Across locations, there was limited awareness of Government of Canada activity, with many saying they had not seen, read, or heard much about the federal government lately. Quite a few participants, in fact, confessed to a general lack of engagement with public policy issues at the moment, attributed, variously, to summer holidays and distractions, breaks from the news, as well as the upcoming federal election and the tenor of current politics. Political and provincial stories were more top-of-mind, and more readily offered up, appearing indistinguishable to many from federal government stories and issues.

While a number of common topics emerged across all the groups, none were broadly top of mind or dominated initial mentions in any of the groups. Among the issues that were identified, the most common ones included international and trade news, like NAFTA, the current diplomatic and tariff-related disputes with China, and the dispute with the Philippines over a shipment of Canadian garbage, which was viewed as not just a trade and diplomatic issue but an environmental one too.

The ‘carbon tax’ also received some unprompted mentions in those locations where the new federal price on pollution applies (Mississauga, Barrie, Miramichi and Winnipeg), with the exception of the women’s group in Barrie. Climate change came up, more generally, as well, including in Vancouver and Saint-Jérôme, while the TMX pipeline was cited in the Vancouver groups, and the cancellation of Energy East got a top of mind mention from one of the men in Miramichi.

SNC-Lavalin, the most top-of-mind issue during the last cycle of focus groups this past winter, seems to have fallen off the radar for most, with no more than a single mention in about half of the groups, in different locations across the country.

In select locations, there were a few mentions of issues of regional significance. In Ontario, the Bombardier closure in Thunder Bay was identified as a recent story relevant to the federal government. In Miramichi, a new federal payroll centre was mentioned, along with its impact on local employment and housing prices, while in Winnipeg there was mention of federal funding for a local aviation museum.

The recent announcements of a ban on single-use plastics, pharmacare, and re-approval of the TMX were not top-of-mind in any of the groups.

Each participant in these three locations was provided with the following list of broad, over-arching goals for the Government of Canada and asked to select 2 or 3 they thought should be prioritized.

‘Making life more affordable’ was clearly the top priority, selected from the various options:

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

Higher Priorities

Making life more affordable

Selected by nearly twice as many people as the next most popular choice, “making life affordable” was clearly the top priority for participants among the list of possible goals provided. It was chosen by most in Saint-Jérôme and Vancouver, and by all but one person in Winnipeg.

Indeed, the rising cost of living was as a big concern for all participants, and a prevalent theme throughout the groups in every location across the country. Viewing this priority as both personally and socially relevant, participants described it as important to everyone: themselves and others, middle class and low-income households, and economically vulnerable groups, from seniors living on pensions to young adults just starting out.

Participants referenced a long list of challenges related to this priority, including the cost of housing, the price of gas and basics like groceries, as well as increasing post-secondary fees and mounting student debt - all of this compounded by what many described as stagnating wages and an increasingly difficult job market. Most felt that more and more people are living pay cheque to pay cheque, and on the edge of poverty, as a result.

Asked what government might do to deliver on this priority, participants suggested tax breaks and additional benefits directed at both middle class and low-income families, investments in jobs, industry and education, an increase to the minimum wage, and more efforts to address the sky rocketing cost of housing.

Improving Canadians’ quality of life

Selected most prominently by women, this priority was seen to encompass both economic and social well-being, and was widely supported for that reason. Many participants felt that a focus on ‘quality of life’ by government would include not only income-related and pocket book issues, of the kind described above, but others like health and healthy lifestyles, for instance, as well as access to good, affordable food, protection for the environment, and the ability to spend time with children and family. A number of participants assumed that that this priority implies a greater commitment to investing in social programs and services, in particular, which they viewed as extremely important. But while many liked this broader, more comprehensive goal, most felt that government should focus on the more concrete and measurable goal of making life more affordable, thereby enabling Canadians to achieve a better quality of life for themselves. In fact, many who selected this goal also identified affordability as the more pressing and immediate priority for government.

Growing and strengthening the middle class

Selected more often by men than women, participants explained their choice by describing the importance of the middle class to the Canadian economy and tax base, noting that its size and strength is both a barometer and determinant of the country’s prosperity. Most believed that the middle class is getting squeezed by a confluence of rising prices, stagnating wages, and the difficulty of securing good jobs in today’s economy, as mentioned above, and that income inequality and poverty are growing, which are perceived as negative for society as a whole, not just for those affected. Some felt that strengthening the middle class is a first-order priority, much like affordability, and that if government takes care of this broad and important segment of the population, “the rest will follow.” Specific suggestions for what government might do to deliver on this priority included tax breaks for the middle class, support for union jobs, as well as investments in training and the manufacturing sector.

Improving Canadians’ living standards

Most viewed this goal as strongly related to affordability and largely, but not exclusively, economic in scope. There was a sense that it also encompasses many of the same non-economic issues mentioned in relation to improving quality of life, which many viewed as the most similar or overlapping goal. Some also interpreted this to mean placing a greater emphasis on eliminating poverty and ensuring that everyone can meet minimum standards of living by having access to basics, like affordable housing and healthy food. Possible government actions to support this priority included food programs in schools, additional tax relief and benefits for families in need, as well as many of the same initiatives mentioned in reference to other priorities, like increasing the minimum wage, and investing in education, training, jobs and industry.

Lower Priorities

Improving well-being and ensuring that Canadians are thriving, prosperous, and content were all viewed as important goals and outcomes, with a range of personal, social, and economic dimensions similar to those already mentioned. Of note, quite a few men liked the idea of the federal government championing the goal of “ensuring that Canadians are thriving”. But few felt these lower ranked goals were the most important or appropriate ones for the federal government to be focussed on. The main issue for many, and the reason so few chose these goals as top priorities, was that they all seemed a bit too subjective, quite variable from one person to the next, and hard to measure. Many felt that it’s far better for government to focus on the more concrete issues of affordability, as mentioned above, so that Canadians are enabled and empowered to achieve these broader or more personal outcomes for themselves. In fact, some responded negatively to the idea of the federal government making these kinds of goals a priority, or, in some cases, somewhat paternalistic. In the case of these lower ranked government priorities, many felt that they would follow naturally as outcomes of good government stewardship and policies.

Well-being

The idea of Canadian well-being was clearly important to most participants. When asked to describe what it might mean for the federal government to make this issue a top priority, associations were wide-ranging, including references back to the top priorities identified earlier in each group, namely, greater affordability improved quality of life, and improved living standards, in addition to many of the more specific benefits or anticipated policies and programs associated with them. Issues like the environment and crime and safety were also seen to be encompassed by the concept of ‘well-being’.

Most commonly, however, participants associated ‘well-being’ with health and health care issues, more narrowly. In addition, many questioned again to what extent this goal is directly achievable by government and how outcomes would be measured.

Overall, most of the priorities provided to participants for consideration were viewed as important ones for Canadians, and all of them were seen as interconnected and overlapping to some extent. Participants tended to mix and match the language, in fact, when describing what they liked about the different priorities, using the language or emphasis of one to explain the benefits of another.

In terms of the primary framing and focus, however, nearly everyone agreed that the Government of Canada should make affordability, principally the cost of living, an overarching priority.

National Environmental Issues

Asked to identify the biggest environmental challenges facing Canada today, participants most commonly cited emissions, climate change, and events, like floods and forest fires, which they believed to be related. This set of issues was mentioned in all of the groups, at least once or twice, to some broader agreement and discussion. While a few were skeptical about human-caused climate change and the extent of the crisis, especially among the men, most tended to agree that these are important issues requiring action and leadership.

