LOCATION	GROUP	LANGUAGE	DATE	TIME (EST)	GROUP COMPOSITION	NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
Greater Vancouver Area (GVA)	1	English	Feb. 2	9:00-11:00 pm	Parents with children in daycare and/or considering daycare within next 12 months	8
Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec	2	French	Feb. 3	6:00-8:00 pm	Vaccine Hesitant	6
Alberta	3	English	Feb. 4	8:00-10:00 pm	Vaccine Hesitant	6
Manitoba	4	English	Feb. 9	7:00-9:00 pm	EI/Recovery benefits Recipients	7
Quebec	5	English	Feb. 10	6:00-8:00 pm	Indigenous People	6
Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario	6	English	Feb. 11	6:00-8:00 pm	Young Adults (aged 18-30)	8
Smaller/Rural Centres Ontario	7	English	Feb. 16	6:00-8:00 pm	General Population	8
Saskatoon and Regina	8	English	Feb. 17	7:00-9:00 pm	Parents of School Age Children (JK-grade 12)	7
Major Centres B.C.	9	English	Feb. 18	9:00-11:00 pm	People experiencing COVID fatigue/Exhibiting riskier behaviours	7
Greater Montreal Area (GMA)	10	French	Feb. 22	6:00-8:00 pm	General Population	6
Kitchener through to SW Ontario	11	English	Feb. 23	6:00-8:00 pm	People experiencing COVID fatigue/Exhibiting riskier behaviours	8
Major Centres Atlantic Canada	12	English	Feb. 25	5:00-7:00 pm	General Population	8
Total number of participants	85

Detailed Findings – Part I: COVID-19

Timeline of February Announcements

To help place the focus group discussions within the context of key events which occurred during the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, below is a brief synopsis for the period beginning at the end of January and throughout the month of February 2021.

At the end of January
- There had been 705,659 cases of COVID-19 in Canada with 20,032 deaths.
- COVID-19 infection rates continued to increase across much of Canada and varying public health control measures were continued and elevated.
- Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were being distributed for inoculation across the provinces and territories.
- Canada’s border controls with the United States (U.S.) were extended again and ordered to remain in place and in effect until March 21^st.
February 1-7
- February 2. Government of Canada announced it signed a memorandum of understanding with Novavax to pursue the production of its COVID-19 vaccine at the National Research Council of Canada’s Biologics Manufacturing Centre in Montreal. It also announced investments in two biomanufacturing companies—Vancouver-based Precision NanoSystems Incorporated (PNI) and Markham, Ontario-based Edesa Biotech Inc. (Edesa) to support vaccine, therapeutic, and biomanufacturing projects in Canada.
- Focus groups were held with parents of children in daycare and/or considering daycare in the Greater Vancouver Area (GVA) (Feb. 2), participants who were vaccine hesitant living in mid-sized and major centres in Quebec (Feb. 3), and across the province of Alberta (Feb. 4).
February 8-14
- February 9. The federal government announced that a negative test result for COVID-19 would be required within 72 hours of entering Canada through the land border with the United States. The change was to come into effect on February 15, 2021.
- February 9. The Government of Canada announced that the COVID Alert app will be updated to help measure its uptake, performance and effectiveness in limiting the spread of COVID-19.
- February 9. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers most responsible for early learning and child care met virtually to discuss next steps for further pan-Canadian collaboration in early learning and child care to improve the lives of children and families.
- Focus group was held with participants receiving Employment Insurance (EI) or COVID-19 Recovery Benefits living in Manitoba (Feb. 9).
- February 10. Government of Canada announced investment of $14.9 billion for public transit projects over the next eight years, including a permanent funding of $3 billion per year for Canadian communities beginning in 2026-27. This investment is intended to provide cities and communities the predictable transit funding they need to plan for the future, and is part of the federal government’s plan to create one million jobs, fight climate change, and rebuild a more sustainable and resilient economy.
- Focus groups were held with Indigenous people in Quebec (Feb. 10) and young adults, aged 18-30, in the Hamilton-Niagara region of Ontario (Feb. 11).
- February 12. The Government of Canada announced additional details about the incoming international air travel measures first announced in late January. Effective February 22, all arriving international travellers would have to present a negative COVID-19 test 72 hours before boarding their departing flight, take a COVID-19 test on arrival in Canada and quarantine for three days at a supervised hotel for three days while awaiting the results of their test at their own expense. Additionally, they would be required to take a third COVID-19 test at the end of their 14-day quarantine at home.
- February 12. In order to increase capacity to find and track new COVID-19 variants in Canada (such as ones originating in the United Kingdom (B.1.1.7), South Africa (B.1.351) and Brazil (P.1)) the Government of Canada announced investment of $53 million in an integrated Variants of Concern Strategy, which will help rapidly scale Canada’s surveillance, sequencing and research efforts on these variants of concern.
February 15-21
- Focus groups were held with the general population in small and rural centres in Ontario (Feb. 16), parents of school-aged children (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 12) in major centres in Saskatchewan (Feb. 17) and people experiencing COVID-19 fatigue/exhibiting riskier behaviours related to COVID-19 in major centres in British Columbia (B.C.) (Feb. 18).
- February 19. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion announced the Government of Canada’s intent to introduce regulatory and legislative amendments to increase the number of weeks of benefits available for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB) by 12 weeks, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) from 2 to 4 weeks, and Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits by up to 24 weeks in order to ensure continued support as Canada’s economy and labour force recovers.
February 22-28
- Focus groups were held with the general population in the Greater Montreal Area (GMA) (Feb. 22), people experiencing COVID-19 fatigue/exhibiting riskier behaviours related to COVID-19 residing from Kitchener through to SW Ontario (Feb. 23) and the general population in major centres in Atlantic Canada (Feb. 25).
- February 26. AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was approved by Health Canada for use in Canada.
- February 28. There had been 813,778 cases of COVID-19 in Canada with 22,001 deaths.

Government of Canada in the News (All Locations)

A number of items and issues arose in response to a question about what participants had seen, read or heard about the Government of Canada within the last few days. Two items, in particular, were more prominent with respect to participants’ top-of-mind recollections:

COVID-19 Vaccine Supply and Distribution: Many participants recalled hearing about various aspects of the Government of Canada’s role in securing vaccines and distributing them to the provinces and territories. Some spoke in general, and mostly positive, terms about this topic, simply having heard about the federal government’s attempts to get vaccinations underway across Canada. Others commented more critically on specific aspects of the roll-out, including: supply shortages, the different types of vaccines and varying storage requirements, the timeline for delivery and distribution of vaccines as set out by the federal government (which led some to question whether the target rate or number of vaccinations could be met and/or that delays meant Canada’s vaccine roll-out was being undertaken more slowly compared to other countries), in addition to possible side effects and adverse events associated with the vaccines which some participants had heard about on social media. A few participants mentioned that, in their view, delays in receiving and distributing the vaccines was contributing to further outbreaks and the continued spread of COVID-19. At the same time, some participants in the groups held in Ontario, were anticipating a significant delivery of vaccines (about 6-10 million or more) by the end of March and were closely monitoring vaccine updates.
Travel Restrictions: Recent announcements about travel restrictions were also top-of-mind for many participants. Specifically, participants commented on the mandatory requirement to quarantine at designated hotels for those arriving in Canada and the associated cost of quarantining – some alluded to a $2,000 charge for a minimum 3-night stay. Several participants had concluded based on what they had seen on Facebook postings that, whereas travelers had previously been able to access government funds to help cover the costs of quarantine, these funds had now been cut and were no longer available. These participants acknowledged, however, that they had not fact-checked this information. A few participants felt the travel restrictions had been put in place in order to de-incentivize travel, commenting that this was the most effective approach to take in order to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and the new variants linked to overseas travel. A number of other participants were of the view that, while mandatory quarantine was likely to be effective, it was an infringement on people’s right to choose how and where to quarantine. They viewed mandatory quarantine as akin to forced detention.

Overall, participants remained focused primarily on news related to the ongoing pandemic, noting that it was their sense the Government of Canada was becoming increasingly concerned about the new variants. While several participants commented that they were tending to tune out the media, feeling overwhelmed by the volume of information related to COVID-19, others were quite interested in regular updates. In particular, many indicated they were mainly tracking COVID-related news and information in their community or province, including the current public health measures and restrictions in place as well as the expected timelines for lifting some of the restrictions and the implications for businesses and consumers.

Related to the financial support offered by the Government of Canada, participants also mentioned having heard something about extensions to the various financial relief programs which they felt had helped many people who had been adversely affected by the pandemic. A few participants commented on an announcement by the Government of Canada regarding repayment of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), although there was some confusion as to whether the government had indicated it would or would not have to be paid back by those who may have received it without qualifying.

Several other issues unrelated to COVID-19 were mentioned briefly by a very few participants, and without much additional context or detail, including:

The Governor General having resigned following revelations about some recent issues raised by her staff;
The WE Charity;
Indiscretions by some members of the leadership within the Department of National Defence;
Development of the Keystone XL pipeline;
A financial aid package under development by the Government of Canada to assist Canadian airlines;
A recent announcement by the federal government of an ‘assault-style’ gun buyback program; and
A non-binding resolution recently passed by Members of Parliament to condemn China’s treatment of minority groups, including the Uyghurs.

Travel Regulations (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant)

As noted above, many participants were aware of recent announcements by the Government of Canada regarding travel regulations, specifically that travelers coming into or returning to Canada were being required to confine themselves, at their own cost, within designated hotels for a specified period of time. There was also some mention that travel to Mexico and to destinations in the Caribbean had been temporarily stopped.

The groups were then presented with the following information:

The Government of Canada recently announced that travelers returning to Canada will be required to undergo a mandatory PCR test (e.g. the nasal swab for COVID-19) at the airport; this is in addition to the pre-boarding test already required. While they wait for their test results, they must quarantine for up to three days at a designated hotel at their own expense. Those with negative test results will then be able to quarantine at home under significantly increased surveillance and enforcement. Those with positive tests will be immediately required to quarantine in designated government facilities to make sure they are not carrying variants of potential concern. Furthermore, Air Canada, WestJet, Sunwing and Air Transat have all agreed to cancel air services to all Caribbean destinations and Mexico, starting on Sunday, January 31, until April 30.

When asked about their thoughts on these new regulations, most participants were in favour of increased restrictions on travel. On balance, they felt that these regulations made sense and, in some cases, did not go far enough. With the new variants of concern, the implementation of these new regulations was seen as the right thing to do. They felt that these restrictions would serve to deter more people from travelling.

Those in the group held among participants residing in Alberta were less supportive of the travel restrictions. They raised some concerns about the significantly increased surveillance and enforcement that would be imposed on those quarantining at home following a negative test result and they also wondered about the designated government facilities where travelers would be required to quarantine for a minimum of three days at their own expense. The view was that travelers should be permitted to quarantine in their own home. Additionally, it was felt that those who tested negative upon arriving in Canada should not be placed under any further surveillance. Moreover, some also expressed concerns that this approach was overly intrusive and could lead to people effectively rooting out others (e.g. neighbours) whom they felt had not properly adhered to the regulations. The issue of the extent of ‘false positive’ test results was raised by some, albeit not many, to underscore concerns that individuals who falsely test positive for COVID-19 may nevertheless be required to quarantine.

Within the context of this discussion, participants expressed concerns about the viability of the airline industry in Canada. They noted that these restrictions and financial aid to Canadian airlines may be too late at this point. Frustration was also expressed at news of politicians and others travelling internationally during the winter break even while the public health guidance recommended not to travel other than for essential purposes.

COVID-19 Outlook (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

In ten groups throughout the month (listed above), participants discussed the evolving situation with respect to COVID-19 and the impact of the pandemic on their lives. The discussion covered issues such as how, if at all, participants’ behaviours have changed throughout the pandemic, including specifically the impact on parents. These discussions also broached perceptions on the Government of Canada’s performance during the pandemic. In two specific groups, participants who were recruited on the basis of experiencing COVID-19 fatigue and exhibiting riskier behaviours, were also asked a series of questions to better understand why they were not abiding by public health guidelines and gauge their views on current restrictions in place.

Behaviours

When asked whether they had changed their behaviours in the last few weeks, most participants indicated they had not. Many were following a similar routine as they had been throughout the pandemic, remarking that they were continuing to adhere to public health measures such as mask wearing, hand washing/sanitizing and social distancing. They continued to follow many of the stay-at-home advisories and remained diligent in going out only for essentials or were consistent with their increased use of online ordering. Many were also being cautious in their interactions with others outside of their household or social bubble. Participants reasoning for doing so was that they saw no change in the COVID-19 situation or restrictions which would permit them to make significant changes to their routine.

Many had acknowledged that they had been somewhat more relaxed throughout the summer months, as they felt it was safer to gather outside. During the winter months however, participants had limited who they were seeing and were generally more restrictive overall, which they expressed was a hardship for them both physically and mentally. Some participants mentioned their reasoning for doing so was due to concerns regarding new and emerging variants of the COVID-19 virus that were perceived to be a threat in terms of increased transmission rates.

Among the participants who had made some recent changes in their behaviours, it was stated that they had been motivated to do so out of necessity. The extent to which behaviours had changed generally reflected the situation in the location or region in which participants resided. For example, as restrictions moved from lockdown to red/orange zones in Ontario towards the end of the month, participants suggested they were taking advantage of this by going out more - such as to restaurants or for personal care services like hair salons.

Overall, recent changes cited by participants included:

Sending their children back to school (particularly in areas where schools had been locked down) or allowing children to participant in more indoor activities (i.e. play centres);
Returning back to work in an office or on a job site;
Some cited changing their job/occupation or relocating for work;
Shopping more locally, to support small businesses; and
A few participants in Quebec mentioned that the ‘curfew’ restriction had changed their routine, although little detail was provided.

Impact of COVID-19

Participants were then asked about how COVID-19 and the related restrictions have impacted them. They described a number of ways their lives had changed due to the pandemic, both recently and throughout the course of the past year.

While many said they had adapted to their new routine, others found the restrictions were certainly wearing on them. In particular, several participants shared stories about how their mental health and wellness had been negatively impacted. They attributed the negative impacts on their mental health mostly to being confined at home and to an overall lack of social interaction with family and friends. This was especially apparent among participants who self-described as extroverts.

Many had also been impacted in terms of their employment. Those working in industries particularly hard-hit by the pandemic (such as restaurants, renovation construction, etc.) described being laid off at some point during the pandemic or an overall loss of work due to restrictions that had been put in place. In related discussions, several participants across all groups communicated openly about the financial hardships and struggles they had experienced, even with the financial supports provided by the federal government.

When asked how the situation compared to restrictions last spring, on balance, most participants commented that they were finding it harder. They explained that as more time passed, it became more difficult to hold on to hope that the COVID-19 situation would improve and that they were growing more frustrated and tired, especially exacerbated by the winter weather. In some locations, waves of new restrictions and closures after a year into the pandemic were disappointing. Participants shared feelings of confusion regarding restrictions in terms of why certain types of businesses could remain open while others could not and suggested that it was creating a divide in Canadians. They also attributed the prolonged time period to a perceived delay in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.

However, some participants did say that they were finding their situation either easier than in the spring of 2020 or about the same. They discussed how there was more information being provided to the public about the virus and that their trust in this information had helped to reduce their anxiety and fear around contracting the virus. This group also felt they were more acclimatized to their new pandemic lifestyle which had become more normalized over the past year.

Impact on Children and Parents (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare)

Parents living in the Greater Vancouver Area with children in daycare or considering daycare for their children were asked a follow up series of questions to better understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on their children, as well as themselves as parents.

When it came to discussing their children, most participants agreed that the pandemic had been difficult on their child/children. They cited a unique set of challenges (also echoed by some parents in other groups throughout the month) including:

An inability for their young children to understand the complexities of the situation – for example, why they could attend school but not see their friends or participate in activities outside of school;
The cancellation of usual ‘outlets’ for their children (such as community activities, sports, etc.);
Worries about an overall increase in the amount of screen time their children are having;
Concerns about the long-term effects of isolation on their children’s social development; and
Noticeable changes in their children’s behaviours and mental health.

When asked about what has been difficult, specifically for parents, comments centered on the following:

Not being able to have any time away from their children, such as a few hours for an outing. Some parents discussed how they would typically have a grandparent care for their children for a few hours, but that this was not possible given the restrictions and threat it would pose to the grandparents. Some also commented that it had been hard on grandparents not being able to see their grandchildren.
Their struggles to find ways to continue to keep their children occupied and entertained, especially on weekends when choices for activities were limited.
New parents were facing challenges with not being able to introduce their new additions to family and friends and discussed the limited opportunities they had to connect with other new parents.

Performance of the Government of Canada

Participants across all ten groups were asked to comment on the Government of Canada’s performance during the pandemic. Overall, they noted a number of areas in which they believed the federal government had performed well:

Providing financial supports (i.e. CERB) to individuals and families in a timely manner
Implementing travel restrictions – participants commented positively on recent restrictions and testing requirements implemented for international travelers
Communicating with the public – participants remarked that they perceived the federal government to be providing clearer information about COVID-19 and more of it to Canadians recently
Securing a diverse supply of vaccines – some participants believed the Government of Canada had done a good job in procuring a large number of vaccines (based on the population) and were credited for diversifying their investment in multiple different COVID-19 vaccines
Providing support to Indigenous communities - particularly around supporting them and prioritizing vaccinations for this population

Participants remarked that they believed the Government of Canada was doing the best they could in an unprecedented situation and credited them for trying to do what was best for Canadians. A few participants also commented that they believed recent decisions made by the federal government were having a positive impact on Canadians.

