Government of Canada in the News (Mid-Size Centres Alberta, Quebec, British Columbia, Prairies)

Four groups were asked to share what they had seen, read, or heard about the Government of Canada in recent days.  A wide range of announcements and initiatives were recalled, including the increase of the federal price on carbon to $80 a tonne for 2024, agreements reached between the federal government and numerous municipalities to provide additional funding for housing through the Housing Accelerator Fund, the creation of a Renters’ Bill of Rights, and the discontinuation of the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive. 

Participants also recalled the decision by the Bank of Canada to maintain its policy interest rate at 5 percent and an announcement by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) that, beginning in 2024, the Government of Canada would be setting an intake cap on international student study permit applications for a period of two years. 

Government of Canada Priorities and Performance (Quebec, Winnipeg Young Women)

Two groups took part in brief conversations related to issues currently facing the Government of Canada as well as their perspectives regarding its management of these priorities.  Asked to identify what they viewed as the top issues that the federal government should be prioritizing, many believed that a greater focus needed to be placed on decreasing the cost of living and ensuring that all Canadians were able to afford essentials such as groceries.  Several thought that there needed to be an increased emphasis placed on making housing more affordable, with a number believing that housing costs had risen substantially in recent years, both for homeowners and renters.  Other priority areas mentioned be participants included recruiting and hiring more teachers at the primary and secondary level, increasing the affordability of post-secondary education, mitigating the impacts of climate change, and reducing perceived health worker shortages in Canadian communities.

Participants residing in Quebec were asked to identify areas in which they felt the Government of Canada was performing well and areas where they felt there was room for improvement.  Describing the areas in which they felt the federal government had performed well, participants mentioned the actions it had taken to make child care and dental care more affordable for Canadian families, its work towards reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and its humanitarian efforts on the global stage (including providing assistance to those displaced by conflicts and/or natural disasters).  Discussing areas where they felt there was room for improvement, many reiterated the need for it to increase its actions towards stabilizing the cost of living and making housing more affordable.

Those in the group comprised of young women in Winnipeg were asked to identify issues related to women that they felt required increased attention from the federal government.  Several thought that there needed to be a greater focus on mental health for women, including increased access to therapists and other mental health professionals and treatment for issues such as post-partum depression and anxiety.  Also related to health care, it was believed that there needed to be an increased emphasis on ensuring that all women in Canada had access to women’s health specialists such as gynecologists.  A few thought that actions should also be taken to ensure greater pay equity and opportunities for women in the workforce as well as making it easier for working mothers to balance their professional and familial responsibilities.

The Economy (Major Centres British Columbia Generation Z, Outaouais Region Quebec Millennials, Atlantic Canada Seniors, Major Centres Quebec Prospective First-Time Home Buyers)

Four groups engaged in a brief conversation related to the Canadian economy.  To begin, participants engaged in an exercise where they were asked to select a single word or phrase to describe the current state of the economy.  Many selected words with negative connotations, such as ‘unstable’, ‘expensive’, ‘troubling’, and ‘declining’.  Among these participants, it was felt that the Canadian economy had worsened in recent years, with many expressing concerns related to what they perceived as a lack of economic productivity, limited job growth, and the closure of many small businesses in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.  A few had a more positive impression of the economy, selecting words such as ‘great’ and ‘outperforming’.  For these participants, it was believed that while the Canadian economy had faced some challenges in recent years, it was performing better than they had expected and had outpaced the economies of many of Canada’s peers on the global stage. 

Asked to identify the specific economic issues that they were personally concerned about, several described housing as a major challenge at present and were of the impression that housing costs had risen substantially for many Canadians in recent years.  A number mentioned the high cost of living, believing that prices for essentials such as groceries and gasoline had increased considerably in recent years.  Participants also identified climate change as having a negative impact on the economy, believing that higher temperatures and more unpredictable weather patterns in recent years had made it more expensive for farmers to produce and transport food products, leading to higher costs for Canadian consumers.  

Discussing whether they felt the Canadian economy would improve, worsen, or stay the same over the coming twelve months, most expected that it would remain relatively stable.  Several expressed the view that while issues related to inflation and the cost of living had stabilized somewhat in recent months, it would likely take longer than a year for the economy to begin to improve, given the degree to which they felt these challenges had impacted Canadian households. 

Questioned whether they felt that their own financial situation would get better, worse, or stay the same, participants were more optimistic and several expected that their financial situation would improve over the coming year.  Describing why they felt this way, participants cited factors such as expected promotions and salary increases at work, recently graduating from a post-secondary program, as well as the expectation that they would be able to pay off debt and other large expenses over the coming year.  Very few expected that their economic situation would worsen over the next twelve months.

Budget 2024 (All Locations)

Participants in all groups took part in discussions related to the 2024 federal budget, which was tabled on April 16 ^th , 2024.  Groups conducted prior to the budget’s tabling engaged in conversations related to pre-budget announcements from the Government of Canada, while those held after its release shared their initial overall impressions as well as their reactions to specific initiatives that had been included.  Furthermore, all groups conducted after the tabling of the budget engaged in in-depth discussions concerning the large number of budget initiatives related to housing.   

Pre-Budget Announcements (Mid-Size Centres Alberta, Quebec, British Columbia, Prairies)

Four groups (all conducted prior to the budget’s tabling) took part in brief conversations regarding their awareness and opinions related to a number of initiatives that had been announced by the federal government in the weeks leading up to the budget’s release.  Asked whether they were aware of any pre-budget announcements made by the Government of Canada, very few indicated that they were. 

Participants engaged in an exercise where they were asked whether they had seen, read, or heard about a series of specific announcements from the federal government.  While awareness of the announcements was relatively low among participants, a greater number recalled having heard about the initiatives related to encouraging the inclusion of rent payments in a tenant’s credit score, establishing a National School Food Program, and new initiatives related to child care, relative to announcements concerning the creation of a Renters’ Bill of Rights and providing a top-up to the Housing Accelerator Fund. 

On balance, while a small number were worried about the potential costs of these initiatives, participants were mostly positive in their overall reactions to these measures.  Many expressed support for the proposed creation of a Renters’ Bill of Rights and the initiative to allow renters to establish and build credit by making on-time rent payments.  Most also reacted positively to the plan to provide a $400 million top-up to the Housing Accelerator Fund, though a few questioned what regulations would be in place to ensure that housing built through this initiative would be affordable for lower- and middle-income Canadians.  

Almost all supported the federal government taking action to launch a new Child Care Expansion Loan Program, believing this would have a major positive impact for families with young children who were currently struggling with the cost and/or availability of child care.  While the introduction of a National School Food Program was also seen as important, a number felt that a greater emphasis should be placed on making groceries in general more affordable, likely reducing the need for this program.  

Initial Budget Impressions (Major Centres British Columbia Generation Z, Outaouais Region Quebec Millennials, Atlantic Canada Seniors, Major Centres Quebec Prospective First-Time Home Buyers, Ontario)

Five groups briefly discussed their initial overall impressions of the 2024 Budget.  Asked whether they had watched the budget speech by the Minister of Finance or had seen clips of it on the news or social media, very few reported that they had.  Questioned whether their overall reaction to the budget had been positive or negative, a large number expressed uncertainty, feeling they did not know enough about its contents to provide a proper evaluation.  Among those who did provide a response, a roughly equal number had a positive impression of the budget as those who were more neutral, while a smaller number were more negative in their reactions.  Discussing specific aspects of the budget that they had heard about and liked, several mentioned the increase to the capital gains inclusion rate (referred to as a capital gains tax), while a smaller number identified the introduction of a National School Food Program. 

Asked if they felt that there was any particular theme or story associated with Budget 2024, while most were uncertain, a few believed that the budget had primarily been focused on improving the economic wellbeing of Canadians and making life (and especially essential needs such as groceries and housing) more affordable. 

Specific Measures (Major Centres British Columbia Generation Z, Outaouais Region Quebec Millennials, Atlantic Canada Seniors, Major Centres Quebec Prospective First-Time Home Buyers, Greater Toronto Area Middle Class, Atlantic Canada, Winnipeg Young Women, Ontario)

All eight groups conducted after the tabling of the budget engaged in an extended conversation related to specific actions and initiatives that had been announced.  Asked what came to mind when they thought about Budget 2024, many thought that housing had been a major focus, believing there had been numerous initiatives announced related to increasing the housing supply, making housing more affordable for Canadians, and addressing issues such as homelessness.  Several were also of the impression that national defence had been a key aspect of this year’s budget and had heard that the Government of Canada would be increasing its defence spending in the years to come.  A number also recalled the measure to increase the capital gains inclusion rate, as well as the establishment of a National School Lunch Program and the creation of the new Canada Disability Benefit. 

Participants next engaged in an exercise where they were presented with brief details regarding a number of initiatives that had been announced as part of the budget and asked to select which they felt would have the most positive impact on Canadians. 

The measure to stabilize the cost of groceries received overwhelming support among participants, with many believing that it should be the foremost priority for the federal government.  It was widely felt that this action would positively impact the largest number of Canadians as well as address what was viewed as a significant source of financial stress for many households at present. 

The initiative to implement health care agreements with every province and territory to improve access to primary care and reduce wait times also received considerable support among participants.  It was thought by several that this would positively impact a large number of Canadians who were currently facing challenges accessing the health resources they required due to long wait times for primary and/or emergency care.  Similarly, several also viewed the establishment of a national pharmacare program (beginning with universal coverage for birth control and diabetes medication and devices) as an important priority for the federal government.  It was widely thought that this would be very beneficial to those Canadians with chronic conditions who were struggling with the costs of their prescription medication. 