Among the other issues most commonly identified, participants cited pollution, generally, especially water pollution, waste, and plastic waste, specifically. There was also clear concern about wildlife, marine life and species under threat, including birds, bees and other insects, as well as concern about trees and deforestation, as well as floods and forest fires, which received some independent mentions without any direct attribution to climate change. In Vancouver, mostly, pipelines were mentioned in this context as well.

All told, however, there were not any well-defined current environmental stories or issues that dominated the top-of-mind mentions or discussions about the environment as a national issue, within or across the groups. In fact, a number of participants confessed that they hadn’t been paying close attention to environmental stories lately.

Local Environmental Issues

Participants appeared more engaged with local environmental issues. When asked to identify the most pressing ones for their cities, many in Barrie, Mississauga and Vancouver pointed to population growth and development, a resulting loss of green space, issues like noise and light pollution, and increased traffic and congestion. Most also cited the lack of sufficient public transit systems to meet increasing demand and reduce some of the traffic congestion and resulting pollution from vehicles.

Water pollution was a top-of-mind local concern, as well, in most groups and locations, whether from chemicals, winter salt, or plastics, the latter of which got a number of mentions in Miramichi and Vancouver, in particular. In Vancouver, there was some evident concern about pipelines, tankers and the potential for spills, and their impact on water, marine life and fisheries, while in Miramichi there was notable concern about the state of the salmon stocks in the St Lawrence River.

Asked which of these issues the federal government should pay attention to, some said “all of them”, and while there wasn’t much consensus within (or across) the groups on a core set of priorities, common mentions focussed on protection of greenspace and farm land, harbours, lakes and rivers, as well as marine life and fish. The need for investments in public transit and transportation infrastructure was also viewed as an environmental issue that the federal government should address. In Barrie, there was a mention of an Ontario-based pipeline in need of upgrades near Lake Erie. In Mississauga, there was mention of floods from Lake Ontario. In Vancouver, participants emphasized the need for the federal government to help ensure the safety of pipelines and tanker traffic in the province.

Environmental News from the Government of Canada

There was fairly low top-of-mind awareness of recent Government of Canada stories related to the environment, with a fair bit of probing required to generate a list of topics, which tended to be short and built from very general mentions, versus specific ones linked to current news stories. Many participants, in fact, indicated that they had not seen, read or heard anything memorable about environmental announcements or stories related to the federal government lately.

The most common mentions related to the ‘Carbon Tax’, raised in all locations where the federal price on pollution applies, namely Barrie, Mississauga, Miramichi and Winnipeg. While most had heard something about the federal program and were at least vaguely aware that it had been implemented in their province, many were short on details or expressed a degree of confusion about the mechanics of the program. A number of participants in these locations demonstrated low awareness or no awareness of the program. Related issues, like C02, emissions, and climate change also saw some mention across the country, including in Vancouver and Saint-Jérôme, as an issue the federal government is working on.

There was very modest awareness of the recent announcement on banning single-use plastics, and a fair bit of probing was required before it was mentioned. Even then it was raised in only about half of the groups. The women’s group in Miramichi was a notable exception, where the issue came up early and virtually everyone said they had heard this initiative. Across all the groups, however, top-of-mind awareness of the federal government’s plan and recent announcement on this issue was generally low.

“Pipelines” received a few mentions in Vancouver, in relation to Indigenous land claims/disputes, consultations, as well as general arguments for and against the TMX. Very few spontaneously cited the recent announcement by the Government of Canada to greenlight the pipeline. The garbage shipment to the Philippines and its return to Canada got a few mentions, as well, across different groups and locations as an environmental story involving the federal government. Comments on this topic were either quite factual (i.e., stated awareness of the issue) or alluded to the fact that, as a country, we should not be sending our waste offshore.

In Vancouver, there was mention of the federal government’s involvement in helping to resolve an issue with a blockage in the Fraser River that was imperilling the salmon run. In Miramichi, participants mentioned recent efforts to try to restore the salmon stock. Some also mentioned new restrictions on cutting down trees, and a recently-announced policy to protect whales by slowing the speed of ships in the St. Lawrence.

This issue was explored in four locations among 8 of the 12 groups undertaken specifically in the three provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba where the federal price on pollution applies.

Unaided Awareness

Top-of-mind awareness of the federal government’s plan to put a price on pollution was low to moderate across most of the groups. Moreover, few were familiar with the term “price on pollution” and its association with GHG emissions, specifically. Most of those who recognized it (just a few across all the groups), assumed that it applied to other/all forms of pollution, as a more general principle or policy, leading to some confusion.

There was more widespread recognition of the program when the term “carbon tax” was mentioned. Awareness was highest in Mississauga, where everyone said they had heard about the program. In Winnipeg, as well, most were at least vaguely aware of the program and its recent implementation in their province, while a few women in Miramichi were also vaguely aware of the program and the household incentive payment.

The most common associations with the new federal program were often neutral to negative, focusing on perceived increased prices at the pumps and in grocery stores, as well as challenges to the program from some provincial governments, which was raised in both the Mississauga and Winnipeg groups. Even among those familiar with it, however, most were unsure of, or confused about, the details of the program and had questions about its fundamentals, wondering how the “tax” works, who pays it, where the money goes, and whether/how this program will actually be effective.

Some were aware that the price on pollution is being implemented by the federal government in provinces, like their own, where there isn’t a comparable provincial plan, but many were not aware of this detail, and few could name the set of provinces affected.

Perceptions of the Price on Pollution

The following description was provided to participants for clarification:

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

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

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

On the positive side, some said this program is “a step in the right direction.” Most said they support action on the environment, broadly, by the federal government, including efforts to reduce emissions and tackle climate change, which most agreed is both important and necessary. Money staying in the province was also identified as an important and positive feature of the program. Moreover, many thought it was a good idea to offer incentive payments, especially to individuals and organizations that need it most, to help mitigate the impact of any price increases on them.

More commonly, however, upon hearing the description of the program, most continued to have many of the same questions raised earlier about its fundamentals, in addition to a number of new ones, about the household incentive, in particular. Many found the incentive confusing.

The Climate Action Incentive (CAI)

In every group, participants questioned how the program would work, and be effective, if most of the revenue collected is going back to consumers, with no apparent link back to improved environmental behaviours, purchases, or efficiencies. While many felt that getting money back would be great, some were a bit cynical about the household incentive, describing it as a means to ensure public support for the program.

More commonly, however, participants wanted to know how giving so much money back to households helps reduce carbon emissions, or aligns with the program’s objectives. Their concern was that there appears to be no financial incentive for consumers to change their behaviours and that companies would be more likely to pass on the cost of the price on pollution to them, instead of making the needed investments to reduce their emissions. There were conversations in every group about this perceived contradiction between the goal of the program and the extent of the household incentives. Most agreed that it made more sense to invest that money directly into environmental initiatives, green transition programs and improved processes and products, through research and development, innovation, and green technology, for instance, or even on clean-up and protection of the oceans, lakes and rivers, and initiatives like recycling. This was a common response in all the groups in which this topic was discussed.

Despite some evident confusion on this point, most understood, when asked, that the incentive is intended to reduce the impact of any potential price increase on consumers, resulting from companies having to pay a price on emissions and passing that cost along to consumers. But many wondered if the incentive would actually be enough to make a difference to them or their households to be worth it, versus spending it on environmental investments in line with the overall objectives of the program, which they felt could deliver a much bigger impact and range of benefits to everyone.

There was greater support for targeting the incentives to low-income households. Many felt, the incentive would be more meaningful and important to those with less financial means. This sentiment was voiced most prevalently in Winnipeg and Miramichi, where concerns about poverty were most heightened.

