Timeline of December Announcements

To help place the focus group discussions within the context of key events related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as well as other notable developments, below is a brief synopsis for the period beginning at the end of November and throughout the month of December 2021.

• At the end of November
  • There had been 1,790,142 cases of COVID-19 in Canada with 29,670 deaths.
  • Daily case counts increased to 2,608 across Canada, a 9% increase from the previous week.
  • There were 25,916 active cases of COVID-19 in Canada.
  • Over 60 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered across Canada.
• December 1-9
  • December 1. The Government of Canada reintroduced proposed legislative amendments to the Judges Act that aim to strengthen the judicial complaints process and improve the process for more serious complaints.
  • Focus groups were held with the general population in Northern Ontario (December 1) and the general population in Southern Alberta (December 2).
  • December 2. The Government of Canada announced the imposition of sanctions against Belarusian officials and entities following systematic human rights violations in Belarus.
  • December 2. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced the arrival of the first charter flight of privately sponsored Afghan refugees.
  • December 4. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced federal investments totalling $14.7 million over the next five years to support conservation projects and to manage aquatic invasive species in Banff, Jasper, Kootenay, Waterton Lakes, and Yoho national parks.
  • Focus group was held with travellers in Eastern Ontario (December 6).
  • December 6. The Minister of International Development announced $75 million over three years in support of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank (CFGB) to provide food and nutrition assistance to those affected by emergency and acute hunger globally.
  • Focus groups were held with parents of children under 12 in Quebec City (December 7) and prospective homeowners in the Lower Mainland region of British Columbia (December 7).
  • December 7. The Government of Canada announced a $10 million commitment over the next four years to work with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) to support women and girls affected by irregular migration and forced displacement in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
  • Focus group was held with opinion leaders in the City of Toronto (December 8).
  • December 9. The Minister of Health announced an investment of $13.7 million in 89 new COVID-19 research projects across the country, including 70 projects focused on better understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children, youth, and families.
  • Focus groups were held with Francophones in New Brunswick (December 9) and the general population in mid-size and major centres in British Columbia (December 9).
• December 10-16
  • December 10. The Government of Canada imposed additional sanctions against four entities under the Special Economic Measures (Burma) Regulations as a result of the Myanmar military’s ongoing repression of the Myanmar people.
  • December 10. The Government of Canada announced its endorsement of the Indigenous Peoples Economic and Trade Cooperation Arrangement (IPETCA), which was developed to recognize the importance of enhancing the ability of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous businesses to benefit from the opportunities created by international trade and investment.
  • Focus group was held with parents of children under 12 in major centres within Manitoba (December 13).
  • December 13. The Government of Canada announced that Carleton University and the Dream Legacy Foundation have been chosen to establish the Black Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub, the third pillar in the Black Entrepreneurship Program.
  • Focus groups were held with prospective homeowners in major centres Alberta (December 14) and the general population in the Northwest Territories (December 14).
  • December 15. The Minister of Natural Resources announced an $800,000 investment in the First Nations Power Authority to create a national Indigenous Advisory Council as part of Canada’s Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Action Plan.
  • December 15. The Government of Canada announced $703,230 in funding over three years for a Gravesite Reclamation Project following the news that approximately 751 unmarked graves were located near the former Marieval Residential School.
  • Focus group was held with travellers in the Greater Montreal Area (GMA) (December 15).
  • December 16. The International Coordination and Response Group for the victims of Flight PS752 issued a statement highlighting their request inviting Iran to discuss matters pertaining to their claim and demands for reparations during the week of January 17, 2022.
• December 17-23
  • December 17. The Government of Canada announced it would increase its pledge to the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to $112.5 million over three years, representing a 50% increase over Canada’s previous pledge.
  • December 17. The Government of Canada announced that the federal minimum wage for workers in the federally regulated private sector will increase to $15 per hour on December 29.
  • December 17. The Government of Canada announced the launch of the Atlantic Immigration Program to officially open on January 1, 2022, with the aim of supporting provinces in Atlantic Canada to attract skilled newcomers to address economic and demographic challenges, such as the labour shortage in the region.
  • December 17. Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, which will provide ten days of paid sick leave to all federally regulated private sector employees and enhance protections for health care workers and those accessing health services, received Royal Assent.
  • December 17. Bill C-2, a bill that ensures that workers and businesses have the urgent help they need to deal with the impact of the Omicron variant, received Royal Assent. This includes:
    • The Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit;
    • The Local Lockdown Program;
    • The Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit;
    • The Tourism and Hospitality Recovery Program;
    • The Hardest-Hit Business Recovery Program; and
    • The Canada Recovery Hiring Program.
  • December 17. The Government of Canada announced additional measures to contain the spread of the Omicron variant. This included lifting entry prohibitions, lifting the short trip pre-arrival test exemption, increasing on-arrival testing resources, and advising Canadians to avoid non-essential travel outside of Canada.
  • December 21. The Government of Canada announced over $19.2 million in joint funding for four projects in British Columbia to support drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Specifically, they will upgrade existing wastewater treatment facilities or construct new drinking water facilities to enhance water capacity, comply with provincial standards, improve surface water quality, and protect the surrounding environment.
  • December 21. The Government of Canada announced $56 million in urgent humanitarian funding to support the Afghan people.
  • December 22. The Government of Canada announced the expansion of eligibility requirements for key support programs; specifically, the Local Lockdown Program and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit.
  • December 23. The Federal Court and the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba issued a joint decision approving an agreement to settle class-action litigation related to safe drinking water in First Nations communities.
  • December 23. The Government of Canada announced that Canada had reached its target and welcomed over 401,000 new permanent residents in 2021, representing the most newcomers in a year in Canadian history.
• December 24-31
  • December 30. The Government of Canada announced over $8 million in funding for the Government of Manitoba to support the expansion and creation of safe voluntary isolation sites across the province.
  • December 30. The Government of Canada announced that the expanded access to the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit was now in effect and Canadians in designated regions affected by lockdowns or with qualifying capacity restrictions could apply for the benefit.
  • December 30. There had been 2,102,470 cases of COVID-19 in Canada with 30,253 deaths. Over 67 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered in Canada.
    • An upward trend in cases was reported, with 25,332 reported during the latest 7-day period in December (23-29), a 141% increase from the week prior.

Government of Canada in the News (All Locations)

At the outset of each focus group participants discussed what they had seen, read, or heard about the Government of Canada in recent days. Across all groups, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the response by the federal government remained a key focus among participants.

While several participants indicated not having heard anything recently regarding the Government of Canada, many others recalled recent federal announcements and initiatives related to the pandemic, particularly in the wake of growing concern regarding the Omicron variant. These included:

• The decision in late November to restrict travel from several southern African nations where the Omicron strain had initially been detected. Many participants were aware of these measures, with some questioning their effectiveness given that the new variant had already spread to several continents and had been detected within Canada;
• The implementation of additional testing requirements for travellers arriving in Canada and a general advisory from the federal government for Canadians to avoid non-essential travel over the holiday season. Several participants noted they had been following these evolving travel requirements quite closely;
• The continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5-11, as well as efforts to expedite access to the COVID-19 booster shot for a greater number of adult Canadians;
• The purchase by the federal government of 1.5 million courses of oral anti-viral drugs to aid in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic;
• Ongoing discussions as to whether Parliament should be convening in-person, particularly in light of the growing spread of the Omicron variant;
• The consequence of what was perceived to be an ‘administrative backlog’ brought on by the pandemic, particularly in regards to new immigrants who had experienced delays in obtaining necessary documents such as work permits. It was felt by some participants that these delays would make things harder for new and prospective immigrants to get settled upon arrival in Canada; and
• Discussions as to whether to continue pandemic-related financial and economic supports for Canadian individuals and businesses. A few participants noted the ongoing dialogue regarding Bill C-2, An Act to provide further support response to COVID-19, which ultimately received royal assent on December 17^th.

In addition to these comments, several expressed feelings of fatigue regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and, as such, reported actively avoiding any related news or information.

Many participants also recalled recent actions by the Government of Canada on issues unrelated to the pandemic, including:

• The provision of aid and deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in response to extreme weather events that took place in mid-late November in British Columbia and Newfoundland;
• The announcement by the Government of Canada that it would be participating in a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, citing China’s record of human rights violations. Several participants mentioned having heard about this;
• The recent swearing in of a new Cabinet and the opening of a new session of Parliament;
• The participation by the federal government in the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)’s Special Chiefs Assembly, including virtual remarks delivered by the Prime Minister;
• Ongoing discussions about inflation and the overall perceived high cost of living across Canada. Several mentioned having heard ongoing discussions in the news regarding potential actions by the Government of Canada to address these issues, including federal investments in child care, supports for small businesses and entrepreneurs, and measures to provide more affordable housing; and
• Recent actions by the federal government towards resolving clean drinking water issues in Iqaluit, including the deployment of CAF personnel to help coordinate the response.

Federal-Provincial Child Care Initiatives (Northern Ontario, Southern Alberta, City of Toronto Opinion Leaders, New Brunswick Francophones)

Four groups of participants engaged in more in-depth discussions on the topic of child care, specifically regarding recent negotiations and agreements between the federal government and individual provinces and territories. Many participants recalled hearing about efforts by the federal government to negotiate these deals, with the recent agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta (reached on November 15^th, 2021) specifically mentioned. While several indicated they were aware of the $10 a day per child, on average, cost for child care that had been established as a target, very few were aware of the proposed timeline of 2025-26 for these initiatives to become fully implemented. A few participants acknowledged they had not been following this issue closely, either because they did not have children of their own or because their children were beyond the age at which child care services would be required or relevant to them.

Participants in each of the four groups noted above were asked if they could recall whether an agreement had been reached between the Government of Canada and their respective provinces (Ontario, Alberta, and New Brunswick). Almost all participants in the Alberta group recalled that an agreement had recently been reached. By contrast, most of those in the Ontario groups as well as the group in New Brunswick were under the impression that negotiations were still ongoing and that deals had yet to be reached (an agreement between the federal government and the Government of New Brunswick was signed on December 13, 2021 several days following the focus group, while the Government of Ontario has yet to conclude an agreement).

After it was clarified that the Government of Canada was currently working to lower child care costs in each province and territory to $10 a day, on average, by 2025-26, participants were asked where they felt affordable child care ranked among various other priorities. In all groups, most felt that providing affordable child care was an important priority for the Government of Canada to focus on, with several commenting that child care was becoming exceedingly expensive and difficult for parents to manage along with a range of other household expenditures. It was thought by many that providing affordable child care would have the added benefit of allowing more parents, particularly women, to re-enter the workforce and resume their careers. In addition, many were of the view that most families in today’s economy require two incomes to survive and, to that end, affordable child care was an economic necessity. A small number of participants expressed concerns about the costs of such a program and questioned how the federal government would balance funding to reduce child care costs with other national priorities. Some were also of the opinion that this program could be more cost-effective if it were extended only to those families who presently could not afford child care at the current rates. A few participants expressed some cynicism that the federal government may not follow through on these initiatives, commenting that while these agreements were making headlines now, they may become a lower priority as other events and issues arise.

For the groups based in Ontario and New Brunswick, it was clarified that while the Government of Canada had reached agreements for affordable child care with most provinces and territories, deals had not yet been agreed upon with Ontario, New Brunswick, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories (at the time of the groups). These participants were then asked how they felt about child care agreements not yet being in place with their respective provinces.

Those in the two groups in Ontario largely expressed disappointment that their province had not yet reached an agreement with the federal government. Several were of the view that making child care more affordable was crucial, particularly given the number of families in the province that they believed were currently struggling financially. While some felt that the delay may be related to negotiating an agreement on the contribution or investment by the federal government which they assumed would be quite significant given the size of Ontario’s population, others were of the opinion that any delays were likely attributable to the provincial government’s negotiating strategy. It was also voiced that there may be greater complexities in designing an agreement which would ensure sufficient child care spaces would be made available to meet the demand of families in Ontario.

A number of participants in the New Brunswick group were similarly disappointed, feeling an affordable child care agreement would be helpful for many families within the province. It was also questioned as to why New Brunswick had not yet been able to reach an agreement while other provinces with larger populations had been able to strike a deal. The view was expressed by some that it was possible the provincial government had extended these negotiations in attempts to extract more federal funding for the program. A few participants also felt it may be that the provincial government was skeptical of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on what could be perceived as a primarily federal initiative.