Initiatives to crack down on junk fees and make things like internet and mobile phone plans more affordable, as well as ensuring the wealthiest 0.1 per cent of Canadians pay their fair share in taxes also received some support among participants.  Relatively few selected the initiatives to create a National School Food Program and implement action on foreign health care credential recognition. 

Provided with information related to the initiative to ask wealthier Canadians to pay a bit more in taxes, far greater number expressed support for this approach compared to those who were more neutral or opposed in their opinions.  Among those who supported this initiative, it was felt that the increased tax revenue could be allocated towards funding a wide range of programs and benefits for Canadians.  It was expected that this could be particularly helpful for lower- and middle-income households who were currently struggling with the cost of living.  For the smaller number who were opposed to this approach, it was believed that this would discourage wealthier Canadians from investing in the Canadian economy and would potentially lead to reduced economic productivity as a result. 

Asked whether they expected that any of the measures they had discussed would help to ensure that younger Canadians were able to get ahead, several reiterated the importance of the measure to stabilize the price of groceries.  It was felt that until essentials such as food and housing became more affordable, it would be difficult for most younger Canadians to get ahead and save towards building their futures.  A number thought that a greater focus should be placed by the federal government on making post-secondary education more affordable as well as removing the financial barriers for those seeking to get the training and certifications required to compete in the modern Canadian economy.  

Housing Initiatives (Major Centres British Columbia Generation Z, Outaouais Region Quebec Millennials, Atlantic Canada Seniors, Major Centres Quebec Prospective First-Time Home Buyers, Greater Toronto Area Middle Class, Atlantic Canada, Winnipeg Young Women, Ontario)

All groups conducted after the tabling of the budget also engaged in discussions related to the wide range of housing initiatives that had been announced.  Informed that the Government of Canada had introduced a three-part plan to address the housing crisis, laying out a strategy to unlock 3.87 million new homes by 2031, participants engaged in an exercise where they were provided with information related to the various initiatives that had been announced as part of this plan and prompted to share their reactions.

Presented with information regarding measures that had been announced that were focused on building more homes in Canadian communities, almost all reacted positively and felt that these actions represented a step in the right direction.  Participants expressed particular support for the measures related to the Housing Accelerator Fund and reaching agreements with municipalities to reduce red tape, change the way homes in Canada are built (including through the use of technology such as prefabricated housing factories), and provide $15 billion to builders through the Apartment Construction Loan Program.  Many, however, expressed the view that unless tangible actions were taken to make housing prices more affordable, these measures would make little difference in terms of assisting lower- and middle-income Canadians in becoming homeowners. 

Provided with information related to a second set of measures, this time focused on protecting renters and making it easier for prospective first-time home buyers to purchase a home, almost all felt that these were the right initiatives for the federal government to be focusing on.  Several felt the measure to encourage fintech companies, credit bureaus, and lenders to provide renters with the option to include their rental payment history in their credit scores would be especially helpful for those trying to build credit history.  The creation of a Renters’ Bill of Rights was also seen as an important measure, with many believing that renters currently had too few protections from predatory or unfair practices by landlords.  A large number expected that the introduction of a 30-year mortgage term would make home ownership more affordable for prospective first-time home buyers, lengthening the period of time they would have to pay back these loans.  Participants also reacted positively to the decision to extend the ban on foreign homebuyers as well as the decision to crack down on illegal short-term rentals.  It was felt that these actions would have a significant impact on increasing the supply of housing, both to purchase and to rent. 

Participants were also shown a third set of initiatives highlighting the measures that the federal government was proposing to assist those struggling with the cost of housing.  All believed that these actions would have a positive impact on those currently struggling to afford the cost of housing and/or who were unable to find a home of their own.  While all felt that investing $1 billion into the Affordable Housing fund to support non-profit, co-operative, and public housing providers was an important step, several thought that, given what they believed to be the significant size and scope of the housing affordability issues facing Canadians, this amount would likely not be enough to fully address the issue.  Participants were also largely positive in their reactions to the measure to create a Rental Protection Fund to ensure that affordable rental units were not purchased with the intention of being developed into luxury housing.  It was thought that, given the perceived significant shortage of available rental units in many parts of the country, developers should be discouraged wherever possible by the Government of Canada from building housing that was not generally affordable. 

Asked whether they felt any of the measures they had discussed would be effective in helping younger Canadians as well as future generations get ahead, including providing them with access to a variety of affordable housing options, participants identified a range of initiatives that they expected would help in this regard.  These included the allowing for lenders to offer 30-year mortgages, including on-time rent payments in credit scores, and extending the ban on foreign investors from purchasing residential property.  Several, however, reiterated that unless efforts were taken to lower housing prices and the cost of living more generally, it would remain very difficult for young people to gain access to the housing market.

Taxation (Mid-Size Centres Alberta, Quebec, British Columbia, Prairies)

Four groups took part in conversations related to taxation and potential changes to taxation at the federal level.  Asked how much money they felt one had to earn annually to be considered wealthy, participant responses ranged from approximately $100,000 to upwards of $500,000 with most estimates falling between the $200,000-$300,000 range.  Discussing other measures, apart from money, that they would use to determine wealth, participants identified lifestyle elements such as owning a luxury home or multiple homes, driving luxury vehicles, dining at restaurants, having the ability to go on vacation every year, access to private medical care, and the ability to meet all of their financial needs while still having income leftover to put towards investments or use for discretional spending. 

Asked whether they felt wealthy Canadians were currently paying their fair share in taxes, participants were mixed in their responses.  While many felt that higher earning individuals often did pay a significant amount more in taxes compared to those with lower incomes, it was also widely believed that wealthy individuals (and especially the wealthiest Canadians) had far greater access to various deductions and other mechanisms that they could use to reduce their taxable income. 

Discussing whether they would be in favour of the federal government creating a wealth tax that would be paid annually by the wealthiest Canadians, many were hesitant about such an initiative.  Several did not view this approach as being fair, believing that in many cases the wealthiest Canadians had earned their wealth through hard work and success and did not feel that they should be penalized for this.  Asked how they would feel if this tax was applied specifically to the top one per cent of income-earners in Canada, a far greater number expressed support for this measure, believing that the wealthiest one per cent would be able to afford this tax far more readily compared to other high-earning Canadians. 

Focusing on the potential benefits and costs associated with a wealth tax, participants mentioned a wide range of considerations.  Many expected that the introduction of an annual tax on the wealth of the highest-earning Canadians, would have the benefit of providing the federal government with additional tax revenues that it could use towards improving the lives of the rest of Canadians.  It was felt that these additional revenues could be invested in areas such as education, health care, infrastructure and public works projects, and towards providing greater assistance to groups such as seniors and younger Canadians who were believed to be currently struggling with the cost of living.  Focusing on the potential costs of this measure, participants expressed concerns that this could lead to a decrease in economic investments and philanthropic activity by the wealthiest Canadians as they would now need to devote additional amounts to paying for this tax.  Some also believed that this program would be challenging to administer and expected that, due to the unrealized or speculative value of many asset types (such as investments), it would be difficult to measure the exact wealth of individuals and determine how much they might owe under this new initiative.   

Questioned whether, having now discussed this issue, they would support the creation of a wealth tax, a slightly larger number reported that they would compared to those who felt otherwise.  For those who supported this measure, it was felt that the revenues gained by a wealth tax for the highest-earning Canadians would have a significant benefit for the rest of Canadians while having relatively little impact on the financial wellbeing of the top one per cent.  Discussing whether they could think of any alternatives to a wealth tax, participants suggested potential initiatives such as the introduction of regulations compelling large businesses to contribute a certain amount of their profits towards charitable organizations, public works projects, and infrastructure, as well as modifying the tax brackets (as opposed to taxing wealth directly) to ensure that wealthier individuals would pay more going forward. 

Asked whether they were familiar with the term “capital gains”, a large number indicated that they were.  Describing what they believed this term meant, participants widely believed that capital gains were the profits made on the sale of an investment (such as a stock or bond) and that this income was often subject to taxation.  Asked what type of people they felt typically received capital gains, it was felt that this could be anyone, with several recalling having previously earned capital gains themselves.

Discussing whether they felt capital gains should be taxed, while a number felt that this was appropriate for individuals whose income primarily came from capital gains, it was thought by most that capital gains should not be taxed on the sale of assets such as a home, long-term investment, or other assets that had been owned for a considerable period of time.  The view was expressed that there should be a cap placed on the amount of capital gains that can be taxed as well as greater consideration for the period of time investments had been held, with capital gains taxation primarily focusing on short-term investments. 

Asked who would benefit most from a lower capital gains tax, participants expected this would positively impact the majority of Canadians and especially those who were actively investing, preparing to sell a property, or selling investments in preparation for their retirement.  Discussing who would gain the most from a higher capital gains tax, many thought that the federal government and recipients of its benefits and supports would be the greatest beneficiaries in that there would now be increased tax revenue to devote towards funding these programs. 

Questioned as to whether they felt it was fair to tax capital gains on certain types of assets over others, most believed that it was.  Focusing specifically on capital gains related to real estate, a number believed that these should be taxed at a high level, especially given the perceived significant shortage of available housing in many parts of the country at present.  Provided with information related to the principal residence exemption, almost all felt that this was a fair approach.  It was believed that, rather than as an investment, most homeowners had purchased their homes as a place to live and that they should not be penalized due to the increase in value of their primary residence during the time that they had owned it. 