Most agreed that money to schools, hospitals (in particular) and small businesses is an important and very positive feature of the program. In fact, most felt that a larger proportion of the total revenues generated should be directed toward these organizations, to mitigate any impact on them and, more importantly, any negative knock-on effects related to jobs, essential services, and the economy. Not only did most feel a greater percentage of the revenues should go towards these groups, but many felt that the balance should be reversed. This was particularly the case for both groups in Miramichi, a small community that has lost jobs, local companies and a hospital recently, and where each of the groups came to a consensus that the bulk of the revenues (either 60% or 80%) should go towards public institutions and small businesses.

Perceptions of the Program’s Effectiveness

In addition to questions about the impact of the household incentive on the program’s effectiveness, many had questions about whether companies would actually change their behaviour versus simply absorbing the cost and passing it along, or finding loopholes while continuing to pollute. In this vein, many queried how companies would be held to account and who will be regulating and policing the program.

Some felt that the price on polluting companies would have to be quite significant in order to substantively affect behaviour change and spur investments in new, less-polluting processes and products, but that the economic impact might then be too much of a shock to be tenable, at least in the short term. There was general agreement that the federal government needs to strike a balance and take special care during the transition to help companies and consumers adapt to the change without suffering any severe disruptions or unintended consequences.

In general, most felt they couldn’t assess the likely impact of this program on the environment, without more information to answer their concerns and questions about the mechanics and implementation, which continued to come up as the discussion took place. Some commented that providing evidence that these types of programs are effective would be helpful to their understanding and to bolstering more positive perceptions.

Some mentioned, unaided, that they would support the program if they felt it was going to work. Most seemed to agree with that sentiment, and the goals of the current program, repeatedly identifying the need to reduce pollution and transition to more sustainable practices as a high priority for Canada.

Anticipated Impact on the Economy

Most anticipated a mix of positive and negative effects on the economy as a result of the program, and weren’t sure how it would net out, ultimately, stressing the need for careful implementation. On the downside, participants assumed that the increased costs to business could have a negative impact on jobs, global competitiveness, and even the survival of certain companies and organizations, especially small businesses which many felt could have trouble adjusting. Most also agreed that the program could be particularly challenging for low income households, given the already high cost of living and the comments made about obtaining good jobs with decent incomes. As with civic organizations and small business, most felt that low income households need the assistance of some kind of incentive payment to mitigate the negative impacts on the economy and likely increases to the cost of goods and services.

On the positive side, many were prepared to believe that this kind of program can, if implemented thoughtfully, create opportunities for Canadian businesses offering made-in-Canada solutions, leading to new investments, industries, jobs and economic growth. This assumption, in fact, raised further questions about the wisdom of giving so much back in incentives to households, instead of investing revenues directly into the environment and Canadian companies involved in green technology and product innovation. Most also agreed that, in the long run, polluting less equates to greater efficiency and savings, better business processes, and more competitive businesses. Many were also quick to conflate environmental and economic benefits, given the dependence of our economy on natural resources, and the need to protect the environment in order for it to sustain industry, businesses, jobs and prosperity for future generations. With regard to the incentive to households, some noted, as an upside, the positive impact of this going back into the economy.

While few were sure how this program might net out with respect to positive and negative impacts on the economy, most agreed that action is necessary and that a cost does need to be borne, by both companies and consumers, especially those who can afford it and big polluters, most notably, for this program to work. No one believed that effective environmental or climate change action could happen without some pain, and most agreed in principle that, over the long run, if we do what needs to be done as a country, the upside will be significant, not just for the health of the environment but the economy too. Unaided, in all the groups, in fact, there was concern that putting off the inevitable, and forestalling innovation and adaptation to a greener economy, will only lead to a loss of economic opportunities and advantages to Canada that could otherwise result if we take action and leadership now.

Impact on Individuals

Most felt that this program will have an impact on them personally in the form of higher prices, which is difficult at a time when many participants conceded that they are already struggling with the high cost of living. Everyone assumed that companies will pass along costs, to the extent that they can, and some cited food and gas price increases already attributable to the price on pollution. In Winnipeg, one participant pointed to the high cost of living in BC, where a provincial carbon tax has been in place for years, as a proof point in this regard. Another pointed out that while the cost of living has increased, salaries and wages have stagnated over the last decade, making it even more difficult for consumers to withstand any further price increases as industry transitions through and adjusts to pollution pricing.

A few participants in different groups and parts of the country indicated that they had received an incentive payment already. While saying the money was welcome, however, they weren’t sure it is enough to cover cost increases. And they questioned if it matters as much to them, in the grand scheme of things, as ensuring that vulnerable households, small businesses, and civic organizations are taken care of, and that adequate investments are made in transitioning to better environmental practices and behaviours by everyone. In Winnipeg, when the moderator explicitly noted that the value of the incentive is expected to be higher than cost increases associated with the price on pollution (i.e., increases in the price of electricity and heating), a number of participants disputed the likely veracity of this claim. Their feeling was that any increase to their annual heating and electricity costs, already so high, would far exceed the amount of the incentive.

Nevertheless, most tended to view their support for the program through a ‘values’ lens, versus their own self-interest, conceding that they are not only prepared to pay more, but expect to, in order for a price-on-pollution program to work. In each of the groups and locations, and in both the men’s and women’s groups, there was a general consensus that we have to take action as a country, and make the sacrifices now, in order to protect our environment, economy, and quality of life, for our children, grandchildren and future generations. Most were not only prepared, in principle, to make some kind of sacrifice now, but felt that it is essential to do so.

Awareness

Top of mind awareness of the federal government’s recent announcement on single-use plastics was relatively low, with only a few isolated mentions in about half the groups. When asked about it directly, however, there was more recognition, and many felt that they had heard something about it. Some had a basic understanding of the initiative, identifying it as a ban on “single-use” plastics, like straws and water bottles, to be phased in over the next couple of years, but most were short on details. There were participants in most groups who couldn’t recall seeing, reading or hearing anything about the federal government’s recently-announced initiative.

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

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

Reactions

Regardless of their awareness, most participants were readily supportive of this initiative, with many describing it as much-needed and long overdue. In every group there was a high degree of concern about plastic waste and its effects on water and marine life, in particular, and the health of oceans, lakes, and rivers, as well as fisheries and human health. Most viewed this initiative as a high priority, as a result, citing the insufficiency of recycling, the enormous amount of plastic waste produced, and the fact that it “never breaks down” and can leach toxic chemicals. Moreover, a number of participants referenced stories/images they had seen recently that had clearly struck an emotional chord, including a story about a dead whale discovered with a stomach full of plastic waste, a photo of turtle with a straw stuck up its nose, and another of a turtle deformed by the plastic rings used to hold beer cans and soda.

A few expressed skepticism, off the top, considering the new policy insufficient for a much bigger challenge, requiring a broader initiative to reduce waste, recycle more effectively, and include single-use industrial plastics, for instance, and not just a limited list of high profile consumer items. This opinion elicited some pushback and disagreement from others in the groups, however, as most supported the ban as a good idea and overwhelmingly agreed that reducing single-use consumer plastics is an important environmental priority and a good first step.

More commonly, with respect to negatives, many questioned how the program would be implemented, what kinds of alternatives would be offered, and what the costs to both consumers and companies might be.

Products Included

Asked to identify the kind of products likely covered by the ban, a wide range of items were mentioned, including straws and plastic bottles, most readily, as well as disposable plates and cutlery, take-out containers, and plastic bags. A number of participants indicated their desire to see consumer packaging included as well, and some wondered if the ban would apply to other household consumer items like plastic wrap and re-sealable zipper storage bags, or microplastics in beauty products.

Some questioned whether single-use plastic medical items, for instance, like syringes and lancets, might also be banned, potentially creating some unintended negative consequences for health.