B.C. Floods (Lower Mainland British Columbia Prospective Homeowners, Mid-size and Major Centres British Columbia)

The two groups based in British Columbia discussed the severe flooding that had occurred in the southwestern part of the province in mid-November as well as the subsequent response by the federal government to assist in the relief effort.

Several participants recalled that the Government of Canada had deployed Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel to aid in evacuating stranded residents as well as to provide supplies and on-the-ground recovery assistance. A few individuals also recalled the Prime Minister’s visit to Abbotsford on November 26^th to meet with local officials and tour the Sumas Prairie area damaged by the flood. Several participants reported hearing that there would likely be financial assistance provided to those individuals impacted by the flooding, but were unsure as to whether this would take the form of a federal, provincial, or intergovernmental initiative.

To aid discussion, participants were informed that the Government of Canada had approved a Request for Federal Assistance from British Columbia and had deployed the CAF, including both air assistance (assisting with evacuations, and ensuring provincial supply lines are maintained) as well as a land component (clearing and repairing damaged infrastructure and supply roads) as part of a ‘whole-of-government’ relief effort. In addition, it was shared with participants that the federal government had worked with its U.S. counterparts to allow Canadians to temporarily travel through the United States in order to get home as well as access essential supplies from non-affected U.S. border towns. In both groups, opinions regarding the federal response were quite positive, with many participants feeling these actions had greatly aided in the recovery and that the level of support offered was in line with their expectations. While some commented that the response had lacked a necessary level of urgency, the impression was added by others that federal support was predicated on receiving an official request from the provincial government, and that this might have factored in to any perceived delays. A few participants felt that communication could have been clearer at both the federal and provincial levels, stating that greater reassurances from public officials regarding the supply chain for food and essential supplies could have curbed behaviours such as panic buying.

Questioned as to what additional supports the Government of Canada could provide to help those affected by the floods, participants put forward a number of responses:

• Additional support towards rebuilding the damaged roadways and infrastructure. It was felt that this would benefit flood-affected communities as well as Canada as a whole in that it would aid in more rapidly restoring the critical supply chain running from B.C. to the rest of the country;
• Financial aid for those individuals who lost their homes or property in the floods, particularly in flood-ravaged communities such as Merritt, Princeton, and Abbotsford;
• Support for farmers who have lost vital livestock, resources, and infrastructure. It was added that many in both B.C. and the rest of Canada depended greatly on the food products produced by these farms; and
• Creation of a federal risk management plan to enhance preparedness for future climate disasters. It was felt that extreme climate events may occur more frequently in the future and that it was important for the federal government to ensure procedures were in place to mitigate future damage.

Bill 21 (GMA Travellers)

In one group comprising those residing in the Greater Montreal Area, a few participants had heard about the Quebec teacher who had been removed from a local classroom for wearing a hijab because of the Quebec Law (Bill 21) that bans the wearing of religious symbols for some individuals working in the public sector. They had heard that the teacher was employed by an English-language school board, with some questioning the application of the law in this case given that the school board was among those that had petitioned for a temporary stay of the law. As a result, it was felt by some participants that this teacher should have been allowed to remain in the classroom. In further discussion, few participants could recall hearing anything about the federal government’s response to this event, though some mentioned that they felt the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec were not aligned on the legislation which bars a range of public servants from wearing visible religious symbols.

COVID-19 Outlook (All Locations)

Participants in all focus groups discussed the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the Government of Canada’s ongoing response. As the December focus groups were all conducted within the first half of the month, these discussions took place following the detection of the Omicron variant but, in most cases, prior to any new federal or provincial measures being implemented in order to stem the spread and reduce pressure on the health care system.

COVID-19 Evaluation and Forecast (Eastern Ontario Travellers, Quebec City Parents of Children under 12, Lower Mainland British Columbia Prospective Homeowners, City of Toronto Opinion Leaders, Mid-Size and Major Centres British Columbia, New Brunswick Francophones, Major Centres Manitoba Parents of Children under 12, Major Centres Alberta Prospective Homeowners, Northwest Territories, GMA Travellers)

Ten groups discussed the performance of the Government of Canada over the course of the pandemic. To begin these conversations, participants were asked to recall anything they thought the Government of Canada had done well in its handling of the pandemic. This prompted a wide range of responses, including:

• Closing the borders early and halting non-essential travel – several participants felt the Government of Canada had reacted quickly in the early stages of the pandemic and had taken expedient steps to close Canada’s international borders to halt non-essential travel. It was added by others that they were happy to have been in Canada at the outset of the pandemic, and felt relatively safe in large part due to the federal government’s response;
• Financial supports, such as the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) – many mentioned that the federal government’s actions to rapidly implement these financial support programs and extend them through much of the pandemic was vital to ensuring Canadians were able to continue to pay their bills and provide some degree of financial security particularly for those who experienced reduced work hours, temporary layoffs or job loss. The view was expressed that Canada had performed far better in this area than other nations such as the United States;
• The efficient roll-out of vaccines and the relatively high vaccination rate across Canada – it was felt by many that the Government of Canada had been largely successful in its efforts to procure vaccines, put the infrastructure in place to deliver them to Canadians, and distribute them in a way that ensured the most vulnerable segments of the population were among the first to receive their shots. Several felt that this process had been well planned and executed from a logistical standpoint and that the effectiveness and rapid pace of the vaccination campaign had served to reduce anxiety among Canadians regarding the vaccines;
• Communication – many felt that communication from the Government of Canada had been consistent and transparent throughout the pandemic. Participants commented positively on the regular updates from federal officials and public health experts as the circumstances of the pandemic continued to evolve. The regular daily briefings from the Prime Minister in the initial months of the pandemic were cited by several as a source of reassurance at a time of great uncertainty;
• Effective use of public health measures to stop the spread – it was mentioned by several participants that they felt the federal government had been successful in implementing measures such as vaccine mandates for employees in federally regulated industries, including the air and rail transportation sectors, and its travellers. In addition, it was felt that encouragement by the federal government for Canadians to practice public safety measures such as mask-wearing, hand-washing, and social distancing had been effective in helping curb the spread; and
• Adaptability – a number of participants felt that the Government of Canada had been quick to adapt its response to the evolving trajectory of COVID-19, particularly in response to the emergence of new variants such as Delta and Omicron. Some cited specific actions such as introducing targeted travel requirements, deploying CAF personnel to assist with the response in a number of provinces such as Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, as well as the decision to invest in domestic vaccine production capacity through the construction of a new $126 million dollar facility in Montreal.

Some participants were more neutral in their response on the question of the Government of Canada’s performance, but offered that they felt the government had done the best it could given the unprecedented nature of the situation. A few others viewed the federal government’s response more negatively. Without pointing to any specifics, these participants were of the view that the Government of Canada had generally mishandled the national response to the pandemic from the beginning.

Asked to recall areas where the Government of Canada’s response could have been improved, participants shared a variety of thoughts, some of which spilled into, or were exclusively, provincial/territorial jurisdiction. These included:

• Slow reaction to initially close the borders and changing travel requirements throughout the pandemic – it was felt by some that the federal government should have taken more decisive action at the outset of the pandemic, closing Canada’s borders earlier and shutting down all but essential travel. In addition, several mentioned that they felt the travel requirements throughout the pandemic had been inconsistent. Some questioned the differing rules for air and land travel, with many feeling the regulations should have been the same across the board for all travellers regardless of travel mode. A small number of participants were of the opinion that the border had been reopened too soon or that it should not have reopened at all, and that all non-essential travel should continue to be prohibited;
• Ineffective management of the CERB – several participants had reservations about the various financial supports offered by the federal government, particularly the CERB which they felt had been taken advantage of by many who either did not require it or did not fully meet the eligibility criteria to access these supports. Several felt the qualifying requirements should have been more narrowly defined and that there should have been a greater level of monitoring to identify those who had misrepresented themselves on their applications. Some also expressed concern that the CERB had contributed to a significant increase to the national debt and to rising inflation. In addition, it was felt by a number of participants that more education and clearer information regarding the tax implications should have accompanied the roll-out of these financial supports. These participants were concerned that many Canadians (seniors in particular) were unaware that CERB payment amounts are taxable and that this may come as an unwelcome surprise when filing their personal income tax return;
• More targeted supports and measures – some participants felt initiatives should have been designed to offer greater financial support to front-line workers, including essential workers and those employed in the health care sector. Concern was expressed that these individuals had continued to work in high risk settings through the pandemic, with some earning the same as or not much more than those in receipt of the CERB. There was a sense of unfairness associated with this situation and some participants felt that essential workers should have been offered additional pay for their efforts and to compensate them for their increased exposure to COVID-19. A few participants also suggested that schools and other high traffic areas required improved ventilation systems and that more investments in enhanced safety measures were needed;
• Pandemic preparedness – a number of participants felt the Government of Canada had not adequately prepared for this pandemic, both in terms of having a ready stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE) as well as the capability to manufacture vaccines in Canada. It was also felt that, after it became apparent that large quantities of vaccines, PPE, and ventilators would be required, the federal government should have done more to prioritize efforts to obtain these items. A few participants were also of the opinion that the federal government should have utilized the CAF to a wider degree to assist in the response to the pandemic;
• Communication – some felt that communication from the federal government had, at times, been inconsistent through the pandemic. There was a perception that Canadians had received conflicting messages from different federal agencies as well as between the federal and provincial/territorial levels of government. A number of participants also felt that the tone of communications from the Government of Canada could have been more positive and encouraging, emphasizing Canada’s successes in navigating the pandemic. Some were also of the opinion that the federal government should have more actively attempted to deescalate the tensions and social divisions that participants felt had emerged over the course of the pandemic; and
• Lockdowns, closures, and vaccine mandates – some participants were of the view that the temporary closures and, in some cases, lockdowns of certain sectors or businesses had been more detrimental than the virus itself. It was felt that many small businesses, including owners and staff, had paid a high price as a result of these actions. In addition, it was felt that ongoing lockdowns and social gathering limits had served to negatively impact the mental health of many Canadians. A few participants were of the opinion that vaccine mandates or proof of vaccination systems were reflective of government overreach and should not have been introduced, and some took the stance that restrictions should not have been put in place at all.

Participants were then asked whether they felt that the federal government’s handling of the pandemic was currently better, worse, or about the same, when compared to earlier in the pandemic. Reactions to this question varied. While a relatively small number of participants offered a more negative assessment of the federal government’s performance related to the pandemic, the balance of participants were more inclined to feel that it had done a consistently strong job throughout the entire pandemic and, in some cases, had improved. A few participants were more or less neutral in their views and indicated they were paying less attention to news and information about the pandemic and the Government of Canada’s response.

Those who felt the Government of Canada had performed at about the same level in its response throughout the pandemic generally thought there had been about as many successes as missteps but that federal officials and public health experts had done the best they could to adapt to an ever-changing situation.

Among those who viewed its performance as positive and/or improving, it was felt that while the early months of the pandemic had been quite chaotic and uncertain, the federal government’s response had evolved and adapted informed by a better understanding of the virus. The belief among this group of participants was that, with greater clarity, the Government of Canada was now able to adjust and implement a more nuanced approach to public health.

The major criticism among those who felt the federal government’s handling of the pandemic had worsened over time centered on a perception that the response had been somewhat heavy-handed and overly restrictive. These participants thought that travel restrictions, for example, reflected a reactive response rather than one that was informed by data and evidence. In their view, such restrictions were largely ineffective in containing or preventing the spread of COVID-19. Moreover, some referred to lockdowns, business closures, and ongoing mask and vaccine mandates that they felt had been misguided and that too many (local) restrictions remained in place at this stage of the pandemic. With respect to these latter comments, some responded that there was some confusion between public health measures and advice coming from the federal level of government versus those implemented at the provincial/territorial level. Some participants felt that messaging from federal officials and public health experts had been inconsistent and at times contradictory, with a few expressing concern that the federal government’s approach to managing the pandemic was somewhat retrogressive (e.g., some felt little progress was being made and that the steps being taken at this time were having a more negative than positive impact). Several expressed the opinion that it was time to find a way to live with the virus and that many public health requirements should either be eased or phased out entirely. Additionally, some felt that the federal response (again, many of the examples provided referenced their provincial/territorial government’s approach) had not sufficiently taken into account the economic and mental health toll of the pandemic, believing these issues were becoming critical and in many ways were tied directly to the Government of Canada’s handling of the pandemic.