Climate Change Impacts (Quebec, British Columbia)

Participants in two groups engaged in discussions related to the potential present and future impacts of climate change.  Asked whether they were concerned about the potential impacts of climate change, all in the group based in British Columbia (B.C.) and most in Quebec indicated that they were, and many felt that the impacts of climate change had already begun to take place.  It was widely believed that climate change had been a major contributing factor behind large-scale forest fires, windstorms, droughts, and flooding that had occurred in many parts of the country in recent years.  Several were worried that these issues would continue to occur with increasing frequency in the years and decades to come and believed that this could have a significant negative impact on the quality of life for future generations.

Asked to describe what came to mind when they thought about the potential impacts of climate change, several expressed concern regarding issues such as rising temperatures, potential droughts, and the increased risk of floods and wildfires in their respective regions.  It was felt that climate change could have a considerable negative impact on both the environment as well as the economy, especially in the agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry sectors.  Participants also shared concerns related to the negative impacts they expected climate change would have on Canadians’ health, believing that it could lead to a decrease in air and water quality across the country. 

Questioned whether they had observed any impacts of climate change in their communities as well as in their own lives, participants identified a range of areas that they felt had been impacted by changing weather patterns.  Several reported having changed their behaviours to try to mitigate the impact of climate change, including utilizing public transportation more frequently and making efforts to grow their own food.  A number mentioned no longer partaking in activities such as camping, citing concerns related to higher temperatures and the growing risk of wildfires in the summer months.  Participants also believed that climate change had negatively affected their mental and physical health, with some reporting having faced issues such as growing anxiety related to the potential impacts of climate change in the years and decades to come and increasing physiological challenges (such as worsening asthma) in recent years. 

Discussing actions that the Government of Canada had taken to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of climate change, a number recalled initiatives related to the goal of decreasing emissions, including the implementation of a price on carbon as well as its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.  Some also mentioned initiatives from the federal government related to encouraging Canadians to switch to electric vehicles (EVs).  These included making investments towards the increased production of EVs in Canada as well as providing financial incentives to individuals who purchase these vehicles.   

Carbon Pricing (Mid-Size Centres Alberta, Prairies, Atlantic Canada)

Participants in three groups took part in discussions related to carbon pollution pricing in Canada.  At the outset of their conversation, those residing in mid-size centres in Alberta were asked what, if anything, they had recently seen, read, or heard about carbon pollution pricing.  Almost all expressed concern about the potential negative impacts of carbon pollution pricing, with a large number associating the implementation of a price on carbon with what they perceived as a significant increase to the cost of gasoline in recent years.  A number were worried about the impact that initiatives such as the implementation of a price on carbon could have on the employment market in their province, 

especially in the oil and gas sector, which they expected would likely face additional financial challenges as a result of having to adhere to the federal carbon pricing system. 

Asked whether, to the best of their understanding, there was currently a price on carbon in their respective provinces, almost all participants believed that there was.  Discussing what they had seen, read, or heard about the Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR), while several expressed familiarity with this program, few were aware of any specific details.  Informed that the CCR was a tax-free amount to help eligible individuals and families offset the cost of federal pollution pricing, many questioned the purpose of federal pollution pricing system, if the funds acquired through this program were eventually redistributed back to Canadians.  Several were of the opinion that, rather than paying back these amounts through CCRs, funds acquired by the federal government through its price on carbon should instead be reinvested towards environmentally focused initiatives such as providing financial incentives for Canadians to retrofit their homes with energy efficient technology including solar panels and heat pumps. 

Discussing whether, based on what they knew about the price on carbon pollution and the CCR, they supported or opposed the Government of Canada’s carbon pricing program, most expressed opposition to this initiative.  Asked whether they had any suggestions to improve the federal carbon pricing system, several reiterated the need for the Government of Canada to provide a more simplified, straightforward explanation as to how the program worked, why CCRs were being returned to Canadians, and the tangible actions that this initiative was having on reducing carbon emissions in Canada going forward.

Climateflation (Mid-Size Centres Alberta, British Columbia, Prairies)

Participants in three groups engaged in brief conversations related to the concepts of climateflation and heatflation.  Asked whether they had previously heard the term climateflation, few indicated that they had.  Discussing what they thought climateflation might refer to, many felt that it was likely connected to climate-focused initiatives such as the implementation of a price on carbon, which they viewed as a contributing factor to the perceived rising cost of living as of late.  No participants were familiar with the term heatflation.  It was largely thought that this phrase was likely similar to climateflation, but with a more specific focus on the impacts caused by rising temperatures. 

Asked how much of an impact, if any, they felt climate change had on the cost of food, almost all in the groups based in British Columbia (B.C.) and the Prairies felt that it was having a significant impact.  It was widely thought that warmer temperatures in the summer, a lack of precipitation, and resulting droughts and wildfires had made it increasingly difficult and more expensive for farmers to produce food, leading to higher grocery prices for consumers.  Several in the group comprised of those residing in mid-size centres in Alberta, however, believed that the impact of climate change on food prices had been relatively minor.  Among these participants it was felt that federal initiatives such as the price on carbon had been a far greater contributing factor to rising grocery costs than climate change. 

Auto Theft (Greater Toronto Area Middle Class)

Participants in the group comprised of middle-class individuals residing in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) engaged in a discussion related to auto theft.  Asked whether they had recently seen, read, or heard about actions that the Government of Canada was taking to address this issue, none reported that they had.  All viewed auto theft as an increasing concern in their community that required greater prioritization from the federal government, with a number recalling having personally been impacted by this issue.

Provided with information regarding a number of measures that the federal government had recently announced related to combatting auto theft, all reacted positively, with many expressing strong support for the addition of new criminal offences to the Criminal Code .  Several expected that the initiative to strengthen the capacity of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to detect and search containers suspected to hold stolen vehicles would also be particularly effective in combatting auto theft.    

Asked whether they felt these actions would have a major, minor, or no impact, most expected they would have a major impact and believed these represented the right initiatives for the Government of Canada to be focusing on.  Among the smaller number who thought these measures would only have a minor impact, it was thought that actions also needed to be taken by manufacturers to make it more difficult to steal these automobiles in the first place. 

Electric Vehicles (Ontario)

One group took part in a brief discussion related to electric vehicles (EVs).  Asked if they had recently seen, read, or heard any news related to the Government of Canada and EVs, several recalled its commitment to require all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035, as well as recent investments (in partnership with companies such as Honda) towards the manufacturing of EVs and EV batteries in Ontario. 

Informed that the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario had recently announced that Honda Canada would be making a $15 billion investment towards the building of four new EV manufacturing plants in the province, several reacted positively, believing that this would lead to the creation of more high-paying jobs in the province as well as benefit the environment by producing more emissions-free vehicles.  A number, however, expressed potential concerns related to this approach.  Among these participants, it was thought that producing EVs could be quite costly and that many of these vehicles were currently unaffordable for lower- and middle-income Canadians.  Some were also of the impression that there were environmental concerns associated with mining the raw materials required for EV batteries as well as challenges related to disposing of these batteries at the end of their lifespans. 

Discussing the potential impacts to their community from EV-related initiatives such as these, a few worried about potential job losses and questioned whether the jobs created through this initiative would be enough to offset the potential loss of employment for those currently employed in the manufacturing of gasoline-powered automobiles.  A number also expressed concerns related to whether the electricity grid in their area would be able to handle the substantial increases in demand that they expected would accompany a large-scale shift among Canadians towards driving EVs.

Four groups engaged in a brief conversation related to the Canadian economy.  To begin, participants engaged in an exercise where they were asked to select a single word or phrase to describe the current state of the economy.  Many selected words with negative connotations, such as ‘unstable’, ‘expensive’, ‘troubling’, and ‘declining’.  Among these participants, it was felt that the Canadian economy had worsened in recent years, with many expressing concerns related to what they perceived as a lack of economic productivity, limited job growth, and the closure of many small businesses in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.  A number selected the word ‘inflation’, believing that rising costs across all sectors had made life increasingly unaffordable for Canadians, and that many lower- and middle-income families were currently struggling to make ends meet financially.  A few had a more positive impression of the economy, selecting words such as ‘great’ and ‘outperforming’.  Among these participants, it was believed that while the Canadian economy had faced some challenges in recent years, it was performing better than they had expected and had outpaced the economies of many of Canada’s peers on the global stage. 

Asked to identify the specific economic issues that they were personally concerned about, several described housing as a major challenge and were of the impression that housing costs had risen substantially for many Canadians, including homeowners who had experienced sharp increases to their monthly mortgage payments due to rising interest rates.  A number mentioned the high cost of living, believing that prices for essentials such as groceries and gasoline had increased considerably in recent years.  A few also viewed the employment market as being challenging at present, with some describing difficulties that they had personally faced in securing a well-paying job in their field.  Some also identified climate change as having a negative impact on the economy, believing that higher temperatures and more unpredictable weather patterns in recent years had made it more expensive for farmers to produce and transport food products, leading to higher costs for Canadian consumers.  

Discussing whether they felt the Canadian economy would improve, worsen, or stay the same over the coming twelve months, most expected that it would remain relatively stable.  Several expressed the view that while issues related to inflation and the cost of living had stabilized somewhat in recent months, it would likely take longer than a year for the economy to begin to improve, given the degree to which they felt these challenges had impacted Canadian households.  A smaller number believed that the economy would likely improve over the next year.  Among these participants, it was felt that the Government of Canada had done a good job in bringing the rate of inflation back under control, and that a growing Canadian population would lead to increased economic productivity in the years to come.  Among the few who felt that the economy would likely worsen, it was believed that so long as the costs of essential goods and products (such as food, fuel, and home heating) continued to increase, a growing number of Canadian families would face financial challenges and that this would lead to lower consumer spending and economic activity overall.  