Throughout the discussions, participants continued to provide some criticism regarding the speed with which the Government of Canada had responded in the early days of the pandemic. When asked about areas in which the federal government could be doing better, the following comments were offered, many of which focused on the topic of vaccines:

Improving the timeliness at which vaccines are being distributed – some participants perceived the vaccination roll out to be slow in Canada compared to what they were seeing in other countries. Many also did not feel like they had enough information about how the vaccines were being rolled out across the country and wanted more transparency from the federal government on this. A few participants expressed concerns about not having enough short-term supply for those who have already been vaccinated to receive their second dose in a timely manner.
Creating a made-in-Canada vaccine – participants viewed this to be important in terms of being able to control a timely distribution across Canada.
Reviewing how the current financial supports are being distributed – participants remarked about inequality in terms of the amount of aid individuals were receiving compared to larger families. At the same time, a few participants expressed concerns about the federal deficit due to these financial supports and were worried about the long term impacts.
Better support for small businesses – particularly support for those in hard-hit industries like restaurants or for seasonal workers. In the same regard, participants were frustrated and believed it was unfair that large box stores (such as Wal-Mart, Costco, etc.) could remain open, but small businesses (including retail and restaurants) were forced to close. Some expressed that they did not understand the reasoning behind these restrictions.

Although many participants understood that specific restrictions, such as re-openings and lockdowns, fell under the provincial government’s responsibilities, many expressed the desire to have a standardized set of national guidelines or framework, instead of relying on each of the individual provinces/territories to make these decisions. This was of particular concern to participants who said they were becoming more confused about why different rules/restrictions were being implemented and were seeing inconsistencies in restrictions in different jurisdictions facing similar situations.

Riskier Behaviours (Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

Two groups, held with participants who were fatigued by COVID-19 and exhibiting riskier behaviours were asked a series of questions to get a better understanding as to why they were taking some of these actions, what they were finding difficult regarding public health measures and more generally their views on some of the current restrictions in their region.

Deciding to Have Contact with People Outside of One’s Household

To begin, participants were asked what had made them decide to have contact with individuals outside of their household. Those who had been visiting extended family, such as their parents or in-laws, discussed the need to have their family members, such as grandparents, step-in to help care for their children or that they themselves were in a position where they needed to care for an elderly or sick loved one. Those who had been seeing friends reported doing so because they lived alone or were feeling isolated and that it was affecting their mental health.

Participants did not seem to have many concerns about socializing with others because they generally felt they were being safe and limiting the number of people they were seeing overall, even if they were socializing with people outside of their own household. A few participants however did mention that they were concerned about being judged for taking such actions.

Difficulties Following Public Health Guidelines

Overall, participants in these two groups did not have difficulties following many of the public health guidelines and suggested that they were still wearing masks and following 6 feet social distancing measures. However, they had found it difficult to limit their social interactions with others for the various reasons cited below.

Some worked in a setting where they were seeing multiple people in a day (restaurants, schools, etc.) and had a difficult time understanding why they were allowed to interact with strangers but not allowed to visit with their close family or friends.
Some found it difficult to keep up with what they described as constantly changing restrictions, while others suggested that they were reading/hearing a lot of conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of public health measures leading them to question whether certain measures were necessary.
Moreover, a few participants felt influenced by others who were also not following guidelines and were not realizing any real consequences from their actions.

When asked directly, participants were less concerned about the overall impacts of COVID-19 on themselves personally or for their families. Overall, they were more concerned about the economic impact of the pandemic on businesses and communities across the country. However, asked specifically about their concerns regarding mental health impacts, many expressed struggles with their own mental health or concerns for the mental health of their own children or elderly loved ones such as those living in long-term care facilities.

Views on Restrictions

To conclude the discussion, participants exhibiting riskier behaviours were asked if the restrictions in place should continue or if they think that people should be able to get together (such as going to restaurants). On balance, most felt that certain restrictions, such as mask wearing and social distancing, should remain in place. However, they would have liked to see some of the restrictions regarding social interactions lifted in B.C. and Ontario, especially in areas where case counts were lower. Some suggested going back to the idea of being allowed to have a ‘social bubble’ as they had earlier in the pandemic. For others, it was more about making the restrictions equal across the board. Participants suggested that instead of limiting numbers in retail/restaurants to 10 people, that it should instead be based on square footage of the establishment. They also suggested allowing small businesses to open so long as proper tracing and tracking systems were implemented. Only a few participants who were concerned about new variants, suggested that the current restrictions should remain in place until such variants were able to be properly controlled.

COVID-19 Vaccine (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

The COVID-19 vaccine was top-of-mind for many participants. Various aspects related to the roll-out of the vaccine, including participants’ expectations with regards to the timelines, as well as the Government of Canada’s performance in procuring and distributing a vaccine, and participants’ interest in being vaccinated were discussed in several groups throughout February. For two of these groups, participants had been specifically recruited on the basis of their views regarding the vaccine, having indicated that they were somewhat hesitant about being vaccinated. The views of these participants, as well as those in other groups who expressed some hesitation or uncertainty about being vaccinated, are detailed in the last section (below).

Assessment of the Government of Canada’s Performance (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children)

Procuring and Distributing the Vaccine

While some participants felt they could not accurately judge the federal government’s performance in procuring and distributing the vaccine, most were of the view that they had done a good job on this front. Many commented that the government was doing the best it could under quite challenging circumstances and commented favourably on how quickly vaccinations with frontline workers and elderly people were being rolled out. On balance, most participants seemed pleased with the federal government’s efforts. Even those few who felt the government could have been more aggressive in securing earlier delivery of vaccines, and attributed the delays to bureaucratic processes, nevertheless were confident in the progress currently being made. They also took some comfort in knowing how the distribution of vaccine doses was being prioritized. Participants commented on the extensive operational and logistical effort required to both secure large volumes of vaccine from multiple sources overseas and to distribute across Canada to many different locations, including very remote areas.

Some participants mentioned that they felt Canada was struggling to get a sufficient number of vaccines distributed efficiently, but also believed it was equally challenging for many other countries. Others commented on the impact of vaccine nationalism, which they felt was most apparent in Europe and the U.S., suggesting this presented some challenges for the Government of Canada. At the same time, they were not necessarily critical of the federal government in this regard. And, a few had questions about the plans to distribute the second dose, expressing concerns that the lower overall volume of doses delivered resulted in extending the interval between receipt of the first and second dose. Overall, these participants remained generally positive about the approach being taken, especially with respect to inoculating Indigenous communities as part of the initial phase. Their questions tended to focus on how groups and/or communities were being prioritized, with a few expressing frustration that some frontline workers had yet to receive their first dose.

Participants in a few groups in particular were more negative about the Government of Canada’s performance. Most participants in the group held among Indigenous people in Quebec felt that Canada was behind relative to other countries in terms of vaccine supply, based on what they had heard reported in the news. In rural and smaller centres within Ontario as well as major centres in Saskatchewan, participants expressed similar frustrations, feeling that Canada had been late in procuring vaccines. In addition, participants were concerned about reports that Canada had negotiated a deal with China to procure vaccines, citing this as a significant security risk, which had then subsequently fallen through. In its efforts to accelerate vaccine procurement, some participants felt that the Government of Canada had entered into multiple contracts with vaccine manufacturers resulting in an oversupply of vaccines. Other areas of concern included: the lack of domestic production capability, the low percentage of the population vaccinated to date, and the way in which the vaccine was being distributed. On this last point, a few participants felt that the vaccine distribution should be more highly targeted suggesting they should be directed exclusively to senior citizens and those with co-morbidities that would put them at higher risk of contracting the virus. They questioned why, for example, teachers in Ontario would be receiving the vaccine. In Saskatchewan, some participants felt that the province had not received their fair share of vaccines, underscoring that some health care workers had not yet been vaccinated.

Participants were told that Canada had received over one million doses to date and asked what they thought about this. In particular, they were asked whether this was more, less or about what they thought was the case. Responses were quite mixed. For some, this was new information. As such, they were either uncertain as to whether this met their expectations or felt that it was generally what they might have expected at this point in the vaccine roll-out. Several pointed out that the volume received was outside the Government of Canada’s control, although they questioned how aggressively the government was pursuing assurances from vaccine manufacturers on near-term delivery dates. Others, reacted more negatively, wondering if Canada was in fact receiving fewer vaccines relative to other countries. Several participants remarked that Canada could be doing much better. A few referenced Canada’s population of just over 37 million, suggesting that it may vaccinations may continue into 2022 in order to vaccinate all those who are eligible, given what they viewed as the slow pace of delivery.

Judging the Effectiveness of the Vaccine Roll-out (Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children)

Participants in a select number of groups considered how and on what basis they would judge the effectiveness of Canada’s vaccine roll-out. Although some participants found this question difficult to answer, a range of indicators or metrics were put forward, including:

Rate of vaccinations:
- Pace of vaccinations – timeline to achieve full vaccinations (e.g., first and second doses), for frontline workers and those who are ‘at risk.’
- Lag time between first and second doses
- Comparison against other countries
Extent to which the federal government met the timelines it had set for distribution;
Adverse effects from the vaccine;
Changes to infection and death rates (e.g., lower hospitalizations and mortality), attributable to vaccinations;
Timeline to economic recovery; and
Cost and resources applied to addressing the pandemic – the question was asked by some participants as to whether a full cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken to accurately assess whether limited resources had been used wisely and effectively in this effort (e.g., the cost associated with the purchase of vaccines and the number of personnel required to carry out the distribution, relative to the outcome and impact)

While some participants focused on the process (e.g., whether the distribution had been undertaken in an organized manner), most were more concerned with the speed at which vaccines were rolled out.

Compared to Other Countries (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-Size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children)

When explicitly asked about how Canada was doing, as a whole, compared to other countries in getting Canadians vaccinated, the balance of participants either weren’t sure or felt that Canada was likely doing about the same. Some found it difficult to judge, given the distribution at this point is in the early stages. They also commented that there was insufficient information at this point to be able to make a determination.

The balance of participants were about evenly split between those who thought Canada was doing better and those who thought it was doing worse. The mere fact that vaccines were arriving, vaccinations were underway, and the Government of Canada was being proactive and transparent in this regard was viewed favourably and, for some, this put Canada in a more positive light relative to some other countries. Others, who acknowledged they had not been paying much attention to what was happening globally, simply presumed that Canada was likely to be doing better than other countries, although they also assumed it was the case that some countries were outpacing Canada. There was a sense among some participants that Canada’s performance placed it in the middle of the pack, relative to others.

Those who were more critical of Canada’s performance, and felt it was lagging behind other countries, were seeking more regular information and greater transparency (e.g. the number of people who have been vaccinated) or felt the process had rolled out more slowly than they had anticipated. Some blamed the slow start on Canada’s overemphasis on collaborating with a Chinese-based vaccine maker, a deal which subsequently collapsed and, in their view, left Canada at a disadvantage compared to other countries in terms of securing vaccines from other sources. There was also a concern that Canada had put more focus on dealing with the first wave, rather than thinking ahead to the impact of subsequent waves of the pandemic and a belief that Canada was in the unenviable position of being overly-reliant on assistance from other countries and organizations based outside of Canada.

Vaccination Targets and Timing (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children)

Participants were told that Canada planned to vaccinate three million Canadians by the end of March and anyone who wants a vaccine, by the end of September. Most were aware of this target, although many were uncertain as to whether this was a reasonable goal or one that Canada could actually meet.

Those who felt it was achievable based this on the fact that a million doses had already been received and were being distributed. To them, the goal of reaching three million by the close of March seemed quite doable. They also felt this goal would establish a certain degree of momentum which would accelerate by April and lead to increased public interest and vaccine uptake in the ensuing months.

By contrast, those who questioned the attainability of this goal were concerned that it would be a challenge to inoculate three million people within a month’s time, especially if the vaccines had not yet been delivered to Canada. Similarly, they calculated it may be equally difficult to vaccinate all remaining eligible Canadians, which they estimated to be upwards of 30 million people, within a six-month timeframe. While some postulated achieving this target might be doable, they felt there were a number of uncertainties which could pose significant barriers, including whether Canada could obtain sufficient doses, and ensure timely delivery to and efficient distribution by the provinces and territories. A few participants commented on the changeable nature of information about the vaccines (e.g. how many and which vaccines had been purchased, when they would be delivered, the durability/expiry dates for the vaccines, the recommended interval between doses, etc.) and the timelines for distribution. Some thought that government officials were going against the advice of the vaccine manufacturers to extend the interval between doses, simply in order to get more ‘first’ doses out to a wider population, and were concerned that this tactic would render the vaccine less effective. Overall, participants felt the information being given to the public was inconsistent and this left them feeling less confident that the targets could be met.

When asked what would make them more confident that Canada could reach these targets, participants mentioned the following:

Data showing vaccine distribution, by phase/target group, and uptake;
The daily target rate of vaccinations required in order to meet the targets;
Vaccine effectiveness;
Side effects resulting from the vaccine; and
Announcements regarding the total number of vaccines that have been secured and as they are being delivered to Canada.

Personal Expectations on the Timing of Receiving a Vaccine (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-Size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario)

Participants were subsequently asked when they thought they would be in a position to receive a vaccine. There was no clear consensus. Estimates ranged from within a month’s time to sometime during the spring or summer, into the fall and winter or as late as the following year (2022). Some participants expected to have to wait quite some time, based on their age, and most were comfortable doing so noting that it was most important to vaccinate older people and those most at risk.

Vaccine Intentions and Hesitancy (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

Plans to be Vaccinated

In all groups, with the exception of the two which comprised exclusively those recruited on the basis of their hesitancy towards vaccination, participants were asked outright if they planned to be vaccinated. On balance, across all the groups, most responded affirmatively (very few indicated they had already been vaccinated). At the same time, many participants expressed some uncertainty or preferred to wait, while fewer were firmly negative in their response.

Those who stated their intention to be vaccinated were motivated by the following:

A desire to return to normalcy – some felt that vaccinations were the only hope of reducing or eliminating the spread of COVID-19;
Interest in being able to see more of their family and friends;
Wanting to keep themselves and their family safe – this was particularly the case for participants who had an underlying condition as well as those with a family member employed in the health care sector;
Trust and confidence in the science behind the development of the vaccines;
An appreciation for the pressure being put on the hospitals and health care workers as a result of the pandemic; and
Having heard of or experienced the loss of a friend or relative due to COVID-19.

Exploring Vaccine Hesitancy

The issue of vaccine hesitancy was explored in more depth. Those who had expressed some reluctance or indicated they did not intend to be vaccinated raised the following issues:

Possible side effects – some of those who were concerned about side effects preferred to wait until more people had been vaccinated and more evidence had been collected regarding reported side effects and/or possible deaths due to the vaccine;
Implications for those with specific medical conditions (e.g., severe allergies, lupus, etc.);
Previous experiences with adverse events they attributed to vaccines;
Concerns about how quickly the vaccines had been developed and rolled out;
Speculation that additional doses (e.g. a third and fourth dose) may be required;
Confidence in their own health status and their ability to overcome the virus should they contract it;
Concerns that officials and the media were overstating the seriousness of the virus – some thought that most people would experience only flu-like symptoms and even those who may be hospitalized were likely to fully recover;
A desire to ensure they received the most effective of the various vaccines available;
A predisposition to address health issues with non-medical treatments and more natural remedies; and
Having heard from some health professionals that they did not intend to be vaccinated.

When asked what factors would influence their decision on whether to get vaccinated, the group who were unsure about or opposed to being vaccinated raised the following: more information and education about the virus and the vaccines, and if evidence of being vaccinated was a requirement (e.g. to attend events, be permitted into various public places, travel internationally, etc.). Most, nevertheless, felt more comfortable waiting until more research had been done to assess the effects of the vaccine.

In the two groups comprised of vaccine hesitant participants, they were asked what questions about COVID-19 they would most like an answer to. Participants’ queries mirrored some of their concerns, as noted earlier:

Should I get vaccinated?
Will the vaccines stop the spread of COVID-19?
How is this vaccine different from the flu vaccine?
How safe is the vaccine?
Will the vaccine make me sick?
What is the possibility of long-term side effects from the vaccine?

COVID Alert App QR Code Poster Testing (Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults)

Young adults residing in the Hamilton-Niagara region of Ontario were shown a series of three QR code poster concepts which had been developed by the Government of Canada as a possible tool to assist in COVID-19 tracing in coordination with the COVID Alert app. After viewing each, participants were asked a series of questions to assess the clarity of each poster and their overall reactions. At the conclusion of the discussion, participants were asked to compare and contrast different aspects of each poster such as colour, messaging and placement of logos as well as to identify the one they felt was most effective in terms of its potential for increasing uptake of the app.

Prior to reviewing the posters, participants were first asked whether they were aware of the Government of Canada’s COVID Alert app. About as many had heard about the app as had not. Relatively few had downloaded it.

Reactions to QR Code Posters

It was then explained to participants that Health Canada is working on improving the use of the app and that the posters could be used by businesses to hang in the entrance of their shops which would contain a QR code, a type of square matrix barcode that is machine readable and contains information. Individuals who have already downloaded the COVID Alert app would then be able to scan the QR code upon entering a business.

Poster 1

Participants reacted with some indifference to this poster. Some commented that the poster was generally appealing, while others did not find it particularly eye catching.

The figure above has a thin, white banner at the top with the Government of Canada wordmark in the top right corner and the Government of Canada signature in the top left corner. Below, there is a thin turquoise line, and underneath the line, on the left-hand most side there is the COVID Alert App icon, to the right of which, in large font text reads ‘COVID Alert’ and under, in slightly smaller black font reads ‘Scan a place. Slow the spread.’ On the right-hand side, black text reads the French translation of ‘Alerte COVID’ and ‘Scannez un lieu. Freinez la propagation du virus.’ in the same font style and layout as was written in English. Below this text, there is a backdrop of alternating turquoise and white diagonal stripes. In the middle of this matter, there is a QR code with a turquoise border. Below the QR code, black font reads ‘Location Name’ and below in slightly smaller text, ‘Address, Street, City, Province, Postal Code.’ Below the turquoise and white diagonal stripes, on the left-hand most side, there is a hand holding a cellphone that is showing a QR code. Next to this image, black font reads ‘Open the COVID Alert app. Then tap Scan a place. canada.ca/covid-alert.’ Where the words ‘Scan a place’ are underlined. To the right of this text, in the same font style, the French translation reads ‘Ouvrez l’appli Alerte COVID. Appuyez sur Scanner un lieu. canada.ca-alerte-covid.’