The discussion next turned to how participants felt the pandemic may progress going forward. To begin, each group was asked whether they felt the worst of the pandemic was now over. Across the groups, while more participants were of the opinion that the worst of the pandemic had passed, a large number were less optimistic, feeling that the worst may still be yet to come as new variants continue to emerge. In addition, a number of participants were hesitant to offer a prediction given what they felt was a high degree of uncertainty based on the evolution of the pandemic to date and the current situation.

Among those who felt the worst of the pandemic had passed, the introduction and widespread adoption of the vaccines was the main reason for their optimism. It was felt that a high level of inoculation among adults, youth and children, aged 5 and older, would effectively reduce the number of cases of COVID-19, and specifically the most serious adverse outcomes including hospitalization and death due to COVID-19. In addition, participants were confident that the recent introduction of booster shots (a third dose of the vaccine) would provide even further protection in this regard. It was felt by some that the goal all along had been to reach this level of vaccination and that this, combined with increased natural immunity, would likely allow for resumption of more normal routines in the near future. It was mentioned by some that while case numbers may rise in the months to come, particularly given the emergence of the Omicron variant, only those who remain unvaccinated would be most affected by another surge in transmission. It was also added that, after almost two years of living through the pandemic, public officials, health experts, and regular Canadians all knew far more about the virus and had habituated to the circumstances. It was felt that continued practice of public safety measures such as mask-wearing, frequent hand-washing, and social distancing would also aid in preventing further spread of the virus.

For those who felt that the situation may yet worsen, a key factor was the ongoing and regular emergence of new variants. Some added that they felt that the portion of the population who remained unvaccinated could potentially cause increased strain on the health care system, particularly if case numbers rose substantially. In addition, some were of the opinion that the pandemic would likely continue to persist as long as a large portion of the world remained unvaccinated and that greater efforts needed to be made to distribute vaccines to developing countries. Others expressed concern that, even if the situation with respect to COVID-19 improved and pressure on the health care system lessened, the economic and mental health challenges resulting from the duration of the pandemic were likely to persist and may worsen in the years to come. Some worried that the onset of general fatigue with the pandemic would lead to a sense of complacency or more active disinterest among the public in continuing to adhere to public health measures and that this may provide an opening for a resurgence of the virus.

Asked if they felt that COVID-19 would still be an issue one year from now, almost all participants believed that the impact of the virus would continue to be felt. Many, however, believed that the virus would gradually become endemic. They believed that Canadians would soon be able to resume their normal day-to-day activities, although annual vaccines would likely be required, going forward. Most were of the opinion that the best path forward was to find a way to live with the virus, adapting when necessary, but going on with life as best as possible. A small number of participants were of the opinion that the pandemic would become less of an issue once existing public health measures were rescinded, feeling that requirements such as stringent travel measures, lockdowns, proof of vaccination systems, and mask mandates represented barriers to resuming normal activities.

Omicron Variant (All Locations)

All groups discussed the recent emergence of the Omicron variant which had first been detected by public health authorities in South Africa in mid-November, and subsequently designated a variant of concern by the World Health Organization in late November. Asked if they were aware of this new variant, virtually all participants indicated that they had heard at least something about it. Among specific details participants recalled having seen, read, or heard, were:

• The variant had first been detected in the southern region of Africa and had since spread to countries in Europe, as well as Canada;
• That while this variant was more contagious than previous strains, the symptoms may be somewhat milder and that if an individual was fully vaccinated they would likely avoid serious illness. A few participants indicated having heard the opposite - that some people were experiencing very serious symptoms after contracting this variant. It was felt that there had been conflicting messages in this regard; and
• Some had heard that the COVID-19 vaccines were less effective against this variant and that, as a result, there was an increased push to roll-out the booster shot more widely.

Participants were asked how worried they were about the Omicron variant. While most reported being relatively unconcerned about this latest strain of COVID-19, a few participants were worried the situation could escalate quickly. Several expressed uncertainty about what to expect, citing the previous unpredictability of the virus during past waves.

For those who were not particularly worried, factors such as the widespread adoption of vaccines as well as early reports of milder symptoms related to this variant were most commonly cited. In addition, some felt that continued mutations of the virus and the emergence of new variants should be expected and was likely to become a pattern. Many also felt more confident that public health officials were now better able to respond to new variants as they emerge, given the benefit of scientific data and trends gathered to date. While a few participants mentioned having become more desensitized as the pandemic has worn on, others described the recent news coverage regarding the Omicron variant as somewhat hyperbolic.

The reported high rate of transmissibility of the Omicron variant was cited among those participants who expressed concern. Some worried that, regardless of the apparently milder symptoms associated with the Omicron variant, it could still place a significant strain on the health care system. Others expressed concern regarding the impact on seniors, immunocompromised individuals, as well as those who had not yet had a chance to get vaccinated, particularly younger children. A number of participants indicated that while they were not worried about this new variant in terms of their own personal health, they were concerned that it would lead to the implementation of further public health measures such as lockdowns, as well as the extension of existing vaccine and mask mandates.

Asked if the detection of this new variant had altered their expectations regarding how long they believed the pandemic would last, many said it did not. Their experience through previous waves of the pandemic, including the impact of the Delta variant earlier in the year, factored into their thinking that COVID-19 would be an ongoing issue for the foreseeable future. Repeating some of the concerns they had raised earlier, participants underscored the long-term mental health issues resulting from the pandemic and associated public health measures and restrictions. There was a concern that the situation would further deteriorate if a resurgence of the virus resulted in the need to reintroduce such measures. A few individuals expressed considerable fatigue, reiterating that they had mostly, if not entirely, disengaged from news and information on the topic. Others believed that the virus would continue to be present and that it would, in time, pose less danger. They felt that eventually COVID-19 would become endemic much like influenza.

Asked if they were aware of any actions taken by the federal government to stem the spread of the Omicron variant, participants recalled the following:

• Restricting travel to and from a number of southern African nations that had been identified as ‘hot spots’ for the new variant;
• Increased travel measures at Canadian airports, including arrival testing for all passengers, including those who were fully vaccinated, as well as mandatory quarantines for those who test positive;
• Efforts to speed up the roll-out of the COVID-19 booster in an attempt to protect as many people as possible against the new variant; and
• Working to find a way to bring stranded Canadians home who were currently in these ‘hot spot’ countries. Some recalled hearing about federal efforts to bring home a Canadian women’s junior field hockey team which had travelled to South Africa for a tournament prior to these measures being implemented. The team arrived back in Canada on December 9th.

To aid in discussion and clarify the details of the Government of Canada’s response, the following information was shared with participants:

As a precautionary measure, until January 31, 2022, the Government of Canada is implementing enhanced border measures for all travellers who have been in affected countries in Africa within the last 14 days before arriving in Canada.

Foreign nationals who have travelled in any of these countries within the previous 14 days will not be permitted entry into Canada.

Canadian citizens, permanent residents and people with status under the Indian Act, regardless of their vaccination status or having had a previous history of testing positive for COVID-19, who have been in these countries in the previous 14 days will be subject to enhanced testing, screening, and quarantine measures.

In the coming days, all fully vaccinated travellers arriving by air from departure points other than the United States will be subject to arrival testing. Fully vaccinated travellers will be required to quarantine while they await the results of their arrival test.

Many felt these measures were reasonable and appropriate, particularly in the short-term, until more was known about the potential spread and severity of this variant. Some felt there should also be additional follow-up testing in the event that travellers happened to test positive in the days after their arrival in Canada. It was also mentioned that if one was intent on traveling at this point that it was not unreasonable to expect enhanced travel requirements. A number of participants were concerned that those travelling by air from the U.S. were exempt from these additional measures, questioning the rationale behind this. Related to this, a few participants felt these policies were potentially discriminatory in that they only targeted African nations, while countries such as the United Kingdom and Denmark (which were also experiencing high rates of transmission of the Omicron variant) were not included in the travel ban. A small number of participants were of the view that these measures demonstrated a lack of faith in the ability of the vaccine to prevent serious outcomes, feeling that it would be discouraging for both those who were vaccinated as well as those who were hesitant to get vaccinated.

When asked whether they thought these measures were too restrictive or not restrictive enough, most believed they were appropriate under the current circumstances. Some remarked that the Government of Canada was doing what it could to proactively protect its citizens and that these enhanced measures represented a reasonable balance between individual liberties and public safety measures. At the same time, many were of the view that the United States should have been included and that all travellers, regardless of their point of origin, should be treated the same. Several felt that it made sense to test all travellers, regardless of vaccination status, as it had been demonstrated that fully vaccinated travellers could also contract and transmit the virus. And, there was some difference of opinion among participants across the groups about the cost of testing – some felt testing for those traveling should be more affordable, while others felt the cost was an effective deterrent to travel at this time.

Several participants felt that the restrictions should be tighter, citing the rapid spread of the variant to continents such as Europe. It was their view that limits should be placed on all non-essential travel. A small number felt the federal government should go further and bar all international travel for a short period of time, although it was acknowledged that this would have an adverse economic impact. It was also suggested that all passengers should be required to take rapid tests both prior to departure as well as upon arrival in Canada. Some felt that travellers entering Canada should be required to isolate for a period of time as testing positive in the days after landing remained a possibility. These participants felt that increased monitoring and enforcement would be required as it was unlikely that all travellers would voluntarily self-isolate.

While far fewer in number, some participants were of the opinion that the travel requirements were too stringent and should be loosened. Among these individuals, it was felt that previous targeted travel measures implemented during the rise of the Delta variant had been ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus and thus were not convinced that a similar approach at this time would be any more effective. Some commented that these measures may have the indirect consequence of undermining public confidence in the efficacy of vaccines, the implication being that the full series of doses was not sufficient protection against the virus. Others felt that additional testing would be costly for travellers, and that, as the Omicron variant had already been detected within Canada, these measures would be mostly ineffectual. A few individuals felt that all travel requirements and measures should be dropped, expressing the view that it was time to find a way to allow people to live as normally as possible.

All groups, except those based in Northern Ontario and Southern Alberta, were asked directly for their thoughts regarding fully vaccinated travellers arriving by air from the United States being exempt from arrival testing. Almost all participants questioned the rationale for this exemption and felt it should not be in place. Several reiterated the view that, based on the principle of fairness and in order to have the best impact in terms of limiting the spread of the virus, testing requirements should be the same for all travellers regardless of the country from which they were traveling. Many felt that as long as this exemption was in place travellers from countries with high rates of transmission may be able to circumvent existing travel measures by transiting through the United States prior to entering Canada. A small number of participants had no issues with the policy of exempting fully vaccinated travellers arriving from the U.S. as they generally felt that that proof of vaccination negated the need for additional testing upon arrival.

Participants in two groups (Northern Ontario and Southern Alberta) were asked an additional question about their thoughts on potential distribution strategies of the COVID-19 booster in light of the discovery of this new variant. Asked if the booster should be made available to all Canadians or only those who were at increased risk of severe outcomes, most participants felt that it should be as accessible as possible. That said, it was widely felt that the roll-out strategy should be similar to the phased distribution of the initial vaccination campaign, prioritizing those who are at higher risk. A few participants were somewhat hesitant to state an opinion one way or another, wishing to see more scientific data regarding the ideal timeframe between shots rather than rushing everyone to get the booster right away. A small number commented that they had felt coerced into getting the first two doses of the vaccine and did not plan to receive the booster shot.

COVID-19 Measures (Eastern Ontario Travellers, Lower Mainland British Columbia Prospective Homeowners, Quebec City Parents of Children Under 12, City of Toronto Opinion Leaders, Mid-size and Major Centres British Columbia, New Brunswick Francophones, Major Centres Manitoba Parents of Children Under 12, Northwest Territories)

Eight of the twelve focus groups held in December engaged in further discussions regarding their views on COVID-19 public health measures. All groups were held in the first half of the month, taking place after the initial detection of the Omicron variant but prior to its increased spread throughout the country and the introduction of enhanced public health measures.