Drawbacks

Most acknowledged that the transition will likely be challenging for consumers and require a big shift in behaviours and habits. Loss of convenience was identified as one of the biggest drawbacks of the ban, with many wondering about the kinds of alternatives that might be available, especially in the short term. Inferior substitutes, like non-durable paper straws, were a top concern, along with the prospect that alternatives could come with their own set of environmental downsides, like increased deforestation, if not selected conscientiously with environmental goals in mind. Some more skeptical about the program’s effectiveness expressed mistrust of companies, suspecting that they might attempt to get around the ban by finding loop holes or purposely switching to products only marginally better from an environmental perspective, as a way to save money. Some also wondered about a consumer backlash, if replacement-products are inferior or if the cost is too high, and whether the ban might get reversed in the future. Issues with respect to hygiene and reusable products (i.e., straws, utensils) were a concern mentioned by a minority of participants.

That said, many were confident that, over the longer term at least, better materials and products could be found and developed as alternatives to single-use plastics, with a good faith effort from industry, and that implemented properly the ban could spur the kind of innovation needed by companies to accomplish that goal. A range of materials were offered up as options, including hemp and bamboo, for instance, metal versus paper straws, or previously unused natural products, like avocado seeds.

Most felt that it is imperative for Canadian companies to invest in good alternatives that are not only acceptable to consumers but truly better from an environmental perspective. Some stressed that these alternatives need to be not just bio-degradable but more sustainable in every way, drawing on more renewable resources, and resulting in more durable and recyclable products that can reduce waste and pollution throughout their lifecycle.

Economic Impacts

Top of mind, a number of participants wondered what the ban might do to the plastics industry in Canada and the Canadian jobs attached to it. Participants weren’t sure, however, to what extent this industry is present in Canada or a significant part of the economy. Most assumed that the shift to more green alternatives is bound to cost Canadian companies money, which could be a hardship for some, especially smaller businesses. In addition, participants assumed that any increased costs to businesses would again be passed along, increasing consumer costs and generally resulting in a negative impact to consumers at large.

On the upside, many felt that the ban could, if implemented properly, have the desired effect, spurring innovation and investments in the development of affordable and good green alternatives over the longer term. If this happens, many pointed out, a virtuous cycle could be created, with new investments in product development and technologies creating new industries and jobs. Some also mentioned spin off benefits and savings related to reducing plastics, including reduced costs for clean-up, recycling and waste by government.

On balance, considering the damage and pollution caused by plastic, and the degree of concern that most seemed to share, many were prepared to accept “short term pain for long term gain”. And while few felt they could predict the ultimate outcome, dependent largely on how the program is implemented, managed, and policed, many felt that it could ultimately be neutral to positive, with new jobs and industries replacing lost ones, new and better products getting developed, and prices eventually coming down.

Making Companies Responsible for Environmental Damage?

Asked how they would feel about the federal government introducing legislation that would make companies responsible for cleaning up the environmental damage caused by their disposal of plastic products, most thought this was a good idea, in principle, and strongly supported greater corporate accountability and clean-up of plastic waste. But many had questions again about exactly how this would work in practice. And, most agreed that implementation will dictate outcomes, as with the single-use plastic ban more broadly.

Asked to identify any drawbacks, a number of issues came up, driven by confusion over how the initiative might work, who would pay, how the program would be regulated and policed, and whether it would actually work to force companies to change their behaviour.

Potential economic downsides included increased costs to businesses and consumers, and the potential for jobs to be lost or Canadian competitiveness compromised. Potential upsides included new job creation and corporate investments in clean-up and recycling, as well as innovation and development of more sustainable technologies and practices. Some identified accompanying savings to government as a result, for clean-up, waste management, or health costs, for example. The creation of new government jobs was also identified as a possible outcome, given the regulatory oversight and program enforcement that would likely be required.

How it might net out, however, was difficult for people to calculate, in the absence of further information about what this program might look like and how it would be implemented.

Reducing the Use of Plastics by Government

In principal, most agreed that it is important for government to lead by example and reduce its own use of plastics across departments and agencies, which would encourage others to take similar actions. Many strongly supported this kind of initiative and felt that a broad and coordinated effort from government, industry and consumers is required to reduce plastics pollution and its impact on the environment. As with the broader single-use plastics ban, however, and the initiative to require corporate clean-up and greater accountability, many had questions about the practicalities of implementation, stressing the need for government to ensure it was well planned, keeping costs to a minimum and eliminating plastics through attrition. Concerns were raised that governments in general have a tendency, when adopting new programs or policies internally, to be wasteful and have cost overruns.

General Awareness and Perceptions

There was low awareness of and engagement with this issue among the participants in Saint-Jérôme. Some were vaguely aware of the TMX pipeline and the issues surrounding it, but very few had read, seen, or heard much about it, especially recently.

By contrast, nearly everyone in Vancouver, especially among the men, were generally aware of the TMX pipeline and the basic contours of the issues and controversies surrounding its construction. Most were aware that opposition to the project, especially among environmental and Indigenous groups in BC, had led to delays and uncertainty. Many commented on the environmental risks involved, citing concerns about the potential for spills and water contamination resulting from the increased capacity of the pipelines running across BC and the additional tankers required to transport the oil overseas. At the same time, most also understood the economic arguments in favour of the pipeline and its importance to jobs, trade, and industry, not just for Alberta but for Canada.

Even those with a vague awareness of the project framed it as a complex issue with legitimate competing interests and difficult trade-offs involved between the environment and economy.

Opposition and Support

Overall, reaction was mixed across the groups regarding whether the project should go ahead. Some were opposed, others supportive, and some were ambivalent and unable to decide.

Those who opposed the project tended to agree that the risks and damage to the environment simply outweigh the economic advantages. A few of the men in the Vancouver group, in particular, felt that BC would be required to take on so many risks without sharing in most of the financial benefits, which they believe would accrue to Alberta, beyond what they primarily viewed as some short-term construction jobs. Participants in Saint-Jérôme and the women’s group in Vancouver, on the other hand, commented that Canada should be moving toward more sustainable energy rather than increasing oil and gas export capacity. From this perspective, some felt that the pipeline is not a good investment and signals that the country is moving in the wrong direction with respect to climate change action.

Those who supported the pipeline moving forward, on balance, but felt the risks and downsides could be adequately managed, and that the project is simply too important for the Alberta and national economies. A few said that it unfair to hamper the Alberta economy and the oil and gas industry, with all its potential jobs, when the rest of the country still relies on oil and gas, and on the Alberta industry and economy for its prosperity. Moreover, those who supported the pipeline (and even some who did not) felt that expanding the pipeline and transitioning to a greener economy can be done simultaneously, and that it is not inherently incompatible if the transition is managed properly.

Those who were uncertain could either see both sides of the argument and/or felt they didn’t know enough about it to decide.

Many felt they could not predict what will happen with the pipeline. Some believed it would go ahead, given its economic importance, pressure from Alberta and the oil and gas industry, and the degree of support it has from the federal government.

Ownership

Awareness of the federal government’s purchase of the pipeline was very low in Saint-Jérôme, where participants were relatively unengaged, compared to Vancouver. In Vancouver, however, awareness was not particularly high or widespread, either. Some clearly knew about it while others had only a vague recollection, when prompted, or had no understanding of the ownership structure.

Many were critical of the government’s purchase. Some felt that this ran counter to the government’s stated commitment to combating climate change, reducing emissions, and moving away from fossil fuels. A few described it as a waste of money or a liability. Others said it was a bad idea all around and that government shouldn’t be in the business of owning a pipeline, can’t be expected to manage it properly, and is now in a conflict of interest with its main role as regulator. Still others felt that the government had been persuaded by the oil and gas industry into making the purchase unnecessarily.