A few participants felt that, although it was not overly attention-grabbing, the QR code was prominent in its placement and may prompt some to contemplate its purpose. The QR code and messaging ‘Scan a place. Slow the spread’ were primary mentions among the very few who felt the poster effectively caught their attention. Some participants also remarked that the colour scheme was highly appealing and friendly, although for some it seemed to suggest a certain degree of optionality, versus urgency, as to whether the QR code should be scanned.

When asked if the poster effectively communicated what the individual should do and why they should do it, comments focused on several improvements that could be made. It was suggested that the phone icon be increased in size and featured more prominently on the poster as some, particularly older generations, may not intuitively know how to use QR codes. It was also emphasized that other options should be made available to those who do not have data plans but would like to be able to participate.

Poster 2

The response to this concept was slightly more enthusiastic compared to the first, in that many preferred the colour scheme and the messaging.

The figure above has the COVID Alert App icon in the top left corner, to the right of which, in large font text reads ‘COVID Alert’ and under, in slightly smaller font, black font reads ‘Help make contact tracing easier.’ On the right-hand side in the top right corner, black text reads the French translation of ‘Alerte COVID’ and ‘Facilitez la recherché de contacts.’ in the same font style and layout as was written in English. Below this text, there is a backdrop of alternating orange and white diagonal stripes in between two bolded orange lines. In the middle of this matter, there is a QR code with an orange border. To the right of the QR code, black font reads ‘Location Name’ and below in slightly smaller text, ‘Address, Street, City, Province, Postal Code’. Below these alternating orange and white stripes, on the left-hand most side, there is a hand holding a cellphone that is showing a QR code. Next to this image, black font reads ‘Open the COVID Alert app. Then tap Scan a place. canada.ca/covid-alert.’ Where the words ‘Scan a place’ are bolded. To the right of this text, in the same font style, the French translation reads ‘Ouvrez l’appli Alerte COVID. Appuyez sur Scanner un lieu. canada.ca-alerte-covid.’ Below this, there is a white banner with the Government of Canada wordmark in the bottom right hand corner and the Government of Canada signature in the bottom left hand corner.

Comments focused on the following:

Colour scheme – some participants felt that the orange tone more effectively relayed a sense of urgency and importance;
Messaging – ‘Help make contact tracing easier’ was easier to understand, in terms of the goal, and provided a greater sense of clarity with regards to the intended action; and
QR code – participants agreed that the QR code stood out. However, some felt that COVID Alert should be featured more prominently to encourage people to make the connection between the QR code and the COVID Alert app.

As with the first poster, some also focused on the segment of the population who may not be familiar with QR codes, noting that featuring a larger mobile phone icon with a QR code on it may assist their understanding.

Poster 3

Participants initially reacted more negatively to the colour scheme and messaging of this concept relative to the second poster.

The figure above has the COVID Alert App icon in the top left corner, to the right of which, in large font text reads ‘COVID Alert’ and under, in slightly smaller font, black font reads ‘Check in to get exposure notifications.’ On the right-hand side, black text reads the French translation of ‘Alerte COVID’ and ‘Enregistrez votre visite pour recevoir des notifications d’exposition.’ in the same font style and layout as was written in English. Below this text, there is a backdrop of alternating purple and white diagonal stripes in between two bolded purple lines. In the middle of this matter, there is a QR code with a purple border. To the right of the QR code, black font reads ‘Location Name’ and below in slightly smaller text, ‘Address, Street, City, Province, Postal Code’. Below these purple and white stripes, on the left-hand most side, there is a hand holding a cellphone that is showing a QR code. Next to this image, black font reads ‘Open the COVID Alert app. Then tap Scan a place. canada.ca/covid-alert.’ Where the words ‘Scan a place’ are underlined and bolded. To the right of this text, in the same font style, the French translation reads ‘Ouvrez l’appli Alerte COVID. Appuyez sur Scanner un lieu. canada.ca-alerte-covid.’ Below this, there is a white banner with the Government of Canada wordmark in the bottom right hand corner and the Government of Canada signature in the bottom left hand corner.

More in line with comments on first poster they had viewed, participants thought the purple colour scheme was friendlier, more playful and upbeat but, as a result, not necessarily reflective of the serious nature of COVID-19. A few participants also remarked on what they perceived as the more uninviting tone of the message ‘Check in to get exposure notifications.’ Some felt that, although the message spoke to the purpose of the poster, its tone was less appealing in nature, and more alarming. They also commented that the message may cause people to wonder if that particular location where the poster was affixed had experienced any prior outbreaks.

Few participants felt this concept would grab people’s attention or encourage people to use the COVID Alert app.

Overall Comparison

Participants were then shown the three posters side-by-side and asked to evaluate the following aspects:

Colour scheme – After viewing all three concepts together, some participants who previously reacted negatively to the purple colour subsequently softened their criticism and stated that, relative to the other options, they found this colour to be more effective and attention-grabbing. Some perceived it to be an atypical colour for this type of messaging and as such, they thought its uniqueness might be more effective in drawing attention. Others maintained that they preferred the colour of the second poster. Although a few remarked that the blue palette used in the first poster aligned with their view of colours associated with a ‘medical’ theme, some remarked that the colours in general should be more saturated – brighter and more vivid.
Message – Participants preferred ‘Help make contact tracing easier’ and ‘Check in to get exposure notifications.’ Many perceived the first message of ‘Scan a place. Slow the spread’ to be less clear than the others and the phrase referring to slowing the spread to be somewhat over-used in the current environment. Overall, participants felt the message of ‘Help make contact tracing easier’ was more effective as it was direct, to the point and clearly communicated the purpose of the poster. It was also thought that the more inviting tone of this phrase would encourage people to actually scan the QR code.
Positioning of the Government of Canada logo – Most participants remarked that they had not taken particular note of the placement of the logo in each poster. However, when asked which placement they preferred, many stated it was best positioned at the top of the poster. Participants indicated that this placement, in their minds, lent the posters a more official look, made the logo more noticeable and increased the overall impact of the poster.
Positioning of the name and address of the business – Participants were split in their views. A few participants expressed that some of the information provided was redundant. As such, the placement of this information was neither highly relevant nor important to them. Others indicated they preferred that the name and address of the business be positioned below the QR code.
Bolded text and underlining of ‘Scan a place’ – Relatively few participants took notice of the slight differences in bolding between the posters. When asked what they preferred, most suggested that the bolded text was more attention-grabbing as it was easier to read and the contrast presented a point of focus. Many participants preferred the underlined ‘Scan a place’ for similar reasons. However, a few indicated that it was either unnecessary or potentially distracting.

To conclude the discussion on this topic, participants were asked whether they would make use of the QR code and poster and whether they felt this initiative would assist in curbing the spread of COVID-19. Among those few who had already downloaded the COVID Alert app, a few stated that they would scan the QR code if it served a dual purpose – minimized their exposure and replaced any additional ‘sign-in’ forms required in order to enter that particular location. Others reiterated that without a data plan, their ability to participate was hindered. At the same time, participants who had not already downloaded the COVID Alert app remarked that the information shown in the posters did encourage them to download the app. And, many felt that it would help both the business and the customer in streamlining the contact tracing process. However, some participants suggested that they may not be as inclined to scan the QR code if the business did not also provide access to Wi-Fi.

On balance, participants generally believed the initiative would help stop the spread of COVID-19, although some expressed skepticism, noting that success was ultimately contingent on the number of users of the app and the QR codes.

Ad Testing – Success Check (Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

Throughout the pandemic, the federal government has run various advertising campaigns to inform Canadians about COVID-19 and the public health measures which have been put in place to keep Canadians safe. In two focus groups, participants were shown a video advertisement developed by the Government of Canada to promote continued compliance with public health and safety measures. The purpose of this testing was to perform a ‘success check’ before the ad was aired.

Two versions of the video ad (below) were shown to participants which featured the same storyline and content. The only difference between the two versions presented was that they each had a different soundtrack. For purposes of evaluating participants’ reactions to the ads, and to avoid any ordering bias, the sequence in which they were shown was varied in each group.

Version 1

The ad begins by showing the side profile of a man standing in the bathroom, shaving his face. The camera then focuses on the man, straight on, where the man has only shaved one half of his face. The next scene depicts a woman bringing a young girl a bowl with some uncooked spaghetti noodles laying across the top with tomato sauce in the middle. The young girl then picks up a few uncooked noodles, looking confused. The next scene depicts a man leaving his house, where he is wearing a full suit on top, but only underwear on his bottom. The camera then depicts a neighbour lady drinking coffee, looking confused at the man leaving his house who is only half-dressed. The next scene depicts two people at a bus stop. The man is wearing a mask, but the mask is only covering his mouth and chin, not his nose. The woman standing next to him points to her own mask, which is covering both her mouth and nose. The man looks startled and then fixes his mask over his mouth and nose. Narration for this scene says ‘There’s some things you just don’t do halfway. Fighting COVID-19 is one of them. As vaccines rollout, let’s keep giving this our all.’ Next, a blue backdrop appears with large text reading ‘Follow public health measures and download the COVID Alert app.’ Above this text, there are four icons, the first shows 2 people with an arrow in between them, the next is a set of hands with a water drop mark above them, the next is an image of a face mask, and the final is the COVID Alert app logo. The narration says ‘Continue to follow public health measures. A message from the Government of Canada.’ The ad ends on a black screen with the Government of Canada wordmark in the middle. Throughout the ad is a string ensemble and piano playing suspenseful music.

Version 2

This ad is the same as version 1. The only difference is the music. The music throughout the ad is an upbeat strumming banjo.

After viewing the ad for the first time, participants were asked a series of questions to gauge their overall impressions of the ad, comment on what they took away as the main message and discuss if the ad made them rethink their behaviours or not. Participants were then shown the alternative version of the ad and were asked to evaluate the music tracks. To wrap-up the discussion, participants were asked which one of the two soundtracks they felt would be the most effective.

Overall Impressions

Overall, participants in both groups reacted quite positively to the ad. Many commented on the light-hearted nature of the ad which left them feeling positive. They described the ad as cute, amusing, and humorous. Another positive aspect of the ad was that it was seen as inclusive by participants. They appreciated that it featured characters from a wide range of ages, genders and ethnicities, which they felt that all Canadians could relate to on one level or another. There were very few criticisms of the ad.

In terms of the main message, participants took away that it was important for all Canadians to continue following public health guidelines (such as wearing a mask) completely and not only partway. Many felt the message was a good reminder to Canadians to continue playing their part in fully adhering to such measures. A few participants focused specifically on the mask-wearing aspect of the ad, remarking that their main takeaway was that proper mask-wearing meant that one needed to wear it both over their nose and mouth. Overall, participants generally liked the friendly tone of the ad and that it was not accusatory or directive, but rather did a good job at subtly reinforcing the message.

Participants felt this ad would have an impact on behaviour, but only among those who had already been mostly following COVID-19 public health measures. They felt the ad would serve as a positive reminder and reinforce the importance of following these measures, especially among those who might have been less diligent recently. However, many believed that, for those Canadians who were not already following such measures, it would have no impact on changing their behaviour.

Evaluation of Soundtrack

Across both groups, participants generally enjoyed the music that accompanied the ad. For version 1, the music was described as comedic, dynamic and suspenseful in nature. Many participants commented on the humorous notes, which they suggested helped build up the storyline to keep the viewers’ attention. The soundtrack for version 2, was described as catchy, upbeat and more light-hearted than the previous. For both soundtracks, participants recognized the jingle at the end which they said they immediately associated with the Government of Canada.

Comparison of Soundtracks

The feedback was polarized between the two groups when participants were asked to select which of the two music tracks was more effective. While views differed in terms of which would be more effective, participants generally held positive views for both audio tracks.

All participants in major centres in Saskatchewan (who viewed version 1 first, followed by version 2) felt the soundtrack in version 1 would be more effective. They believed that the suspense in the sound effects that version 1 created would be more compelling in terms of keeping the viewers engaged (compared to a steady stream of music) and that it was aligned with the humorous nature of the ad.

By contrast, those in the B.C. group (who viewed version 2, followed by version 1) suggested that the soundtrack in version 2 would be more effective. The main reasons focused on the fact that they felt the music matched the light-hearted tone of the ads messaging. A few participants expressed criticism in that they felt version 2 was too busy or confusing.

CERB Repayment (Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients)

A discussion on pandemic-related financial supports was held with participants residing across the province of Manitoba and who had received Employment Insurance (EI) or any one of the recovery benefits offered by the Government of Canada. The conversation centered on participants’ experiences with receiving financial support and the process of repaying benefits for those who were ineligible and the taxation process of such benefits.

Financial Support

Participants in this group were first asked how they thought the Government of Canada has performed during the pandemic when it came to providing financial support. Most felt that the government had done at least as good a job as any other country, if not better. The speed with which the financial support program was initiated and executed was mention positively, as was the fact that self-employed individuals were included. While participants had little to say on whether the Government of Canada’s performance in this area has remained as positive to date as it was in the beginning of the pandemic, most did mention that the speed at which Canadians received their benefits had remained strong throughout the course of the year.

Nevertheless, some concerns were raised about the fact that Canada is an expensive country to live in, and in this light, it was thought that the level of financial support that was provided was insufficient. In a similar vein, some mentioned their drained savings and confusion on how the benefit amounts had been set. It was felt by some that not every recipient was in need of the same amount of financial benefit and there should be have some flexibility based on personal circumstances. Parents, especially single parents and parents with multiple children, were mentioned as needed more support than some other Canadians.

CERB Repayment

A few participants had heard of the requirement for individuals to repay the CERB if they had received any payments due to a mistake. They mentioned hearing that individuals had been receiving letters or notifications that they had to repay an overpayment or due to being ineligible. It was felt that this was putting these individuals in a difficult financial situation, as during the initial period there was a rush and not a lot of clarification surrounding eligibility requirements. Participants, however, thought that the current situation was much clearer as to who is eligible for which benefit.

When directly asked, most participants indicated that they would have to pay tax on the CERB benefits that they had received. It was shared by many participants that the requirement to pay tax was going to cause hardship for a range of reasons. It was cited that the benefit had not been enough to account for the cost of living and therefore it hd not been possible to put tax money aside, or that the money that had been put aside had had to be spent during the most recent lockdown, and that the overall administrative burden for self-employed individuals is unreasonable. In fact, some wondered if they would even file their taxes this year due to an inability to pay the outstanding amount.

Nearly all participants thought that more time should be allowed to repay the taxes owing on the CERB. The primary reason for this is that the pandemic and the period of financial uncertainty is ongoing, and as a result many economic activities are still shut down leaving people with reduced or no work. It was specifically thought that single parents, or indeed anyone with dependents, should be given extra time as they are bearing the greatest amount of additional stress and difficulty. It was mentioned by some that those needing to pay taxes on their benefits should have the duration of the pandemic to do so.

Detailed Findings – Part II: Other Issues

French Language (GMA, Major Centres Atlantic Canada)

In a few groups, participants were asked about the Government of Canada’s recent proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act and whether they felt these amendments would be effective at protecting the French language in Canada.

A number of participants had not heard or read anything about the proposed amendment, although awareness was somewhat higher among those residing in GMA group compared to participants in the Atlantic Canada group. Participants’ overall level of familiarity with the amendments was modest, with most mentioning only that the Act was being modified and/or that it was intended to protect the French language.

To gauge participants’ thoughts related to the modernization of the Official Languages Act, five of the various amendments were highlighted and discussed with participants:

Increase French immersion programs outside Quebec: Demand for access to French Immersion programs has exceeded supply in recent years.

Increase Francophone immigration: Recruit Francophone and French-language teachers – for immersion teaching of second language programs, and for French-language education – to address the shortage of French language teachers in Canada, particularly outside of Quebec.

Strengthen the role of Radio Canada in protecting and promoting the French language.

Appoint only bilingual Supreme Court justices to provide for the right to be understood directly by the judge, without assistance of an interpreter, before all the courts.

Strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages: To be able to better enforce compliance with the Act, use alternative dispute resolution methods, and add grounds on which the Commissioner may refuse or cease to investigate a complaint.

Most participants were supportive of the proposed amendments, although those residing in the GMA tended to be less sure and expressed concerns that the amendments did not go far enough to effectively protect the French language. Among those participants who were supportive, increasing French immersion programs outside of Quebec was perceived by many to be the most effective of the proposed measures. Participants felt that resourcing and increasing access to French immersion programs in school was central to protecting the French language as real change more often starts at the school level. Many also felt that not only was there a need for more French immersion programs in school, but there was also a requirement for French training programs geared towards adults and individuals outside of the school system.

At the same time, concerns were raised by some about the specific language used to describe the proposed amendments. It was thought that the use of descriptions such as ‘increase’ and ‘strengthen’ were an indication that other important programs and resources could possibly be adversely affected, or that an unintended consequence might be the creation of divisions between Francophones and those speaking the many other languages that reflect the diversity of cultures within Canada. Some participants also commented that even with an increase in French immersion programs, opportunities to practice and retain the language outside of Francophone communities is lacking. It was suggested that more needed to be done to provide support for experiential learning after graduation.

Less support was expressed for strengthening the role of Radio Canada and appointing only bilingual Supreme Court justices. Some participants did not understand the correlation between Radio Canada and protection of the French language, and were unclear about its role in this regard. Other participants felt that making bilingualism a requirement for Supreme Court justices would lead to the exclusion of highly qualified merit-based candidates solely as a result of their linguistic capabilities. It was thought that priority should instead be placed on providing the necessary French training instead of creating barriers and limiting progression based on one’s language skills.

