection, promote climate resilience and provide leisure and economic opportunities. Solutions such as planting trees and protecting ecosystems are a win-win as they support biodiversity and mitigate climate change.

While most liked the idea of nature-based solutions, based on the explanation provided, and grasped it on a surface level, most participants struggled to understand how this worked in practice. Few could expound on the examples or explanation provided. Many were confused about how to bring it back to climate change action, specifically, especially with regard to wetlands and biodiversity, which were discussed in depth as two examples. Even after this discussion, most only understood the role that trees played in reducing carbon in the air.

That said, most felt that Canada should invest more in nature-based solutions as part of a larger plan to address climate change. Participants felt, overall, that this made sense, or was at least worth trying. There was not overwhelming support for this, however. Many felt they needed more information. A few were concerned about costs and effectiveness. And many cautioned that this should not be viewed as an alternative to harder-to-achieve and more fundamental solutions, such as reducing emissions and energy use, transitioning to cleaner energy sources, and investing in new technology.

Most had not previously heard of the Frontier Mine. Participants were provided with the following description before being asked their opinions about it:

“The Frontier Mine, which was first proposed in 2011, would be the largest oil sands mine in history if approved by the federal government. This project could create as many as 7,500 new construction jobs in Alberta, but it would also be a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and could jeopardize Canada’s ability to meet international commitments to reduce pollution.”

Based on the description above, participants were asked if the federal government should approve the project, reject the project, or approve it only if there were commitments made by the company to ensure the environmental impact was limited.

Response was mixed. There was widespread opposition in Trois-Rivières and wariness in Windsor, with many there undecided and most offering tepid acceptance, provided commitments and other safeguards were in place. With all participants in Edmonton supporting the project, however (all of the women stipulated conditions, and many of the men said it should go head no matter what), most participants, overall, said the federal government should approve the project. Economic benefits and jobs were the reasons given. Many felt that a balance between economic and environmental interests could be achieved, with sufficient effort and oversight.

For many who supported approval of the project, most felt it should go ahead not only with assurances from the company but strict safety regulations in place and enforcement from government. Some were cynical about trusting industry to police itself, especially in Windsor. Participants were concerned not just about emissions but safety, in general, including contamination of the land and water. Many felt that the company should be required to invest in technology to reduce the GHGs resulting from the project, and, some said, in offsets to achieve “net-zero”. Many felt that the company should be making the investments required to mitigate negative effects, and that the role of the government should be restricted to oversight.

Among those who opposed the project or were undecided, most felt that such a large mine and the emissions it was expected to produce were a move in the wrong direction, and both counterproductive and contradictory, given the federal government’s pledge to reduce emissions. In Trois-Rivières, some felt that if jobs were the issue, people should move to areas where labour is needed, such as their own, and that it would be far better for investments to be made, and jobs created, in sustainable industries and technology that provide solutions to pollution.

Told that some experts have questioned whether the mine would be able to generate enough revenue to justify the costs of constructing it, participants were asked if this affected their opinion about whether the mine should be built. Some said yes, and it clearly raised concern about the project, especially in Windsor, but it also created some push back by others about never knowing what the future holds, especially with respect to the price of oil. Many in Edmonton felt that the company would not go ahead if the project was not economically viable.

Many agreed, when asked, that it was possible for the federal government to reduce emissions and protect the environment, on the one hand, while also approving this project. The key, most said, was “balance”. Many believed that the environmental costs of this project could be offset through measures like investing in renewable energy, funding green initiatives, undertaking tree planting and making industry pay. Assurances that this would happen did make a number of participants feel better about the project, but most wanted the company, and not government, to pay for this.

Participants in Trois-Rivières were the exception. No one there believed the federal government could protect the environment while approving this mine. Even those who supported it felt it was a trade-off. Most felt approval would be extremely damaging to the environment and would signal that the government was not committed to reducing emissions.

Participants were asked how they identified the Government of Canada as the source of information in communications encountered in various channels – from paper documents and billboards, to online, television and radio – and whether or not it was clear to them when they were looking at Government of Canada communications.

In a few groups, the question triggered comments about general concerns trusting the legitimacy of information purported to be from an authoritative source, such as the federal government. Many, unaided, said they were sensitive to fraud, especially in communications by phone, email and text, with a number of participants citing phone scams where callers purported to be from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) as an example of fraudulent communications. Some said they were more likely to trust Government of Canada communications encountered in the mail, and delivered by Canada Post, or on television and radio.

Beyond these initial concerns with fraud, most participants said Government of Canada communications are, in their experience, clearly identified and recognizable as such. Many mentioned a “logo” and the flag, in particular, included in the wordmark. In television and radio ads, many said, the Canadian Government was clearly identified as the sponsor in the voice-over, with some referencing a recognizable female voice or the phrase “this message is brought to you by the Government of Canada”. Beyond some initial references to the CRA phone scams, no one could cite any examples of instances where they questioned whether or not the communications they received or saw was from the Government of Canada.