Participants were shown a number of existing or potential public health initiatives and prompted to discuss which they believed would be most effective in terms of preventing the spread of COVID-19:

• Banning non-Canadian travellers who have visited COVID hot spot countries from coming to Canada
• Testing all international travellers before they board a plane to or from Canada
• Testing all travellers from countries other than the U.S. once they arrive in Canada
• Testing all travellers once they arrive in Canada
• Speeding up the COVID vaccine booster shot program
• Donating vaccines to developing countries
• Encouraging Canadians to follow public health measures including wearing masks and distancing
• Getting more kids vaccinated
• Vaccine mandates that require people to be fully vaccinated for certain types of travel and activities

Most participants felt the initiatives pertaining to testing travellers would have the greatest impact, specifically testing all international travellers upon arrival in Canada, in addition to testing all international travellers prior to their boarding a plane to or from Canada. Many participants felt that the series of initiatives related to travel would be a practical, effective, and integrated approach towards slowing the spread of COVID-19. Several believed that testing all travellers upon their arrival in Canada was a prudent measure to detect and isolate individuals who tested positive as a means of slowing, if not fully preventing, the spread of any new variants as they become prevalent overseas. It was also felt that this approach would allow the Government of Canada to apply consistent testing standards across the board, rather than relying on variable testing regimes instituted by those countries from which these travellers were arriving. Some also believed that in addition to testing upon arrival, travellers should be subject to follow-up testing in the event that they became exposed to and contracted the virus immediately following their arrival in Canada. Those who favoured testing all international passengers prior to boarding felt that doing so could prevent the spread of COVID-19 among passengers while in transit. It was also added that this would provide additional assurance to travellers that everyone on their flight had received a negative test. Among the only reservations expressed by participants regarding these measures were the potential high costs and questions about the feasibility in having to test a high volume of travellers each day. The initiative to test all travellers with the exemption of those from the United States was met with a tepid response, with most participants believing that testing should apply to all travellers and that consistency on this front was important towards stopping the spread.

The initiative for the Government of Canada to donate vaccines to developing countries in order to increase the rate of vaccination in these nations was also identified by several participants as a positive step. It was felt by many that the pandemic would likely persist until all countries had the ability to vaccinate their populations. By donating vaccines to developing countries, participants believed that the Government of Canada could both aid in protecting these people as well as helping to mitigate the pandemic on a global scale. Some participants said they would be willing to hold off on receiving the booster shot if it would help to accelerate vaccinations among those in the developing world. Among the few participants who were less supportive of this initiative, the chief concern was in regards to oversight and how the federal government could ensure the vaccines donated to developing countries would be distributed equitably.

Banning non-Canadian travellers who had recently visited countries or regions that were ‘hot spots’ for COVID-19 from coming to Canada was also seen as a potentially effective measure by some participants. Those who favoured such a ban felt it was one way for the Government of Canada to act quickly and decisively to slow the spread of COVID-19. A few also added that while they did not favour barring travel from specific regions as a long-term strategy, they felt that at least in the short term (e.g., a two to three week period) such measures could be useful. Others expressed concerns about the efficacy of this type of initiative given how quickly the virus spreads. Their sense was that the Government of Canada should either enact a much more comprehensive set of travel restrictions or none at all. The issue was also raised by several participants that such actions could be viewed as discriminatory towards people from countries identified as COVID-19 ‘hot spots’ and could be disruptive for international students who attend Canadian universities and colleges. It was suggested that exceptions would likely need to be made in such cases.

Some participants supported ongoing encouragement to Canadians to continue following public health measures such as distancing and wearing facemasks. Several felt this was both an individual responsibility and an aspect of COVID-19 where individual Canadians could feel a sense of agency, but also a way for Canadians to collectively work together to stop the spread. Participants commented that many had already become habituated to these practices as a part of their daily routine, and that it was important for the federal government to continue to reinforce basic public health measures in the face of potential complacency or fatigue among Canadians towards the pandemic. It was felt by many that these measures have been effective thus far and that they offered an extra layer of protection for both vaccinated and unvaccinated Canadians. A small number of participants were of the opinion that these measures, particularly facemasks, were relatively ineffective and that following these practices should be a matter of personal choice.

Of the various measures or initiatives discussed, fewer participants focused on those which pertained to Canada’s ongoing vaccination campaign, including vaccines for children aged 5 to 11, the roll-out of COVID-19 boosters, as well as the use of vaccine mandates. There was some support for increasing the vaccination rate among children as several participants commented that children were a primary vector of transmission and that higher youth vaccination rates may have a mitigating effect. At the same time some participants were adamantly opposed to this measure, feeling that the risk of COVID-19 to children was relatively low and that not enough was known about the potential long-term side effects of the vaccines. With respect to speeding up the booster shot program, participants did not oppose doing so but felt that it would have little impact at this time. Many were not in a position to receive the booster shot, based on what they felt was the recommended six-month waiting time from the last dose received. There was also some concern expressed that the vaccine used for the booster shot may need to be adjusted to specifically address the new Omicron variant. Regarding vaccine mandates for certain activities, some participants felt such measures served as a useful method of encouraging those who were hesitant to get vaccinated and that higher overall vaccination rates would significantly reduce the risk for everyone. A few participants clarified, however, that while they supported vaccine mandates as a temporary measure, they did not wish to see them extended beyond what was deemed necessary to minimize transmission and hospitalizations or instituted on a permanent basis.

COVID-19 Vaccines for Children (Quebec City Parents of Children Under 12, Major Centres Manitoba Parents of Children Under 12)

In these two groups with parents of young children, discussions were held surrounding the anticipated approval by Health Canada of COVID-19 vaccines for children between the ages of 5 and 11. Participants were informed that Health Canada had approved the Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine on November 19^th and that the vaccine had begun to be distributed in some provinces and territories in the weeks that followed.

To begin these conversations, participants were asked if they had discussed the vaccines with their children. All participants indicated having talked to their children about this. In some cases parents had instigated the discussion while in other instances participants mentioned their children having raised the issue. In both groups roughly half of participants mentioned having had their children vaccinated, while the other half had not. Among the latter group, many clarified that they had scheduled appointments while a few did not plan to vaccinate their children.

Those who had elected to have their children vaccinated mentioned a number of factors that had influenced their decision:

• Advice from health care professionals – some participants either worked in the health care sector themselves or had reached out to trusted medical professionals and were reassured regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccine for children;
• Additional protection from vaccines – many participants felt the vaccine offered additional protection against the virus both for their children but also as a means of protecting more vulnerable family members, including grandparents. Parents wanted their children to be able to interact with other family members and believed that their kids being vaccinated would avoid putting anyone at risk; and
• Vaccine mandates – a small number of participants anticipated vaccine mandates for children would be instituted and wanted to ensure that their children could continue to participate in sports, recreational, and social activities.

Parents who were hesitant about vaccinating their children were typically not ideologically opposed to vaccinations. Rather, they expressed a desire for more information regarding any potential long-term side effects associated with the vaccine. For the most part, these participants were holding off making this decision until they felt they were in a position to make a better-informed decision. A small number questioned the messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in COVID-19 vaccines, expressing concerns that it may alter an individual’s genetic structure. Several others had children with existing or previous medical issues and wanted more data or information confirming that the vaccines would be safe for their child specifically. A few were of the view that children were at a low risk both for contracting COVID-19 and becoming seriously ill as a result. As such they felt less urgency to vaccinate their children right away. Several participants, including those whose children had been vaccinated, were sympathetic to the reasons some parents were hesitant to have their children vaccinated. They appreciated the difficulty that parents face when having to make decisions regarding their children’s health, especially under the current circumstances.

COVID-19 Travel Measures & Considerations (Eastern Ontario Travellers, GMA Travellers)

Two of the groups held during December comprised participants who had travelled recently or had indicated that they had plans to travel. These groups were asked a few additional questions specific to federal travel-related COVID-19 measures. To begin these discussions, participants were asked whether they were aware of the COVID-19 testing requirements for those re-entering Canada. In both groups participants were largely aware of the existing requirements, with most being under the impression that travellers needed to be fully vaccinated, produce a negative PCR test prior to departure, and provide an address where they would be quarantining (if necessary). It was added that some additional protocols applied to any non-vaccinated Canadians returning home.

To aid in discussion participants were shown the following information regarding existing travel requirements:

For fully vaccinated travellers, the following either currently applies or will soon apply (for air travel):

• Required to show a pre-entry molecular test (a PCR test) in most instances
• Required to show a pre-entry molecular test (a PCR test) in most instances
• Required to use ArriveCAN to provide travel information before and after entry into Canada
• Required to take an arrival test for all air travel departing from points other than the U.S.
• Quarantine while awaiting arrival test results
• Exempt from Day-8 testing

Opinions were mixed as to whether all of these requirements were necessary and useful. While some felt these measures were helpful in slowing or stopping the spread of COVID-19 in Canada, many also commented on the heavy financial burden placed on travellers, particularly in terms of paying for molecular PCR tests while traveling. Several felt that the federal government should work to increase the nation’s capacity to provide rapid antigen tests to travellers. They felt this would not only reduce costs for those travelling outside the country, but that it would also reduce the level of stress, both emotional and logistical, associated with the requirement to quarantine while awaiting results. Some also mentioned that having to quarantine as a fully-vaccinated traveller was frustrating, as they felt the vaccines had been promoted as a means for individuals to avoid such requirements and get back to normalcy. The ArriveCAN app was identified by some participants as being a useful and intuitive tool, particularly in terms of contact tracing. In line with comments made in other discussions, participants questioned why travellers from the United States were exempt from arrival testing with some wondering whether the exemption had more to do with the economic ties between Canada and the U.S, and less on the basis of public health considerations or scientific evidence.

Participants were asked about their travel plans and, specifically, whether they were reconsidering any plans to travel outside of Canada. Several who had plans to travel to locales such as the United States, Italy, Portugal, and Costa Rica, commented that they were rethinking whether they should take their trip due to the uncertainty posed by the highly transmissible Omicron variant. They explained that they were mostly concerned about circumstances at their destination point, specifically whether enhanced travel restrictions and public health measures would be implemented as a means of addressing a surge in the virus. They were less concerned about the prospect of contracting the virus itself. Some confirmed that their travel plans remained intact as long as there were no further changes which would impede their travel, while others said that they would make a decision based on how the situation evolved over the next weeks and months. It was mentioned by a few participants that what they felt were constantly changing travel restrictions and requirements both in Canada and internationally had made any advance travel planning exceedingly difficult throughout the pandemic.

Questioned as to whether they planned on practicing any additional safety measures (in addition to the testing requirements) while travelling outside of Canada, most participants indicated they would follow the public health measures required by the governments in the countries to which they were travelling. Several felt that this, combined with the protection from the vaccines, reinforced their confidence and their sense of safety while traveling internationally. It was generally felt by participants that apart from more widespread adoption of rapid testing, there was not much more that could be done at an individual level to protect against COVID-19 while travelling.

Finance Canada Ad Testing (Major Centres Alberta Prospective Homeowners, Northwest Territories, GMA Travellers)

Participants in three of the twelve focus groups held in December reviewed and discussed a potential advertisement being developed by the Government of Canada to provide Canadians with information regarding a number of new federal economic programs and initiatives related to recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those in Alberta and the Northwest Territories were shown a storyboard concept of the advertisement and were informed that the final video would feature professional animation in place of the concept art used for the storyboard. In the group held among those in the Greater Montreal Area, participants viewed the storyboard concept in video format. Participants in both groups were told that the advertisement would be 30-seconds in length and was designed to be aired on television.