Indigenous Issues (Quebec Indigenous Peoples)

A range of issues specific to Indigenous Peoples were discussed among a group of Indigenous participants residing in the province of Quebec. The discussion covered a variety of topics, including participants’ views on Indigenous priorities, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and clean drinking water on reserves.

Indigenous Priorities

When asked what important Indigenous issues warranted more federal government attention, participants commented on the following:

The overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the welfare system and, specifically, the child welfare system – it was mentioned that while there had been some amount of federal government focus on the welfare system in Canada, and that it was also a priority for the Assembly of First Nations, more needed to be done to provide financial and social supports to Indigenous people and children.
Additional support for at-risk Indigenous youth and development of a more culturally sensitive educational curriculum for Canadian schools and institutions. There was a commonly held view among participants that Canadians lacked a general understanding of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the issues affecting them, including basic concepts such as Status Cards, treaty rights as well as more recent legal obligations such as Jordan’s Principle which aims to eliminate service inequities and delays for First Nations children. Participants felt that a lack of understanding of these areas and of broader Indigenous issues was contributing to widespread misperceptions and a denial of their inherent rights. It was further noted that a more comprehensive curriculum on the history and rights of Indigenous Peoples was particularly needed in Quebec.
Clean drinking water – some thought that, in addition to the goal of achieving clean drinking water on all reserves, more effort was required to protect the biodiversity of Canada’s natural resources.
Better job opportunities for Indigenous peoples both in Canada and abroad – some participants suggested that a facet of Canadian foreign relations policies and activities should focus on Indigenous issues as a means of assisting Indigenous-owned businesses and supporting global Indigenous economic reconciliation. It was felt that this would not only position Canada in a more positive light internationally, but would offer much needed financial support for Canadian-based Indigenous businesses and communities.

Participants also noted a few areas in which they felt the Government of Canada has made progress. Some mentioned that follow-up from the calls to action resulting from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) had resulted in a significant reduction of Indigenous communities with boil water advisories which was seen as an improvement. The increased focus on the issue of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls as well as application of the Gladue decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which requires judges to take into account the history, experiences and realities of Indigenous offenders when determining an appropriate sentence, were also indicators of progress.

UNDRIP (The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)

Unprompted, awareness by participants of UNDRIP was modest. Those who were aware of the Declaration were of the view that the Government of Canada had been one of the later parties to sign on to the convention. They also mentioned that the Declaration still had no legal basis or standing in many provinces and, as such, were disappointed that little action had been taken to bring the laws within Canadian jurisdictions into line with UNDRIP.

To further the conversation, participants were provided with the following additional information:

UNDRIP is an international document adopted by the United Nations in 2007 that lays out the basic rights that Indigenous peoples should have around the world. It outlines how governments should respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

UNDRIP consists of 46 articles that describe specific rights and actions that governments must take to protect these rights. The main themes in the declaration are:

The right to self-determination

The right to cultural identity

The right to free, prior and informed consent (i.e. the right to be consulted and make decisions on any matter that may affect the rights of Indigenous peoples)

Protection from discrimination

Having this information and knowing that the Government of Canada had recently introduced legislation to implement the Declaration did not sway many participants to believe that real change in the lives of Indigenous people in Canada would occur. Some felt that it might be challenging for the government to garner sufficient votes to pass this legislation and that it could very well be overturned should there be a change of government in the future. Many also questioned the extent to which each of the provinces and territories would recognize and enforce the legislation. In general, the fact that few participants had heard much recently about UNDRIP or the recently introduced legislation by the Government of Canada left some feeling skeptical about possible barriers (e.g. costs) which could be inhibiting its implementation.

Moreover, some thought that the lives of those living on-reserve would be relatively unchanged by UNDRIP. In particular, they did not see how it would impact communities currently governed by First Nations Councils and which had their own Indigenous police forces.

There were some participants, however, who held more positive views of the UNDRIP legislation. While they were of the view that this legislation was long overdue, they also felt it was clear evidence of progress by the federal government to protect and support Indigenous communities.

Drinking Water Advisories on Reserves

Participants had some awareness of the Government of Canada’s efforts to lift long-term drinking water advisories.

After being shown an infographic which provided more information on the latest Government of Canada efforts related to drinking water on reserves, participants were asked for their comments and reactions.

This infographic features a white background with a graphic of blue waves across the bottom third of the page. On the top left, the version date “Updated January 26, 2021” in written grey font underlined by a dark blue waved line. In the middle of the infographic to the left, text reads, “99 long-term drinking water advisories lifted since November 2015” in font that fades from blue to green, with the number “99” in much larger font than the other font, and the word “lifted’” in blue font. In the middle of the infographic to the right, text reads “57 long-term drinking water advisories in effect in 39 communities” where the numbers are in larger font, and the words “in effect in” is written in blue text. At the bottom of the infographic, there is a large chart, along the vertical axis there is water advisories (ranging from 0 to 110), and the horizontal axis is years (ranging from 2016 to 2021). In the graph, a blue line tracks downwards, from left to right. The top left of the graph line is the number 105 in an orange circle. The bottom right of the graph has the number 57 in a blue pinpoint icon. In the bottom left hand side of the graph, a legend depicts that the blue pinpoint icon is “current number of long-term drinking water advisories in effect on public systems on reserves.” Below, the legend depicts that each point on the graph line is “past long-term drinking water advisories.”

The infographic did little to boost participants’ confidence in the federal government’s efforts or to mitigate their concerns regarding this issue. While some mentioned the information underscored some progress, most felt that the time it had taken to get this far did not warrant celebration. Some also expressed skepticism about the information shown, mentioning that it may be painting a more hopeful and optimistic picture than was the case and that it did not fully reflect the realities of those still living without access to clean water.

Participants were adamant that clean drinking water was a human right and a critical component to overcoming the impact of the pandemic on Indigenous communities and reducing the spread of COVID-19. As such, many advocated for more and faster federal government action to reduce the number of boil water advisories to zero.

To provide more context on the timeline, participants were given the following information:

The Government of Canada recently announced that it would not meet its target of March 2021 as originally planned. In addition to the $2.19 billion already budgeted for ending long-term drinking water advisories, the government announced another $1.5 billion to finish the work. This new money is for ongoing support for daily operations and maintenance of water infrastructure on reserves, continued funding for water and wastewater infrastructure on reserves, and to pay for work halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other project delays.

Reactions to this update left participants feeling that the Government of Canada could do more, in particular by being more transparent with all Canadians regarding how these additional monies would be spent. Some worried that Canadians would express frustration at additional taxpayer dollars going to support the initiative and others mentioned that the initial funds should have been managed more carefully. Ultimately, while participants commented favourably on increased investments to end long-term drinking water advisories, they were nevertheless disappointed that the initial timelines had not been met.

To many, a reasonable timeline for completion would be highly dependent on each of the communities in question. It was mentioned that those communities facing issues in terms of chemicals having leached into their water supply (e.g. mercury) were the most urgent and needed immediate attention, whereas other communities could wait a bit longer. In the end, most agreed that all Indigenous communities should have access to clean drinking water within the next year.

Homelessness (Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant)

The issue of homelessness was discussed briefly in one group in February. Most participants concurred that homelessness was an issue in Canada with some commenting on the visibility of homeless people within the Metro area in Quebec City, as well as the scale of the problem in other parts of Canada, specifically in Vancouver.

Many believed the problem of homelessness was getting worse. Again, perceptions were very much linked to participants’ exposure to it, with some indicating that homelessness was an issue they confronted on a daily basis in their communities.

It was thought that the Government of Canada had a role to play in tackling the problem, specifically by funding the expansion and development of social housing. The consensus among participants in the group was that complete eradication of homelessness was unlikely over the next decade, but that a 50% reduction might be more achievable.

General Messaging on Homelessness

Participants were shown three statements that could be used by the Government of Canada for general messaging on this subject, as follows:

Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home

One homeless person in Canada is one too many

In a country such as Canada, no one should live on the street

The first phrase – Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home – was clearly favoured. Participants reacted mostly to the emphasis on creating safe and affordable spaced. Very few participants responded to the other two statements, which did not resonate as strongly as the first.

Online Hate (Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults)

Participants in three focus groups discussed a range of aspects related to online activity particularly in the realm of online hate.

When asked whether people should be allowed to say whatever they wanted online, or whether there should be limits, participants admitted it was a difficult question to answer. On balance, most participants rejected limitations or regulations in favour of ensuring an environment in which free speech is promoted even if it meant that offensive comments or material may appear online. On the one hand, some participants accepted that regulation may have some benefits especially given the influence that online platforms now have in shaping public opinion. On the other hand, there was support for forums which permit openness and honesty, even if this led to disagreement about opinions and facts. Those who were less in favour of limitations raised questions about who would make the decisions as to what is/is not allowed online and viewed this as a step toward censorship. In the group held in Alberta, questions arose as to how much freedom people would be willing to sacrifice. Some commented that it was their perception that there are already too many rules and regulations governing all facets of peoples’ lives and that this trend has increased significantly over the last several decades. A number of participants underscored the importance of the principle of free speech, noting that a divergence of opinions and lively debate are vital to a healthy society, but that these conversations must be undertaken respectfully. Others stood by the right to freedom of speech with the caveat that this privilege does not give someone free rein to harm another.

Participants were shown a list of several issues in terms of online activity and asked which, if any, they felt were major problems in Canada. These included: child sexual exploitation, hate speech, incitement to violence, private images being shared without permission, radicalization and terrorist propaganda. The issue of hate speech garnered significant interest with some indicating this has been an ongoing issue for some time. There was concern expressed regarding online bullying of minority groups including those with varying ethno-cultural backgrounds and/or sexual orientation. Some noted that online conversations can escalate quickly and commented on being witness to conversations which had rapidly degraded from a simple difference of opinion to highly argumentative and negative discussions. There was also a sense that people find it easier to be disagreeable and disrespectful online than they would if the conversation was taking place face-to-face.

Participants also generally agreed that child sexual exploitation along with the related issue of sharing private images online without permission were major issues in Canada and globally (Indigenous participants specifically identified Montreal as a hub of sex trafficking in Canada). They commented that they were viscerally repulsed by the fact that children were being trafficked in this manner. Moreover, they felt that the perpetrators of these offenses often received lighter sentences than they would have expected or that the charges were ultimately dropped in some cases. Their perception was that justice was not being carried out in these cases. In the context of sharing private images online, some participants referenced the recent scandal involving Pornhub, a Canadian-owned, Montreal-based internet pornography website. A number of participants explicitly indicated this issue was ‘personal’ to them in the sense that as parents, aunts or uncles of young children, they were concerned about their safety. In some cases, they knew of others who had been personally affected.

A few participants focused on incitement to violence as a priority, particularly in the wake of what had occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6^th, 2021. At the same time, they connected this issue with radicalization and political volition, about which they were generally less concerned.

The issue of terrorist propaganda online did not register strongly with participants in any of the groups.

While some participants felt these issues personally, particularly Indigenous participants who commented they had been the victim of stereotyping and hate speech, most were of the view that these were issues of broad, societal importance.

Priorities for the Government of Canada and Social Media Companies

Participants were asked whether the Government of Canada had a role to play in addressing issues related to online hate, or whether it should be left to the social media companies themselves. On balance, most supported the latter option for several reasons:

As most social media companies are headquartered in foreign jurisdictions, they felt there was little that the Government of Canada could do to regulate them;
Given that law enforcement officials are already working on many of these issues, some were of the view that it would be duplicating effort and potentially ineffective for the Government of Canada to get further involved. There was also a concern that federal government involvement would be an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars and that it would be unable to resolve these issues within a reasonable period of time; and
A few participants thought that the issue lay squarely with social media companies to set age and other restrictions around sharing of content in order to ensure that they are operating in a healthy and safe manner. The view was that if government was involved, variability across jurisdictions may lead to different and possibly controversial practices between jurisdictions.

Participants were shown three specific actions which the Government of Canada could consider taking and asked which one should be its top priority:

Asking social media companies to increase their own monitoring

Increasing law enforcement monitoring online of things that that are illegal under current laws

Regulating social media companies so that there are rules on what needs to be taken down

Opinions varied across the groups. In two of the three groups (Quebec Indigenous Peoples and Hamilton-Niagara Young Adults) participants prioritized the first and third options. In the group held among residents of Alberta, participants leaned towards the second.

Participants who favoured asking social media companies to increase their own monitoring saw this as a first step in the process of addressing these issues, one which should be taken ahead of moving directly to regulation. Many others focused on a combination which include monitoring by social media companies along with regulation, viewing this as promoting both due diligence on the part of these companies but also the opportunity for government to provide stronger direction. There were concerns that large social media companies are mainly focused on profitability and that regulation would be required to avoid the pursuit of self-interest.

In Alberta, participants tended to take the middle ground on this question, seeing increased law enforcement as a more neutral and less politically driven approach. Some also felt that the federal government should focus on enforcing existing laws rather than drafting new legislation which they questioned in terms of its potential effectiveness.

A similar question was posed in terms of possible actions that social media companies could take. Participants were asked to identify their top priority from among the following list of options:

Add more filters to help users identify illegal or otherwise harmful content

Create stricter penalties for repeat abusers, including denying access to the platform

Get rid of trolls and bots

Provide more transparency of who the repeat abusers are

In all groups, participants prioritized stricter penalties for repeat abusers. The general consensus was that this was perhaps the most consequential of the four options under consideration. Far fewer chose adding more filters, although those who did felt this would be a relatively easy fix, leaving the solution more in the hands of users. The dissenting view on this was that it could possibly lead to less vigilance on the part of social media companies if they felt that users could sufficiently police themselves. With respect to getting rid of trolls and bots, some participants did not fully understand what these were and what this would involve, while others felt that this action would have some merit. In the Hamilton-Niagara group, young adults were more inclined to suggest that social media companies should move forward on all fronts, although there was some controversy about providing more transparency of who the repeat abusers are, from a privacy perspective.

Having discussed various facets on the topic of online hate, participants were asked a culminating question as to whether there should be increased regulation of social media companies, even if it meant that legitimate material may occasionally be flagged or removed, or whether there should not be increased regulation of social media platforms, even if it means that things like hate speech or incitement to violence may harm people. While views were somewhat mixed, most aligned with the former over the latter. Participants were generally unconcerned about the prospect of a legitimate post being taken down, suggesting that a process is in place to have posts reinstated. Overall, participants leaned toward increased regulation if the alternative was to have an unrestrained social media environment. Those who favoured no increased regulation worried that government involvement in this area may expand over time and that this would be the first step towards imposing much tougher restrictions.

Childcare (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children)

The topic of childcare was discussed in four groups, two of which specifically comprised parents with children in daycare or considering daycare as a childcare option. The conversation centered on participants’ perceptions of childcare services in their area, as well as their awareness of and views related to proposed Government of Canada investments in childcare.

Perceptions of Childcare Services

Views regarding childcare services in their area varied to some extent across the groups and by location. In both groups which were undertaken with parents of children in daycare or considering daycare, a few concerns were expressed. In the GVA, participants were primarily concerned about access to childcare and lengthy waitlists. Even those whose experience had been more positive, such as those who were quickly able to access a daycare space for their child, agreed that obtaining access to daycare was highly competitive and challenging for most parents. They viewed their own experience as an exception. In Saskatchewan, parents were more concerned about the absence of licensed daycares in their area which created an over-reliance on daycare operators working out of their own homes. In the other two groups, participants who had accessed daycare in the past faced varying circumstances – those in the group recruited from mid-size and major centres in Quebec commented on a lack of childcare services, while few participants in Alberta had faced any challenges accessing childcare at the time when they needed it.

When asked about what could be improved, participants identified several areas, including:

Availability: A number of participants commented on a dearth of childcare facilities in their area, specifically located near their work or their children’s school. Parents with young children in school commented on the difficulty of finding a daycare which would also provide drop-off and pick-up service to and from the school. Others who opted for private daycare also remarked on the challenge of finding a service that was reasonably priced. Parents described experiences of having to provide a deposit to secure a space with a childcare operator, as a back-up, while continuing to look for better and more affordable options.
Affordability: As noted above, several participants mentioned the cost of daycare with some describing it as prohibitively expensive. They also commented on the availability of subsidized spaces (e.g., through the local YWCA), but indicated that limited supply accompanied by high demand for subsidized spaces made it an unattainable or unrealistic option for most parents. While some parents felt that the price of childcare should be capped at a certain level, others argued that childcare services were undervalued, although they noted that high cost in delivery of childcare services does not always equate with higher quality services.
Specialized childcare services and programs: Some parents commented on the need for childcare operators that also offer services to address children with special needs (e.g., ADHD).

Awareness and Perceptions of Federal Government’s Plans Regarding Childcare

Few participants were aware of the Government of Canada’s plans related to childcare. Some parents were vaguely aware of the possibility of a national childcare program being implemented and others had heard something about $10 a day daycare being instituted and/or experimental programs of this nature being undertaken. While these parents favoured a stronger focus by the Government of Canada on daycare, they also questioned whether it was a priority for government.

Before continuing further, participants were provided with additional information on the Government of Canada’s childcare plans, as follows:

The Government of Canada has said that it wants to make significant, long-term, sustained investment to create a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system, including further support for Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care.

Reactions to the statement were generally positive in two of the four groups which were held among parents with children in daycare or considering daycare. These parents commented on the importance of early childhood education and ensuring equitable and fair access to daycare. At the same time, some expressed skepticism about the timing of this initiative, questioning when the investments would be made and what it would mean, in reality, for parents with children in daycare. In the other two groups, reactions ranged from indifference in Alberta to more negative views among participants in Quebec for whom the issue was felt to be a provincial responsibility (although they acknowledged the federal government’s role in Indigenous Early Learning initiatives).