Once shown the “Canada” wordmark, everyone recognized it. Some commented on the “recognizable font”, in addition to the flag that many recalled unaided. All had seen the symbol across a wide range of communications and media. Participants referenced signs in front of federal government buildings, army bases, and national parks, or in Service Canada and Canada Post offices, as well as at borders and in airports. They mentioned seeing the symbol in their passports, on EI cheques, and tax returns, and on the CRA website. Some mentioned seeing the wordmark on the side of vehicles belonging to specific Government departments such as Correctional Service Canada or the Canadian Forest Service (Natural Resources Canada), and in emails and letters.

Participants were asked what the symbol meant to them, in general. While a few associated it with the executive branch of government, most said it stood for Canada and the institution of the federal government. Participants used works like official, authoritative, trusted, important or serious to describe it. Some associated it with patriotism and power, or with helpfulness and safety.

Asked what the symbol meant to them personally, participants provided a wide range of extremely positive and emotional responses. The wordmark, most commonly, evoked feelings of pride and gratitude. It denoted home, “my country” and a sense of belonging. Many associated it with travel and positive recognition abroad. Participants offered up adjectives like beautiful, freedom, and strength. Some referenced “true north, strong and free” from the Canadian anthem. Peacefulness and diversity were mentioned. Safety was also a strong personal association, in addition to being mentioned as a general association. For some, the symbol was associated with money received from government, or, more negatively, with money owed to CRA.

Most felt that the Government of Canada used this symbol in its communications and information to clearly identify the source, and convey that communications were official, sanctioned, and approved, as well as trustworthy and authoritative. Some felt that the symbol was used to promote unity across the country or raise awareness of the federal government’s activities and importance in people’s lives.

Most participants, felt that the federal government should use this wordmark in all of its official communications, whether in front of federal building and properties, on the sides of vehicles, or on its websites and in its advertising and offices, much the way they did presently.

It was clear from most of the commentary that participants did place a great deal of trust in this wordmark and on communications coming from the federal government in which it was included. Asked about it directly, however, many raised concerns, again, about fraud and whether or not one can trust any information today, especially online and via texts and emails, when digital technology has made fraud so easy. A few also had negative comments and concerns about the Canada symbol being used by governments to promote partisan policies and objectives, although no specific examples were provided. That said, most participants indicated that they do, on balance, have confidence in the credibility of official information from the Government of Canada when they saw this symbol attached to it.

Recruitment Specifications Summary

• Total of 12 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?

PROMPT AS NEEDED:

• Have you seen, read or heard anything about the plane crash in Iran?
  • Have you heard anything about how the Government of Canada has responded?
    • Do you think the government has responded appropriately?
  • What else, if anything, should the Government of Canada be doing to address the situation?

GC PRIORITIES (20 minutes) ASK IN WINDSOR, TROIS-RIVIERES, SYDNEY

• IF NOT RAISED IN GC NEWS: Have you heard, read or seen anything about the recent Throne Speech outlining the priorities of the federal government for the new Parliament?
• Based on what you may have seen, read or heard recently, what do you think will be the top priorities of the Government of Canada over the next year or two?
  • MODERATOR TO ASK EVEN IF UNAWARE OF THRONE SPEECH/UNABLE TO IDENTIFY TOP PRIORITIES: What do you think should be the top priority of the Government of Canada?

HANDOUT:

• The following is a list of priorities that the Government of Canada pledged to implement in the recent Throne Speech on December 5th. I want you to circle the three that are the most important to you personally and put an ‘x’ beside anything on the list that you think the Government of Canada should not do.
• Banning all assault rifles in Canada
• Conserving and protecting 25% of Canada’s land and 25% of Canada’s oceans by 2025
• Eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves by 2021
• Ensuring every Canadian has access to a family doctor.
• Implementing a price on pollution on every province that refuses to implement their own
• Implementing a universal Pharmacare program to reduce the cost of prescriptions
• Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15/hour
• Lowering taxes for the middle class
• Planting 2 billion trees in Canada to clean the air
• Reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050
• Reducing the cost of cellphone bills by 25%
• HAVE EACH RESPONDENT LIST THEIR CIRCLED OPTIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY CHOSE THE ONE THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT TO THEM. ASK PARTICIPANTS TO PUT AN * BESIDE THEIR MOST IMPORTANT ONE
• Did any of you put an ‘x’ beside a priority that you thought the Government of Canada should not do? Why?
• Generally speaking, do you think the Government will be able to complete all of these priorities in the next few years?
  • Which priorities, if any, do you think it will be difficult for the government to complete? Why?
• Thinking back to the item that you chose as the most important to you, how will you evaluate whether the Government is taking action to complete the priority? What specific steps or actions would reassure you that the Government is working towards achieving this goal/priority?

LOCAL CHALLENGES (15 minutes) ASK IN WINDSOR, TROIS-RIVIERES, SYDNEY

• 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 changes have you seen in [LOCATION] over the last 5-10 years?
  • And, what, if any, has been the impact of those changes?
    • PROBE FOR: impact on economy, socio-cultural, etc.