Finance Canada Storyboard (Major Centres Alberta Prospective Homeowners, Northwest Territories)

The above storyboard begins with the first and second frame labeled “Tourism and Hospitality Recovery Program.” An illustration of a family checking into a hotel in a bubble is shown. Beneath each frame is a description of what viewers would see in the final 30-second video advertisement. For the first two frames the description reads, “We start with the hotel scenario which quickly opens up in a bubble. The mom walks into the scene. We see the scene in motion: the baby moves and the receptionist gives the family the room card and the mom uses sanitizer from the bottle.” Frame 3 and 4 are labeled “Hardest-Hit Business Recovery Program” and take place in a gym. The description reads, “The bubble from the previous scenario quickly closes and the second scenario bubble opens. The bubble opens and grows to show us the next scenario: the gym. We see the scene in motion: a girl is walking, a man is lifting weights and another is disinfecting the bicycle.” On the second line, frame 5 and 6 are labeled “Canada Recovery Hiring Program” and include a bubble showing two people sitting at a table. The description reads, “The bubble from the previous scenario quickly closes and the next scenario bubble opens. The bubble opens again and grows to show us the next scenario: the restaurant. We see the scene in motion: the waitress puts a plate on the table and leaves while the two guys keep eating.” Frame 7 and 8 are labeled “Worker Lockdown Benefit” and are accompanied with the following description: “The bubble from the previous scenario quickly closes and the last scenario bubble opens. The bubble opens and grows to show us the final scenario: the salon. We see the scene in motion: the store owner is flipping the open sign to closed.”

The final two frames close the storyboard with a blank screen with a maple leaf along with the official Government of Canada logo. The description reads, “The bubble transforms into a maple leaf. Canada logo and mandatory info appears.”

Finance Canada Video (GMA Travellers)

This video was only shown to a French group, and as such, no English version was produced. The above video begins with a frame titled « programme de relance pour le tourisme et l’accueil, » with an image in a bubble of a family entering a hotel. In the next frame, the voiceover reads, « se remettre de la pandémie signifie… » while the receptionist gives the family their room key, the father is holding a small infant, and the mother uses hand sanitizer. The third frame, titled « programme de relance pour les entreprises les plus durement touchées, » depicts an image in a bubble of a gym with a girl walking on a treadmill and a man lifting weights while seated. The voiceover continues, « rebâtir une économie qui ne laisse personne pour compte. » The next scene, titled « programme d’embauche pour la relance économique du Canada, » depicts two men seated at a table in a restaurant, with a waitress putting a plate on their table. The voiceover says, « pour les propriétaires d’entreprises et les Canadiens qui éprouvent toujours des difficultés… ». The next frame titled, « prestation canadienne pour les travailleurs en cas de confinement, » opens with an image in a bubble of a hair salon with an employee flipping the sign from « ouvert » to « fermé ». The voiceover continues, « …des programmes de soutien financier cibles sont disponibles aujourd’hui. » The image of the hair salon transforms into the outline of a maple leaf, and the voiceover says, « Consultez Canada.ca/le-coronavirus pour connaitre les programmes de soutien financier qui vous sont offerts. » The final frame depicts the Government of Canada logo with the voiceover ending the clip with, « Un message du gouvernement du Canada. »

Many participants commented on and appreciated the optimistic tone. They described the advertisement as positive and upbeat and responded favourably to the focus on moving forward from the pandemic and economic recovery. The tone of the spot was viewed as a welcome departure from what was perceived to be the more serious tone taken in advertising by governments at all levels through much of the pandemic. A few participants did feel that the messaging was similar to previous communications or advertising from the federal government on the topic of the pandemic and, as a result, found it somewhat repetitive in this respect. Others added that it was unclear to them whether the advertisement was promoting existing financial recovery programs or new initiatives. A small number of participants responded more negatively to the content of the ads, expressing some degree of cynicism the programs highlighted would have any tangible positive impact for individuals or businesses in their communities. Some felt that more clarity on the practical application of the programs would be of value.

Several felt that the concepts were simply too brief given the nature of the content. They found it challenging to absorb all the information contained in the advertisement within such a short duration and were not necessarily immediately prompted to seek out more information on the Government of Canada website. Those in Montreal who viewed the video version of the spot found following both the voiceover and the animation confusing at points. Several added that the rapid pacing of the visuals or video portion of the spot had been difficult to follow while simultaneously attempting to digest the information delivered through the narrator or voice-over.

In terms of the main message, most felt the advertisement focused on economic recovery as being on the horizon and that various initiatives were being offered by the Government of Canada to assist individuals and small businesses facing financial hardship as a result of the pandemic. It was thought by some that the advertisement was specifically targeted to workers and entrepreneurs who had been negatively impacted by the pandemic. Several felt that the overall message was one of hope and optimism with the revival of more robust economic activity and the prospect of a return to more normal routines in the near future.

Asked what they felt were the main strengths of the advertisement, many responded that it provided information about a variety of economic initiatives which was relevant to a broad swath of Canadians who had struggled in numerous ways over the course of the pandemic. Several also felt that, in addition to the upbeat tone of the ad, the inclusive and diverse imagery was also a positive in reinforcing the message of Canadians moving forward together. Others commented that the advertisement was easily identifiable as being from the Government of Canada.

With respect to any weaknesses, some participants repeated their earlier concern about what they viewed as the very quick pacing of the advertisement, remarking that they found it contained too much information for a 30-second video. Some stated a preference for a series of ads, or multiple versions of the ad, which would allow for a singular and more detailed focus on a specific program or related programs. Participants were interested in knowing more about how the programs worked with respect to eligibility criteria and the financial support provided. Concrete and practical examples of these financial supports in action was felt to be a useful way of showcasing the programs as well as clarifying some of the details and questions around their implementation. Other commentary centered on the imagery, specifically:

• Concerns that the advertisement focused too heavily on individuals who appeared to be working in lower-paying jobs;
• A perceived disconnect between the images and the content, with some participants commenting that Canadians who were struggling financially likely would not be frequently going out for coffee;
• Skepticism that the financial supports referred to in the ad would materialize or work as intended, with some expressing concerns that the messaging was giving Canadians false hope; and
• Related to the tone of the advertisement, some also felt that while the positive and upbeat approach was appreciated, the ad missed an opportunity to acknowledge some of the other consequences of the pandemic beyond the financial implications, including the impact on mental health and overall social cohesion.

Participants generally found the language used in the spot was easy to understand and would be relatable to most Canadians. A small number of participants pointed out aspects they found to be confusing, mostly centering on a desire for the advertisement to provide clearer details on how one could actually access these programs. It was suggested this could be achieved by highlighting the website URL to a greater extent, creating a shorter-form web address, or providing alternate methods of communication such as a 1-800 number for those who are less comfortable online.

When asked to whom they felt this message was targeted, most felt the content was directed at lower and middle-income Canadians who had been adversely impacted financially by the pandemic as well as small businesses or entrepreneurs who had struggled due to a lack of business, capacity limits, or lockdowns brought on by public health measures. Asked if they felt the advertisement would stand out on television, several of those participants who were presented with the static storyboard felt that it would, though it was added by some that they would likely not pay much attention as the programs were not relevant to them personally. Those who viewed the video version of the storyboard were mixed in their views as to whether it would attract their attention. While some felt it was eye-catching, others were of the view that it was not sufficiently dynamic and that the look, feel, and content was similar to other pandemic-related messaging such that it appeared not to offer any new information. It was suggested that in addition to television, this video could have a wider reach, particularly to younger Canadians, if it were presented on social media platforms as well as on YouTube pre-roll.

Participants were also shown two slightly different versions of messaging:

• Original: Recovering from the pandemic means rebuilding an economy that leaves no one behind. For business owners and Canadians who continue to struggle, there are targeted financial support programs available now. This is the time to build a more resilient economy.”
• Alternate: “Recovering from the pandemic means rebuilding an economy that leaves no one behind. You can access targeted financial support programs now, made for business owners and Canadians who need it. Today’s the day to build a more resilient economy.”

In all three groups the alternate version was preferred over the original for a number of reasons. Those who selected the alternate version felt it had a more unified tone, as well as a personal call to action. This stemmed from the way in which the message was framed as the narrator talking to all Canadians as well as individual Canadians (e.g., ‘you can access targeted financial programs…’). Additionally, the reference to ‘today’ rather than using the phrasing ‘this is the time’ lent a greater sense of immediacy and urgency to the message. Some participants also felt that the original wording tended to single out those who had struggled during the pandemic and that the wording of the alternate version felt more inclusive and less divisive in that respect. Those few who preferred the original voiceover were drawn to what they felt to be a more direct approach, commenting that the phrasing in this version felt clearer and specifically identified who would benefit from the programs. By contrast, they felt the alternate version was perhaps overly broad and vague.

Detailed Findings – Part II: Other Issues

Canada Wordmark (Northern Ontario, Southern Alberta, Quebec City Parents of Children Under 12, Mid-size and Major Centres British Columbia, New Brunswick Francophones, Major Centres Manitoba Parents of Children Under 12)

Six groups discussed information they receive from the Government of Canada, specifically how they recognize information and messages from the federal government across various channels, including television, social media, print, and radio.

Participants were initially asked how they would discern information or messages which were from the Government of Canada versus other sources. This included instances in which participants would come across information online, on television, on paper, or out-of-home advertising such as messaging on billboards and in transit shelters. A variety of responses were provided and participants mentioned the following in relation to Government of Canada information:

• Information from the Government of Canada is often accompanied by a ‘logo’ representing the federal government. Several participants recalled that this image was comprised of the word Canada in a unique and ‘official’ font as well as the Canadian flag;
• Federal communications tend to explicitly state the Government of Canada as the sponsor (e.g., that the message is on behalf of the Government of Canada). Many participants recalled messages being accompanied by a message along the lines of “brought to you by the Government of Canada” either in audio or written form; and
• Government of Canada communications which reference websites can be readily verified with the inclusion of the second-level ‘gc.ca’ domain.

In addition, several participants indicated they felt there was a high degree of consistency and familiarity with communications from the Government of Canada and, in general, the information received could be viewed as credible and trusted. Some also mentioned that if they were at all skeptical of the source they would typically verify by going to official Government of Canada websites. A small number of participants mentioned that, on occasion, they found it difficult to delineate between federal and provincial information, however, visual cues such as the colour scheme utilized or the Canada wordmark were useful identifiers.

Participants were then asked how they would typically ascertain whether information was from the Government of Canada when it was something they only heard (such as on the radio) rather than messaging distributed by traditional or digital media containing visual cues. A number of identifiers were mentioned:

• Several participants recalled that most radio communications from the federal government concluded with a voice (which some assumed was always female) informing the listener that the message had been ‘paid for by the Government of Canada’. Many commented that that they had become accustomed to the inclusion of this voice-over in federal government messaging and advertising, having heard it for a period of several years or more;
• Many also identified a short tune or ‘jingle’ that also accompanies federal communications, derived from the first four notes of ‘O Canada.’ This type of ‘sound branding’ was highly recognizable and some participants were able to hum the short tune, while others had at least some recall of the distinctive tone of the musical signature employed by the Government of Canada; and
• A few participants mentioned that communications from the Government of Canada often had a more ‘official’ tone compared to other radio ads and that this clearly distinguished federal government messaging.

Participants were then shown the Government of Canada wordmark on screen.

The Government of Canada Wordmark

In the above image, the word ‘Canada’ is written in black font over a white background. Over the final ‘a’ there is a coloured, red and white, Canadian flag.

Several confirmed this was the logo they had been referring to earlier in the discussions. Asked if they had seen this symbol before, almost all participants indicated that they had. Many participants mentioned regularly seeing the wordmark, whether in print or online, when interacting with federal departments and agencies such as Service Canada or the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) while carrying out day-to-day tasks such as filing personal tax returns, obtaining licenses and permits, or addressing other administrative needs. Some participants also recalled having seen the wordmark on federal buildings, in association with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), at the conclusion of Government of Canada advertisements on television, and on correspondence from organizations which receive funding from the federal government.

When participants were asked to describe what the wordmark meant to them on a general front, several participants indicated it had the effect of reinforcing that the communications they had received were official, reliable, and that the information it accompanied was noteworthy or worth paying attention to. A few participants added the caveat that while the wordmark lent legitimacy to the information, confirming the source as the Government of Canada, they were hesitant to say it could be deemed fully trustworthy. Some felt that, depending on the topic, information from the Government of Canada could be inaccurate or change over time. Asked as to whether they felt the wordmark represented the Government of Canada, almost all felt that it did. A few participants stressed that the Canadian flag and the maple leaf were the single most identifiable images associated with both the Government of Canada and the nation.