Importance of Investing in Childcare/Most Compelling Reasons

When asked whether it was important that the federal government invest in childcare, responses aligned with comments in reaction to the Government of Canada’s plans, as noted earlier. Parents in the GVA and Saskatchewan were predominantly in support of Government of Canada investments in childcare, noting the expense for parents. In Saskatchewan, the point was made that any childcare subsidies should be indexed to household income to ensure that they are distributed fairly. At the same time, they underscored their general support for investments in childcare. In Alberta and Quebec, participants had a number of concerns and questions:

They wondered whether investments by the federal government in childcare would come at the expense of other funding to the provinces (e.g. a loss of funding to other programs);
A few participants interpreted the investment to mean that the federal government would be implementing and administering childcare services. While they supported an investment in childcare, they did not feel that it was the federal government’s responsibility to administer these services given that they are delivered at a neighborhood or community level. Nor did they believe this could be done efficiently.

Those participants who felt the investments were important were further queried on this issue. Specifically, they were asked how they would respond to others who might feel that an investment should not be made at this time, given the currently large deficit. Participants emphasized the following:

The ability to pay down the deficit is predicated on a healthy economy and economic growth which requires a larger workforce. Participants viewed the investments in childcare as necessary to ensuring more people, especially women, are able to engage in the workforce and contribute to the tax base. The example of Germany was raised in this context, with a few participants noting the links between widespread easy access to childcare, early childhood education, and a high-performing economy.
Others also took a long-term view that investing in children is a priority given this group will become future taxpayers. Several participants focused on the educational and social aspects of daycare and the importance of early childhood learning as foundational to the formation of Canadian children and youth.
Linked to the above two points, the high cost of raising children was underscored by a number of participants who also spoke about the importance of giving children a good start at an early age.

These arguments found some traction in those groups where participants expressed somewhat less support for investments in childcare at this time, specifically groups in Quebec and Alberta. In Alberta, participants remained concerned about the range of economic challenges faced by the province and the nation which have been exacerbated by the pandemic. They questioned whether the Government of Canada should prioritize childcare services at this time and whether it would have the financial latitude to do so. Nevertheless, some participants in this group were open to consider investments, pending additional details on the scope and nature of these investments.

Participants were then shown three potential reasons why the federal government should invest more in childcare and asked which one they felt was most compelling:

Childcare is important since it allows more women to enter the workforce

Childcare grows the economy because it allows more people to work

More childcare spaces mean less financial pressures on hard working middle class families

While a number of participants felt that all three reasons had merit, most found the second and third statements to be the most compelling. In particular, they viewed childcare as key to growing the economy, allowing more people to work, and reducing the financial pressures for families, especially those families with multiple children in daycare. Several participants were quite vocal about the financial challenges facing families with children in daycare, noting that the cost of childcare means many families are unable to adequately save for their retirement. Participants commented, based on their own experience, that the cost of childcare could be equivalent to an entire paycheque or, in some cases, it could amount to more than they are paying towards their mortgage. They spoke about the issues for many families who are living paycheque to paycheque, have not benefited from real wage growth for quite some time, and who are unable to find childcare at a reasonable cost in their area.

Childcare as the basis to grow the Canadian economy resonated strongly with many participants. Some participants pointed out that population growth was critical for ensuring economic development and an increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP), specifically in regards to creating the workforce necessary to achieve growth. They saw this as a virtuous or recurring cycle, meaning that growth through immigration and/or higher birth rates would support economic development, higher wages, a stronger tax base, and thus the funding required for social programs such as childcare, which would in turn further support population growth and economic development.

A few participants felt that the first statement better reflected their own experience, specifically as women having to make a choice, based mainly on financial calculations, as to whether it made sense to remain in the workforce or stay at home with young children. Others, however, objected to the particular focus on women in this statement, suggesting that childcare responsibilities no longer tend to be gender specific. They felt that the issues of childcare should be framed within the context of people and families, and not exclusively women, for example.

In line with comments previously made by a few participants in Alberta, some underscored two specific points during this portion of the discussion:

First, that childcare should be a personal choice; and
Secondly, that allowing more people to enter the workforce, while a laudable goal, would be challenging given the current state of the provincial economy. They noted that with Alberta’s high rates of unemployment, the goal of providing greater opportunities for people to enter the workforce was effectively irrelevant given retrenchment in the job market in the province and the degree of uncertainty during this economic transition.

When asked if they could think of any other reasons to support childcare investment, responses were limited. A few participants spoke about other benefits including equalizing access to childcare for low income families, and in particular those below the poverty line, as well as the benefits of the daycare experience in enhancing socialization and development of social skills among children.

Message Testing

To conclude the discussion on this topic, participants were shown the following two messages regarding childcare and asked about their preference:

Investing in accessible, high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care is not only good for families, it makes good economic sense.

High quality, affordable child care is not a luxury, it is a necessity. That is why we are creating a national system that will cut costs and create more spaces.

Overall, the consensus was that childcare should be viewed as a necessity. Parents in particular, in the groups held in the GVA and Saskatchewan, gravitated to this message. They related to it at a highly personal and emotional level and, while some disputed the emphasis on high quality daycare, most agreed with the focus on daycare as essential for working parents. Some also felt that this statement, with its emphasis on a national system, also left them with a sense that there was an organized plan. In this respect, it was more concrete compared to the first statement which some said was generic, vague and sounded more like a slogan rather than a policy. Participants in Alberta were more split with some feeling the second statement was too bold and aggressive. Many were either indifferent to both statements or felt that neither were particularly compelling.

Phrasing around Cutting Costs (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children)

In the two groups comprised of parents with children in daycare or considering daycare, a final line of questioning was asked regarding possible things the federal government could do as part of its plan for a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system. Participants were shown the following three options and asked to select which one they thought should be the Government of Canada’s target.

Cutting the cost of childcare by $5,000 a year by next year, and eventually cutting it by $7,500.

Cutting the cost of childcare in half to start, and eventually reducing it by 75%.

Putting a cap of $20 a day on childcare costs next year, and eventually lowering it to $10 a day.

Most participants in both groups selected the last – ‘Putting a cap of $20 a day on childcare costs next year, and eventually lowering it to $10 a day.’ On balance, participants found this option to be the clearest, in that it very plainly indicated what the cost of daycare would be for parents (e.g., the use of a dollar figure in the third option was more meaningful as compared to the percentage reductions referred to in the first and second options). At the same time, it raised questions for some participants in terms of how realistic it was to set a cap of $20 per day, and eventually lowering it to $10 a day. These participants worried whether this approach would lead to a multi-tiered childcare system across Canada where those who can afford ‘higher quality’ daycare are able to opt out of the subsidized system and presumably obtain better quality and more expensive daycare on their own. Their expectation was that the $20/$10 a day cap was intended to equalize or level out daycare costs for all working parents, regardless of household income.

By contrast, participants had some difficulty understanding what the first two options implied with respect to the actual financial implications for parents. Although it was evident to participants in both these options that the cost of childcare would be reduced, they could not ascertain exactly how much they would be paying. Some participants also felt that these options offered an opening for more, rather than less, privatization in the childcare sector – a few parents interpreted the statements as cutting funding to daycare operators who might then respond by raising the fees charged to parents.

Lastly, participants were asked that if the Government of Canada were to cut costs by $5,000 (as per the first option presented) whether it would be better to send a rebate to parents or if they should find a way to make sure that the actual costs that are charged by the daycare provider are reduced. Most favoured the former over the latter. Participants were of the view that parents should receive the rebate given they are paying out of pocket for childcare services. As an additional benefit, some also felt that it would encourage greater compliance in terms of completing and submitting tax returns in a timely fashion. Others were also concerned that working through daycare providers may not lead to savings for parents, citing experiences whereby daycare operators regularly raise fees even if operating costs have declined or are being subsidized to some extent. They were not convinced that any cost savings would be passed on to parents. That being said, some participants did feel that they would prefer to have the costs reduced at the point of purchase, rather than receive money back as a tax credit or rebate.

Public Transit (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Major Centres Atlantic Canada)

Use of Public Transit

In several groups, participants were asked for their perspective on Government of Canada investment in public transit and whether they were aware of any current investments in their community in recent years. To start the conversation, participants were queried on their use of public transit currently and prior to the pandemic. Overall, few respondents reported using public transit before the pandemic and even fewer were doing so currently. Of those who used public transit, most stated using it for either commuting or for occasional errands and appointments.

When asked if the Government of Canada should invest in public transit, there was a consensus in favour of the idea across all groups.

Participants residing in the GVA expressed support for investment and remarked that public transit is an enabler of affordable housing for families, as it allows people to live in more affordable areas and still be able to commute to work. Many also viewed public transit though the lens of international comparison, as it can be the hallmark of a major city. Additionally, the environmental argument of reducing the number of cars on the road (and therefore pollution) had resonance as did the economic arguments, as creating public transit infrastructure was seen as a productivity raising tool (by reducing transit time) and as being positive for job creation.

Opinions in the Quebec group were more evenly mixed, for and against the idea. Arguments in favour centred on the issue of affordability while those against investment made the jurisdictional point that public transit was a provincial responsibility.

Participants in the major centres British Columbia group, similar to those in the GVA parents’ group, universally supported federal investment in public transit. Participants perceived the importance of public transit to be reducing traffic congestion along with the associated environmental benefits. Electric buses were specifically mentioned, as was investment in “green technology” overall. A few participants were strongly in favour of investment as they felt this would connect more of the surrounding Vancouver areas to the downtown core, allowing for more students to commute to university while also creating employment by connecting regions. A few expressed slight concern about whether federal investment was needed as more people were currently working from home as a result of the pandemic.

Similar arguments were raised in the Kitchener to SW Ontario group. Support for federal investment in public transit was unanimous, as it was seen to be integral to the structure of growing cities, was good for the environment and that it was important to provide transportation to people who did not have access to a vehicle. The international comparison was also made, in that major urban areas in other parts of the world were seen to have more advanced public transit than SW Ontario. The environmental benefits were seen as being of the most importance.

Support for investment by the Government of Canada in public transit was lowest in the Atlantic Canada group. The lack of transit within and between communities in the region meant that participants had all adjusted to a car-centric culture. Participants were aware of the potential benefits federal investment could have, such as reducing costs for families and providing affordable transportation for students and seniors, however, reducing emissions was stressed as being of most importance.

Participants were then asked if they were aware of any investments in public transit in their region by the Government of Canada, and what they thought the biggest transit needs were.

In the GVA parents’ group, mentions of several federal investments included extension and further expansion of the Canada Line, specifically to Surrey and other areas. The greatest transit need was seen to be accessibility, creating more affordable options and extending service into areas such as the Fraser Valley. A few participants also mentioned improving the paratransit system.

In Quebec, participants could not recall specific Government of Canada investments in public transit but did refer to investments in the health and cultural sectors, as well as infrastructure (specifically bridges). In terms of current investment needs, participants perceived the transit sector in Quebec overall as being in good shape, however, the hours of service in certain areas were not seen as being sufficient.

Participants residing in major centres of British Columbia were less aware of Government of Canada investments in public transit compared to the GVA parents’ group. Among those who were aware, mentions included investments in bridges and extensions of the SkyTrain. Participants viewed increasing the frequency of service to smaller centres as the greatest transit need.

In the Kitchener to SW Ontario group, participants were not aware of any federal investment in local public transit. Many identified the greatest transit needs as creating a link to the GTA, improving connections between cities such as London, Sarnia and Windsor, improving bus service within Sarnia and specifically addressing the transit needs of the Sarnia First Nation.

Participants in the major centres Atlantic region were aware of some Government of Canada investment for public transit. Mentions included resources for the ferry service and Confederation Bridge as well as changing the fuel source of buses to electricity or hydrogen. Participants identified the greatest needs in their region as being affordability, accessibility, fare schemes, rural service, interprovincial service and the challenge of providing and paying for public transit for an aging population.

Toxins (Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, GMA, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Major Centres Atlantic Canada)

The topic of toxins was discussed in five groups throughout the month of February. The early part of the conversation focused on participants’ general and more specific concerns about chemicals and toxins. Later, participants were asked more pointed questions regarding their views on the current laws in this area, the perceived need for regulation and any concerns they may have about the impact of banning or regulating toxins and chemicals on both businesses and consumers.

Environmental Priorities

To open the discussion, participants were asked to identify the biggest environmental priorities, those on which they felt the Government of Canada should focus. A wide range of priorities were identified. Some were quite broad in nature, including:

A greater focus on renewables, clean energy and sustainability
Energy self-sufficiency
Reduced carbon emissions. zero emissions and carbon capture
Incentives for cleaning up the environment
Educating youth on the importance of living a green, sustainable life

Other participants identified specific issues, some of which reflected particular regional concerns, such as:

Recycling, specifically ramping up recycling programs
Plastics and packaging
Clean drinking water, especially for Indigenous communities
Shifting from fossil fuels, dependency on oil and related infrastructure (e.g., pipelines)
Promoting uptake of electric vehicles (EVs)
Nuclear energy, as a replacement for fossil fuels
Eliminating poisons and pesticides
Preservation of parks
Collapse of the fisheries (crab, shrimp and cod fisheries)

Concerns about Chemicals and Toxins

When the topic of chemicals and toxins was raised, most participants expressed concerns about their pervasiveness and use in specific sectors. A number of participants referred to antibiotics used in agricultural production and chemicals in the food supply, specifically pesticide residues and preservatives, which were intended to boost production and/or to extend the shelf life of products. Others were concerned about toxins in the water and air as well as industrial emissions.

Concerns were raised about what was perceived to be overuse of chemicals and toxins by businesses and the need for more stringent oversight of corporations. The feeling was expressed that a license to do business in Canada should be tied to a commitment to meet high environmental standards. Others specifically mentioned the health impacts linked to pollution, vehicle use and industrial use of chemicals and toxins. A few participants referred to high rates of cancer especially among people living or working near industrial sites.

Participants were provided with some information to clarify the distinction between naturally occurring toxins, like arsenic, which can be produced by some plants, animals and bacteria, and synthetic or man-made toxic chemicals such as rat poisoning. The question was then posed as to whether they were more concerned about toxins and chemicals in the air and water, or those in some household products. On balance, most participants expressed greater concern about chemicals and toxins in the air and water, although some commented that both were a concern. The point was also made that the two issues are interconnected as the disposal and leaching of household chemicals causes contamination of groundwater and soil.

Many participants commented on the fact that the opportunity to breathe clean air and drink clean water are essential. As some noted, there is no option but to breathe the air around us or to drink from the existing water supply. Moreover, they felt that individual consumers or citizens had little control over air and water quality, while they could do more to limit household toxins and chemicals by purchasing more eco-friendly products. There was also a sense that air and water quality were global issues, affecting humanity world-wide, and that degradation of the broader environment had a much larger impact.

A few participants did express more concern about toxins and chemicals in household products, specifically cleaning products. In contrast to most other participants, their view was that they could not do much to control air and water quality, but that they could take greater care with respect to the products their family consumes or uses. These participants also noted the health impacts of household chemicals, referring to what they felt was an increase in allergies, various skin conditions and other health issues directly related to the chemicals and toxins (e.g., formaldehyde, parabens, etc.) found in household products.

To further assess participants’ concerns, they were asked which one of the following they considered to be the biggest problem:

The impact of chemicals or toxins on the environment more broadly

The impact on your health

The impact on the health of people who live in communities in certain parts of Canada

Participants were challenged to isolate one of the three and felt they were all important and inter-linked. They also acknowledged the complexity of the issue. Nevertheless, most tended towards prioritizing the impact of chemicals and toxins on the environment more broadly. The consensus view was that environmental degradation was at the root of many health issues, both broadly and within specific communities. This led to a discussion about resource management and how to better safeguard the environment, specifically addressing the negative impact on the environment from mining and agricultural operations, and the protection of shared waterways with the United States.

While noting the interconnectedness of the environment and health, a number of participants stated that the impact of toxins and chemicals on personal health was a critical issue. Some also noted the vulnerability of underdeveloped or disadvantaged communities, particularly when it comes to ensuring they have appropriate water filtration systems. The comment was made that society often tends to ignore the needs of underserviced communities or groups, particularly when they do not speak in their own interests with a loud or unified voice.

Views on Laws and Regulations Regarding Chemicals and Toxins

Participants were asked whether it was their sense that Canada’s laws on chemicals and toxins should be strengthened, relaxed or are currently appropriate. Although most were not highly familiar with the current laws, most had the impression that they could or should be strengthened. The rationale for this was underpinned by the following:

The sense that the use of toxins is likely to become more prevalent in the future, with further enhancements in technology. Participants felt that the laws should be strengthened or, at a minimum, re-evaluated on a regular basis.
In line with the above view, some participants expressed concerns that if laws were not tightened up soon, future generations would face more significant issues.
A perception that the food supply in Canada contained a myriad of ingredients which are not found in the food chain in other countries and that there are few restrictions. There was a concern that this may have a more significant impact on children’s health.
A belief that there are always opportunities for improvement in this area and that the option of relaxing the laws would be unacceptable.
A desire for more structure to protect the environment and critical habitats.
By comparison to other jurisdictions, particularly the European Union, Canadian laws in regards to chemicals and toxins are more lax.

A few participants expressed concerns that laws themselves are insufficient without a plan on how to execute and enforce them. The point was also made that Canada was not thought to be a leader in this area. As such, the view was that there would be significantly more impact if countries like the U.S. and China demonstrated leadership, while Canada followed in lock-step. If not, the concern was that Canada may undermine its competitiveness vis-à-vis countries like China, the United States and others without broader buy-in to this agenda.

A few expressed the point of view that government already has too much control and worried about government over-reach.

The conversation broached the issue of potential costs to consumers. Participants were told that whenever government bans or regulates certain chemicals or toxins, it could mean new costs for businesses and this could result in more expensive products for consumers. Reactions were about evenly split between those who were comfortable paying a little more and those who expressed greater reluctance to bear additional costs, especially given the impact of the pandemic on people’s financial and job security. A small group of participants also questioned why costs would invariably rise, noting that stronger government will was required to invest in cleaner and more sustainable alternatives. They felt there was a way forward that would not automatically lead to consumers bearing the costs of regulation, particularly if manufacturers were incentivized to produce more eco-friendly products.