CARBON PRICING (30 minutes) ALL LOCATIONS

• 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?
• Has anyone heard about the Government of Canada introducing a national price on pollution?
  • What have you heard?
  • Can you explain to me how the price on pollution is collected? What happens to the revenue?
  • Some people refer to this as a “carbon tax”. Have you heard this term before?
  • Is there anything else you’ve heard about the carbon tax?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED:

In 2016 the Government of Canada announced a plan to ensure a price on carbon pollution across the country, giving each province and territory the flexibility to develop a system that works for their circumstances, provided it meets the federal standard. In the five provinces that currently do not meet this standard – Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick*, and Alberta – the federal pricing system is currently in place. The Government of Canada has conducted annual carbon pricing benchmark assessments and has found that British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Northwest Territories all have carbon pollution pricing systems of their own that fully meet the federal benchmark stringency requirements for 2020.

All proceeds collected from the federal system in [PROVINCE] will stay in [PROVINCE] – 90% will be returned directly to residents in the form of an incentive payment, with a typical household receiving about (ON: $448; MB: $486; SK: $809; AB: $888). Individuals will be able to claim these amounts through their 2019 personal income tax returns. 10% will go to small businesses, hospitals, and schools.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE MODERATOR:

• Le projet de loi C-69, récemment adopté par le gouvernement fédéral, renforce les exigences en matière d’évaluation environnementale et de consultation des collectivités locales avant la construction de projets d’infrastructure à grande échelle. Alors que certaines personnes disent que cette loi accorde d’importantes protections pour assurer que les communautés locales soient au fait des risques environnementaux posés par les nouveaux projets et qu’elles aient leur mot à dire sur leur réalisation, d’autres disent qu’elle crée trop de paperasserie et qu’elle risque de ralentir ou de stopper la mise en œuvre d’importants projets, y compris des pipelines.

• 1. a trading system for large industry, known as the output-based pricing system; and
• 2. 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 5 provinces), the value of the incentive will be higher than the costs associated with the price on pollution.
• The * indicates that for New Brunswick, the federal fuel charge is set to stand down as of April 1, 2020.

HANDOUT: Now that you have heard a bit about the goals and implementation of this policy, I’m going to give you a handout that has some potential names or phrases that could be used to describe it. I want you to put a #1 beside the name you like the best, a #2 beside your second choice and an ‘x’ beside any names that you dislike for this policy.

• --Carbon Pricing
• --Carbon Tax
• --Putting a Price on Pollution
• --Taxing Big Polluters
• --Penalizing Those Who Pollute More
• --Taxing Pollution
• --Raising Taxes on Companies With High Carbon Emissions

Have each participant read out their first choice and say why they chose that option.

• Were there any names or phrases that you put an ‘x’ beside?
• What do you think should be the main goal of a strategy that puts a price on pollution? Why?
• Do you feel like this policy is likely to reduce Canada’s overall carbon emissions? Why or why not?

NET-ZERO 2050 (15 minutes) ALL LOCATIONS

I would now like to discuss a little more about Canada’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions.

READ TO PARTICIPANTS:

In December 2019, Canada committed to a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Actions would include: a national price on carbon pollution, phasing-out of coal-fired electricity, cutting emissions from vehicles and trucks, and reducing methane from the oil and gas sector.

What do you think net-zero means?

• • Does it mean no emissions?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED

Net-zero means Canada’s total GHG emissions are balanced by actions that remove an equivalent amount of emissions from the air. Such actions could include planting new trees, carbon capture and storage, buying carbon credits, etc.

• Canada has committed to achieving this goal in 30 years. Do you feel this is an appropriate amount of time?
  • (Show of hands) Do you think it is possible for Canada to achieve this goal by 2050?
  • Why or why not?
• Should the reduction of carbon emissions take priority over the growth of the economy?
  • Why or why not?
• What concerns do you have about Canada’s plan to move swiftly away from traditional energy sources such as oil/natural gas to alternative energy sources such as wind and solar?
• Will this have any impact in your life? How?
• Will this have any impact in your community? How?
• (Show of hands) Would you personally be willing to change your behavior to help Canada achieve this goal?
  • Why or why not?
• How would you be able to tell whether Canada is on track to reach the net zero goal? Why/why not?

NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS (15 minutes) ALL LOCATIONS

• Have you heard of the term nature-based solution in the context of fighting climate change?
  • What have you heard?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED

Nature-based solutions and maintaining natural environment are ways to protect biodiversity and provide wildlife habitat protection, promote climate resilience and provide leisure and economic opportunities. Solutions such as planting trees and protecting ecosystems are a win-win as they support biodiversity and mitigate climate change.

• Can you name any ways that nature-based solutions help to us to adapt to - or mitigate the effects of - climate change?
  • What role do forests and trees play in combatting climate change? Probe for: absorbed Co2, stop erosion
  • What role do wetlands play in flooding? Probe for: absorb excess water in spring floods
  • What role does biodiversity play in agriculture? Probe for: bees pollinate, biodiversity gives balance to ecosystems
• (Show of hands) Do you think the country should be investing more in nature-based solutions that help fight climate change?
  • Why or why not?