Questioned whether they felt that their own financial situation would get better, worse, or stay the same, participants were more optimistic and several expected that their financial situation would improve over the coming year.  Describing why they felt this way, participants cited factors such as expected promotions and salary increases at work, recently graduating from a post-secondary program, as well as the expectation that they would be able to pay off debt and other large expenses over the coming year.  A number felt somewhat differently and predicated that their situation would remain mostly the same.  Among these participants, it was expected that while they would continue to be able to make ends meet, the high cost of living would make it difficult for them to accrue savings and get ahead financially.  Very few expected that their economic situation would worsen over the next twelve months.

Participants in all groups took part in discussions related to the 2024 federal Budget, which was tabled on April 16 ^th , 2024.  Groups conducted prior to the Budget’s tabling engaged in conversations related to pre-Budget announcements from the Government of Canada, while those held after its release shared their initial overall impressions as well as their reactions to specific initiatives that had been included.  Furthermore, all groups conducted after the tabling of the Budget engaged in in-depth discussions concerning the large number of budget initiatives related to housing.   

Pre-Budget Announcements (Mid-Size Centres Alberta, Quebec, British Columbia, Prairies)

Four groups (all conducted prior to the Budget’s tabling) took part in brief conversations regarding their awareness and opinions related to a number of initiatives that had been announced by the federal government in the weeks leading up to the Budget’s release.  Asked whether they were aware of any pre-Budget announcements made by the Government of Canada, very few indicated that they were.  While a small number of participants were of the impression that there had been some recent announcements related to increasing the housing supply and making housing more affordable for Canadians, none could recall any specific details. 

Participants next engaged in an exercise where they were asked whether they had seen, read, or heard about a series specific announcements from the federal government.  As a point of clarity, participants were provided with additional details (shown below) for each initiative before continuing the conversation.  The initiatives presented to participants included:

Canadian Renter’s Bill of Rights: The Government of Canada has proposed creating a new Canadian Renters’ Bill of Rights which will be developed and implemented in partnership with provinces and territories.  This Bill of Rights would require landlords to disclose a clear history of apartment pricing so renters can bargain fairly.  The federal government also plans to crack down on renovictions, create a nationwide standard lease agreement, and give renters more agency.

A measure to encourage the inclusion of rent payments in a tenant’s credit score: The Government of Canada has proposed creating a measure to make sure renters get credit for on-time rent payments.  The federal government plans to amend the Canadian Mortgage Charter and call on landlords, banks, and other stakeholders to make sure that rental history is taken into account in a tenant’s credit score.

Topping up the Housing Accelerator Fund: The Housing Accelerator Fund is a $4 billion initiative that is helping increase the housing supply by encouraging building more homes, faster.  The Government of Canada is planning to top up this fund with an additional $400 million to encourage municipalities to incentivize building by doing things such as removing prohibitive zoning barriers.

National School Food Program: The Government of Canada has proposed creating a new National School Food Program.  The Program will launch with a target of providing meals to 400,000 more kids every year, beyond those served by existing school food programs.

Initiatives related to child care: The Government of Canada has proposed new measures to build more affordable child care spaces.  It plans to launch a new Child Care Expansion Loan Program so that child care providers will be able to build new spaces and renovate their existing child care centres.  The federal government is also planning to offer student loan forgiveness for rural and remote early childhood educators to encourage educators to work in smaller communities.  Additionally, the federal government is planning to invest in training more early childhood educators.

The two groups comprised of residents of British Columbia (B.C.) and the Prairies, respectively, were also provided with the following information related to proposed increases to defence spending by the federal government:

Investing in defence spending: The Government of Canada is planning to invest an additional $8.1 billion over five years and $73 billion over 20 years in defence spending.  These investments are to ensure the CAF has the tools and capacity they need to defend Canada and protect North America, including Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic and Northern regions.

While awareness of the announcements was relatively low among participants, a greater number recalled having heard about the initiatives related to encouraging the inclusion of rent payments in a tenant’s credit score, establishing a National School Food Program, and new initiatives related to child care, relative to announcements concerning the creation of a Renters’ Bill of Rights and providing a top-up to the Housing Accelerator Fund.  Among the groups who were asked whether they were aware of any recent announcements from the federal government related to increasing defence spending, only a small number recalled having heard about this.

On balance, while a small number were worried about the potential costs of these initiatives, participants were mostly positive in their overall reactions to these measures.  A large number expressed support for the proposed creation of a Renters’ Bill of Rights and the initiative to allow renters to establish and build credit by making on-time rent payments.  A few, however, felt that actions also needed to be taken to provide increased protections for landlords, especially in increasing their ability to evict tenants who are not paying rent and/or who are in violation of their rental agreements.  While most were also supportive of the plan to provide a $400 million top-up to the Housing Accelerator Fund, a small number questioned what regulations would be in place to ensure that housing built through this initiative would be affordable for lower- and middle-income Canadians. 

Almost all supported the federal government taking action to launch a new Child Care Expansion Loan Program, believing this would have a major positive impact for families with young children who were currently struggling with the cost and/or availability of child care.  A number described a lack of available child care spaces as being a significant issue in their community and that many facilities often had long waiting lists.  A few residing in the Prairies were particularly supportive of the initiative by the federal government to encourage early childhood educators (ECEs), through student loan forgiveness, to work in smaller and rural communities.   While the introduction of a National School Food Program was also seen as important, a number questioned the criteria for this program and whether it would also be offered to semi-private and private schools.  A few felt differently, believing that rather than establishing a school food program, the Government of Canada should instead focus on making groceries more affordable in general, likely reducing the need for this type of program.  

Among the groups provided with information related to the proposed investment of an additional $8.1 billion over five years, and $73 billion over twenty years towards defence spending and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), participants were more mixed in their reactions.  While some felt this was a prudent measure and believed that it was important for Canada to increase its defence capacity amidst what they viewed as an increasingly dangerous geopolitical climate, a roughly equal number felt otherwise.  Among these participants, it was felt that while national defence was important, there were other pressing issues (such as the perceived high cost of living and lack of affordable housing) that required more urgent attention from the federal government.

Initial Budget Impressions (Major Centres British Columbia Generation Z, Outaouais Region Quebec Millennials, Atlantic Canada Seniors, Major Centres Quebec Prospective First-Time Home Buyers, Ontario)

Five groups briefly discussed their initial overall impressions of the 2024 Budget.  Asked whether they were aware of any recent news or announcements from the federal government related to the economy, many mentioned the tabling of Budget 2024, with a number specifically recalling the measure to increase the capital gains inclusion rate (referred to as a capital gains tax) for individuals, trusts, and corporations.  Unrelated to the budget, participants also recalled the announcement by the Bank of Canada on April 10 ^th , 2024, that it would be maintaining its policy interest rate at 5 per cent as well as a report from Statistics Canada that Canada’s real gross domestic product (GDP) had risen 0.2 per cent for the month of February 2024.

Asked whether they had watched the budget speech by the Minister of Finance or had seen clips of it on the news or social media, very few reported that they had.  Questioned whether their overall reaction to the budget had been positive or negative, a large number expressed uncertainty, feeling they did not know enough about its contents to provide a proper evaluation.  Among those who did provide a response, a roughly equal number had a positive impression of the budget as those who were more neutral, while a smaller number were more negative in their reactions.  Discussing specific aspects of the budget that they had heard about and/or liked, several mentioned the increase to the capital gains inclusion rate, while a smaller number identified the introduction of a National School Food Program.

Discussing if they felt that there was any particular theme or story associated with Budget 2024, while most were uncertain, a few believed that the budget had primarily been focused on improving the economic wellbeing of Canadians and making life (and especially essential needs such as groceries and housing) more affordable.  Asked whether any of the items included in the budget would have an impact on their personal or household financial situation, a few expected that increased taxation of capital gains on investments would have a negative impact.  A small number expressed the opinion that more should have been done by the federal government to provide supports for persons living with disabilities, believing that this had not been a major focus of Budget 2024.

Specific Measures (Major Centres British Columbia Generation Z, Outaouais Region Quebec Millennials, Atlantic Canada Seniors, Major Centres Quebec Prospective First-Time Home Buyers, Greater Toronto Area Middle Class, Atlantic Canada, Winnipeg Young Women, Ontario)

All eight groups conducted after the tabling of the budget engaged in an extended conversation related to specific actions and initiatives that had been announced.  To aid in conversation, participants were provided with the following clarification regarding what a federal budget entails:

Every year the federal government announces a budget for the coming year.  This is where the government describes what it will invest in and any plans it has for new programs.  The government will also make projections on things like the deficit and where the economy is headed.  This year’s federal budget was announced on April 16 ^th , 2024.

Asked what came to mind when they thought about the 2024 federal budget, many were of the impression that housing had been a major focus, believing there had been numerous initiatives announced related to increasing the housing supply, making housing more affordable for Canadians, and addressing issues such as homelessness.  Several were also of the impression that national defence had been a key aspect of this year’s budget and had heard that the Government of Canada would be increasing its defence spending in the years to come.  A number recalled the measure to increase the capital gains inclusion rate, as well as the establishment of a National School Lunch Program and the creation of the new Canada Disability Benefit.  Regarding the latter, a few expressed the view that the amounts provided through this program would not be sufficient to ensure that persons living with disabilities had enough financial support to meet their basic needs.  A number expressed concern about the costs of all the programs and initiatives that had been announced as part of Budget 2024, and worried about how this might impact the national debt. 