In terms of what the wordmark meant to them personally, participants offered several thoughts representing a variety of perspectives:

• Several participants indicated that the wordmark instilled a sense of pride as a citizen of Canada. They expressed a strong sense of satisfaction as Canadians and seeing the wordmark reinforced these feelings;

• Some felt that the wordmark served to represent their home and that seeing this symbol, especially when traveling abroad, provided them with a sense of comfort and safety;
• Others commented on the inclusive nature of the wordmark, adding that it is a symbol which represents all Canadians across Canada and those living overseas;
• A few participants mentioned that they typically associate this symbol with official correspondence such as tax notices or the filing of tax returns which they viewed as stressful and anxiety-inducing. As such, seeing the wordmark sparked feelings of anxiety for some, particularly in that receiving such official correspondence was often to correct an error that they had inadvertently made in their filing;
• Some participants indicated that their opinions on the wordmark would vary depending on to the information with which it was associated and whether the communications were perceived by them as being positive or negative; and
• A few individuals mentioned that they were more inclined to associate the symbol with the elected government rather than with the institution of the Government of Canada.

Speaking on whether they typically had positive, neutral, or negative feelings towards the wordmark, participants overwhelmingly indicated that the symbol evoked mostly positive emotions. As noted above, however, a few participants reacted more negatively, specifically those who felt some level of anxiety when receiving official correspondence from the Government of Canada. In addition, a few others said that the symbol prompted them to think of perceived past social injustices such as the federal government’s historic relationship with Indigenous peoples. Several also mentioned that the wordmark generated neither positive nor negative sentiments, remarking that it retained a more neutral positioning in their minds.

Participants generally understood and acknowledged the value of applying the wordmark to Government of Canada communications across all channels as a means of ensuring consistency via a visual cue that Canadians could readily authenticate. It was recognized that the wordmark was a key branding element for the institution of the Government of Canada, similar to the branding which most public and private sector organizations employ as part of their marketing strategies to solidify and reinforce brand preference among consumers and stakeholders. Others felt that the wordmark was intended to promote unity, serving as a unifying symbol for all Canadians across the country.

With respect to their expectations regarding the use and application of the wordmark, some participants indicated that they would expect to see the symbol on official federal buildings (e.g., Parliament, federal office buildings, branches of various Government of Canada departments and agencies and service outlets found throughout their communities). Others expected to see it on all federal correspondence, both in print and online, as well as in places where one would expect to interact with Government of Canada officials or receive services from the Government of Canada, including airports, customs, and at Canadian embassies and consulates overseas.

Most participants believed that the symbol invoked a sense of trust with many feeling confident that information received could be viewed as important, legitimate, and generally delivered in an unbiased, factual manner. Some participants clarified that while they generally trusted that the information was from the Government of Canada, they did not always immediately accept it as accurate and that they would likely question details they felt may be incorrect, particularly regarding personal matters such as tax returns.

The official Government of Canada musical signature was played for participants and virtually all recognized it, having heard it previously on television and/or the radio.

The Government of Canada Musical Signature

Above is a short, two-second, audio clip featuring the opening notes of the Canadian national anthem.

Several confirmed this as the ‘jingle’ they had been referring to earlier in the discussion. Questioned as to why they felt the Government of Canada might utilize this music signature in their communications, most believed it was primarily to serve as an audio cue, reminding individuals this was a message from the federal government. They felt that it was a particularly useful branding element in messaging delivered via the radio. Repeating their earlier comments, many added that the musical signature was derived from the opening bars of the national anthem and that they generally found it to be catchy and easily recognizable.

Opioids (Northern Ontario, Southern Alberta)

In two groups participants discussed the issue of opioids, specifically the rising instances of opioid addiction and opioid-related deaths being reported across the country.

Asked if they had heard anything about opioids in the news or if they could elaborate on what they knew about the issue, most participants were aware and expressed concern. Some spoke about the impact of the issue on them personally, in terms of how it was affecting their community or individuals they knew either directly or indirectly. While some recalled mainly having heard about the opioid issue in the news, it was felt by others that this crisis was underreported in the media in terms of its true scope and impact. A few participants were of the opinion that opioids represented as great a danger to Canadians as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and that far more attention should be given to this issue. While most were aware of the broad category of drugs classified as opioids, some did recall specific opioids such as fentanyl, oxycodone, and morphine.

Participants were asked who they felt was most impacted by this issue. Across both groups, the consensus view was that opioid addiction could happen to anyone. While many stated that the common perception was that the opioid crisis was most prevalent among more vulnerable or marginalized groups, the sense among participants was that its reach was far more widespread. At the same time, several did add that homelessness and one’s socio-economic status were likely to be contributing factors. It was also felt that individuals with mental health issues as well as those suffering from chronic pain were also more likely to develop an addiction to opioids. Others were of the opinion that opioid addiction was also prevalent among individuals suffering from personal or inter-generational trauma, with some expressing concern that Indigenous communities were especially vulnerable given the long-standing trauma many of their communities have endured.

Participants discussed what had led to the current problem with opioids and identified a number of issues as follows:

• Pharmaceutical manufacturers producing and marketing unsafe products – it was felt by several participants that manufacturers were focused more on profits than on personal health and that this had motivated them to develop products without due regard for the harmful impact they may have on users;
• Physicians overprescribing opioids – participants thought some doctors defaulted to prescribing powerful opioids without first ascertaining whether this was the best pain management option for the patient, and this approach was contributing to increased use and dependency. It was felt that physicians should be encouraged to develop care strategies that are more customized and based more around the needs of the individual;
• Mental health and trauma – as mentioned earlier, it was felt by some that persistent or prolonged use of opioids not only impacted an individual’s mental health, but that harmful use of these drugs could more readily develop among those who relied on them to ease pain and suffering resulting from existing mental health disorders or past traumas;
• Increased potency – a few participants commented that the increased potency of non-prescription and/or synthetic opioids in recent years has made them vastly more dangerous and had directly resulted in a rising number of deaths. Some mentioned that even a small quantity of fentanyl can be highly potent and, when misused, could result in a high percentage of opioid-related deaths;
• A lack of education and understanding of the dangers associated with these substances – participants felt that many who become addicted to opioids were likely initially unaware of the risks of these types of drugs, regardless of whether they had been prescribed by a physician or were being used recreationally; and
• Naloxone kits – a small number of participants were of the opinion that the availability of naloxone kits, while helpful in temporarily reversing the effects of an opioid overdose, may have inadvertently served to increase users’ comfort level in experimenting with these types of drugs, knowing that they could be revived relatively quickly if they had an adverse event.

In addition to the specific factors identified above, several participants voiced the opinion that opioid addiction was likely driven by a number of interrelated factors and that it was difficult to say with certainty that there was a single primary driver behind this problem. It was added that socio-economic status, family life, upbringing and one’s environment, mental health, and personal experiences were all determinants in terms of susceptibility to opioid addiction.

Following this, participants were shown a list of various factors that could be at the root of the problem and asked to select up to three that they felt were key:

• Doctors not prescribing properly;
• Drug companies making unsafe products;
• Gangs;
• Lack of Policing;
• People Making Poor Decisions; and
• Poor Border Control.

Across both groups, many felt that improper prescribing practices by doctors was a critical issue underpinning the growing opioid crisis. Several participants felt that physicians often prescribed these powerful substances too readily, with some describing personal experiences where they had been given strong opioids to address what they perceived to be a relatively minor injury. Pharmaceutical companies were also widely identified by several participants as bearing significant responsibility for this problem, with many believing that the profit motive had led to these companies manufacturing and marketing highly addictive products, including specific tactics to incentivize physicians to prescribe opioids over other medications or treatments. Among the other factors listed, a lack of policing and people making poor decisions were identified by a few participants, with some feeling that there needed to be stronger enforcement of existing drug laws, as well as better education to alert people to the dangers of these drugs and to aid them in making better choices. Issues such as gangs and poor border control were seen to play less of a role, although a few participants did feel that gang activity was likely a factor in some situations. A few were also under the impression that there was currently an influx of opioids coming across the U.S. border into Canada and that this was increasing the supply and availability of these substances within Canadian border communities.

When asked what the Government of Canada could do to address this growing issue, several felt there should be greater accountability among physicians and drug manufacturers, along with a shift towards treating patients as individuals and determining on a case-by-case basis whether opioids were the most appropriate pain management medication to prescribe. It was also felt that the federal government should offer further public education about these substances as well as expand mental health resources for individuals, encouraging them to explore alternative treatment options as a way to avoid taking these types of medications, whether prescribed or not.

Participants discussed their views on a recent plan by the City of Vancouver to gain approval from Health Canada to decriminalize small amounts of illicit drugs. While there was limited awareness of this proposal, some felt it could be similar to programs that were being implemented in other jurisdictions such as Portugal. In both groups participants reacted positively to this proposal. They felt that it would have the effect of destigmatizing drug use, regulating the use of this category of drugs, and allowing users to more readily seek treatment. It was felt by many that an approach which emphasized treatment over punishment and incarceration would likely have more beneficial outcomes and a greater long-term positive impact on affected individuals.

Most were in favour of the Government of Canada pursuing a policy of decriminalizing these substances and shifting towards more of a harm reduction approach, although there were some concerns raised about moving in this direction. A primary worry was that this shift may overburden Canada’s health care system. Participants recommended a strategy of gradual implementation in parallel with increasing capacity within the health care system. A few participants were concerned that this approach may contribute to increased drug use, although they also acknowledged that current approaches were ineffective. Questioned as to whether they felt this approach would aid in reducing the stigma towards drug users and encourage those suffering from addiction to seek help, most felt that it would and were open to pursuing this option.

Local Issues (Northwest Territories)

Participants based in the Northwest Territories (NT) were asked a series of questions about issues specific to the region. At the outset of the discussion, participants were asked to identify what they believed to be the most important sectors or industries for the Northwest Territories. Responses focused on the resource and hospitality sectors, including mining, fishing, tourism, travel, and transportation in addition to a growing field pertaining to climate based research (e.g., cold-weather testing for automobile manufacturers).

When asked about those industries or sectors which were most in need of assistance, some of those mentioned above were identified along with others, including the following:

• Health care – it was felt that the health care system within the NT was currently overburdened and that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic had only exacerbated these issues. It was added that staffing challenges in many regions and smaller communities across the NT had adversely affected maternity and delivery care in the area;
• Services and hospitality – participants thought more investment was required in the hospitality and services sector to expand both the quality and variety of restaurants, hotels, and personal services available in the NT. It was felt that this would not only improve the quality of life and experience for residents of the NT, but would also be foundational to further economic growth by encouraging workers in the service and resource sectors to settle in the region for the long-term rather than for seasonal work or short duration periods only;
• Transportation – participants commented that the cost to fly in and out of the Northwest Territories was expensive and increasingly so, making it prohibitive for both residents and visitors to travel to and from the region. Participants felt that travel to and from the NT should be more accessible; and
• Telecommunications – Many were of the view that improved access to the Internet in remote northern communities was a priority. Participants felt that greater connectivity was vital to an improved quality of life, providing residents access to online classes and activities, and workers the ability tfully participate in the digital economy.

Relatively few participants were able to recall any recent supports the federal government had provided towards these sectors, with the exception of some funding to the mining industry and financial supports to the hospitality sector during the pandemic. Some participants commented that federal funding or support programs were often difficult to access given narrowly targeted eligibility criteria for participation. Several participants were also under the impression that many federal funding programs were specifically designed for and targeted to the most populous regions of Canada whereas they felt that those programs announced as being specifically directed to northern regions of the country tended to be high on rhetoric and short on substance.

With respect to those issues or sectors that participants thought were in need of greater attention from the Government of Canada, the following were identified:

• Housing and infrastructure – participants commented that the current housing supply was insufficient to meet the needs of those residing in the territory. Concerns were also expressed about the condition of vital infrastructure (such as roads and buildings) in many communities and that funding was desperately needed for repairs, upgrades, and new construction;
• Affordable child care – participants mentioned that access to child care in many communities was quite limited and that those spaces that did exist were becoming unaffordable. Some were of the opinion high child care costs meant that some parents were opting out of the work force to stay home and care for their child/children. Participants felt this had adverse consequences for families and for the broader economy as talented individuals were making the choice, for purely financial reasons, to leave their jobs;
• Cost of living – the costs of essential goods and services such as groceries, fuel, heating, and general services were viewed as being considerably higher in the North relative to other regions of Canada. Participants were concerned about the impact of rising prices on residents’ quality of life. Tangentially, some also mentioned that high salaries in certain sectors (e.g., mining) were also driving up prices in the region with the result that those making average wages were losing ground and finding their earning power declining by comparison;
• Recruitment and staffing – some participants mentioned that vital sectors such as health care and education were facing significant staffing shortages due to the challenges of recruiting talented workers to the region; and
• Athletic and cultural opportunities – several participants commented on the lack of opportunities to engage in athletic pursuits and cultural events for those living in northern communities. The distance to travel to the North poses challenges for hosting athletic and cultural activities as well as for those who may wish to attend these events, including athletes and performers. It was also felt by some that youth sports and arts programs were perpetually underfunded throughout the Northwest Territories and that this had been the case for some time.