WESTERN ISSUES (20 minutes) ASK IN ABBOTSFORD, EDMONTON, WINNIPEG

HANDOUT:

• I want to write down three words on a piece of paper that describe the current relationship between the Government of Canada and your province.
  • PROBE: Pick one of the words you wrote down and explain why you chose that word.
  • Overall, would you say the Government of Canada treats your province fairly or unfairly? Why?
• What could the federal government do to demonstrate that it is in touch with the concerns of people in your province?

Next, I am going to briefly discuss several topics that have recently been topics of debate that relate to Western Canada:

• Have you seen, read or heard anything recently about the TMX pipeline project?
  • To the best of your knowledge, has construction started on the pipeline?
  • Do you think it is likely that the pipeline will be built on schedule?
• Have you heard anything about federal government Bills C-69 or C-48?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED

Bill C-69 is a recently enacted federal government law that strengthens the requirements for environmental assessments and consultations with local communities before large scale infrastructure projects can be built. While some say this law provides important protections to ensure local communities know the environmental risks of new projects and have a say in whether they go forward, others say it creates too much red tape and may slow or stop important projects, including pipelines from going forward.

Bill C-48 is also another recently enacted federal law, which prevents oil tankers from transporting large amounts of oil to and from the North Coast of BC. Some say this law will reduce the risk of oil spills in delicate marine ecosystems, while others worry it will restrict Canada’s ability to export oil to markets overseas by limiting which ports can be used by oil tankers.

• Now that you have heard a bit about both laws, do either of them concern you? Why/why not?
  • What else would you want to know about these bills before deciding whether or not they are necessary? Would you like to see any specific changes to either of these regulations?
• Have you ever heard of the term ‘equalization payments’?
  • IF YES: Can you describe to me how equalization payments work?
  • Based on your knowledge of how equalization payments work, do you think the equalization system should be changed? IF YES: How so?
• Have you heard anything lately about China boycotting the Canadian canola industry?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED

China, which had previously been the largest purchaser of Canadian canola, announced they would stop buying Canadian canola products this March. The federal government has already announced financial support for farmers affected by the boycott.

• Do you think the government should make concessions to China so that China will buy our canola again, retaliate against China by imposing our own sanctions on their products, or continue to financially support farmers while trying to negotiate a solution with China that doesn’t involve concessions or retaliation?
• Out of all the issues we have talked about so far that specifically affect Western Canada, which do you think should be the top priority of the Government of Canada?

FRONTIER MINE (15 minutes) ASK IN WINDSOR, TROIS-RIVIERES AND EDMONTON

• Have you heard, read or seen anything about the proposed Frontier Mine oil sands project north of Fort McMurray?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED

The Frontier Mine, which was first proposed in 2011, would be the largest oil sands mine in history if approved by the federal government. This project could create as many as 7,500 new construction jobs in Alberta, but it would also be a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and could jeopardize Canada’s ability to meet international commitments to reduce pollution.

• Based on this, do you think the federal government should approve the project, reject the project, or approve the project only if there are commitments made by the company to ensure the environmental impact is limited?
  • If you could set conditions that you think the company should meet before proceeding with the oil sands mine, what would they be?
• Recently, based on the current price of oil, some experts have questioned whether the mine would be able to generate enough revenue to justify the costs of constructing it. If true, would this affect your opinion about whether the mine should be built?
• The federal government has made it a priority to reduce emissions and protect the environment. Do you think it is possible for the government to continue to do this and approve this project at the same time? Why or why not?
• Some have suggested that the government could off-set the environmental costs of this project by taking additional measures to clean the environment, such as planting trees, investing in renewable energy or making big emitters pay fees that would fund green initiatives. Would you feel differently about the Frontier Mine project if the federal government pledged to do some of these additional measures upon approving the project?

CANADA WORDMARK (15 minutes) ASK IN SYDNEY, ABBOTSFORD AND WINNIPEG

• When you are looking at information from the Government of Canada (either online, on paper, on billboards, on TV, etc.), how do you know it is from the Government of Canada?
  • Probe: Is it clear to you that you are looking at Government of Canada information? Why? Why not?
  • If not, probe: Can you give me an example of an instance when you weren’t sure?
• What about when you hear information from the Government of Canada, like on the radio for instance, how do you know it’s from the Government of Canada?
  • Probe: where do you hear this? Radio? TV?

HANDOUT: Show the “Canada” wordmark

• Have you seen this symbol before?
• Where have you seen this symbol?
• I want to ask you what this symbol means in general and also what it means to you personally:
  • So, first: what does this symbol mean in general? Anything else?
    • If not mentioned, probe: do you think that the wordmark represents the Government of Canada? Why? Why not?
  • Ok, now what does this symbol mean to you personally?
    • Probe if necessary:
      • What are you most likely to associate this symbol with? How does it make you feel? Why?
      • Does the symbol represent positive or negative feelings/ideas? Why?
• Why do you think the Government of Canada uses this symbol in its communications/information?
• Where do you expect to see or hear this symbol? Where should this wordmark be shown?
• If TRUST/CREDIBILITY/CONFIDENCE not mentioned yet, ask: When you see this symbol, do you trust the information that comes along with it? Do you have confidence that the information is credible? Why? Why not?