The example of furniture was offered to further illustrate the above point. It was noted that the chemicals in furniture are not harmful until they burn and the question was posed as to whether these should be banned, even if it meant furniture became quite expensive, or if this was a rare enough occurrence such that it was not of much concern. Again, the response from participants was somewhat mixed. Among those who felt these types of chemicals should be banned, many assumed any cost increase would be minimal and some noted that it would be in the manufacturers’ best interests to keep price increases low in order to stay competitive and to source alternative inputs. Several participants were prepared to pay any price increase, prioritizing safety and environmental benefits over costs.

Others were less concerned about banning chemicals in furniture as they felt it was a relatively infrequent issue. They were of the view that frequency needed to be balanced against the risks to consumers. The issue of asbestos was raised in this context, noting that it had been a popular material used in construction, but was later found to be toxic and to pose a serious health risk.

A few participants held to the view that it should be possible to make furniture without harmful toxins and wondered why there was any debate required about balancing affordability with environmental, health and safety concerns. Comments from these participants suggested that they felt the use of toxins in products was a more contemporary issue and that manufacturers should look to materials and production processes which were used in the past, and likely more ‘natural.’

Government of Canada Priorities Regarding Chemicals and Toxins

To conclude the discussion, participants were shown a few different things that the Government of Canada could focus on with respect to chemicals and toxins and subsequently asked to pick the one they felt should be the biggest priority:

Banning some chemicals so that companies need to use less harmful ones

Ensuring people who work in workplaces with chemicals are safe

Providing more information on labels about chemicals in household products

Using new science to better understand the impact on our health of every-day exposure to several chemicals

In about equal numbers, participants identified using new science and banning some chemicals as their biggest priority. Those who favoured using new science to better understand the impact on our health of every-day exposure to several chemicals did so for the following reasons:

They felt that more investigation of the long-term effects of certain toxins and chemicals was required to ensure that a government ban would actually be effective;
A few participants underscored the importance of obtaining scientific evidence, particularly to ensure that any decisions are evidence-based. They felt that using new science was the most progressive and balanced approach to take, focusing on understanding the issue rather than a knee-jerk response;
Some wanted to understand the impact of these chemicals, more broadly, on the environment;
Some also held the view that regardless of whether the federal government went ahead with a ban, understanding the dangers that some toxins or chemicals posed, was nevertheless important in order to be able to properly educate consumers; and
A few participants pointed out that some chemicals, while initially thought to be safe, were subsequently determined to be harmful and, as such, they favoured more investigation and education on the issue.

Those who supported banning some chemicals so that companies need to use less harmful ones did so based on the following views and assumptions:

They felt that there was no legitimate reason why manufacturers could produce goods that did not require the use of any harmful substances. This view linked to their sense that new science and technology should permit advances in this area that lead to more environmentally friendly solutions;
Some volunteered that this approach was likely the easiest of the four to implement and the quickest action that could be taken. They also felt that some training of those who are obligated to work with hazardous products should be a part of this approach;
For some, this option would address the issue of ensuring that workplaces are safe; and
The issue of an individual’s ability to control their surroundings, particularly the workplace, was a factor for some. They were concerned that without an outright ban, workers may face involuntary exposure to harmful toxins and chemicals.

Far fewer participants chose the option of providing more information on labels about chemicals in household products. Those who did tended to be the same participants who had indicated earlier that they were more worried about toxins and chemicals in household products rather than those in air and water. They spoke about the risks to consumers and their perception that the majority of people do not understand or think about the ingredients when purchasing products, nor do they fully appreciate the damage they cause to the environment. They also felt this approach may have a more immediate impact on consumer behaviours. In a follow-up question, participants were asked whether they thought the current level of labeling of chemicals in household products was appropriate. While many indicated that they are fairly diligent in reading product labels, they also noted that they are often confusing, difficult to understand and not clearly written. Some indicated the information was insufficient to allow them to determine if a product was safe, more so on food items as compared to household cleaning products. There were also concerns about the use of terms such as ‘natural’ and ‘green’ which some participants thought were vague and over-used terms developed by marketing experts. A suggestion was put forward to develop a system based on a universal set of symbols – this approach was favoured in lieu of lengthy lists of ingredients which they felt were time consuming for consumers to review.

Relatively few prioritized ensuring people who work in workplaces with chemicals are safe. Those who did felt it was a basic human right. They also assumed that taking steps to ensure workers are safe would ultimately lead to using safer chemicals all around.

As a final question, participants were asked whether the federal government should work with businesses to encourage them to make changes or whether they needed to lay down firm bans on certain products. Again views were mixed, although there was a slight leaning towards working with businesses which most viewed as the more workable option and a first step before implementing more stringent measures. A number of participants were supportive of educating businesses and worried that stricter measures may have adverse effects on jobs, businesses and the economy. Ultimately, they viewed this as a more positive and collaborative approach.

Others thought that corporations would be unlikely to make any changes on their own accord in the absence of consequences. They also felt that a firm ban would mean that corporations could not take any shortcuts or circumvent the rules. A few participants noted the importance of tightening the laws around the use of chemicals and toxins, particularly if the current regulations are in any way vague or not up-to-date.

Environment (Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, GMA, Major Centres Atlantic Canada)

The environment and related topics were discussed in several groups throughout the month, including participants’ awareness and views on the Government of Canada’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.

Participants generally agreed that any news about greenhouse gas reductions had been overshadowed by the pandemic which continued to be the main focus of their interest, particularly in terms of news and information from the media. Most participants had some, albeit limited, recollection of the federal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, recalling the details only vaguely. Some assumed that the plan was related to Canada’s commitments as a result of its participation in the Paris Agreement, as well as to eliminating the burning of coal and fossil fuels in order to reduce emissions by 2030. Others questioned whether the federal government’s carbon pricing system was an element of the plan, and the merits of this system were debated by several participants. There was a feeling that the plan may include stricter rules and regulations. And, while a few participants commented that the federal government appeared to be taking appropriate steps to address issues of the environment and climate change, others suggested that a further impetus for action may now come from the new administration in the United States which they believed placed a higher priority on addressing climate change relative to the previous administration. Some participants sensed that a reinvigorated American environmentalist movement, with increased political will and commitment, could have the effect of nudging Canada to do even more.

For further clarification, participants were told that the Government of Canada has proposed measures aimed at helping Canada cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and getting the country to net-zero emissions by 2050. They were also told that one of the proposed measures included helping Canadian businesses to invest in more efficient and cost-effective technologies that would both improve their operations and their bottom line. Based on this information, the discussion then focused on how the plan should be framed. Participants evaluated the following five options:

A strategy to help businesses cut pollution

A strategy to help sectors across our economy cut pollution

Clean industrial strategy

Low-carbon industrial strategy

Strategy for cleaner industry

While reaction to all of the options put forward was generally positive, participants tended to gravitate to two in particular: Clean industrial strategy and Strategy for cleaner industry. These options resonated with participants primarily because they framed the plan in a very simple, direct and straightforward manner. The emphasis on ‘clean’ and ‘cleaner’ was also viewed favourably, reflecting what participants viewed as the ultimate goal of a clean environment. Moreover, participants felt that both of these options framed the plan in a more positive manner, compared to some of the other options under consideration which they felt were more negative in terms of how the plan was positioned (e.g. those that emphasized cutting pollution). Some supported the specific focus on industry as the major target for this strategy. Avoidance of references to ‘carbon’ also factored into participants’ choices of their preferred option, as some mentioned that the public has become somewhat desensitized to labeling environmental efforts in terms of low-carbon goals. They also felt that a focus on ‘low-carbon’ would be less clear to the general public in terms of what it means the plan would offer or achieve, relative to terms like ‘clean.’

The other three options were somewhat less popular with participants, although each had certain merits as well as drawbacks:

A strategy to help sectors across our economy cut pollution: Some responded positively to this phrase as it implied teamwork. Moreover, while lengthier relative to the other options, it was also seen as informative and clear in helping participants to better understand the goals of the plan. Some also felt the reference to ‘sectors’ suggested that the plan would be targeted to specific groups of companies or sectors of the economy that were higher polluters.
A strategy to help businesses cut pollution: Several participants viewed this particular option as being more broadly encompassing, specifically in the use of the term ‘business’ over ‘industry’ or ‘sectors.’ They found the latter two terms more narrowly focused. Much like the option above, participants appreciated the supportive tone which they drew from the emphasis on helping business (or sectors) to cut pollution.
Low-carbon industrial strategy: For some, this option was the most specific. They felt that working towards a ‘low-carbon’ goal was quite clear and would ultimately address the most significant issue with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, they saw the use of terms like ‘strategies to help businesses’ and ‘industrial strategy’ as being much less concrete or focused.

The term ‘strategy’ was debated in all options, with some feeling it to be overly vague and passive. A few preferred terms like ‘action’ or ‘action plan’ which they felt implied the plan would be more solutions-oriented. Others were less critical of the term ‘strategy,’ suggesting that it implied a gradual process. Several participants also felt that businesses would better relate to a strategy as opposed to a plan.

As noted above, participants also questioned which of the following terms was more all-encompassing: business, industry, sectors or economy. For most, there was a desire to ensure that the strategy or plan was both targeted to higher polluters and inclusive at the same time. They felt the plan should be framed in such a way as to broadly encompass all players within Canada’s economy.

When asked what other suggestions they had which would be more effective than the options proposed, participants offered the following some of which reiterated their earlier comments:

A focus on action or an action plan, which has an implied sense of immediacy;
In line with the above, some felt there should be a reference to the future or a future-orientation to suggest that the strategy had both short-term and longer-term implications, and specifically that the goal was to take actions to create a better future;
A few participants favoured a reference to sustainability, a term which many see as a key goal of any environmental initiative;
Finally, some expressed a desire to ensure that the framing of the plan is done in a way that is applicable to everyone, and not just businesses, industries or sectors. They suggested that everyone has both a responsibility and a role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Firearms (GMA, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

Participants in the two above-noted groups were asked whether they had seen, read or heard about the Government of Canada’s new firearms measures. Overall, awareness was modest with about half of participants in the GMA and most participants in the Ontario group stating that they had heard of the proposed measures.

Unprompted, participants recalled that the rules regarding the ownership of assault-type firearms were changing and there was a new program in place where owners could return them. In terms of their initial impressions, some participants remarked that they believed these new regulations seemed to target law-abiding owners and would not help with improving the safety of Canadians. Others were concerned that the proposed program would be a forced buy-back or that some gun owners might take advantage of the program by returning their firearms, only to take the pay-out and buy another, less expensive rifle.

For clarity, the following statement was read and participants were asked to comment on what they thought about these new measures.

In May 2020, The Government of Canada prohibited over 1,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms. A two-year amnesty period has been in place since that time to give people who already own specific targeted firearms enough time to comply with the ban. The Government of Canada has now introduced new legislation that includes a buy-back program for these barred firearms. The legislation also allows municipalities to ban handguns, and increases criminal penalties for gun smuggling trafficking.

After being prompted, many participants agreed that new legislation on assault-style firearms was a good thing. Participants commented that they generally thought it was a good idea to have better controls on firearms and many could not relate to why someone would need to carry an assault-rifle.

Some participants in the Ontario group, however, expressed frustration at what they believed to be excessive bureaucracy making gun ownership difficult and felt this was an infringement of the rights of law-abiding, responsible gun owners. They suggested that many firearms-related crimes were committed by unregistered gun owners and that these new regulations would not have any impact.

A few participants were also worried about delegating responsibility for gun bans onto municipalities. In particular, they wondered whether municipalities could afford the cost of enforcement, and many believed that such regulations should be consistent across the country.

Buy-back Program

To clarify the buy-back program for participants, the moderator read aloud the following statement and participants were asked whether they thought that this new program would be successful in getting guns off the streets.

The buy-back program will be finalized in the coming months, but essentially it is intended to prevent barred firearms from being bequeathed (given to someone after death) or sold to others. Owners who choose not to participate in the buy-back program and keep their firearms will have to abide by strict conditions: they will have to agree not to use the weapons, not to import or acquire any more of them, and not to bequeath or sell them.

The consensus across both groups was that participants believed the buy-back program would not be successful in getting these types of firearms off the street. They remarked that the criminal issues around guns on the street had not come from the responsible owners that would abide by this legislation, but instead was committed by those who obtained firearms from illegal sources and would continue to do so. Participants questioned how the federal government would be able to enforce these new measures and if the money spent on enforcement would be worthwhile, as they viewed other priorities for the federal government to be more important.

Asked if they thought that those who owned barred firearms would turn them in or keep them, participants were split in their views. Those who believed most would return them through the buy-back program suggested that owners would not want to hold onto the firearm if it could not be used and that the payment would motivate them to return. Those who believed most would not return them said that they may keep them as an heirloom piece or would simply not return them if their intention was to use the firearms for the wrong purposes.

To conclude the discussion participants were asked what they thought would be a better approach:

the buy-back approach described, or

a mandatory buy-back program, where those who owned firearms must participate (i.e. no option to keep these firearms under strict conditions).

On balance, most believed that the buy-back approach was a better solution compared to a mandatory buy-back. Concerns from participants around a mandatory approach centered around:

a belief that owners should have the ability to choose;
a belief that there would be little harm in one having such a firearm in their possession if they were not using it;
that a mandatory approach would be viewed as too excessive of a control measure by the federal government;
that a mandatory approach could be viewed as an infringement on property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and
that not having a firearm may provide current owners with a loss of security and safety.

Only a few participants, from the GMA group felt that it would be more reassuring to them if a mandatory program was implemented.

Mandatory Minimum Penalties (GMA, Major Centres Atlantic Canada)

Participants residing in the GMA and in major centres across Atlantic Canada were asked if they had heard anything about changes to mandatory minimum penalties. Awareness was very low and most participants were unable to recall specific details.

Before continuing with the conversation, the following clarification was provided:

The Government of Canada has proposed amendments to repeal mandatory minimum penalties for more than a dozen offences, including for all drug offences, certain offences involving the use and possession of firearms and a tobacco-related offence. Mandatory minimum penalties would remain in place for serious offences, such as murder, sexual offences, and some firearm offences.

Participants residing in the GMA reacted positively, stating their overall support for the proposed amendments. Many suggested that since there are varying degrees of severity involved in most crimes, the severity of associated penalties should also follow suit. In addition, it was felt that if the justice system was based on rehabilitation, this initiative would increase confidence in the system.

Opinions in the Major Centres Atlantic Canada group were slightly less set. Participants stated that the COVID-19 pandemic tended to overwhelm many other issues. However, on first thought, many agreed that amendments to current mandatory minimum penalties was necessary.

On balance, most participants cited increased flexibility in sentencing (especially for drug offences) and the ability for case-by-case decision making as favourable impacts of removing certain mandatory minimums. It was also thought that the elimination of many mandatory minimum penalties might help to alleviate the backlog in the judicial system. However, participants maintained support for retaining minimum sentencing for severe offences.

Statements Regarding the Government of Canada’s Approach

Participants were then provided with a list of four possible public statements and were asked to identify which one(s) made them feel better about the Government of Canada’s approach to the reform of mandatory minimum penalties. These four statements were:

1. The Government of Canada has proposed removing mandatory minimum penalties on less serious offences, but increasing maximum sentences on more serious gun crimes like trafficking.

2. These changes will give judges more discretion in handing out appropriate sentences that fit the circumstances of the crime.

3. Mandatory minimum penalties have tended to clog up the court system and the justice system since no one ever wanted to plead guilty to these crimes and thus avoid a trial.

4. Mandatory minimum penalties disproportionately affect Indigenous and racialized Canadians.

Overall, all four of the statements were received favourably.

When asked to explain their positive feelings, participants reiterated earlier sentiments, stating that the proposed amendments would allow for a more targeted approach to sentencing. Additionally, participants expressed that this discretionary approach would free up taxpayer resources and suggested the money could be rerouted to other associated initiatives in the purview of the criminal/judicial system, such as prevention. Mental health and the need for treatment as opposed to incarceration was also cited as an argument in favour of flexibility, and one that was seen as being supported by these statements. It was felt that many did not receive the help and mental health support they needed in prison. Participants also commented that current mandatory minimum penalties impact racialized Canadians disproportionately and an approach that did not single out any group of people was an important message and approach to follow going forward. Removing bottlenecks from the judicial system was also viewed favourably.

Participants were then shown the same list of statements and asked if any made them feel worse about the federal government’s approach, to which participants had a hard time identifying any. The only criticism that was raised was in the form of a query as to whether or not judges would receive any additional training to help them exercise their increased flexibility in sentencing, especially in terms of finding better ways to find help for those who need it.