Participants next engaged in an exercise where they were presented with brief details regarding a number of initiatives that had been announced as part of the budget and asked to select which two they felt would have the most positive impact on Canadians.  The initiatives shown to participants included:

• Stabilizing the cost of groceries by monitoring the big grocers, increasing competition, and tackling shrinkflation;
• Creating a National School Food Program to provide meals to 400,000 more kids every year;
• Cracking down on junk fees and making things like internet and cell phone plans cheaper;
• Launching a national pharmacare plan, beginning with universal coverage for birth control and diabetes medication and devices;
• Implementing healthcare agreements with every province and territory to improve access to primary care and reduce wait times;
• Implementing action on Foreign Health Care Credential Recognition to help more health care workers practice in Canada; and
• Ensuring the wealthiest Canadians pay their fair share by asking the top 0.1% of Canadians to pay a little bit more.  

The initiative to stabilize the cost of groceries received overwhelming support among participants, with many believing that it should be the foremost priority for the federal government.  It was widely felt that this action would positively impact the largest number of Canadians as well as address what was viewed as a significant source of financial stress for many households at present.  A number were of the opinion that actions should be taken to increase competition within the grocery sector as well as regulate the amounts that major grocery chains can earn in profits.

The initiative to implement health care agreements with every province and territory to improve access to primary care and reduce wait times also received considerable support among participants.  It was thought by several that this would positively impact a large number of Canadians who were currently facing challenges accessing the health resources they required due to long wait times for primary and/or emergency care.  The view was expressed that, given recent increases to the population due to rising immigration, it was of critical importance for the federal government to work towards increasing the capacity of the health care system across Canada.  A few also felt that reaching these agreements could serve as a way for the Government of Canada to establish higher national health care standards that all provincial and territorial governments would be required to meet. 

Similarly, several also viewed the establishment of a national pharmacare program (beginning with universal coverage for birth control and diabetes medication and devices) as an important priority for the federal government.  It was widely thought that this would be very beneficial to those Canadians with chronic conditions who were struggling with the costs of their prescription medication.  A number expressed the opinion that action on this front was much needed and that full pharmacare coverage should be included as a part of the universal health care coverage offered to all Canadians.

Initiatives to crack down on junk fees and make things like internet and mobile phone plans more affordable, as well as ensuring the wealthiest 0.1 per cent of Canadians pay their fair share in taxes also received some support among participants.  Several were of the impression that junk fees had been attached to a wide range of goods and services and that eliminating them would benefit virtually all Canadians.  A number also believed that Canadians currently paid some of the highest internet and mobile phone rates in the world and that more needed to be done by the federal government to make these essential aspects of modern life more affordable.  Discussing the measure to increase the amount of taxes paid by the wealthiest Canadians, a number believed it was a prudent move, especially given the financial challenges they believed many lower- and middle-income families were currently facing.  It was thought that this action would lead to a more equitable society by providing increased funding to the federal government for the provision of benefits and supports for the rest of Canadians. 

Relatively few selected the initiatives to create a National School Food Program and implement action on foreign health care credential recognition.  Among those who did, it was felt that the establishment of a school food program would ensure that all children, and especially those from lower-income families, would have access to nutritional food during the school day.  Participants who expressed support for taking action to recognize the credentials of health workers trained outside of Canada believed that this would be an effective way to address issues such as health worker shortages and long wait times that they believed were currently impacting many communities across the country. 

Participants in the group comprised of members of Generation Z residing in major centres in B.C. were shown an additional initiative: Meeting the government’s fiscal targets by spending responsibly.  A small number selected this initiative, believing that reducing the national deficit was an important priority, and that the federal government should be focused on stabilizing and decreasing its spending going forward.  This group was also provided with the following information regarding the Government of Canada’s approach to increasing the rate of taxation for the wealthiest Canadians:

The federal government proposes to ask the wealthiest top 0.1% of Canadians to pay a bit more.  The government says that this is in the spirit of generational fairness so that investments can be made in building more housing, making life cost less and creating jobs and growth. 

Reacting to this information, several expressed uncertainty as to whether this approach would be an effective way to improve life for Canadians, and instead believed the federal government should work to reduce its spending rather than increasing taxes for the wealthiest individuals.  A number were of the impression that the wealthiest Canadians already paid a significant amount more in taxes compared to those in other income brackets and did not think it would be fair to tax these individuals further.  A few were also concerned that this action may encourage wealthy individuals and any businesses they may own to leave Canada, believing that this would have a negative impact on the Canadian economy overall.

All other groups were shown an expanded version of the information presented above, in the form of the following quote from the Minister of Finance during the budget speech:

“In Canada and around the world, the 21st century winner-takes-all economy is making those at the very top richer, while too many middle-class Canadians are struggling just to avoid falling behind.  The job of our tax system is to lean against this structural inequality—to fund investments in the middle class, especially in young Canadians, by asking those who are benefitting from the winner-takes-all economy to pay a little bit more.  Today, our tax system does not do that.  Today it is possible for a carpenter or a nurse to pay tax at a higher marginal rate than a multi-millionaire.   That is not fair.  That must change.  And it will.

Our government is raising the inclusion rate to two-thirds on annual capital gains above $250,000 for individuals.  This new revenue will help make life cost less for millions of Canadians, particularly Millennials and Gen Z.   It will help fund our efforts to turbocharge the building of more homes.  It will support investments in growth and productivity that will pay dividends for years to come.”

Asked whether they supported or opposed this approach, a far greater number expressed support compared to those who were more neutral or opposed in their opinions.  Among those who supported this initiative, it was felt that the increased tax revenue could be allocated towards funding a wide range of programs and benefits for Canadians.  It was expected that this could be particularly helpful for lower- and middle-income households who were currently struggling with the cost of living.  A number also believed that this represented a fairer approach regarding how wealth is distributed in Canada and hoped that this would work to reduce income inequality going forward.  For the smaller number who were opposed to this approach, it was believed that this would discourage wealthier Canadians from investing in the Canadian economy and would potentially lead to reduced economic productivity as a result.  It was felt that rather than increasing taxes on the wealthiest individuals, the federal government should instead be seeking to incentivize these individuals to increase their investments towards Canadian businesses and industries.  A few who were more neutral in their opinions felt that they would need to know more about how this additional tax revenue would be allocated to determine whether they supported or opposed this approach.

Questioned whether they had any concerns regarding tax evasion by wealthier individuals, many expressed that they did.  Several were of the impression that this issue had become quite prevalent and believed that many wealthy Canadians often paid very little in taxes due to having the resources to take advantage of deductions and other methods of reducing their taxable income.  Discussing where they felt the additional tax revenues raised through this initiative should be directed, participants mentioned a wide range of areas.  These included the Government of Canada making increased investments towards education, health care (including mental health), issues such as homelessness and opioid addiction, and further supports for vulnerable populations such as seniors and persons living with disabilities.  A few also believed this additional tax revenue could be used to increase investments towards the CAF and national defence, provide greater financial supports for Canadians, and reduce taxes for lower- and middle-income households.

Participants in the groups comprised of millennials residing in Quebec’s Outaouais region, seniors in Atlantic Canada, prospective first-time home buyers living in major centres in Quebec, and residents of Ontario were informed that the budget met the federal governments objectives in terms of managing the deficit and spending responsibly, including lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio and keeping it on a declining track.  Asked how important they felt this objective was compared to the other measures that they had discussed participants were mixed in their opinions.  Many felt that while reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio was an important long-term goal, there were more pressing priorities such as making life more affordable and assisting Canadians currently struggling with the cost of living.  Among those who felt differently, it was thought that reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio would be critical towards preserving the long-term economic health of the country and ensuring that future generations would not be burdened with significant national interest payments.  Discussing whether they felt this action would impact them personally, few believed that it would.  A small number expected that if returning to balanced budgets and/or paying down the national debt became a main priority for the federal government, it would likely lead to fewer benefits and social programs being made available to Canadians in the years to come.

The group comprised of young women residing in Winnipeg were provided with additional information related to Bill C-64 (also referred to as the Pharmacare Act ):

Bill C-64, the Pharmacare Act, proposes the foundational principles for the first phase of national universal pharmacare in Canada and describes the federal government's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications.

This first phase will ensure the effective roll-out of pharmacare, while providing immediate support for health care needs of women, as well as people with diabetes.

While all felt this represented a good start, a number felt that the coverage offered in this initial phase of the program was too limited and should be expanded to include other medical and health expenses such as vision care and menstrual products.  Several felt that universal coverage of contraception products would have a positive effect on women overall and would be particularly helpful to women and girls from lower-income families who may not be able to afford the contraceptive products they require.  A few questioned whether the medications and services covered under this legislation would be completely or only partially covered, if individuals would have to pay a deductible, and whether there would be an income threshold.  

Asked whether they expected that any of the measures they had discussed would help to ensure that younger Canadians were able to get ahead, several reiterated the importance of the measure to stabilize the price of groceries.  It was felt that until essentials such as food and housing became more affordable, it would be difficult for most younger Canadians to get ahead and save towards building their futures.  A number thought that a greater focus should be placed by the federal government on making post-secondary education more affordable as well as removing the financial barriers for those seeking to get the training and certifications required to compete in the modern Canadian economy. 