CONCLUSION (5 minutes)

GUIDE DU MODÉRATEUR – janvier 2020

INTRODUCTION (10 minutes) INTRODUCTION (10 minutes)

NOUVELLES DU GC (5 minutes) INTRODUCTION (10 minutes)

• Ces derniers temps, qu’avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu au sujet du gouvernement du Canada ? SONDER SI NÉCESSAIRE :
  • Avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet d’un écrasement d’avion survenu en Iran ?
    • Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit quant à la façon dont le gouvernement du Canada a réagi ?
      • Pensez-vous que le gouvernement a réagi de manière appropriée ?
    • Le cas échéant, quoi d’autre est-ce que le gouvernement du Canada devrait faire pour traiter la situation ?

PRIORITÉS DU GC (20 minutes) DEMANDEZ À WINDSOR, TROIS-RIVIÈRES ET SYDNEY

• SI CELA N’A PAS ÉTÉ SOULEVÉ DANS NOUVELLES DU GC : Avez-vous entendu, lu ou vu quoi que ce soit au sujet du récent discours du Trône énonçant les priorités du gouvernement fédéral pour le nouveau Parlement ?
• D’après ce que vous avez vu, lu ou entendu récemment, quelles seront, selon vous, les principales priorités du gouvernement du Canada au cours des deux prochaines années ?
  • LE MODÉRATEUR DEMANDERA LA QUESTION SUIVANTE, MÊME SI LA PERSONNE N'EST PAS AU COURANT DU DISCOURS DU TRÔNE ET MÊME SI ELLE NE PEUT PAS IDENTIFIER LES PRINCIPALES PRIORITÉS : Selon vous, quelle devrait être la priorité absolue du gouvernement du Canada ?

DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER

Voici une liste des priorités que le gouvernement du Canada s’est engagé à réaliser dans le récent discours du Trône, le 5 décembre dernier. Je vous prie d’encercler les trois qui sont les plus importantes pour vous personnellement et de mettre un « x » à côté de tout élément sur la liste dont vous pensez que le gouvernement du Canada ne devrait pas faire.

• Bannir toutes les armes d’assaut au Canada
• Conserver et protéger 25 % des territoires du Canada et 25 % des océans du Canada d’ici 2025
• Éliminer tous les avis sur la qualité de l’eau potable à long terme dans les réserves des Premières nations d’ici 2021
• S’assurer que chaque Canadienne et chaque Canadien a accès à un médecin de famille
• Imposer un prix sur la pollution à toutes les provinces qui refusent d’adopter leur propre mesure
• Mettre en place un régime universel d’assurance médicaments afin de réduire le coût des médicaments d’ordonnance
• Augmenter le salaire minimum fédéral à 15 $ l’heure
• Réduire les impôts de la classe moyenne
• Planter 2 milliards d’arbres au Canada pour améliorer la qualité de l’air
• Réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre du Canada à un niveau zéro émission nette d'ici 2050
• Réduire de 25 % le coût des factures de téléphone cellulaire

• DEMANDEZ À CHAQUE RÉPONDANTE OU RÉPONDANT D’ÉNUMÉRER LES ÉLÉMENTS QU’ELLE OÙ QU’IL A ENCERCLÉS ET D’EXPLIQUER SON CHOIX QUANT À CELUI QUI LUI IMPORTE LE PLUS. DEMANDEZ AUX PARTICIPANTES ET PARTICIPANTS DE METTRE UN « * » À CÔTÉ DE L’ÉLÉMENT QUI LEUR EST LE PLUS IMPORTANT.
• Y a-t-il quelqu’un parmi vous qui avez mis un « x » à côté d’une priorité dont le gouvernement du Canada ne devrait pas s’occuper selon vous ? Pourquoi ?
• De façon générale, pensez-vous que le gouvernement sera en mesure de réaliser toutes ces priorités au cours des quelques prochaines années ?
  • Quelles priorités, le cas échéant, croyez-vous que le gouvernement ait de la difficulté à réaliser ? Pourquoi ?
• En réfléchissant de nouveau à l’élément que vous aviez choisi comme étant le plus important pour vous, comment allez-vous déterminer si le gouvernement prend effectivement des mesures pour réaliser cette priorité ? Quelles mesures ou actions spécifiques vous donneraient l'assurance que le gouvernement travaille à la réalisation de cet objectif ou de cette priorité ?

DÉFIS À L’ÉCHELLE LOCALE (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ À WINDSOR, TROIS-RIVIÈRES ET SYDNEY

• 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] ?
• Quels changements avez-vous vus à [LIEU] au cours des 5 à 10 dernières années ?
  • Et quel a été, le cas échéant, l’effet de ces changements ?
    • SONDEZ POUR : les répercussions sur l’économie, sur le plan socioculturel, etc.