Appendix A – Recruiting Scripts

English Recruiting Script

Privy Council Office

Recruiting Script – February 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 for those outside of Quebec and will be sent to participants via e-transfer following the group
Incentive will be $125 per person for those in Quebec and will be sent to participants via e-transfer following the group

Specifications for the focus groups are as follows:

GROUP	DATE	TIME (EST)	TIME (LOCAL)	LOCATION	COMPOSITION	MODERATOR
1	Tues., Feb. 2	9:00-11:00	6:00-8:00 (PST)	Greater Vancouver Area - B.C.	Parents with children in daycare and/or considering daycare within next 12 months	DN
3	Thurs., Feb. 4	8:00-10:00	6:00-8:00 (MST)	Alberta	Vaccine Hesitant	TBW
4	Tues., Feb. 9	7:00-9:00	6:00-8:00 (CST)	Manitoba	EI/Recovery Benefit Recipients	DN
5	Wed., Feb. 10	6:00-8:00	6:00-8:00 (MST)	Quebec	Indigenous Peoples	MP
6	Thurs., Feb. 11	6:00-8:00	6:00-8:00 (EST)	Hamilton-Niagara Region – Ontario	Young Adults, aged 18-30	DN
7	Tues., Feb 16	6:00-8:00	6:00-8:00 (EST)	Smaller/Rural Centres – Ontario	General Population	DN
8	Wed., Feb. 17	7:00-9:00	6:00-8:00 (CST)	Saskatoon and Regina – Saskatchewan	Parents of School Aged Children, JK – Gr. 12	TBW
9	Thurs., Feb. 18	9:00-11:00	6:00-8:00 (PST)	Major Centres B.C.	People Experiencing COVID Fatigue/Exhibiting Riskier Behaviours, All Ages	TBW
11	Tues., Feb. 23	6:00-8:00	6:00-8:00 (EST)	Kitchener through to SW Ontario	People Experiencing COVID Fatigue/Exhibiting Riskier Behaviours, All Ages	TBW
12	Thurs., Feb. 25	5:00-7:00	6:00-8:00 (AST) 6:30-8:30 (NST)	Major Centres – Atlantic Canada	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
Greater Vancouver Area	Cities could include (but are not limited to): Vancouver, West and North Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Delta, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Pitt Meadows, Port Moody, Langley, Maple Ridge, White Rock ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 1
Alberta	Cities could include (but are not limited to): Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Fort McMurray, Medicine Hat, Grand Prairie, Lloydminster, Leduc, Cochrane, Fort Saskatchewan, Chestermere, Camrose, Beaumont, Stony Plain, Sylvan Lake, Brooks, Strathmore, High River ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 3
Manitoba	Cities could include (but are not limited to): Winnipeg, Brandon, Steinbach, Winkler, Portage la Prairie, Thompson, Selkirk, Morden, Dauphin, The Pas, Flin Flon , Stonewall ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 4
Quebec	Cities could include (but are not limited to): Montreal, Quebec City, Saguenay, Sept-Îles, Val-d’Or, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Dolbeau-Mistassini, Alma, Baie-Comeau ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY.	CONTINUE GROUP 5
Hamilton-Niagara Region – Ontario	Cities include (but are not limited to): Hamilton, St. Catherines, Niagara Falls, Welland, Fort Erie, Grimsby, Lincoln, Thorold, Port Colborne, Niagara on the Lake, Pelham ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 6
Smaller/Rural Centres – Ontario	<50k in population Cities could include (but are not limited to): Cornwall, Chatham, Georgetown, St. Thomas, Woodstock, Bowmanville, Leamington, Stouffville, Orillia, Stratford, Orangeville, Bradford, Timmins, Bolton, Midland, Innisfil, Owen Sound, Brockville, Fergus, Lindsay, Collingwood ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 7
Saskatoon and Regina – Saskatoon	Saskatoon and Regina PARTICIPANTS SHOULD RESIDE IN THE ABOVE-NOTED CENTERS PROPER. 4 PARTICIPANTS FROM EACH CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 8
Major Centres B.C.	Cities include: Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Kelowna, Delta, Nanaimo, Kamloops, Victoria. PARTICIPANTS SHOULD RESIDE IN THE ABOVE-NOTED CENTERS PROPER. MAXIMUM OF FOUR FROM THE LOWER MAINLAND. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 9
Kitchener through to SW Ontario	Cities include (but are not limited to): Kitchener, Waterloo, London, Windsor, Sarnia, Chatham-Kent, St. Thomas, Woodstock, Leamington, Stratford ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS THE REGION. NO MORE THAN TWO PER CITY.	CONTINUE - GROUP 11
Major Centres – Atlantic Canada	Cities could include (but are not limited to): NS: Halifax, Cape Breton NB: Moncton, Saint John, Fredericton, Dieppe, Miramichi, Edmundston PEI: Charlottetown, Summerside N&L: St. John’s, Conception Bay, Mount Pearl, Corner Brook ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF CITIES ACROSS EACH OF THE FOUR PROVINCES.	CONTINUE - GROUP 12
Other		THANK AND END
VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer	-	THANK AND END

2a. How long have you lived in [INSERT CITY]?

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 1 OR 8 Do you have any children under the age of 18?

YesCONTINUE

NoTHANK AND END

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

3a. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 1 Are any of these children currently in daycare or will likely be in daycare within the next 12 months?

Yes, they currently are in daycare CONTINUE

Yes, they will likely be in daycare within the next 12 months CONTINUE

No, they are not and will not be in daycare within the next 12 months CONTINUE

Not sure THANK AND END

ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF THOSE CURRENLTY IN DAYCARE (MAX 6) AND THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERING PUTTING THEIR CHILD IN DAYCARE WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS.

3b. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 8 Are any of these children in Junior Kindergarten to Grade 12?

YesCONTINUE

NoTHANK AND END

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND TERMINATE

3c. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 8 Could you please tell me which grade(s) this child/these children are in?

Child	Grade
1
2
3
4
5

ENSURE A GOOD MIX BY GRADE AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN EACH GROUP.

4. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 3 Which of the following best describes what you would do if a COVID-19 vaccine became available?

I have already gotten a COVID-19 vaccine THANK AND END

I would get the vaccine as soon as I became eligible for it THANK AND END

I will probably get the vaccine, but would want to wait a while CONTINUE – HESITATOR

I’m not sure if I would get the vaccine CONTINUE – HESITATOR

I would not get the vaccine THANK AND END

Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

5. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 4 In the past five months, have you received any of these benefits from the Government of Canada?

Employment Insurance (EI) CONTINUE

Canada Recovery BenefitCONTINUE

Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit CONTINUE

No, I am not receiving any of these benefits CONTINUE

Don’t know/Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF BENEFIT TYPE. AIM FOR AT LEAST ONE RECEIVING CRCB OR CRSB IN EACH GROUP.

6. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 5 Do you identify as Indigenous (First Nations, Métis or Inuit (Inuk))?

Don’t know/Prefer not to answer	THANK AND END
Yes	CONTINUE ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF DIFFERENT INDIGENOUS GROUPS.
No	THANK AND END

7. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 9 OR 11 Have you attended a social gathering or event outside your home in the last month?

YesCONTINUE TO Q.6a

NoSKIP TO Q.6b

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

6a. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 9 OR 11 Which of the following best describes your current situation?

I am only seeing those currently living in my household CONTINUE

I am seeing extended family from time to time CONTINUE – EXHIBITING RISKIER BEHAVIOURS

I am seeing friends and or neighbours from time to timeCONTINUE – EXHIBITING RISKIER BEHAVIOURS

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer THANK AND END

6b. ASK ONLY IF GROUP 9 OR 11 With COVID-19 restrictions having been in place for almost a year, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

I feel like I have made a lot of personal sacrifices in order to slow the spread of COVID-19.
I am tiring of having to continue to adhere to public health measures, like mask wearing and social distancing.
I don’t pay as much attention anymore to messages from public health and government officials about COVID-19.
I am tiring of having to avoid seeing extended family, friends and/or neighbours

Strongly agreeCOVID FATIGUED

Somewhat agree COVID FATIGUED

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer

IF STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT AGREE TO ONE OR MORE OF THE STATEMENTS ABOVE, THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED COVID FATIGUED.

ENSURE A MIX OF THOSE WHO ARE EXHIBIITNG RISKIER BEHAVIOURS (AT Q.6A) AND/OR COVID FATIGUED (AT Q.6B). BUT, NO MORE THAN 3 PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE ‘COVID FATIGUED’ ONLY (E.G., NOT EXHIBITING RISKIER BEHAVIOURS AT Q.6A, BUT SOMEWHAT/STRONGLY AGREE TO ANY AT Q.6B).

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

25-34
Under 18 years of age	IF POSSIBLE, ASK FOR SOMEONE OVER 18 AND REINTRODUCE. OTHERWISE THANK AND END.
18-24	IF HAMILTON-NIAGARA REGION = GROUP 6 ALL OTHER LOCATIONS, CONTINUE
31-44	IF HAMILTON-NIAGARA REGION = THANK AND END ALL OTHER LOCATIONS, CONTINUE
45-54
55+
VOLUNTEERED Prefer not to answer	THANK AND END

ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF AGES WITHIN EACH GROUP. PARENTS IN GROUP 1 & 8 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.

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

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 NO INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Retired ASK ‘WHAT SECTOR WERE YOU PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED IN’ AND RECORD

Other, please specify: ______________

CONTINUE FOR ALL. ENSURE A GOOD MIX BY TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EACH GROUP. NO MORE THAN TWO PER SECTOR.

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 would skilled are you 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. And on what topics were they?
TERMINATE IF ANY ON SIMILAR/SAME TOPIC

ADDITIONAL RECRUITING CRITERIA

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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 ($125 if in Quebec) 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: ____________________

French Recruiting Script

Bureau du Conseil privé

Questionnaire de recrutement — février 2021

Groupes en français

Résumé des consignes de recrutement

Groupes tenus en ligne.
Durée prévue de chaque rencontre : deux heures.
Recrutement de huit participants.
Incitatifs de 125 $ par personne, versés aux participants par transfert électronique après la rencontre.

Caractéristiques des groupes de discussion :

GROUPE	DATE	HEURE (DE L’EST)	LIEU	COMPOSITION DU GROUPE	MODÉRATEUR
2	3 février	18 h-20 h	Grandes villes et villes de taille moyenne du Québec	Personnes qui hésiteraient à se faire vacciner	M. Proulx
10	22 février	18 h-20 h	Grande région de Montréal – y compris Montréal même	Population générale	M. Proulx

Questionnaire de recrutement

INTRODUCTION

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

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

NOTER LA LANGUE ET CONTINUER

Anglais REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Français CONTINUER

Nous organisons, pour le compte du gouvernement du Canada, une série de groupes de discussion vidéo en ligne afin d’explorer des questions d’actualité qui intéressent les Canadiens.

La rencontre prendra la forme d’une table ronde animée par un modérateur expérimenté. Les participants recevront un montant d’argent en remerciement de leur temps.

Votre participation est entièrement volontaire et toutes vos réponses seront confidentielles. Nous aimerions simplement connaître vos opinions : personne n’essaiera de vous vendre quoi que ce soit ou de promouvoir des produits. Notre rapport sur cette série de groupes de discussion n’attribuera aucun commentaire à une personne en particulier.

Avant de vous inviter à participer, je dois vous poser quelques questions qui nous permettront de former des groupes suffisamment diversifiés. Puis-je vous poser quelques questions?

OuiCONTINUER

NonREMERCIER ET CONCLURE

QUESTIONS DE SÉLECTION

1. Est-ce que vous ou une personne de votre ménage avez travaillé pour l’un des types d’organisations suivants au cours des cinq dernières années?

Une société d’études de marché REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Une agence de commercialisation, de marque ou de publicité REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Un magazine ou un journal REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Un ministère ou un organisme gouvernemental fédéral, provincial ou territorial REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Un parti politique REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Dans les relations publiques ou les relations avec les médias REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Dans le milieu de la radio ou de la télévision REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Non, aucune de ces réponses CONTINUER

1a. POUR TOUS LES LIEUX : Êtes-vous un ou une employé(e) retraité(e) du gouvernement du Canada ?

OuiREMERCIER ET CONCLURE

NonCONTINUER

2. Quelle langue parlez-vous le plus souvent à la maison ?

Anglais REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Français CONTINUER

Autre [Préciser ou non la langue, selon les besoins de l'étude] REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Préfère ne pas répondre REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

3. Dans quelle ville habitez-vous ?

LIEU	VILLES
Grandes villes et villes de taille moyenne du Québec	Ces villes peuvent notamment comprendre : Pour les grandes villes : Montréal, Gatineau, Québec, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Chicoutimi – Jonquière Pour les villes de taille moyenne : Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Saint-Jérôme, Chateauguay, Drummondville, Granby, Beloeil, Saint-Hyacinthe ASSURER UNE BONNE REPRÉSENTATION DES VILLES DE LA RÉGION. PAS PLUS DE DEUX PARTICIPANTS PAR VILLE. RECRUTER QUATRE PERSONNES POUR LES GRANDES VILLES ET QUATRE PERSONNES POUR LES VILLES DE TAILLE MOYENNE.	CONTINUER - GROUPE 2
Grande région de Montréal (GRM) – y compris Montréal même	Les villes de la GRM peuvent notamment comprendre : Montréal, Laval, Longueuil, Terrebonne, Brossard, Saint-Jérôme, Blainville, Mirabel, Dollard-des-Ormeaux PAS PLUS DE DEUX PARTICIPANTS DE LA VILLE DE MONTRÉAL. ASSURER UNE BONNE REPRÉSENTATION DES VILLES DANS CHAQUE LIEU.	CONTINUER - GROUPE 10
Autre lieu	-	REMERCIER ET CONCLURE
RÉPONSE SPONTANÉE Préfère ne pas répondre	-	REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

3a. Depuis combien de temps habitez-vous à [INSÉRER LE NOM DE LA VILLE]?

Moins de deux ans	REMERCIER ET CONCLURE
Deux ans ou plus	CONTINUER
Ne sais pas/Préfère ne pas répondre	REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

ASSURER UNE BONNE REPRÉSENTATION EN FONCTION DU NOMBRE D’ANNÉES DE RÉSIDENCE DANS LA VILLE. PAS PLUS DE DEUX PAR GROUPE DOIVENT Y VIVRE DEPUIS MOINS DE 5 ANS.

4. DEMANDER UNIQUEMENT AU GROUPE 2 Lequel des énoncés suivants décrit le mieux ce que vous feriez si un vaccin contre la COVID-19 devenait disponible?

J’ai déjà reçu un vaccin contre la COVID-19 REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Je me ferais vacciner dès que je serais admissible REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Je me ferais probablement vacciner, mais je préférerais attendre un certain temps CONTINUER

Je ne suis pas sûr que je me ferais vacciner CONTINUER

Je ne me ferais pas vacciner REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Préfère ne pas répondre REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

5. Seriez-vous prêt/prête à m’indiquer votre tranche d’âge dans la liste suivante?

25 à 34
Moins de 18 ans	SI POSSIBLE, DEMANDER À PARLER À UNE PERSONNE DE 18 ANS OU PLUS ET REFAIRE L’INTRODUCTION. SINON, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE.
18 à 24	CONTINUER ASSURER UNE BONNE REPRÉSENTATION DES ÂGES DANS CHAQUE GROUPE.
35 à 44
45 à 54
55 ans ou plus
RÉPONSE SPONTANÉE Préfère ne pas répondre	REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

6. [NE PAS DEMANDER] Sexe NOTER SELON VOTRE OBSERVATION.

Homme

Femme

ASSURER UNE PROPORTION ÉGALE D’HOMMES ET DE FEMMES DANS CHAQUE GROUPE.

7. Parmi les choix suivants, lequel décrit le mieux le secteur d’activité dans lequel vous travaillez ?

Administrations publiques

Agriculture, foresterie, pêche et chasse

Arts, spectacle et loisirs

Autres services, sauf les administrations publiques

Commerce de détail

Commerce de gros

Construction

Extraction minière, exploitation en carrière, et extraction de pétrole et de gaz

Fabrication

Finance et assurances

Gestion de sociétés et d'entreprises

Hébergement et services de restauration

Industrie de l'information et industrie culturelle

Services administratifs, services de soutien, services de gestion des déchets et services

d'assainissement

Services d'enseignement

Services immobiliers et services de location et de location à bail

Services professionnels, scientifiques et techniques

Services publics

Soins de santé et assistance sociale

Transport et entreposage

Sans emploi

Aux études à temps plein PAS D’ÉTUDIANTS ÉTRANGERS

À la retraite – DEMANDER : « DANS QUEL SECTEUR TRAVAILLIEZ-VOUS AVANT? » ET NOTER LA RÉPONSE

Autre situation ou autre secteur ; veuillez préciser : ______________

CONTINUER POUR TOUS LES RÉPONDANTS. ASSURER UNE BONNE REPRÉSENTATION DES TYPES D’EMPLOI DANS CHAQUE GROUPE. PAS PLUS DE DEUX RÉPONDANTS PAR SECTEUR D’ACTIVITÉ.

8. Est-ce que vous connaissez le concept du « groupe de discussion »?

OuiCONTINUER

NonEXPLIQUER QUE : « un groupe de discussion se compose de six à huit participants et d’un modérateur. Au cours d’une période de deux heures, les participants sont invités à discuter d’un éventail de questions reliées au sujet abordé ».

9. Dans le cadre du groupe de discussion, on vous demandera de participer activement à une conversation. En pensant à la manière dont vous interagissez lors de discussions en groupe, quelle note vous donneriez-vous sur une échelle de 1 à 5 si 1 signifie « j’ai tendance à ne pas intervenir et à écouter les autres parler » et 5, « je suis habituellement une des premières personnes à parler » ?

1-2REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

3-5CONTINUER

10. Étant donné que ce groupe se réunira en ligne, vous aurez besoin, pour participer, d’un accès Internet haut débit et d’un ordinateur muni d’une caméra Web, d’un microphone et d’un haut-parleur en bon état de marche. CONFIRMER LES POINTS CI-DESSOUS. METTRE FIN À L’APPEL SI NON À L’UN DES TROIS.

Le participant a accès à Internet haut débit

Le participant a un ordinateur avec caméra Web

11. Avez-vous utilisé des logiciels de réunion en ligne tels que Zoom, Webex, Microsoft Teams, Google Hangouts/Meet, etc., au cours des deux dernières années ?

OuiCONTINUER

NonCONTINUER

12. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5 où 1 signifie que vous n’êtes pas du tout habile et 5 que vous êtes très habile, comment évaluez-vous votre capacité à utiliser seul(e) les plateformes de réunion en ligne ?