Housing Initiatives (Major Centres British Columbia Generation Z, Outaouais Region Quebec Millennials, Atlantic Canada Seniors, Major Centres Quebec Prospective First-Time Home Buyers, Greater Toronto Area Middle Class, Atlantic Canada, Winnipeg Young Women, Ontario)

All groups conducted after the tabling of the budget also engaged in discussions related to the wide range of housing initiatives that had been announced.  Asked whether, prior to taking part in these conversations, they were aware of any actions from the Government of Canada related to housing, participants mentioned a number of initiatives.  These included actions to protect renters (including limiting practices such as renovictions), removing the goods and services tax (GST) from the construction of new affordable rental units, providing funding to municipalities towards the construction of new housing through the Housing Accelerator Fund, increasing the withdrawal amount for the Home Buyer’s Plan from $35,000 to $60,000, and the introduction of programs such as the First Home Savings Account (FHSA). 

To aid in conversation, participants were informed that the Government of Canada had introduced a three-part plan to address the housing crisis, laying out a strategy to unlock 3.87 million new homes by 2031.  Participants next engaged in an exercise where they were provided with information related to the initiatives that had been announced by the federal government and prompted to share their reactions.  The first set of measures presented to participants, which focused on the Government of Canada’s strategy to build more homes, included:

• Signing 179 Housing Accelerator Fund agreements to date to cut red tape, fast tracking an estimated total of over 750,000 housing units over the next decade;
• Using federal lands, such as those used by Canada Post, the Department of National Defense, and federal government office buildings, to build more homes faster;
• Helping to get more rental homes built by investing more than $15 billion through the Apartment Construction Loan Program, which helps builders get the capital they need for new projects;
• Changing how homes in Canada are built by investing in technology like prefabricated housing factories and pre-approved home design catalogues; and
• Streamlining foreign credential recognition in the construction sector and helping skilled trades workers get more homes built.

Almost all reacted positively to these initiatives, feeling that they represented a step in the right direction and that building more homes was an important priority for the Government of Canada.   Participants expressed particular support for the measures related to the Housing Accelerator Fund and municipalities cutting red tape, changing the way homes in Canada are built (including through the use of technology such as prefabricated housing factories), and the provision of $15 billion to builders through the Apartment Construction Loan Program.  Many, however, expressed the view that unless tangible actions were taken to make housing prices more affordable, these measures would make little difference in terms of assisting lower- and middle-income Canadians in becoming homeowners.  A number also wondered whether regulations would be put in place to ensure that developers were building affordable housing and not utilizing this additional funding to increase profits.  A few expressed concerns that prioritizing building more homes faster and changing how homes are built might lead to lower safety and construction standards, reducing the overall quality of these homes.  While viewing streamlining the foreign credential recognition process for construction workers as a positive step, a number thought that more should be done to incentivize Canadians (and especially young people) to consider career paths in the construction sector.  It was also thought that action should be taken to assist builders with the cost of materials, with some believing that this represented a significant barrier for developers in getting more homes built.

The second set of initiatives shown to participants, which focused on protecting renters and making it easier for prospective first-time home buyers to purchase a home, included:

• Cracking down on illegal short-term rentals (e.g. Airbnb);
• Calling on fintech companies, credit bureaus, and lenders to build the ecosystem that will give renters the option to include their rental payment history in their credit scores, helping renters qualify for a mortgage and better rates;
• Creating a Canadian Renters’ Bill of Rights to protect renters and provide a clear history of apartment pricing so renters can bargain fairly, crack down on renovictions, and create a nationwide standard lease agreement;
• Allowing 30-year mortgages for first-time homebuyers purchasing new builds; and
• Extending the ban on foreign homebuyers by two years

Almost all reacted positively to these initiatives.  Several felt the measure to encourage fintech companies, credit bureaus, and lenders to provide renters with the option to include their rental payment history in their credit scores would be especially helpful for those trying to build credit history.  A number in the group comprised of members of Generation Z residing in B.C. expected that this would personally benefit them as they began their careers and started to establish themselves financially.  The creation of a Renters’ Bill of Rights was also seen as an important measure, with many believing that renters currently had too few protections from predatory or unfair practices by landlords.  A small number in the group comprised of seniors in Atlantic Canada felt differently, expressing concern that this action could be unfair to landlords in that it would make it harder for them to evict bad tenants, impacting their ability to protect their property.  Many expected that the introduction of a 30-year mortgage term would make home ownership more affordable for prospective first-time home buyers, lengthening the period of time they would have to pay back these loans.  It was thought that this longer amortization term would make it easier for many Canadians who wished to buy a home to be approved for mortgages since a 30-year mortgage would likely require lower monthly payments overall.  A large number also reacted positively to the decision to extend the ban on foreign homebuyers as well as the decision to crack down on illegal short-term rentals.  It was felt that these actions would have a significant impact on increasing the supply of housing, both to purchase and to rent.  Related to increasing the supply of available housing, it was thought that action should also be taken by the Government of Canada to ban wealthy individuals and corporations from purchasing large swaths of residential housing to utilize as investment properties.

The third set of initiatives, highlighting some of the measures that the federal government was proposing to assist those struggling with the cost of housing, included:

• Investing $1 billion in the Affordable Housing Fund to support non-profit, co-operative, and public housing providers and respond to the needs of those most impacted by the housing crisis;
• Creating a Rental Protection Fund to help affordable housing providers buy units and preserve rents at a stable level instead of being turned into luxury condos; and
• Increasing funding to support organizations that prevent and reduce homelessness

All believed that these measures would have a positive impact on those currently struggling to afford the cost of housing and/or who were unable to find a home of their own.  While all felt that investing $1 billion into the Affordable Housing fund to support non-profit, co-operative, and public housing providers was an important step, several thought that, given what they believed to be the significant size and scope of the housing affordability issues facing Canadians, this amount would likely not be enough to fully address the issue.  Participants were also largely positive in their reactions to the measure to create a Rental Protection Fund to ensure that affordable rental units were not purchased with the intention of being developed into luxury housing.  It was thought that, given the perceived significant shortage of available rental units in many parts of the country, developers should be discouraged wherever possible by the Government of Canada from building housing that was not generally affordable.  Participants widely thought that any action to reduce homelessness represented a step in the right direction and supported the federal government increasing funding to achieve this goal.  The view was expressed that the federal government should focus on partnering with and supporting organizations at the municipal level that were focused on reducing homelessness, believing these would have the best first-hand understanding of both the housing issues facing their communities and how best to address these challenges. 

Having now discussed a wide range of budget announcements and initiatives, including the housing-related measures described above, participants were prompted to select a word or phrase to describe their overall reaction to the budget.  A large number selected terms with positive connotations such as “optimistic”, “reassuring”, “encouraging”, and “constructive”, believing that the priorities and announcements contained within the budget were a step in the right direction.  While many felt it was targeted towards the right areas, some described the budget as “ambitious” or chose the word “skeptical”, believing it would be difficult for the federal government to feasibly accomplish all of the initiatives that had been announced.  A few felt the budget was “vague” or “unfocused” and believed it to be too broad in its aims, while a small number viewed it as heading in the “wrong direction”.

Asked whether they felt any of the measures they had discussed would be effective in helping younger Canadians as well as future generations get ahead, including providing them with access to a variety of affordable housing options, participants identified a range of initiatives that they expected would help in this regard.  These included the allowing for lenders to offer 30-year mortgages, including on-time rent payments in credit scores, and extending the ban on foreign investors from purchasing residential property.  Several, however, reiterated that unless efforts were taken to lower housing prices and the cost of living more generally, it would remain very difficult for young people to gain access to the housing market.

Four groups took part in conversations related to taxation and potential changes to taxation at the federal level.  Asked how much money they felt one had to earn annually to be considered wealthy, participant responses ranged from approximately $100,000 to upwards of $500,000 with most estimates falling between the $200,000-$300,000 range.  Discussing other measures, apart from money, that they would use to determine wealth, participants identified lifestyle elements such as owning a luxury home or multiple homes, driving luxury vehicles, dining at restaurants, having the ability to go on vacation every year, access to private medical care, and the ability to meet all of their financial needs while still having income leftover to put towards investments or use for discretional spending.  A few also mentioned more subjective aspects such as happiness, peace of mind, and not having to work as measures that they would use to determine an individual’s overall wealth.

Asked whether they felt wealthy Canadians were currently paying their fair share in taxes, participants were mixed in their responses.  While many felt that higher earning individuals often did pay a significant amount more in taxes compared to those with lower incomes, it was also widely believed that wealthy individuals (and especially the wealthiest Canadians) had far greater access to various deductions and other mechanisms that they could use to reduce their taxable income.  Discussing, however, whether they would be in favour of the federal government creating a wealth tax that would be paid annually by the wealthiest Canadians, many were hesitant about such an initiative.  Several did not view this approach as being fair, believing that in many cases the wealthiest Canadians had earned their wealth through hard work and success and did not feel that they should be penalized for this.  A number also expressed concerns that a wealth tax could negatively impact those individuals who had large amounts saved for retirement and questioned whether these types of savings would potentially be subject to taxation.  Asked how they would feel if this tax was applied specifically to the top one per cent of income-earners in Canada, a far greater number expressed support for this measure, believing that the wealthiest one per cent would be able to afford this tax far more readily compared to other high-earning Canadians.  Among the smaller number who continued to express skepticism towards this measure, concerns were raised that applying this type of tax to the wealthiest individuals could ultimately lead to them (and any businesses that they own) deciding to leave the country altogether, with potential negative economic ramifications for Canadians as a result.