LA TARIFICATION DU CARBONE (30 minutes) TOUS LES LIEUX

• 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 ?
• Y a-t-il quelqu’un qui a entendu parler de l’introduction, par le gouvernement du Canada, d’un prix national sur la pollution ?
  • Qu’avez-vous entendu ?
  • Pouvez-vous m’expliquer comment le prix sur la pollution est perçu ? Qu’arrive-t-il aux revenus ?
  • Certaines personnes appellent cela une « taxe sur le carbone ». Avez-vous déjà entendu ce terme ?
    • Avez-vous entendu autre chose au sujet de la taxe sur le carbone ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN :

En 2016, le gouvernement du Canada a annoncé un plan visant à assurer la tarification de la pollution par le carbone dans l'ensemble du pays, en donnant à chaque province et territoire la souplesse nécessaire pour élaborer un système qui convient à leur situation, pour autant qu'il respecte la norme fédérale. Dans les cinq provinces qui ne satisfont pas actuellement à cette norme - l'Ontario, la Saskatchewan, le Manitoba, le Nouveau-Brunswick* et l'Alberta - le système de tarification fédéral est actuellement en place. Le gouvernement du Canada a procédé à des évaluations comparatives annuelles de la tarification du carbone et a constaté que la Colombie-Britannique, le Québec, la Nouvelle-Écosse et les Territoires du Nord-Ouest ont tous leur propre système de tarification de la pollution par le carbone qui satisfait pleinement aux exigences de rigueur du modèle fédéral pour 2020.

Tous les produits perçus par le système fédéral en [PROVINCE] resteront en [PROVINCE] - 90 % seront remis directement aux résidents sous forme de paiement incitatif, de sorte qu'un ménage typique recevra environ (ON : 448 $ ; MB : 486 $ ; SK : 809 $ ; AB : 888 $). Les particuliers pourront réclamer ces montants dans leur déclaration de revenus de 2019. Dix pour cent de ces sommes iront à des petites entreprises, des hôpitaux et des 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 :


• Un système d’échange pour les grandes industries qu’on appelle le système de tarification fondé sur le rendement ;
• Une redevance réglementaire sur les combustibles.


• 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 cinq provinces), la valeur de la mesure incitative sera supérieure aux coûts consécutifs aux mesures de tarification de la pollution.
• Le * indique que pour le Nouveau-Brunswick, la redevance fédérale sur le carburant sera réduite à compter du 1er avril 2020.

DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER :

Maintenant que vous avez entendu un peu parler des objectifs et de la mise en œuvre de cette politique, je vais vous remettre un document qui contient de possibles noms ou phrases qui pourraient être utilisés pour la décrire. Je veux que vous mettiez un « 1 » à côté du nom que vous préférez, un « 2 » à côté de votre deuxième choix et un « x » à côté des noms que vous n’aimez pas pour cette politique.

• --Tarification du carbone
• --Taxe sur le carbone
• --Mettre un prix sur la pollution
• --Taxer les grands pollueurs
• --Pénaliser ceux qui polluent davantage
• --Taxer la pollution
• --Augmenter les taxes sur les entreprises émettrices de grandes quantités de carbone

Demandez à chaque participante et participant de lire son premier choix et d’expliquer leur choix d’option.

• Y a-t-il des noms ou des expressions à côté desquels vous avez mis un « x » ?
• Selon vous, quel devrait être le principal objectif d’une stratégie qui met un prix sur la pollution ? Pourquoi ?
• Croyez-vous que cette politique soit susceptible de réduire les émissions globales de carbone au Canada ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?

ZÉRO ÉMISSION NETTE D’ICI 2050 ZÉRO ÉMISSION NETTE D’ICI 2050

J'aimerais maintenant parler un peu plus de l'engagement du Canada à réduire les émissions de carbone.

• À LIRE AUX PARTICIPANTES ET PARTICIPANTS : En décembre 2019, le Canada s’est engagé à atteindre un objectif d’émissions de carbone nettes nulles d’ici 2050. Parmi les initiatives, on retrouve : la tarification de la pollution par le carbone à l’échelle nationale, l’élimination progressive de l’électricité produite par les centrales au charbon, la réduction des émissions des véhicules et des camions ainsi que la diminution du méthane provenant du secteur pétrolier et gazier.

• Que pensez-vous que zéro émission nette signifie ?
  • Est-ce que ça signifie aucune émission?

Description : Le terme « zéro émission nette » signifie que les émissions totales de GES du Canada seront compensées par des mesures qui retireront de l’atmosphère une quantité équivalente d’émissions. Ces mesures pourraient comprendre planter de nouveaux arbres, capter et stocker le carbone, l’achat de crédits de carbone, etc.

• Le Canada s’est engagé à atteindre cet objectif dans 30 ans. Croyez-vous que ce délai soit raisonnable ?
  • (À main levée) Pensez-vous qu’il est possible pour le Canada d’atteindre cet objectif d’ici 2050 ?
  • Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
• Est-ce que la réduction des émissions de carbone devrait avoir la priorité sur la croissance de l’économie ?
  • Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
• Quelles sont vos préoccupations en ce qui concerne le plan du Canada de s’éloigner rapidement des sources d’énergie traditionnelles comme le pétrole et le gaz naturel, pour se tourner vers des sources d’énergie de remplacement comme l’énergie éolienne et solaire ?
• Est-ce que cela aura un impact sur votre vie ? Comment ?
• Est-ce que cela aura un impact dans votre communauté ? Comment ?
• (À main levée) Seriez-vous personnellement prêt à changer votre comportement pour aider le Canada à atteindre cet objectif ?
  • Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
• Comment seriez-vous en mesure de dire si le Canada est sur la bonne voie pour atteindre la cible de zéro émission nette ? Pourquoi/pourquoi pas ?