On the more positive side, a few participants cited the need for government to step in and ensure its completion, given the project’s importance to the economy and the need to protect the country’s reputation as friendly towards foreign-investment and generally supportive of economic development.

Current Status of the Project

Relatively few were aware of the current status of the project. Some assumed it was proceeding while others were of the view that the project is facing legal challenges from communities, especially Indigenous ones, and indefinitely stalled. Only a couple of participants in the Vancouver groups had heard of federal government’s recent announcement.

For clarity, the following information was shared with participants in all groups:

“Last month the Government of Canada announced that it has approved TMX and that all the money the federal government earns from this project will be invested in Canada’s clean energy transition.”

Among the women in Vancouver, in particular, there was a fair bit of positive reaction to the government’s plan to invest money from the pipeline into Canada’s clean energy transition, with the caveat that it should be directed to Canadian companies and innovation. In the Saint-Jérôme groups, where more were inclined to oppose the pipeline than support it, some felt that some good might come from the project if the government undertakes this type of planned investment. . Most participants agreed that investing money back in green energy transition is a good idea in principle and widely supported the intention to do so. That said, some, especially men in the Vancouver group, were skeptical that this kind of investment would actual occur..

Major Issues

Participants identified a wide range of local issues in common across each of these locations, with major concerns focussed on a lack of affordable housing and jobs, loss of industry and local businesses, and both increased and aging populations putting strains on already insufficient public services and infrastructure.

There were a number of common concerns about growing poverty and issues with mental health, addiction and homelessness, compounded by a lack of local supports. Scarcity of doctors, hospitals, and local health care options were widely cited as a significant local challenge in all locations.

In Saint-Jérôme and Barrie, participants pointed to an influx of new people coming into their respective bedroom communities, leading to some unwanted residential development, loss of green space, and traffic congestion on highways, negatively affecting the local environment and quality of life.

In Miramichi, extremely poor transportation infrastructure combined with environmental issues were widely viewed as key factors in the loss of traditional industries, from mining and mills to forestry and fishing. Moreover, newcomers to the community, securing jobs with the federal payroll centre, were viewed as contributors to the reduced supply of affordable housing in the community and increased costs. Participants were critical of government (both federal and provincial) as not having effectively managed these issues.

Local infrastructure needs

In each location infrastructure was a major concern.

In Miramichi, the list of problems was long, including roads and bridges deemed to be in extremely poor condition, recent closures of a hospital and homeless shelter, a lack of sidewalks, a proliferation of derelict buildings, and overcrowded schools, despite some recent construction.

In Barrie and Saint-Jérôme, the need for more and better transportation infrastructure was the main issue for these cities, in which many have to commute for work. Traffic congestion on the highways was cited as a big concern, especially in Barrie, with most saying that their public transit system is insufficient. Hospitals and schools were also widely mentioned with respect to issues like overcrowding and limited local facilities.

Most in Barrie and Saint-Jérôme were unaware of the federal government doing anything to contribute to new infrastructure in their communities. In Miramichi there was mention of repeated, but unfulfilled, commitments by governments about improving the roads, along with some mention of a new “unaffordable” seniors building built with government funding in their community that some identified as federal.

Federal support for the local community

In Barrie and Saint-Jérôme, specific actions by the federal government to support the local economies were not well known. In Barrie, there was a single ambivalent mention of the federal temporary workers’ program, and whether it actually helps the economy or not, as well as a negative view about the legalisation of cannabis contributing to the local challenges with substance use and accompanying issues in the downtown area.

In Miramichi, government was clearly a presence in the local community, as both a manager of natural resources and direct employer, but many felt it is not helping as much as it should, and is even inadvertently exacerbating existing problems through some of its interventions. The payroll centre, for instance, did not get many mentions as a direct job creator for locals, whose skills align with more traditional, resource-based industries. Low-paying spin-off jobs were cited as the main benefit by some, like daycare and domestic work, due to increased demand from new residents who had been hired for federal government jobs. This influx of new residents was widely blamed for exacerbating affordable housing issues and placing strains on local infrastructure and social services.

With respect to the government’s management of natural resources and local industry in related sectors, a number of participants in Miramichi felt that local concerns have been ignored. There were comments about cumbersome bureaucratic processes and issues with the allotments for local mills, for instance, that have led to closures. There was also some concern expressed with how the current fishing restrictions are being implemented.

Indeed, everyone in Miramichi felt that the federal government needs to do more to support their community. A long list of priorities emerged that included investing in infrastructure projects and local employment, offering small business incentives, working more effectively with local industry to address environmental and natural resource management challenges, and assisting with issues like affordable housing, drug addiction and mental health services.

Most important local industries

Loss of industry, closures and disappearing jobs were huge issues in these communities, all struggling with disruptions to traditional livelihoods and sectors.

In Barrie, there was mention of the loss of manufacturing and a greater reliance on tourism and recreation, accompanied by shifts toward services and retail as the main foundations of their local economy. This trend was widely viewed as insufficient for providing reliable long-term employment and decent wages. A car plant outside of town was identified as an important employer in the men’s group, and Toronto was widely identified as an important job market for residents. No one in Barrie was aware of any federal government support for local industry.

In Saint-Jérôme, similarly, where some previous manufacturing companies have shuttered in recent decades, a lack of local industry and jobs was widely cited for what is increasingly a bedroom community.

In Miramichi, the challenges to local industry were described as especially daunting. Participants pointed to the shut-down of mines and mills, and retrenchment of both forestry and fishing operations. Many were especially concerned with the state of their fisheries and the fishing sector overall, recently threatened by an influx of striped bass in the river, reductions in the salmon stocks and restrictions on fishing, which is also having knock-on effects on tourism in the area.

Government is also a big employer in Miramichi many conceded, with various provincial and federal service and administrative centres in town. But, as noted above, many felt that local residents, affected by the loss of traditional industries, are not being prioritized for these jobs.

Local Government of Canada services

Participants in the Barrie and Saint-Jérôme groups had little to say about federal government services. Few were readily able to describe any on a top-of-mind basis.

There was a mention and some awareness of the First Time Homebuyers program in the men’s group in Barrie, and, when mentioned in all groups, there was general awareness of federal benefits such as discounts for seniors or people with disabilities, the Canada Pension Plan and Child Tax benefits, as well as the services provided by the local Post Office. Overall, however, these were viewed more as benefits or entitlements, rather than ‘services’ which residents could access. As such, most participants had difficulty drawing on any specific interactions with the Government of Canada to feel fully able to evaluate the service experience.

In Miramichi, views tended to be more negative, owing to the sense of neglect many felt in relation to the federal government around broader economic issues and community challenges. Asked to comment on the kinds of entitlements and benefits mentioned above, participants tended to focus on their insufficiency to help local people struggling with low incomes, high prices and a depressed local economy. Prompted, participants were aware of the Service Canada office in their community offering passport services, for instance, but few offered any impressions of or commented on its value.

Asked about the biggest healthcare challenges facing their communities, most cited shortages of some variety, from family doctors and specialists to hospitals and beds, along with wait times and hallway medicine. Drug addiction and mental health issues, and the lack of supports and services to address them, also topped the list, as did aging/growing populations and the additional strains this is placing on existing services that are already stretched.

In smaller communities, like Barrie and Miramichi, having to travel outside the community for care was viewed as a big challenge for local residents. Out West, in both Winnipeg and Vancouver, concerns were expressed about the rise of a two-tiered health care system, with those who can afford it opting for private clinics. The price of prescription drugs also came up in a few groups as both a personally and socially relevant issue that can have severe financial consequences for people facing illness, or putting treatment out of reach.