Discussing the potential benefits and costs associated with a wealth tax, participants mentioned a wide range of considerations.  Many expected that the introduction of an annual tax on the wealth of the highest-earning Canadians, would have the benefit of providing the federal government with additional tax revenues that it could use towards improving the lives of the rest of Canadians.  It was felt that these additional revenues could be invested in areas such as education, health care, infrastructure and public works projects, and towards providing greater assistance to groups such as seniors and younger Canadians who were believed to be currently struggling with the cost of living.  Focusing on the potential costs of this measure, participants expressed concerns that this could lead to a decrease in philanthropic activity from the wealthiest Canadians as they would now need to devote additional amounts to paying for this tax.  A few were concerned that this action could disincentivize high-earning Canadians from seeking to continue to increase their wealth, potentially leading to a decrease in economic activity as a result.  Some also believed that this program would be challenging to administer and expected that, due to the unrealized or speculative value of many asset types (such as investments), it would be difficult to measure the exact wealth of individuals and determine how much they might owe under this new initiative.  

Questioned whether, having now discussed this issue, they would support the creation of a wealth tax, a slightly larger number reported that they would as those who felt otherwise.  For those who supported this measure, it was felt that the revenues gained by a wealth tax for the highest-earning Canadians would have a significant benefit for the rest of Canadians while having relatively little impact on the financial wellbeing of the top one per cent.  Among the smaller number who felt otherwise, participants reiterated concerns regarding the fairness of this measure and the potential for this action to prompt wealthy individuals to leave Canada entirely.  A few also expected that even if this measure was implemented, the wealthiest one per cent would continue to work to find ways to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.  Discussing whether they could think of any alternatives to a wealth tax, participants suggested potential initiatives such as the introduction of regulations compelling large businesses to contribute a certain amount of their profits towards charitable organizations, public works projects, and infrastructure, as well as modifying the tax brackets (as opposed to taxing wealth directly) to ensure that wealthier individuals would pay more going forward. 

Asked whether they were familiar with the term “capital gains”, a large number indicated that they were.  Describing what they believed this term meant, participants widely believed that capital gains were the profits made on the sale of an investment (such as a stock or bond) and that this income was often subject to taxation.  To aid in conversation, participants were provided with the following information:

Capital gains are the profits people make when they sell valuable assets they own for more money than they originally paid for them.  Capital gains can be made from valuable assets like real estate, stocks and bonds, mutual funds, precious metals, art and collectibles, cryptocurrencies, vehicles, personal property, and more.

For example, if you purchased $100 worth of stock and then sold those shares for $150 two years later, you would have a capital gain of $50.

Discussing whether they had personally earned capital gains before, several reported that they had.  Asked what type of people they felt typically received capital gains, it was felt that this could be anyone, as these profits could be earned from virtually all types and sizes of investments.  A few specifically called to mind individuals whose primary income was derived from capital gains, such as those who engaged in the flipping of homes. 

Participants were informed that in Canada, capital gains are subject to taxation, meaning that when an individual sells a valuable asset for more than its original cost, they would owe taxes on this profit.  Asked whether they felt capital gains should be taxed, while several felt this was appropriate for individuals whose income primarily came from capital gains, it was thought by most that capital gains should not be taxed on the sale of assets such as a home, long-term investment, or other assets that had been owned for a considerable period of time.  A number believed that there should be a cap placed on the amount of capital gains that can be taxed as well as greater consideration for the period of time investments had been held, with capital gains taxation primarily focusing on short-term investments.

Asked what rate (between 0 and 100 per cent) they would like to see the capital gains tax set at, most responses ranged from 0 to 25, with many believing that this should be measured on a sliding scale based on one’s income as well as the amounts that they had earned in capital gains.  Several expressed uncertainty as to how to answer this question and felt that they did not know enough about the issue to provide an informed response.  Discussing who would benefit most from a lower capital gains tax, participants expected this would positively impact the majority of Canadians and especially those who were actively investing, preparing to sell a property, or selling investments in preparation for their retirement.  Questioned who would gain the most from a higher capital gains tax, many thought that the federal government and recipients of its benefits and supports would be the greatest beneficiaries in that there would now be increased tax revenue to devote towards funding these programs.

Discussing whether they felt it was fair to tax capital gains on certain types of assets over others, most believed that it was.  Several thought that given the wide range of assets that could be held as investments, it made sense to have different standards in how they were taxed.  A number reiterated the view that the period of time one had owned an asset should be taken into greater account when determining what capital gains tax, if any, was owed.  Asked specifically about capital gains on real estate, a number believed that these should be taxed at a high level, especially given the perceived significant shortage of available housing in many parts of the country at present.  Participants were next provided with the following information related to how capital gains are taxed on real estate in Canada:

Canada has something called “The Principal Residence Exemption” which lets Canadians avoid paying capital gains tax on the sale of their primary home.  This means capital gains taxes only apply when people own multiple real estate properties and sell the ones they do not live in.

Almost all felt that this was a fair approach, believing that, rather than as an investment, most homeowners had purchased their homes as a place to live and that they should not be penalized due to the increase in value of their primary residence during the time that they had owned it.  It was thought by many, however, that individuals owning multiple properties (and particularly those who purchased residential housing as an investment vehicle) should be taxed at a high rate due to the impact that this practice was believed to be having on the supply and affordability of housing in many Canadian communities. 

Participants in two groups engaged in discussions related to the potential present and future impacts of climate change.  Asked whether they were concerned about the potential impacts of climate change, all in the group based in British Columbia (B.C.) and most in Quebec indicated that they were, and many felt that the impacts of climate change had already begun to take place.  It was widely believed that climate change had been a major contributing factor behind large-scale forest fires, windstorms, droughts, and flooding that had occurred in many parts of the country in recent years.  Several were worried that these issues would continue to occur with increasing frequency in the years and decades to come and believed that this could have a significant negative impact on the quality of life for future generations.  Among the small number who were somewhat less concerned, it was felt that while climate change would likely have an impact at some point in the future, they did not believe their respective communities were currently at risk.

Asked to describe what came to mind when they thought about the potential impacts of climate change, several expressed concern regarding issues such as rising temperatures, potential droughts, and the increased risk of floods and wildfires in their respective regions.  It was felt that climate change could have a considerable negative impact on both the environment as well as the economy, especially in the agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry sectors.  A number were worried about the potential for climate change to lead to decreased food production in Canada as well as the impact this might have on food prices, which were already viewed as having become increasingly expensive in recent years.  Participants also shared concerns related to the negative impacts they expected climate change would have on Canadians’ health, believing that it could lead to a decrease in air and water quality across the country.  A few expected that an increasingly volatile and extreme climate would also negatively impact the mental health of Canadians, believing that many would face additional stress in their lives as a result of these challenges.

Questioned whether they had observed any impacts of climate change in their communities as well as in their own lives, participants identified a range of areas that they felt had been impacted by changing weather patterns.  Several reported having changed their behaviours to try to mitigate the impact of climate change, including utilizing public transportation more frequently and making efforts to grow their own food.  A number mentioned no longer partaking in activities such as camping, citing concerns related to higher temperatures and the growing risk of wildfires in the summer months.  Participants also believed that climate change had negatively affected their mental and physical health, with some reporting having faced issues such as growing anxiety related to the potential impacts of climate change in the years and decades to come and increasing physiological challenges (such as worsening asthma) in recent years.  Asked whether, over the next few decades, they believed that their communities would be at greater risk due to climate change, almost all expected that they would.  Among the small number in the group based in Quebec who were less concerned about the impact of climate change on their communities, it was felt that while changing temperatures and weather patterns would likely pose a challenge, they expected their communities would be able to adapt to sufficiently address these impacts. 

Discussing actions that the Government of Canada had taken to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of climate change, a number recalled initiatives related to the goal of decreasing emissions, including the implementation of a price on carbon as well as its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.  Some also mentioned initiatives from the federal government related to encouraging Canadians to switch to electric vehicles (EVs).  These included making investments towards the increased production of EVs in Canada as well as providing financial incentives to individuals who purchase these vehicles.   

Asked if they could recall any actions by the Government of Canada related to its response to natural disasters more broadly in recent years, while a few in Quebec mentioned the deployment of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel to assist with combatting large-scale wildfires in the province in 2023, no other actions could be recalled.  Questioned whether they felt that the federal government was on the right or wrong tack on this front, most were uncertain, believing that they did not know enough about its activities in this regard to provide a proper evaluation.  A few believed that the Government of Canada was not doing enough to prepare for and respond to national disasters.  Among these participants it was thought that the federal government could be more proactive in its approach to preventing and responding to events such as wildfires and floods and make efforts to develop a long-term plan regarding how it would address natural disasters going forward.

Participants in three groups took part in discussions related to carbon pollution pricing in Canada.  At the outset of their conversation, those residing in mid-size centres in Alberta were asked what, if anything, they had recently seen, read, or heard about carbon pollution pricing.  Almost all expressed concern about the potential negative impacts of carbon pollution pricing, with a large number associating the implementation of a price on carbon with what they perceived as a significant increase to the cost of gasoline in recent years.  A number were worried about the impact that initiatives such as the implementation of a price on carbon could have on the employment market in their province,

especially in the oil and gas sector, which they expected would likely face additional financial challenges as a result of having to adhere to the federal carbon pricing system.  Some questioned, given their understanding that Canada was a relatively minor emitter on the global scale, whether it was fair for Canadians to have to incur the perceived additional financial costs of a price on carbon if higher emitting countries were not also doing their part to address the issue of carbon pollution.

Asked whether, to the best of their understanding, there was currently a price on carbon in their respective provinces, almost all participants believed that there was.  Discussing what they had seen, read, or heard about the Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR), while several expressed familiarity with this program, few were aware of any specific details.  A small number recalled hearing that the CCR was an amount paid back to Canadians to account for the increased costs associated with the federal price on carbon, and that most households would be receiving more back than what they had paid as a result of this initiative.  To aid in conversation, participants were provided with the following information:

The federal pollution pricing creates a financial incentive for people and businesses to pollute less.

The Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR) is a tax-free amount to help eligible individuals and families offset the cost of the federal pollution pricing.

Using [province] as an example, a family of 4 can expect to receive [amount].  Residents of small and rural communities receive an extra 10% top-up beyond the base rebate amount.  Starting April 2024, the Government is planning to double the rural top-up to 20%, because of the increased energy needs of rural residents and their reduced access to transportation options.

Reacting to this information, many questioned the purpose of the federal pollution pricing system, if the majority of the funds acquired through this program were eventually redistributed back to Canadians.  While believing it was important to work towards reducing emissions, a number expressed the view that carbon pollution pricing would likely have little effect on changing the emitting behaviours of Canadians if they knew that they would ultimately be receiving most of these additional costs back.  Several were of the opinion that, rather than paying back these amounts through CCRs, funds acquired by the federal government through its price on carbon should instead be reinvested towards environmentally focused initiatives such as providing financial incentives for Canadians to retrofit their homes with energy efficient technology including solar panels and heat pumps.  While almost all were in favour of the proposed initiative to double the rebate top-up for those living in smaller and/or rural communities, a number questioned what criteria would be utilized to determine whether a community was small or rural enough to qualify for this support.  A few expressed the view that the criteria for CCR payments should be based on income and that wealthier Canadians should not be eligible to receive these payments, given that they were likely not struggling with the cost of living to the same degree as other households.

Asked whether, based on what they knew about the price on carbon pollution and the CCR, they supported or opposed the Government of Canada’s carbon pricing program, most expressed opposition to this initiative.  Several believed that the federal government needed to provide far greater clarity to Canadians regarding the ways in which this initiative was contributing to reducing emissions and whether it had been successful thus far in achieving its goals.  Without this information, many felt that it would be difficult to support this initiative given that they did not fully understand it.

Questioned whether, to the best of their knowledge, they or someone in their household had previously received a CCR, a slightly smaller number of participants felt that they had compared to those who did not believe their household had received this payment.  Asked whether they thought that the rebate they had received had been more than the additional costs they had paid as a result of the implementation of a federal price on carbon, very few believed this to be the case.  Participants were next informed that the Department of Finance Canada had calculated that the average household in their respective provinces would be receiving hundreds of dollars more than they had paid into the carbon pricing program.  Asked whether this changed their perspective on the carbon pricing initiative, none indicated that it had, with several expressing a desire for greater clarification as to how these estimates were being calculated.  Participants were next provided with the following information:

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is a neutral, non-partisan individual independent of government. The PBO is responsible for providing economic and financial analysis to Parliament for the purposes of raising the quality of parliamentary debate and promoting greater budget transparency and accountability.

The PBO has estimated that around 80% of Canadian families will receive more than they pay in carbon pricing.

While a small number felt that it might make sense that 80 per cent of Canadians received a greater amount than what they had paid if the majority of CCRs were comprised of funds collected from major industrial emitters, very few reported that this information had impacted their opinions related to carbon pricing.  Asked whether they had any suggestions to improve the federal carbon pricing system, several reiterated the need for the Government of Canada to provide a more simplified, straightforward explanation as to how the program worked, why CCRs were being returned to Canadians, and the tangible actions that this initiative was having on reducing carbon emissions in Canada going forward.

Participants in three groups engaged in brief conversations related to the concepts of climateflation and heatflation.  Asked whether they had previously heard the term climateflation, few indicated that they had, with a very small number believing they had encountered the phrase on social media at some point.  Discussing what they thought climateflation might refer to, many felt that it was likely connected to climate-focused initiatives such as the implementation of a price on carbon, which they viewed as a contributing factor to the perceived rising cost of living as of late.  A number believed that the term might also refer to the potential increased costs of producing and transporting food and other products that they expected might result from natural disasters and unpredictable weather patterns in the years to come.  No participants were familiar with the term heatflation.  It was largely thought that this phrase was likely similar to climateflation, but with a more specific focus on the impacts caused by rising temperatures.  A few speculated that the term might refer to perceived rising energy prices as of late and the increasing costs paid by Canadians to heat their homes in the winter months. 

To clarify, participants were provided with the following information:

Heatflation is when extreme heat, caused by climate change, makes food and other items more expensive, leading to higher inflation rates. This happens when heat damages crops, making things like flour cost more.

Climateflation is a broader term that encompasses all of the ways climate change causes prices to go up, including but not limited to extreme heat. It reflects the overall economic impact of a changing climate, including supply chain disruptions and increased costs for cooling, among many other things.

Asked how much of an impact, if any, they felt climate change had on the cost of food, almost all in the groups based in British Columbia (B.C.) and the Prairies felt that it was having a significant impact.  It was widely thought that warmer temperatures in the summer, a lack of precipitation, and resulting droughts and wildfires had made it increasingly difficult and more expensive for farmers to produce food, leading to higher grocery prices for consumers.  Several in the group comprised of those residing in mid-size centres in Alberta, however, believed that the impact of climate change on food prices had been relatively minor.  Among these participants it was felt that federal initiatives such as the price on carbon had been a far greater contributing factor to rising grocery costs than climate change.

All in the groups based in B.C. and the Prairies viewed climateflation and heatflation as a growing concern, with several viewing climate change as posing a major challenge to Canadians, both at present and in the future.  It was felt that if this issue were to continue to escalate, it would become increasingly difficult for farmers to produce enough nutritional food to meet the dietary needs of all Canadians.  While viewing rising food costs as a concern, a number in Alberta did not believe this was directly connected to climateflation and/or heatflation.  Among these participants, the view was expressed that rather than introducing additional measures to reduce emissions, the federal government could better support farmers and address high grocery costs by removing initiatives such as the federal price on carbon and other climate-focused regulations such as the limits placed on the usage of fertilizer by farmers.

Participants in the group comprised of middle-class individuals residing in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) engaged in a discussion related to auto theft.  Asked whether they had recently seen, read, or heard about any measures the Government of Canada was taking to address this issue, none reported that they had. All viewed auto theft as an increasing concern in their community that required greater prioritization from the federal government, with a number recalling having personally been impacted by this issue.  To aid in discussion, participants were presented with the following information: 

The Government of Canada is cracking down on auto theft to make it harder to steal vehicles and to export stolen vehicles by:

• Intending to amend the Criminal Code, including:
  • New criminal offences related to auto theft involving:
    • The use of violence or links to organized crime.
    • Possession or distribution of an electronic or digital device for the purposes of committing auto theft.
    • Laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization.
  • A new aggravating factor at sentencing if an offender involved a young person in committing an offence under the Criminal Code;
• Intending to amend the Radiocommunication Act to regulate the sale, possession, distribution, and import of devices used to steal cars. This will enable law enforcement agencies to remove devices believed to be used to steal cars from the Canadian marketplace;
• Strengthening the Canada Border Services Agency’s (CBSA) capacity to detect and search containers with stolen vehicles, and for testing technologies that could support the work of border services officers; and
• Allocating $15 million to provincial, territorial, and municipal police forces to address auto theft, and to strengthen policing to crack down on international organized crime.  

All participants reacted positively to this information, with many expressing strong support for the addition of new criminal offences to the Criminal Code .  Several expected that the initiative to strengthen the capacity of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to detect and search containers suspected to hold stolen vehicles would be particularly effective in combatting automobile theft.

Asked whether they felt these actions would have a major, minor, or no impact, most expected they would have a major impact and believed these represented the right initiatives for the Government of Canada to be focusing on.   Among the smaller number who thought these measures would only have a minor impact, it was thought that actions also needed to be taken by manufacturers to make it more difficult to steal these automobiles in the first place.  Related to this, it was suggested that the federal government should consider introducing regulations that required automobile manufacturers to make the vehicles they produce more secure going forward.

One group took part in a brief discussion related to electric vehicles (EVs).  Asked if they had recently seen, read, or heard any news related to the Government of Canada and EVs, several recalled its commitment to require all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035, as well as recent investments (in partnership with companies such as Honda) towards the manufacturing of EVs and EV batteries in Ontario.

To aid in discussion, participants were presented with the following information:

The federal and Ontario governments recently announced that Honda Canada will make a $15-billion electric vehicle investment in Ontario to build four new manufacturing plants in the province. These plants include a new electric vehicle assembly plant and a battery manufacturing plant.  The new assembly plant will produce up to 240,000 vehicles per year.   This investment is estimated to directly and indirectly create thousands of new jobs in several sectors including manufacturing, construction, the auto parts supplier industry, and in research and development.

Several reacted positively to this announcement, believing that these investments would lead to the creation of more high-paying jobs in the province as well as benefit the environment by producing more emissions-free vehicles.  A number, however, expressed potential concerns related to this approach.  Among these participants, it was thought that producing EVs could be quite costly and that many of these vehicles were currently unaffordable for lower- and middle-income Canadians.  Some were also of the impression that there were environmental concerns associated with mining the raw materials required for EV batteries as well as challenges related to disposing of these batteries at the end of their lifespans.  It was felt that unless these issues were addressed, it would be difficult to support a full transition to EVs over the next decade. 

Discussing the potential impacts to their community from EV-related initiatives such as these, a few worried about potential job losses and questioned whether the jobs created through this initiative would be enough to offset the potential loss of employment for those currently employed in the manufacturing of gasoline-powered automobiles.  A number also expressed concerns related to whether the electricity grid in their area would be able to handle the substantial increases in demand that they expected would accompany a large-scale shift among Canadians towards driving EVs.