SOLUTIONS FONDÉES SUR LA NATURE (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ DANS TOUS LES LIEUX

• Avez-vous entendu parler du terme « solutions fondées sur la nature » dans le contexte de la lutte contre le changement climatique ?
  • Qu’avez-vous entendu ?

• ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN : Les solutions fondées sur la nature et le maintien de l’environnement naturel sont des moyens de protéger la biodiversité et d’assurer la protection des habitats fauniques, de promouvoir la résilience au climat et d’offrir des possibilités de loisirs ainsi que des opportunités économiques. Des solutions telles que de planter des arbres et de protéger les écosystèmes sont avantageuses pour tout le monde, car elles soutiennent la biodiversité et atténuent les changements climatiques.

• Pouvez-vous nommer des moyens par lesquels les solutions fondées sur la nature nous aident à nous adapter aux changements climatiques ou à en atténuer les effets ?
  • Quel rôle les forêts et les arbres jouent-ils dans la lutte aux changements climatiques ? Sondez pour : le Co2 absorbé, arrêter l'érosion
  • Quel rôle les zones humides jouent-elles dans les inondations ? Sondez pour : absorber l'excès d'eau lors des crues printanières
  • Quel rôle joue la biodiversité dans l’agriculture ? Sondez pour : les abeilles pollinisent, la biodiversité apporte un équilibre aux écosystèmes
• (À main levée) Pensez-vous que le pays devrait investir davantage dans des solutions fondées sur la nature qui aident à lutter contre les changements climatiques ?
  • Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?

ENJEUX DE L’OUEST (20 minutes) DEMANDER À ABBOTSFORD, EDMONTON, WINNIPEG

DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER :

• Sur une feuille de papier, je vous demanderais d’écrire trois mots qui décrivent la relation actuelle entre le gouvernement du Canada et votre province.
  • SONDER : Choisissez un des mots que vous avez écrits et veuillez m’expliquer pourquoi vous avez choisi ce mot.
  • Dans l’ensemble, diriez-vous que le gouvernement du Canada traite votre province équitablement ou injustement ? Pourquoi ?
• Que pourrait faire le gouvernement fédéral afin de démontrer sa sensibilité aux préoccupations des gens de votre province ?

Maintenant, je vais discuter brièvement de plusieurs sujets qui ont récemment fait l’objet de débats et qui concernent l’Ouest canadien :

• Avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu quelque chose récemment au sujet du projet de pipeline TMX ?
  • Autant que vous sachiez, la construction du pipeline a-t-elle commencé ?
  • Selon vous, est-il probable que la construction du pipeline se réalise dans les délais prévus ?
• Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet des projets de loi C-69 ou C-48 du gouvernement fédéral ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN :

• Le projet de loi C-69, récemment adopté par le gouvernement fédéral, renforce les exigences en matière d’évaluation environnementale et de consultation des collectivités locales avant la construction de projets d’infrastructure à grande échelle. Alors que certaines personnes disent que cette loi accorde d’importantes protections pour assurer que les communautés locales soient au fait des risques environnementaux posés par les nouveaux projets et qu’elles aient leur mot à dire sur leur réalisation, d’autres disent qu’elle crée trop de paperasserie et qu’elle risque de ralentir ou de stopper la mise en œuvre d’importants projets, y compris des pipelines.
• Le projet de loi C-48, récemment adopté par le gouvernement fédéral, empêche les pétroliers de transporter de grandes quantités de pétrole à destination et en provenance de la côte nord de la Colombie-Britannique. Certaines personnes disent que cette loi réduira le risque de déversement de pétrole dans les écosystèmes marins délicats, tandis que d’autres craignent qu’elle ne limite la capacité du Canada à exporter du pétrole vers les marchés étrangers en limitant les ports que peuvent utiliser des pétroliers.

• Maintenant que vous avez un peu entendu parler des deux lois, est-ce que l’une ou l’autre vous préoccupe ? Pourquoi ?
  • Que voudriez-vous savoir de plus au sujet de ces projets de loi, avant de décider s’ils sont nécessaires ou non ? Souhaitez-vous voir des changements bien précis à l’un ou l’autre de ces règlements ?
• Avez-vous déjà entendu parler du terme « paiements de péréquation » ?
  • SI OUI : Pouvez-vous me décrire comment fonctionnent les paiements de péréquation ?
  • Selon ce que vous savez du fonctionnement des paiements de péréquation, pensez-vous que le système de péréquation devrait être modifié ? SI OUI : De quelle façon ?
• Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit dernièrement au sujet du boycottage de l’industrie canadienne du canola par la Chine ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN :

La Chine, qui était auparavant le plus gros acheteur de canola canadien, a annoncé qu’elle cesserait d’acheter des produits de canola canadiens dès le mois de mars. Le gouvernement fédéral a déjà annoncé une aide financière aux agriculteurs touchés par le boycottage.