Asked if they had heard of any recent federal government initiatives to address local health care concerns, many had not. Among the initiatives that were identified, common mentions included existing drug plans for youth, seniors, or low-income families with many openly confused about the level of government responsible for these programs. There was little unaided mention of the federal government’s recent Pharmacare plan.

Federal Government Health Care Priorities Exercise

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

The doctor and nurse shortage was by far the top priority identified by participants in all groups and locations, followed by a second tier of high-priority concerns that included access to healthy food, mental health services, and prescription drugs.

The complete list of priorities is as follows:

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

Higher Priorities

Addressing doctor and nurse shortages: No other issue came close to this one as a top priority for participants in every group and region, where the consensus was overwhelming that this is a top-three issue, at least, with most ranking it as number one. Many believed these shortages are a root cause of wait times and poor access to care, which are big concerns for them personally and for their communities more broadly. Many were especially concerned about the impacts of these shortages on the most vulnerable, like seniors, people with disabilities, and those facing serious illness, as well as smaller or more remote communities which are felt to be severely under-served.

Providing all Canadians with fair and equal access to affordable prescription medications: Relatively few raised the cost of prescription drugs as a key health challenge for their communities unaided, but most identified this as a top-three priority for the Government of Canada from the list provided. While many said they were already covered by an employer or an existing government plan (in some provinces), most recognized the severe financial consequence that the cost of drugs can have on those facing serious illness who are not similarly covered, making this issue one of fairness related to the basic principle underlying Canada’s universal health care system, in which access to treatment should not depend on a person’s financial circumstances.

Making it easier for Canadians to eat healthy by making healthy food more affordable: While access to healthy food was not a top-of-mind concern for most, the cost of living certainly was, making this combination of the two a top priority for many. Widely viewed as essential to good health and the prevention of illness, access to healthy food was identified as an important goal for the federal government to pursue at a time when many are struggling with the increasing cost of living, given its widespread social benefits and potential to take some of the strain off an already stretched heath care system. Food security and affordability is thought to be an important preventive approach to improving health, and ultimately to reducing stress on the health care system.

Reducing wait times for mental health services: Consistent with widespread concerns about mental health issues and poor access to support and care in all communities, many ranked this issue in their top three. Participants felt that current wait times in most places are unacceptably long, constituting a real denial of care for people in crisis who can’t afford private therapy, and contributing to a wide range of other problems and social ills, like drug addiction, homelessness, suicide, and poverty, leaving individuals, families, and communities struggling to cope.

Lower Priorities

In addition to being asked to identify the top three priorities, participants were instructed to select any issue on the list they felt to be a low priority for the Government of Canada. All items on the list were seen to be important by most participants, with only two identified by a reasonably significant number of people as low priorities.

Ensuring everyone has access to affordable contraception: Men were most inclined to identify this as a low priority, and many did, describing it as a more personal or private issue and an example of government over-reach. A number of women felt similarly, though certainly not the majority, and mostly for the same stated reasons, in addition to believing that the price of contraceptives does not make them inaccessible, or that other priorities are simply more pressing and important compared to this one. About a third of participants, overall, identified this as a low priority.

Taking steps to ensure all children are vaccinated with the exception of those with allergies or medical conditions that prohibit them from receiving a vaccine. About a quarter of participants placed this as a low priority for the federal government because they didn’t like the intrusiveness of this kind of federal policy or the framing of this priority, including the language used to describe this priority. Some said they were hesitant to endorse federal government involvement in these kinds of decisions affecting children, concerned about where it could lead. Discussion of this item led to debates in some groups about the efficacy of vaccinations. A few participants favoured leaving the decision to parents/families, although the majority position was that vaccinations should be mandatory or required.

Asked to expand on their reactions to the idea of “fair and equal access” to prescription medication, most understood it to mean that government would cover the cost of needed drugs, in part or in whole, either for everyone or those unable to afford them. Most supported the idea, believing it to be a necessary complement to universal health care in Canada, important for those not currently covered by a private or existing government plan, and essential to those facing economic hardship or lack of treatment because of the cost of medication.

Awareness of the term ‘pharmacare’ was mixed. Some had heard of it while others had not, and while some readily grasped it to mean the kind of government program described above, others found it confusing. Some noted that in some provinces (i.e., Manitoba, British Columbia) the term is already in use to describe programs to cover the cost of prescriptions which are provincially-funded.

Many had questions about the mechanics of such a program in Canada and how it would work, including who would be covered and by how much, how that would be determined, whether it would be a single-payer system, and how it would align with (or be different from) existing government plans. In Saint-Jérôme, in particular, participants had questions about the applicability of such a program to Quebec, given the existence of a similar provincial plan.

Some voiced concern about the public cost of such a program while others felt there could be savings, overall, resulting from better access to prescription medications and treatments for everyone, reducing some of the strain on the health care system.

Even in the absence of more detail, however, and despite many already having coverage themselves, most supported this kind of program for all Canadians, especially those in need and facing the prospect of economic hardship or lack of treatment.

There was generally very low awareness of the Government’s announcement regarding a national Pharmacare program.

Naming Exercise

Each participant was provided with a worksheet listing 12 potential names for a federal government program to make affordable prescription medications available. Participants were asked to put a check mark beside any names they liked, and to circle the one name they thought would be the best one for this sort of strategy.

“Canada Prescription Plan” was the top choices for participants, among the following list of names provided:

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

Most Preferred Names

Canada Prescription Plan: This was the most popular choice among the list of names provided and the one preferred in nearly all the groups. It not only received the greatest number of check marks but was selected most widely as the best choice. Most said they liked the inclusion of the word “Canada” in the name, in particular, when explaining their selection, because it conveys that the plan is national, links to the Canada brand and the country’s “world class” health care system, evoking a sense of ownership and pride. Most also liked the term “prescription” because it describes the kinds of medications covered and doesn’t carry any negative connotations suggested by the word “drug”. While it didn’t get raised unaided, most also said they preferred the word “plan” over “program” in this context, as it suggests automatic coverage and entitlement versus something for which you have to sign up or apply. It is important to note, however, that the acronym (CPP) was identified as an issue by many participants who felt that it could be confusing. Moreover, the simple fact that CPP is widely known and used as the abbreviation for the Canada Pension Plan was felt to be a bit of a negative in regards to this option, although overall it was still widely preferred.

Canadian Drug Plan: This was also among the top choices, liked for its simplicity and the use of the word “Canadian” for the same reasons described above but also because this sounds more personalized than “Canada,” expressing not just that the plan is national but that it belongs to Canadians, which many favoured. However, many did not like the word “drug”.

The following were also top choices, though selected by relatively few compared to the above and representing a second tier of top choices.

Universal Prescription Program: Those who liked this name commented on the “all-inclusive” meaning of the word “universal” and its alignment with Canada’s “universal health care system” or other federal programs that referenced “universal” in their titles. Others disagreed, however, and disliked the word, feeling that it is simply less clear and could be confusing, suggesting to some that it applies to non-citizens or Canadians travelling or living outside the country.

Comprehensive Prescription Plan: The idea of “comprehensive” coverage and a “plan” that applies to everyone appealed to many, as well. As with “universal”, however, others felt that a “comprehensive” plan, so described, could lead to some confusion about who and what is covered.