A portion of the discussion centered on environmental issues resulting from the closure of the Giant Mine, a gold mine north of Yellowknife that began operations in 1948 and closed in 2004 and which had been a major economic driver for the city and the region. Awareness of efforts by the Government of Canada to address environmental issues after the mine stopped operating (e.g., the Giant Mine Remediation Project) varied. Several participants were aware of ongoing remediation actions by the Government of Canada to address dangerous levels of arsenic that had seeped into the surrounding groundwater. A few participants acknowledged that they had been directly involved in the clean-up operation. When questioned about what more the federal government could do to assist with this specific clean-up as well as other similar environmental issues, several participants felt that mining companies should be required to meet more stringent accountability standards in the NT and, specifically, that they should not be permitted to abandon mining sites without any obligation to undertake proper closures and site remediation. Some participants also suggested that all levels of government should ensure that affected Indigenous communities are consulted throughout the process of establishing, operating, and closing mining operations. Finally, some thought a more visible presence on the ground by the federal government would help to expedite the process of cleaning up these sites.

Speech from the Throne (Northern Ontario, Southern Alberta, Lower Mainland British Columbia Prospective Homeowners, City of Toronto Opinion Leaders, Major Centres Alberta Prospective Homeowners)

The Speech from the Throne (SFT), delivered on November 23^rd, 2021 by Canada’s Governor General was discussed in five of the twelve groups held in December. Among all groups awareness of the SFT was relatively low. Those who had some awareness of the SFT recalled that it focused on issues such as health care, child care, and climate change, although they did not recall any specific details.

Before continuing the discussion, it was clarified that the Speech from the Throne marks the beginning of a new session of Parliament, outlining the federal government’s direction and goals, as well as how it will go about achieving them.

Evaluation of Key Initiatives (Northern Ontario, Southern Alberta, City of Toronto Opinion Leaders)

In three groups, participants were asked to consider and discuss a number of initiatives highlighted in the Speech from the Throne:

• The Housing Accelerator Fund will help municipalities build more and better, faster (note: The Housing Accelerator Fund would make funding available to municipalities to speed up their housing plan);
• The government will continue increasing immigration levels and reducing wait times, while supporting family reunification and delivering a world-leading refugee resettlement program;
• Cap and cut oil and gas sector emissions while accelerating our path to a 100% net-zero electricity future;
• Investing in public transit and mandating the sale of zero emission vehicles;
• Mandatory buyback of banned assault-style weapons and move forward with any province or territory that wants to ban handguns;
  Completing the ban on conversion therapy; and
• The creation of a national monument to honour survivors [of residential schools].

Participants discussed those initiatives from the above list which stood out to them as either particularly worthwhile or as a cause for concern.

The Housing Accelerator Fund was highlighted by many as a particularly positive initiative. It was felt by a number of participants that for many Canadian families homeownership was becoming increasingly out of reach. Several felt that addressing what they viewed as a housing crisis in Canada was a priority. Participants suggested that this type of initiative could only be successful if the federal government were able to increase the housing supply while also making housing prices more affordable in general.

The pledge to complete the ban on conversion therapy was also received quite positively among participants. Several felt that, in principle, implementing a ban was the right thing to do. Moreover, they felt that this initiative was one which was readily achievable. In discussing this initiative, some participants recalled that legislation banning conversion therapy had recently been voted on and unanimously passed in the House of Commons on December 1st, 2021. This news was met with positive reactions among participants.

A number of participants supported the federal government’s climate-related initiatives such as increased investments in public transit, mandating zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035, and the pledge to cap and cut oil and gas sector emissions. It was expressed by some that Canada was not doing enough at present to reduce emissions and that these initiatives could help in that regard. Others reiterated the importance of public transit as part of a climate change strategy. A few participants added that they personally relied on public transit and felt these investments would vastly improve the day-to-day experience of many Canadians. While participants were generally in favour of the mandate to sell only ZEVs vehicles by 2035, concern was expressed by some that harsh Canadian winters, especially in Northern Canada, could make it difficult to rely solely on electric vehicles as the perception was that ZEVs experience challenges with range and that the batteries are not as efficient in cold, wintry conditions. Others were of the view that ZEVs remained prohibitively expensive, or at least more expensive than conventional vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICE) and that they would need to come down in price significantly in order for the wider Canadian public to perceive them as an affordable option. Some participants felt that the various climate-related initiatives were somewhat aspirational, and that it may be difficult to transition from a heavy reliance on oil and gas within such a short timeframe.

The mandatory buyback of assault-style weapons and pledge to move forward with any province or territory considering banning handguns was met with a positive response from some, but also some concerns. Those who reacted positively felt that gun violence had become a major problem, particularly in urban centres such as Toronto, and that steps needed to be taken to address the issue. Several added that they did not believe there to be any rational reason for the continued sale of handguns to private citizens in any Canadian province or territory. A small number of participants in the group based in Alberta expressed some skepticism about this initiative, feeling that the definition of ‘assault-style weapons’ was too broad. They also felt that the ban might unfairly encompass many guns that looked like assault-style weapons, even if they were technically not classified as such. Participants who opposed this initiative or expressed some concerns about it also commented that the buy-back program would not effectively address the ownership and use of these weapons among criminals and criminal organizations, which they felt was the real issue.

The pledge to increase immigration levels and reduce wait times was discussed by only a few participants. Among these participants, it was felt that pursuing such a program could serve to not only bring more families together but also aid in bolstering the workforce at a time in which there was a perceived labour shortage across Canada. At the same time, these participants recommended that settlement strategies should ensure new arrivals are dispersed widely across Canada rather than targeting the three major centres of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

The proposal to build a national monument to honour residential school survivors evoked largely negative reactions among participants. Though a small number voiced support for the monument as a symbolic gesture towards these survivors and their families, many others felt that the creation of such a monument was not appropriate at this time. Several participants, including those who identified as Indigenous, commented that given ongoing issues with intergenerational trauma related to Canada’s history of residential schools, clean drinking water on reserves, poor living standards in many Indigenous communities, and lower levels of educational attainment among Indigenous peoples, that the money and resources spent to build and install a monument could be put to better use. Many participants felt that the timing of the monument was inappropriate ahead of addressing these other issues and that this type of project would provide little to no tangible benefit for Indigenous peoples.

Housing Initiatives (Lower Mainland British Columbia Prospective Homeowners, Major Centres Alberta Prospective Homeowners)

Two groups comprising participants who were prospective homeowners were asked a more detailed set of questions related to the housing initiatives outlined in the Speech from the Throne. Most were unaware of any recent announcements or initiatives pertaining to housing from the Government of Canada. Prior to further discussion, participants were provided with additional information clarifying that, along with child care, housing was a major priority of the Government of Canada’s plan as laid out in the Speech from the Throne which included reference to the following:

• The Housing Accelerator Fund will help municipalities build more and better, faster (note: The Housing Accelerator Fund would make funding available to municipalities to speed up their housing plan).
• The Government of Canada will also help families buy their first home sooner with a more flexible First-Time Home Buyer’s Incentive, a new Rent-to-Own program, and by reducing the closing costs for first-time buyers.

Asked for their thoughts on these initiatives, participants were widely positive. In line with the reactions of participants in other groups, many felt that the housing market in Canada was becoming increasingly unaffordable and that any actions by the federal government to address this would be welcome. In particular, the pledges to increase the housing supply as well as reduce closing costs were identified as being particularly promising. In discussing these initiatives, some participants expressed a desire for further details on these plans in order to evaluate them more fully.

On the topic of the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, a few participants indicated awareness of this initiative and described it as being more akin to an equity investment by the Government of Canada rather than a traditional loan. This detail was met with negative reaction from a few participants who were concerned that the federal government could hold an ownership or an equity stake in one’s principal residence. These participants felt more clarification around this aspect of the program was required. It was their view that many applicants might not fully appreciate this element of the Incentive. Other participants possessed a more limited understanding of the program or conflated it with the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP) which allows Canadians to withdraw funds from their registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) to put towards a down payment.

To aid in discussion, the following information was shared with participants:

The First-Time Home Buyer Incentive helps people across Canada purchase their first home. The program offers 5 or 10% of the home’s purchase price to put toward a down payment. This addition to your down payment lowers your mortgage carrying costs, making homeownership more affordable.

This program is a shared equity mortgage. This means that the Government of Canada shares in the upside and downside of the property value. It allows you to borrow 5 or 10% of the purchase price of a home. You pay back the same percentage of the value of your home when you sell it or within a 25-year window.

Participants were generally unaware of the eligibility criteria required to qualify for the First-Time Home Buyer incentive, although a few participants thought that, in addition to needing to be a first-time home buyer in order to qualify, one also had to be a Canadian citizen and that a ceiling in terms of annual household income could also apply (e.g., a combined family income not exceeding $150,000). To clarify, the following eligibility criteria were shown to participants:

• Be a first-time home buyer;
• Total annual qualifying income does not exceed $120,000 ($150,000 if the home being purchased is in Toronto, Vancouver, or Victoria);
• Total borrowing amount is no more than four times the purchaser’s qualifying income (4.5 times if the home being purchased is in Toronto, Vancouver, or Victoria); and
• Must meet the minimum down payment requirements with traditional funds (savings, withdrawal/collapse of a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), or a non-repayable financial gift from a relative or immediate family member.

Each group was then asked to consider what a more flexible set of criteria for the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive might look like. A number of ideas were shared by participants, including:

• Increasing the annual qualifying income cap – several were of the view that this amount was too low, particularly given the rate at which housing prices have increased in recent years. It was felt that this amount should be raised to $200,000, if not higher. It was added that this amount should be reassessed every few years in order to keep pace with the housing market;
• Rather than stipulating that only a few cities (Toronto, Vancouver, and Victoria) qualified for increased qualifying income and borrowing amounts, it was felt by some that every city or region in Canada should be included, and that these maximums should be regularly adjusted to keep pace with inflation and housing prices in various markets;
• The mortgage stress-test and down payment requirements for first-time home buyers should be loosened. It was believed by some that the existing rules made securing a down payment and a mortgage exceedingly expensive resulting in the prospect of home ownership being out of reach for many Canadian families;
• Reiterating the requirement that buyers be citizens or residents of Canada. Some assumed this program was open to buyers who did not reside in Canada, and strongly felt that this not be the case;
• Reducing interest rates for first-time home buyers with terms that would be more financially viable, particularly given other substantial costs that are often associated with the purchase of one’s first home; and
• Taking family-size into greater account. Participants thought that the housing requirements of those with larger families (e.g., families with more than two children) would likely mean they would have difficulty qualifying for a larger, typically more expensive property. Participants generally felt that the program should contain some flexibility to address the needs and circumstances of families both with respect to their household income, but also their family size and needs.