• Pensez-vous que le gouvernement devrait accorder des concessions à la Chine pour que celle-ci achète de nouveau notre canola, qu’il réplique en imposant ses propres sanctions sur leurs produits, ou bien qu’il continue à soutenir financièrement les agriculteurs tout en essayant de négocier une solution avec la Chine qui ne comporterait ni concessions ni représailles ?
• De tous les enjeux dont nous avons discuté jusqu’à maintenant et qui touchent particulièrement l’Ouest canadien, selon vous, lequel devrait être la priorité absolue du gouvernement du Canada ?

MINE FRONTIER (15 minutes) DEMANDEZ À WINDSOR, TROIS-RIVIÈRES ET EDMONTON

• Avez-vous entendu, lu ou vu quoi que ce soit au sujet du projet de sables bitumineux de la Mine Frontier proposé au nord de Fort McMurray ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENTS, AU BESOIN :

La mine Frontier, qui fut proposée pour la première fois en 2011, serait la plus grande mine de sables bitumineux de l’histoire si le gouvernement fédéral l’approuvait. Ce projet pourrait créer jusqu’à 7 500 nouveaux emplois dans le secteur de la construction en Alberta, mais il constituerait également une source importante d’émissions de gaz à effet de serre et pourrait ainsi compromettre la capacité du Canada à respecter ses engagements internationaux en matière de réduction de la pollution.

• En fonction de cela, pensez-vous que le gouvernement fédéral devrait approuver le projet, le rejeter ou l’approuver seulement si l’entreprise s’engage à limiter l’impact environnemental ?

Si vous pouviez établir des conditions que vous estimez que l’entreprise devrait respecter avant de poursuivre l’exploitation de la mine de sables bitumineux, quelles seraient-elles ?

• Certains experts se sont récemment demandé, en fonction du prix actuel pour le pétrole, si la mine serait en mesure de générer suffisamment de revenus pour justifier les coûts de sa construction. Si cela s’avérait exact, est-ce que votre opinion sur la pertinence de construire la mine serait affectée ?
• Le gouvernement fédéral s’est donné comme priorité de réduire les émissions et de protéger l’environnement. Selon vous, est-il possible pour le gouvernement de le faire tout en approuvant ce projet ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
• Selon certaines personnes, le gouvernement pourrait atténuer les coûts environnementaux de ce projet en prenant des mesures supplémentaires pour assainir l’environnement, tel que planter des arbres, investir dans l’énergie renouvelable ou encore imposer aux grands émetteurs des frais qui permettraient de financer des initiatives vertes. Seriez-vous d’un avis différent, quant au projet de la Mine Frontier, si le gouvernement fédéral s’engageait à prendre certaines de ces mesures supplémentaires dès l’approbation du projet ?

MOT-SYMBOLE « CANADA » (15 minutes) MOT-SYMBOLE « CANADA » (15 minutes)

• Lorsque vous voyez de l’information émanant du gouvernement du Canada (en ligne, sur papier, sur des panneaux d’affichage, à la télévision, etc.), comment savez-vous qu’elle provient du gouvernement du Canada ?
  • Sonder : Est-il clair pour vous que vous regardez de l’information du gouvernement du Canada ? Pourquoi ?
  • Si la réponse est non, sonder : Pouvez-vous me donner un exemple d’un cas où vous n’étiez pas certain ?
• Et lorsque vous entendez de l’information émanant du gouvernement du Canada, à la radio par exemple, comment savez-vous qu’elle provient du gouvernement du Canada ?
  • Sonder : Où avez-vous entendu ceci ? Radio ? Télévision ?

DOCUMENT À DISTRIBUER : Montrer le mot-symbole « Canada »

• Avez-vous déjà vu ce symbole ?
• Où avez-vous vu ce symbole ?
• J’aimerais savoir ce que ce symbole signifie en général et ce qu’il signifie pour vous personnellement.
  • Pour commencer, que signifie ce symbole en général ? Autre chose ?
    • Si ce n’est pas mentionné, sonder : Pensez-vous que le mot-symbole représente le Canada ? Pourquoi ?
  • Bien. Maintenant, que signifie ce symbole pour vous personnellement ?
    • Sonder au besoin :
      • À quoi avez-vous le plus tendance à associer ce symbole ? Quels sentiments suscite-t-il ? Pourquoi ?
      • Ce symbole représente-t-il des impressions/idées positives ou négatives ? Pourquoi ?
• Pourquoi pensez-vous que le gouvernement du Canada utilise ce symbole dans ses communications/échanges d’informations ?
• Où vous attendez-vous à voir ou à entendre ce symbole ? Où ce mot-symbole devrait-il figurer ?
• Si CONFIANCE/CRÉDIBILITÉ/CERTITUDE n’est pas mentionnée, demander : Lorsque vous voyez ce symbole, faites-vous confiance à l’information qui l’accompagne ? Êtes-vous certain que l’information est crédible ? Pourquoi ?

CONCLUSION (5 minutes)