National Pharmacare Plan: While relatively few chose this as the best name for this type of plan, compared to the top tier choices, quite a few liked this name, for the fact that it clearly indicates the program is national in scope, applies to prescription medications (i.e., pharmacare) and is a “plan” versus a “program”. Some felt that this name sounds like it builds on what’s already there, with respect to existing provincial plans or federal ones that apply more narrowly to certain groups, like seniors. Not everyone, however, was familiar with the term “pharmacare” or its use within a Canadian context, and most preferred to have “Canada” in the name of any national program as a point of pride and ownership, and to distinguish Canada’s plan from those of other countries. In the groups in Saint-Jérôme, participants commented that the use of “national” in French in relation to government programs refers to Quebec.

Likes and Dislikes

Building on the above, participants were asked to identify the specifics of what they liked and disliked about the various names on the list and to come up with a better option based on a different combination of the names provided or something else entirely.

Overall, participants preferred to have “Canada” or, especially, “Canadian” in the name, versus “comprehensive” or “universal” for the reasons described above, namely, that it connects more clearly to national identity, expresses that the plan is national, distinct from other countries, and conveys ownership and pride, whereas “universal” or “comprehensive” were seen by some to be confusing, raising questions about how and to whom the plan might apply.

“Plan” was preferred over “program” as it sounds more straightforward and simpler to many, whereas “program” suggests that people would need to sign up or apply, which some felt could be exclusionary or arduous and lead to continued gaps in coverage.

“Prescription” was preferred over “drug”, as many felt that the latter has negative connotations related to street drugs. It was also preferred to “pharmacare” as a more clear and recognizable term.
“Strategy” was not liked, as many felt it sounds vague and makes it seem less concrete.

Following discussion in most groups, the broad consensus was that “Canadian Prescription Plan” would be the best name for a national pharmacare program. However, in nearly every group participants commented on the problem with the acronym CPP, given that it is already used for the Canada Pension Plan. In Miramichi, one suggested, to widespread agreement, that inserting the word “affordable” into the name and calling it “CAPP” might be a good alternative.

Participants in Mississauga and Vancouver were asked about their main concerns relating to housing, specific to their city. A shortage of affordable housing and barriers to home ownership were the top issues.

Main Concerns

A shortage of affordable housing was the top housing concern for residents of both Mississauga and Vancouver, universally cited as a “huge” local issue, with market prices described as “crazy,” “inflated,” and “unrealistic,” for both renters and buyers alike.

The barriers to home ownership, in particular, were viewed as especially daunting, given the high prices, primarily, and the difficulty of obtaining a mortgage. Many pointed to the near impossibility for most younger first-time home buyers to meet the minimum requirements for mortgage financing, either with respect to down payment or income requirements, putting home ownership out of reach for many.

In both Mississauga and Vancouver, foreign investment in the local housing market was widely viewed as a factor driving up prices. While there was some acknowledgement in Vancouver regarding provincial initiatives to address this, most downplayed the impact on prices. There was no acknowledgement that they have declined and most said the market is still unaffordable and speculatively-driven by foreign investment.

For renters, high prices and low vacancies, exacerbated by short term rentals, were identified as making it extremely hard to find decent or sufficient housing options. Most overwhelmingly agreed that, whether renting or owning, current prices make it increasingly difficult for local residents to be able to afford to live in a safe neighbourhood close to work.

Young people were widely viewed as one of the groups most adversely affected by the price of housing and most likely to be shut out of home ownership and the chance to build equity, while seniors were also identified as a particularly vulnerable group with regard to affordability. In the Vancouver women’s group some felt that government should step in to subsidize housing for seniors with limited pension and incomes.

The Importance of Home Ownership

Most felt that it is better to own and have the chance to build equity than to rent for an extended period. There were a few renters in each group who said they preferred their current arrangement, citing the hassles and expense that come with home ownership, but they also readily conceded home ownership should at least be within reach for most and is not, presently, for far too many residents of their cities.

Asked to consider what it would be like to be a first time homebuyer in today’s market taking on a mortgage and making down payments, many described it as difficult to impossible, saying they would likely not qualify for a mortgage today as a first-time home buyer, given the high prices and minimum requirements for a down payment and the household incomes needed to qualify. Current renters and would be home-owners readily agreed.

Most were wistful for the days when housing was more affordable and middle-class families could expect to own their own home. This scenario was widely viewed as a thing of the past, even in households with dual incomes. Some felt that younger people and first-time homebuyers simply have to adjust their expectations, save more, and look further outside their cities, or to condos, for more affordable options. But most were less sanguine about the availability of any decent alternatives, given the rising cost of rental units, condos, and maintenance fees, even in nearby suburbs or smaller cities, making affordability a big issue across the board for everyone wanting to live or work in their respective cities.

First Time Home Buyers Incentive

There was limited top-of-mind awareness of federal government initiatives to support Canadians wanting to purchase a home. Some mentioned a “first-time homebuyers plan” and many had heard of it but weren’t sure how it works. Some described the Home-Buyers Plan (HBP) and being able to use RRSPs for the down payment, most commonly, and a few participants had heard that the limit for this program had recently been increased. There were a few mentions of tax credits or write-offs being made available, as well, for first-time buyers.

Asked if they had heard of the “First Time Home Buyers Incentive” many felt they had, driven largely by some familiarity with the Home Buyers Program. Participants were provided with the following description, for clarity:

The Government of Canada created the First Time Home Buyers Incentive. Under this plan, you can get an interest-free loan from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to cover 5% of the cost of your first home – or 10% if it’s a new build, so as to encourage developers to build more homes. This means First-Time Buyers would not need as large of a mortgage, reducing their payments. For example, on a $500,000 home, this could drop your monthly mortgage payments by over $225 a month. When you sold your house, CMHC would collect 5% of the sale price of the house back, as repayment for this loan.

Reactions to the program in Mississauga and Vancouver were mixed. Some liked the idea, especially men in the Mississauga group, and felt it could make purchases more accessible for some first-time buyers. But many questioned the program in terms of fairness and whether it would actually make a meaningful difference to most, given just how out-of-reach prices currently are.

There was low to moderate interest in the idea, as a result, with many especially unreceptive to an arrangement that they believed could end up benefitting CMCH far beyond the typical returns on a mortgage, by giving them a 5% share of the sale price at a time when house prices are increasing so rapidly. Many, especially the women’s group in Mississauga, felt this aspect of the program worked mostly in favour of CMHC over the homeowners, even if it provides an opportunity for people to make the initial purchase, lower their mortgage payments, and build their own equity.

Moreover, many felt that even with an additional 5-10% equity for the down payment the price of a home would still be out of reach for most. In fact, as a case in point, a number of participants pointed to the example in the description (a house for $500K) as being out of step with current housing prices.

Some were skeptical, calling this a Band-Aid solution, at best, for a small minority of would-be home owners that does nothing to address the underlying problem of sky-rocketing prices, while others wondered if it might actually exacerbate the problem by enabling home purchases among those who would otherwise be unable to afford it.

Mortgage Stress Test

Quite a few participants had heard about the mortgage stress test and understood it to be a safeguard meant to protect potential home buyers from taking on mortgages they can’t afford. Among those who had not heard of it, many were able to deduce the crux of the program from the name. For clarity, the following description was provided:

The Government of Canada introduced a stress test in late 2017 that is applied to all new insured mortgages – including those where the buyer has more than 20% for a down payment. The stress test is aimed at assuring the lender that the home buyer could still afford the mortgage if interest rates were to rise. The home buyer would need to qualify for a loan at the negotiated rate in the mortgage contract, but also at the Bank of Canada’s five-year fixed posted mortgage rate, which is an average of the posted rates of the big six banks in Canada.

Both the mechanics and purpose of the Mortgage Stress Test were clear to most, who tended to agree that it was a wise idea for government to introduce it, overall, not only to protect individuals against potentially unsustainable mortgages in the event of a rate increase but the housing market as well from the kind of consequences experienced as a result of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States a little over a decade ago.