Appendix A – Recruiting Scripts

English Recruiting Script

Privy Council Office

Recruiting Script – December 2021

English Groups

Recruitment Specifications Summary

• Groups conducted online
• Each group is expected to last for two hours
• Recruit 8 participants
• Incentives will be $100 per person and will be sent to participants via e-transfer following the group

Specifications for the focus groups are as follows:

GROUP	DATE	TIME (EDT)	TIME (LOCAL)	LOCATION	COMPOSITION	MODERATOR
1	Wed., December 1st	6:00-8:00	6:00-8:00 (EST)	Northern Ontario	General Population	DN
2	Thurs., December 2nd	8:00-10:00	6:00-8:00 (MST)	Southern Alberta	General Population	TBW
3	Mon., December 6th	6:00-8:00	6:00-8:00 (EST)	Eastern Ontario	Travellers	DN
5	Tues., December 7th	9:00-11:00	6:00-8:00 (PST)	Lower Mainland B.C.	Prospective Homeowners	TBW
6	Wed., December 8th	6:00-8:00	6:00-8:00 (EST)	City of Toronto	Opinion Leaders	DN
8	Thurs., December 9th	9:00-11:00	6:00-8:00 (PST)	Mid-size and Major Centres B.C.	General Population	TBW
9	Mon., December 13th	7:00-9:00	6:00-8:00 (CST)	Major Centres Manitoba	Parents of Children Under 12	DN
10	Tues., December 14th	8:00-10:00	6:00-8:00 (PST)	Major Centres Alberta	Prospective Homeowners	TBW
11	Tues., December 14th	8:00-10:00	6:00-8:00 (MST)	Northwest Territories	General Population	DN

Recruiting Script

INTRODUCTION

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

Would you prefer to continue in English or French?/Préfériez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [CONTINUE IN LANGUAGE OF PREFERENCE]

RECORD LANGUAGE

English CONTINUE

French THANK AND END

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

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

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

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

YesCONTINUE

NoTHANK AND END

SCREENING QUESTIONS

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

A market research firm

THANK AND END

A marketing, branding or advertising agency

THANK AND END

A magazine or newspaper

THANK AND END

A federal/provincial/territorial government department or agency

THANK AND END

A political party

THANK AND END

In public/media relations

THANK AND END

In radio/television

THANK AND END

No, none of the above

CONTINUE

1a. IN ALL LOCATIONS: Are you a retired Government of Canada employee?

YesTHANK AND END

NoCONTINUE

2. In which city do you reside?

LOCATION	CITIES
Northern Ontario	Cities could include (but are not limited to): Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay, Timmins, Kenora, West Nipissing, Elliot Lake, Temiskaming Shores, Kapuskasing, Dryden NO MORE THAN 2 PER CITY. ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. INCLUDE THOSE RESIDING IN LARGER AND SMALLER COMMUNITIES.	CONTINUE - GROUP 1
Southern Alberta	Cities could include (but are not limited to): Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Brooks, High River, Taber, Coaldale, Pincher Creek, Carston, Turner Valley, Vulcan NO MORE THAN 2 PER CITY. ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. INCLUDE THOSE RESIDING IN LARGER AND SMALLER COMMUNITIES.	CONTINUE - GROUP 2
Eastern Ontario	Cities could include (but are not limited to): Ottawa, Kingston, Kanata, Belleville, Cornwall, Brockville, Pembroke, Petawawa, Rockland, Carleton Place, Hawkesbury, Arnprior NO MORE THAN 2 PER CITY. ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. INCLUDE THOSE RESIDING IN LARGER AND SMALLER COMMUNITIES.	CONTINUE - GROUP 3
Lower Mainland B.C.	Cities include: Vancouver, Abbotsford, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, Surrey, Delta, Langley, White Rock, Chilliwack, Mission Hope, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY. INCLUDE THOSE RESIDING IN LARGER AND SMALLER COMMUNITIES.	CONTINUE - GROUP 5
City of Toronto	Toronto PARTICIPANTS SHOULD RESIDE IN THE ABOVE-NOTED CENTER PROPER.	CONTINUE - GROUP 6
Mid-size and Major Centres B.C.	Cities could include (but are not limited to): Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna, Abbotsford, Surrey, Richmond, White Rock, Nanaimo, Kamloops, Chilliwack, Prince George, Vernon, Courtenay, Campbell River, Penticton, Mission MAX 2 PARTICIPANTS FROM MAJOR CITIES (VANCOUVER/VICTORIA). ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION.	CONTINUE - GROUP 8
Major Centres Manitoba	Cities include: Winnipeg and Brandon PARTICIPANTS SHOULD RESIDE IN THE ABOVE-NOTED CENTERS PROPER. NO MORE THAN 4 PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 9
Major Centres Alberta	Cities include: Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer PARTICIPANTS SHOULD RESIDE IN THE ABOVE-NOTED CENTERS PROPER. NO MORE THAN 3 PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 10
Northwest Territories	Cities include (but not limited to): Yellowknife, Hay River, Inuvik, Fort Smith ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. INCLUDE THOSE RESIDING IN LARGER AND SMALLER COMMUNITIES.	CONTINUE - GROUP 11

2a. How long have you lived in [INSERT CITY]? RECORD NUMBER OF YEARS.

Less than two years	THANK AND END
Two years or more	CONTINUE
Don’t know/Prefer not to answer	THANK AND END

ENSURE A GOOD MIX BY NUMBER OF YEARS IN CITY. NO MORE THAN 2 PER GROUP UNDER 5 YEARS.

3. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 3 Have you travelled outside of Canada in the past six months?

Yes CONTINUE TO Q3A

NoCONTINUE TO Q4

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

3a. Did you travel to…

To the U.S. CONTINUE

Internationally (outside of North America)CONTINUE

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

ENSURE GOOD MIX OF THOSE TRAVELLING WITHIN NORTH AMERICA AND OUTSIDE OF NORTH AMERICA.

4. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 3 Do you have any plans to travel outside of Canada between now and the end of the year?

Yes CONTINUE TO Q4A

NoCONTINUE IF ‘YES’ AT Q3, THANK AND END IF ‘NO’ AT Q3

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

4a. Are you planning to travel …

To the U.S. CONTINUE

Internationally (outside of North America)CONTINUE

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

ENSURE GOOD MIX OF THOSE TRAVELLING WITHIN NORTH AMERICA AND OUTSIDE OF NORTH AMERICA.

FOR GROUP 3, ENSURE A MIX OF THOSE WHO HAVE TRAVELLED RECENTLY (AT Q.3) AND/OR PLANNING TO TRAVEL (AT Q.4).

5. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 5 OR 10 Do you currently or have you previously owned a home?

Yes THANK AND END

NoCONTINUE TO Q5

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

5a. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 5 OR 10 Are you looking to purchase a home sometime within the next 5 years?

Yes CONTINUE

Not sure/MaybeCONTINUE

NoTHANK AND END

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

SKEW GROUPS TO THOSE WHO SAY ‘YES.’ NO MORE THAN 2 WHO SAY ‘NOT SURE/MAYBE.’

6. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 6 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

• In discussions with family/friends, I am usually the one who shares my opinion most often.
• In discussions with family/friends, I am often used as a source for advice.

Strongly agree CONTINUE

Somewhat agree CONTINUE

Somewhat disagree THANK AND END

Strongly disagree THANK AND END

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

7. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 9 Do you have any children under the age of 12?

Yes CONTINUE

NoTHANK AND END

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

7a. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 9 Could you please tell me the ages of these children?

Child	Age
1
2
3
4
5

ENSURE A GOOD MIX BY AGE AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN EACH GROUP. ALL MUST HAVE AT LEAST 1 CHILD BETWEEN THE AGES OF 5 AND 11.

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

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

ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF AGES WITHIN EACH GROUP.
PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNERS IN GROUPS 5 AND 10 MAY SKEW YOUNGER-MIDDLE AGED (30S/40S).
PARENTS IN GROUP 9 MAY SKEW YOUNGER-MIDDLE AGED (30S/40S).

9. [DO NOT ASK] Gender RECORD BY OBSERVATION.

Male	CONTINUE
Female	CONTINUE

ENSURE A GOOD MIX BY GENDER IN EACH GROUP.
PARENTS IN GROUPS 1 OR 4 MAY SKEW FEMALE BUT TRY FOR A 50/50 SPLIT MALE/FEMALE

10. Which of the following best describes the industry sector in which you are currently employed?

Accommodation and Food Services

Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

Construction

Educational Services

Finance and Insurance

Health Care and Social Assistance

Information and Cultural Industries

Management of Companies and Enterprises

Manufacturing

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction

Other Services (except Public Administration)

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

Public Administration

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

Retail Trade

Transportation and Warehousing

Utilities

Wholesale Trade

Unemployed

Full Time Student

Retired

Other, please specify: ______________

CONTINUE FOR ALL. ENSURE A GOOD MIX BY TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EACH GROUP. NO MORE THAN TWO PER SECTOR.
SENIORS IN GROUPS 2 MAY SKEW TO RETIRED.

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

YesCONTINUE

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

12. As part of the focus group, you will be asked to actively participate in a conversation. Thinking of how you engage in group discussions, how would you rate yourself on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘you tend to sit back and listen to others’ and 5 means ‘you are usually one of the first people to speak’?

1-2THANK AND END

3-5CONTINUE

13. As this group is being conducted online, in order to participate you will need to have high-speed Internet and a computer with a working webcam, microphone and speaker. RECRUITER TO CONFIRM THE FOLLOWING. TERMINATE IF NO TO ANY.

Participant has high-speed access to the Internet

Participant has a computer/webcam

14. Have you used online meeting software, such as Zoom, Webex, Microsoft Teams, Google Hangouts/Meet, etc., in the last two years?

YesCONTINUE

NoCONTINUE

15. How skilled would you say you are at using online meeting platforms on your own, using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you are not at all skilled, and 5 means you are very skilled?

1-2THANK AND END

3-5CONTINUE

16. During the discussion, you could be asked to read or view materials on screen and/or participate in poll-type exercises online. You will also be asked to actively participate online using a webcam. Can you think of any reason why you may have difficulty reading the materials or participating by video?
TERMINATE IF RESPONDENT OFFERS ANY REASON SUCH AS SIGHT OR HEARING PROBLEM, A WRITTEN OR VERBAL LANGUAGE PROBLEM, A CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY, ANY CONCERNS WITH USING A WEBCAM OR IF YOU AS THE INTERVIEWER HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE PARTICIPANT’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE EFFECTIVELY.

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

Yes CONTINUE

No SKIP TO Q.21

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

Less than 6 months ago THANK AND END

More than 6 months ago CONTINUE

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

0-4 groups CONTINUE

5 or more groups THANK AND END

20. On what topics were they and do you recall who or what organization the groups were being undertaken for?

TERMINATE IF ANY ON SIMILAR/SAME TOPIC OR GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IDENTIFIED AS ORGANIZATION

ADDITIONAL RECRUITING CRITERIA

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

21. Which of the following racial or cultural groups best describes you? (multi-select)

White/Caucasian

Chinese

Black

Latin American

Filipino

Arab

Southeast Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai)

Korean or Japanese

Indigenous

Other (specify)

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

ENSURE A GOOD MIX.

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

Grade 8 or less

Some high school

High school diploma or equivalent

Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma

College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma

University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level

Bachelor's degree

Post graduate degree above bachelor's level

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer

ENSURE A GOOD MIX.

23. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income in 2020? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes?

Under $20,000

$20,000 to just under $40,000

$40,000 to just under $60,000

$60,000 to just under $80,000

$80,000 to just under $100,000

$100,000 to just under $150,000

$150,000 and above

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer

ENSURE A GOOD MIX.

24. The focus group discussion will be audio-taped and video-taped for research purposes only. The taping is conducted to assist our researchers in writing their report. Do you consent to being audio-taped and video-taped?

Yes

NoTHANK AND END

INVITATION

I would like to invite you to this online focus group discussion, which will take place the evening of [INSERT DATE/TIME BASED ON GROUP # IN CHART ON PAGE 1]. The group will be two hours in length and you will receive $100 for your participation following the group via an e-transfer.

Please note that there may be observers from the Government of Canada at the group and that the discussion will be videotaped. By agreeing to participate, you have given your consent to these procedures.

Would you be willing to attend?

YesCONTINUE

NoTHANK AND END

May I please have your full name, a telephone number that is best to reach you at as well as your e-mail address if you have one so that I can send you the details for the group?

Name:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

You will receive an e-mail from The Strategic Counsel with the instructions to login to the online group. Should you have any issues logging into the system specifically, you can contact our technical support team at support@thestrategiccounsel.com.

We ask that you are online at least 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the session in order to ensure you are set up and to allow our support team to assist you in case you run into any technical issues. We also ask that you restart your computer prior to joining the group.

You may be required to view some material during the course of the discussion. If you require glasses to do so, please be sure to have them handy at the time of the group. Also, you will need pen and paper in order to take some notes throughout the group.

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

Thank you very much for your time.

RECRUITED BY: ____________________

DATE RECRUITED: ____________________