Among the drawbacks, most agreed that this measure makes home ownership even more unaffordable and out of reach, while also acknowledging that the safeguard is necessary. On the upside, some felt this might also weed out certain speculators and dampen some of the demand in an overheated market, but others weren’t necessarily convinced of that, remarking that foreign investment would likely not be affected by this requirement.

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:

*Dates and locations are tentative until facilities are confirmed.

Recruiting Script

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, je m’appelle [NOM DU RECRUTEUR]. Je vous téléphone 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?/Préfériez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [CONTINUE IN LANGUAGE OF PREFERENCE]

RECORD LANGUAGE AND CONTINUE

English

French GROUP 7 OR 8 ONLY IN SAINT JEROME

On behalf of the Government of Canada, we’re organizing a series of focus group discussions to explore current issues of interest to Canadians.

The format is a “round table” discussion, led by an experienced moderator. Participants will be given a cash honorarium in appreciation of their time.

Your participation is completely voluntary and all your answers will be kept confidential. We are only interested in hearing your opinions - no attempt will be made to sell or market you anything. The report that is produced from the series of discussion groups we are holding will not contain comments that are attributed to specific individuals.

But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix/variety of people in each of the groups. May I ask you a few questions?

YesCONTINUE

NoTHANK AND END

SCREENING QUESTIONS

• 1. Have you, or has anyone in your household, worked for any of the following types of organizations in the last 5 years?

  A market research firmTHANK AND END

  A marketing, branding or advertising agencyTHANK AND END

  A magazine or newspaper THANK AND END

  A federal or provincial government department or agencyTHANK AND END

  A political party THANK AND END

  In public/media relations THANK AND END

  In radio/televisionTHANK AND END

  No, none of the above CONTINUE

• 2. Gender: DO NOT ASK. RECORD BY OBSERVATION.

  Male	CONTINUE GROUP 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11
  Female	CONTINUE GROUP 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12

• 3. In which City do you reside?

  Mississauga	+ MALE = GROUP 1 + FEMALE = GROUP 2
  Barrie	+ MALE = GROUP 3 + FEMALE = GROUP 4
  Miramichi	+ MALE = GROUP 5 + FEMALE = GROUP 6
  Saint Jerome	+FRENCH + MALE = GROUP 7 +FRENCH + FEMALE = GROUP 8
  Winnipeg	+ MALE = GROUP 9 + FEMALE = GROUP 10
  Vancouver	+ MALE = GROUP 11 + FEMALE = GROUP 12
  Other	THANK AND END
  VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer	THANK AND END

• 4. Would you be willing to tell me in which of the following age categories you belong?

  Under 18 years of age	IF POSSIBLE, ASK FOR SOMEONE OVER 18 AND REINTRODUCE. OTHERWISE THANK AND END.
  18-24	RECORD AND CONTINUE
  25-34
  35-44
  45-54
  55+
  VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer	THANK AND END

  ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF AGES WITHIN EACH SUBGROUP.

• 5. Are you familiar with the concept of a focus group?

  IF YES, CONTINUE
  IF NO, EXPLAIN FOLLOWING “a focus group consists of eight to ten participants and one moderator. During a two-hour session, participants are asked to discuss a wide range of issues related to the topic being examined.”

• 6. How comfortable are you in expressing your views in public, reading written materials or looking at images projected onto a screen?

  Very Comfortable

  Somewhat Comfortable

  Somewhat UncomfortableTHANK & TERMINATE

  Very UncomfortableTHANK & TERMINATE

• 7. Have you ever attended a focus group discussion, an interview or survey which was arranged in advance and for which you received a sum of money?

  YesCONTINUE

  NoSKIP TO Q.11

• 8. How long ago was the last focus group you attended?

  Less than 6 months ago THANK AND END

  More than 6 months ago CONTINUE

• 9. How many focus group discussions have you attended in the past 5 years?

  0-4 groups CONTINUE

  5 or more groups THANK AND END

• 10. And on what topics were they?

  TERMINATE IF ANY ON SIMILAR/SAME TOPIC

  ADDITIONAL RECRUITING CRITERIA

  Now we have just a few final questions before we give you the details of the focus group, including the time, date, and location.

• 11. ASK IN VANCOUVER AND MISSISSAUGA ONLY Which of the following best describes your housing arrangement? READ LIST.

  Own your homeHOMEOWNER

  Rent your home RENTER

  Neither own nor rent your home RENTER

  ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS (50/50).

• 12. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?

  Grade 8 or less

  Some high school

  High school diploma or equivalent

  Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma

  College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma

  University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level

  Bachelor's degree

  Post graduate degree above bachelor's level

  VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer

  ENSURE A GOOD MIX.

• 13. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes?

  Under $20,000

  $20,000 to just under $40,000

  $40,000 to just under $60,000

  $60,000 to just under $80,000

  $80,000 to just under $100,000

  $100,000 to just under $150,000

  $150,000 and above

  VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer

  ENSURE A GOOD MIX.

• 14. During the discussion, you could be asked to look at materials that are pinned up on a wall and to read handouts or other materials in print. You will also be asked to actively participate in a conversation about these materials. Can you think of any reason why you may have difficulty reading the materials or participating in the discussion? You may also be asked to write down a few thoughts on paper. Are you comfortable writing in (English/French)? TERMINATE IF RESPONDENT OFFERS ANY REASON SUCH AS SIGHT OR HEARING PROBLEM, A WRITTEN OR VERBAL LANGUAGE PROBLEM, A CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY OR IF YOU AS THE INTERVIEWER HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE PARTICIPANT’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE EFFECTIVELY.
• 15. The focus group discussion will be audio-taped and video-taped for research purposes only. The taping is conducted to assist our researchers in writing their report. Do you consent to being audio-taped and video-taped?

  Yes

  No THANK AND END

INVITATION

I would like to invite you to this focus group discussion, which will take place the evening of [INSERT DATE/TIME BASED ON GROUP # IN CHART ON PAGE 1]. The group will be two hours in length and you will receive $90 for your participation.

Would you be willing to attend?

YesCONTINUE

NoTHANK AND END

The group will be held at: [INSERT LOCATION]

We will be calling you back to verify the information given and will confirm this appointment the day before. May I please have your full name, a telephone number that is best to reach you at as well as your e-mail address if you have one so that I can send you the details for the group?

Name:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

This is a firm commitment. If you anticipate anything preventing you from attending (either home or work-related), please let me know now and we will keep your name for a future study. If for any reason you are unable to attend, please let us know as soon as possible at [1-800-xxx-xxxx] so we can find a replacement.

We ask that you arrive 10-15 minutes prior to the beginning of the session and identify yourself to our staff who will gladly welcome you. Please bring photo identification with you, so that we make sure only people who have been invited participate in the group. You may be required to view some material during the course of the discussion. If you require glasses to do so, please be sure to have them handy at the time of the group.

Thank you very much for your time.

RECRUITED BY: ____________________

DATE RECRUITED: ____________________

Résumé des consignes de recrutement

• Total de douze groupes.
• Durée prévue de chaque rencontre : deux heures.
• Recrutement de dix participants pour assurer la présence d’au moins huit personnes.
• L’incitatif sera de 90 $ par personne.
• Groupes distincts pour les hommes et les femmes. Groupes diversifiés en fonction de l’âge (18 ans et plus), de l’état matrimonial, de l’éducation et du revenu.

Informations pratiques sur les groupes de discussion :

*Les dates et les lieux sont provisoires tant que la disponibilité des locaux n’a pas été confirmée.

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, je m’appelle [NOM DU RECRUTEUR]. Je vous téléphone 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