1-2REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

3-5CONTINUER

13. Au cours de la discussion, vous pourriez devoir lire ou visionner du matériel affiché à l’écran, ou faire des exercices en ligne comme ceux qu’on trouve dans les sondages. On vous demandera aussi de participer activement à la discussion en ligne à l’aide d’une caméra Web. Pensez-vous avoir de la difficulté, pour une raison ou une autre, à lire les documents ou à participer à la discussion par vidéo?
CONCLURE L’ENTRETIEN SI LE RÉPONDANT SIGNALE UN PROBLÈME DE VISION OU D’AUDITION, UN PROBLÈME DE LANGUE PARLÉE OU ÉCRITE, S’IL CRAINT DE NE POUVOIR COMMUNIQUER EFFICACEMENT, SI L’UTILISATION D’UNE CAMÉRA WEB LUI POSE PROBLÈME, OU SI VOUS, EN TANT QU’INTERVIEWEUR, AVEZ DES DOUTES QUANT À SA CAPACITÉ DE PARTICIPER EFFICACEMENT AUX DISCUSSIONS.

14. Avez-vous déjà participé à un groupe de discussion, à une entrevue ou à un sondage organisé à l’avance en contrepartie d’une somme d’argent?

Oui CONTINUER

Non PASSER À LA Q.18

15. À quand remonte le dernier groupe de discussion auquel vous avez participé ?

À moins de six mois,REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

À plus de six mois, CONTINUER

16. À combien de groupes de discussion avez-vous participé au cours des cinq dernières années?

0 à 4 groupes, CONTINUER

5 groupes ou plus REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

17. Et sur quels sujets portaient-ils?
METTRE FIN À L’ENTRETIEN SI LES SUJETS ÉTAIENT LES MÊMES OU SEMBLABLES

CRITÈRES DE RECRUTEMENT SUPPLÉMENTAIRES

Il me reste quelques dernières questions avant de vous donner les détails du groupe de discussion, comme l’heure et la date.

18. Quel est le niveau de scolarité le plus élevé que vous avez atteint ?

École primaire

Études secondaires partielles

Diplôme d’études secondaires ou l’équivalent

Certificat ou diplôme d’apprenti inscrit ou d’une école de métiers

Certificat ou diplôme d’un collège, cégep ou autre établissement non universitaire

Certificat ou diplôme universitaire inférieur au baccalauréat

Baccalauréat

Diplôme d’études supérieur au baccalauréat

RÉPONSE SPONTANÉE : Préfère ne pas répondre

ASSURER UN BON MÉLANGE.

19. Laquelle des catégories suivantes décrit le mieux le revenu annuel total de votre ménage en 2019— c’est-à-dire le revenu cumulatif de l’ensemble des membres de votre ménage avant impôt?

Moins de 20 000 $

20 000 $ à moins de 40 000 $

40 000 $ à moins de 60 000 $

60 000 $ à moins de 80 000 $

80 000 $ à moins de 100 000 $

100 000 $ à moins de 150 000 $

150 000 $ ou plus

RÉPONSE SPONTANÉE : Préfère ne pas répondre

ASSURER UN BON MÉLANGE.

20. La discussion sera enregistrée sur bandes audio et vidéo, strictement aux fins de la recherche. Les enregistrements aideront nos chercheurs à rédiger leur rapport. Est-ce que vous consentez à ce qu’on vous enregistre sur bandes audio et vidéo?

Oui

Non REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

INVITATION

J’aimerais vous inviter à ce groupe de discussion en ligne, qui aura lieu le [DONNER LA DATE ET L’HEURE EN FONCTION DU NO DE GROUPE INDIQUÉ DANS LE TABLEAU, PAGE 1]. La discussion durera deux heures et vous recevrez 125 $ pour votre participation. Ce montant vous sera envoyé par transfert électronique après la tenue du groupe de discussion.

Veuillez noter que des observateurs du gouvernement du Canada pourraient être présents au groupe et que la discussion sera enregistrée sur bande vidéo. En acceptant de participer, vous donnez votre consentement à ces modalités.

Est-ce que vous accepteriez de participer ?

OuiCONTINUER

NonREMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Puis-je avoir votre nom complet, le numéro de téléphone où vous êtes le plus facile à joindre et votre adresse électronique, si vous en avez une, pour vous envoyer les détails au sujet du groupe?

Nom :

Numéro de téléphone :

Adresse courriel :

Vous recevrez un courrier électronique du Strategic Counsel expliquant comment rejoindre le groupe en ligne. Si la connexion au système vous pose des difficultés, veuillez en aviser notre équipe de soutien technique à : support@thestrategiccounsel.com.

Nous vous prions de vous mettre en ligne au moins 15 minutes avant l’heure prévue, afin d’avoir le temps de vous installer et d’obtenir l’aide de notre équipe de soutien en cas de problèmes techniques. Veuillez également redémarrer votre ordinateur avant de vous joindre au groupe.

Vous pourriez devoir lire des documents au cours de la discussion. Si vous utilisez des lunettes, assurez-vous de les avoir à portée de main durant la rencontre. Vous aurez également besoin d’un stylo et de papier pour prendre des notes.

Ce rendez-vous est un engagement ferme. Si vous pensez ne pas pouvoir participer pour des raisons personnelles ou professionnelles, veuillez m’en aviser dès maintenant et nous conserverons votre nom pour une étude ultérieure. Enfin, si jamais vous n’êtes pas en mesure de participer, veuillez nous prévenir le plus rapidement possible au [1-800-xxx-xxxx] pour que nous puissions trouver quelqu’un pour vous remplacer.

Merci de votre temps.

RECRUTEMENT FAIT PAR : ____________________

DATE DU RECRUTEMENT : __________________

Appendix B – Discussion Guides

English Moderators Guide

MODERATOR’S GUIDE – February 2021

MASTER

INTRODUCTION (10 minutes) All Locations

Moderator or technician should let participants know that they will need pen and paper in order to take some notes, jot down some thoughts around some material that we will show them later in the discussion.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IN THE NEWS (5-15 minutes) All Locations

What have you seen, read or heard about the Government of Canada in the last few days?
Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours FOR OTHER MENTIONS RELATED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: Have others heard about this? What have you heard?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant Have you heard anything about the Government of Canada’s recent announcement regarding travel regulations?
- What have you heard? Have others heard about this?

GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant CLARIFY:
The Government of Canada recently announced that travelers returning to Canada will be required to undergo a mandatory PCR test (e.g. the nasal swab for COVID-19) at the airport; this is in addition to the pre-boarding test already required. While they wait for their test results, they must quarantine for up to three days at a designated hotel at their own expense. Those with negative test results will then be able to quarantine at home under significantly increased surveillance and enforcement. Those with positive tests will be immediately required to quarantine in designated government facilities to make sure they are not carrying variants of potential concern. Furthermore, Air Canada, WestJet, Sunwing and Air Transat have all agreed to cancel air services to all Caribbean destinations and Mexico, starting on Sunday, January 31, until April 30.

GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant What are your thoughts about these new regulations?
- Do you think these new regulations make sense, go too far, or not far enough?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant FOR OTHER MENTIONS RELATED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: Have others heard about this? What have you heard?

COVID-19 OUTLOOK (15-40 minutes) GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours

Now, I’d like to talk about COVID-19…

Have you changed your behaviour in the last few weeks? What are you doing differently now compared to a couple of months ago?
- What have you done?
- IF YES: Why are you doing these things more?
- IF NO: Why haven’t you changed your behaviour?
How have COVID-19 and COVID-related restrictions impacted you?
- GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare How has this impacted you and your family?
- GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare Has it been hard on your kids?
- GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare Has it been hard on you as a parent?
- How does it compare to restrictions last spring – is it harder, easier, or about the same now? What makes you say that?
When it comes to how the Government of Canada has performed during the pandemic, what are some things you think they have been doing well lately?
- What makes you say that?
- What could they be doing better?
Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours When we invited you to this session, some of you said you have recently attended a social gathering or event outside your home recently and/or are seeing friends, neighbours or extended family from time to time. What made you decide to have contact with individuals outside your household?
- Do you have any concerns about socializing with others?

Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours Some of you also said you’re tiring of having to continue to adhere to public health measures, or you’re not paying attention anymore about public health advice, or that you’re getting tired of having to avoid seeing people…

Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours What do you find tiring or difficult about following public health advice?
- PROMPT AS NEEDED: Are you concerned about impacts on you, your families, your community, businesses due to COVID-19? How so?
- Do you have any concerns about mental health impacts for those in your social circles or your community?
Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours Do you think that there should continue to be restrictions in place at the moment, or do you think people should be able to get together now, go to restaurants together, etc.? What makes you say that?
- IF RESTRICTIONS: What kinds of restrictions do you think should be in place? Would you follow these? Why/why not?

COVID-19 VACCINE (20 minutes) GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours

Now I’d like to focus on COVID-19 vaccines …

GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours Do you plan on getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to you, or not? What makes you say that?
- (FOR THOSE WHO ARE HESITANT) What are the factors that will influence your decision on whether or not to get vaccinated?
Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant When we asked you to participate in this focus group, we asked whether you thought you would get vaccinated or not. Some of you said you would, but you preferred to wait, and others of you said you were unsure. Is this still the case? Why/why not?
- (FOR THOSE WHO ARE HESITANT) What are the factors that will influence your decision on whether or not to get vaccinated?
Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant What question about COVID-19 vaccines would you most like an answer to?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children Do you think that the Government of Canada is doing a good job in procuring and distributing the vaccine to provinces and territories, or not?
- Why do you think that?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant Canada has received over 1 million vaccine doses to date. Is this more or less than you thought, or about what you thought?
- Does this change the way you feel about the Government of Canada’s vaccine rollout?
Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children We were just talking about how you feel about Canada’s vaccine roll-out so far. When you look back on it in a few years, how will you ultimately judge the effectiveness of Canada’s vaccine roll-out?
- PROMPT AS NEEDED: for example will you base it on how smooth the process was, how quickly we were able to vaccinate vulnerable people, how soon we finished vaccinating everyone that wanted the vaccine, how quickly you personally got vaccinated, how Canada compared to other countries, or something else?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children Compared to other countries, how is Canada as a whole doing in terms of getting people vaccinated?
- Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children (IF WORSE) Why do you think Canada has done worse than other countries?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children Canada is planning to vaccinate 3 million Canadians by the end of March and everyone who wants a vaccine by the end of September. How many of you were aware of this target?
- Do you think this is a reasonable target?
- Do you think Canada will hit this target? What makes you say that?
- Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children Is there anything you could see or hear that would make you more confident that Canada will hit these targets?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children When do you think you personally will be in a position to receive a vaccine?

CHILDCARE (30 minutes) GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children

GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare Now, I’d like to shift over to discussing childcare, and I would like you to think back to your situation prior to the pandemic, not how things are at the moment. So with this in mind…

Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant Now I’d like to shift over to discussing childcare. Whether or not you currently have or have previously had a child in daycare we want to ask you the following questions based on your understanding of childcare prior to the pandemic, not how things are at the moment.

Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children Now, I’d like to shift over to discussing childcare. Whether or not you currently have or have previously had a child in daycare, we want to ask you the following questions based on your understanding of childcare prior to the pandemic, not how things are at the moment. So with this in mind…

GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children How do you feel about childcare services in your area?
Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant What are your thoughts about childcare services in your area?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children What could be improved?
Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant Do you think it could be improved?
- PROMPT AS NECESSARY: shorter waiting lists, quality of childcare, lower cost, more convenient locations? Something else?
Are you aware of any Government of Canada plans regarding childcare?

CLARIFY:
The Government of Canada has said that it wants to make significant, long-term, sustained investment to create a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system, including further support for Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care.

What do you think about this?
Do you think it’s important that the Government of Canada invests in childcare, or not? What makes you say that?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children FOR THOSE WHO THINK IT’S IMPORTANT: Some people, such as those who don’t have kids, may feel that the Government of Canada should not be investing more in childcare, when it is currently running a large deficit. What would you say to them in response?
- That is, what kinds of points would you raise to explain the benefits of investing more in childcare?
Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant FOR THOSE WHO THINK IT’S IMPORTANT: Some people may feel that the Government of Canada should not be investing more in childcare when it is currently running a large deficit. What do you think about these concerns? Do they resonate with you?

Now I’m going to show you some potential reasons to invest more in childcare (SHOW ITEMS ON SCREEN THEN DISCUSS):

a) Childcare is important since it allows more women to enter the workforce
b) Childcare grows the economy because it allows more people to work
c) More childcare spaces mean less financial pressures on hard working middle class families

What do you think of these? Are any of these compelling reasons? What makes you say that?
Which of these reasons do you find the MOST compelling? What makes you say that?
Now that I’ve shown you some reasons, can you think of any others that support investing more in childcare in Canada?

Now, I’m going to show you two different messages regarding childcare to see what you think about them and which you prefer. SHOW ITEMS ON SCREEN THEN DISCUSS.

1. Investing in accessible, high-quality, affordable and inclusive childcare is not only good for families, it makes good economic sense.
2. High quality, affordable childcare is not a luxury, it is a necessity. That is why we are creating a national system that will cut costs and create more spaces.

Which one of these messages resonates more with you? Why?

GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children I’m going to show you some possible things the Government of Canada could do as part of its plan for a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system. We’re going to read them over, and then proceed to a poll. SHOW ITEMS ON SCREEN FIRST. RUN POLL. Now, please select which one you think should be the Government of Canada’s target.

- Cutting the cost of childcare by $5,000 a year by next year, and eventually cutting it by $7,500.
- Cutting the cost of childcare in half to start, and eventually reducing it by 75%.
- Putting a cap of $20 a day on childcare costs next year, and eventually lowering it to $10 a day.

GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children NOTE TO MODERATOR: After the vote, please discuss why they made that decision.
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children Which of these would help you the most? Why is that?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children Are these realistic targets?
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children If the Government of Canada were to cut the costs by $5,000, would it be better if a rebate was sent to parents for this OR should they find a way to make sure that the actual costs that are charged by the daycare provider go down? Or does it not matter to you, as long as actual costs go down?

PUBLIC TRANSIT (15 minutes) GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Major Centres Atlantic Canada

On a very different topic, I just have a few questions about public transit.

By a show of hands, how many of you used public transit before the pandemic?
- Now, how many of you currently use public transit?
IF USE/USED PUBLIC TRANSIT: For those of you who used to use it, or still do, what do you use it for? (for example, going to work, getting groceries, etc.)
Should the Government of Canada invest in public transit?
- What would be the biggest reason to invest in it?
  - PROBE AS NECESSARY: what about it being environmentally friendly? What about as a kind of stimulus now to create jobs for building/expanding transit infrastructure? What about making getting around more convenient for people?)
GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare Are you aware of any Government of Canada investments in the Greater Vancouver Area in recent years?
Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant Are you aware of any Government of Canada investments in Quebec in recent years?
Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours Are you aware of any Government of Canada investments in B.C. in recent years?
Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours Are you aware of any Government of Canada investments and around your community (K-W) or the region (Southwestern Ontario) in recent years?
Major Centres Atlantic Canada Are you aware of any Government of Canada investments in Atlantic Canada in recent years?
What do you think the biggest transit needs are for this region?

HOMELESSNESS (15 minutes) Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant

Now, I would like to change the topic and focus our attention on homelessness.

Do you think that there is a problem with homelessness in Canada? What makes you say that?
Has homelessness become worse recently? Or better? The same?
What can the Government of Canada do to help tackle the issue of homelessness in Canada?
Do you think it’s realistic to try to end homelessness in the next 10 years?
- Or, would it be more feasible if the Government of Canada aimed at reducing it by 50%?

I’m going to show you a couple of statements that could be used by the Government of Canada as general messaging regarding the issue of homelessness in Canada. We’re going to read them over, and then proceed to a poll. SHOW STATEMENTS ON SCREEN FIRST. RUN POLL. Now, please select which one would be the more appropriate type of messaging for the federal government on the issue of homelessness.

- Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home
- One homeless person in Canada is one too many
- In a country such as Canada, no one should live on the street

NOTE TO MODERATOR: After the vote, please discuss why they made that decision.

ONLINE HATE (30 minutes) Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults

We’re going to shift our focus again, to online conversations.
When you think about online conversations, such as social media posts on Facebook or Twitter, do you think that people should be allowed to say whatever they want online, or should there be limits to what they can say?
Now, I’m going to show you a list of issues and we’ll then proceed to a poll to see which ones, if any, you think are major problems in Canada. SHOW STATEMENTS ON SCREEN. RUN POLL. Please select up to three choices maximum. If you don’t think any are a major problem, then do not select any. We will then discuss your selections.

- Child sexual exploitation
- Hate speech
- Incitement to violence
- Private images being shared without permission
- Radicalization
- Terrorist propaganda

How concerned are you, if at all, about these issues happening online?
Do these issues affect you personally (or your children)?
- Are they more issues you see in society as a whole? (or both)
Do you think more online regulation is needed?
- IF YES: Does the Government of Canada have a role to play to address these issues? Or, is it the responsibility of social media companies themselves?

TALLY BY SHOW OF HANDS:

I’m going to show you a list of possible things the Government of Canada could potentially do. Then, I will ask you to tell me which one you think should be the Government of Canada’s top priority. If you don’t think the federal government should do any of these things, please let me know.
- Ask social media companies to increase their own monitoring
- Increase law enforcement monitoring online of things that are illegal under current laws
- Regulate social media companies so that there are rules on what needs to be taken down
Moderator to discuss participants’ selections.
- How many chose (Moderator to work through each option)? Why did you choose this over the others as the top priority?
- How many did not select any of the options? Why? Is there something else they should do instead?
- I did ask you to select your top priority. But, do you feel they should do all of these things? Alternatively, are there any that you think they should not do? Why?

TALLY BY SHOW OF HANDS:

Now, I’m going to show you a list of possible things social media companies could potentially do. Then, I will ask you to tell me which one you think should be their top priority. Again, if you don’t think they should do any of these things, please let me know.
- Add more filters to help users identify illegal or otherwise harmful content
- Create stricter penalties for repeat abusers, including denying access to the platform
- Get rid of trolls and bots
- Provide more transparency of who the repeat abusers are
Moderator to discuss participants’ selections.
- How many chose (Moderator to work through each option)? Why did you choose this over the others as the top priority?
- How many did not select any of the options? Why? Is there something else they should do instead?
- I did ask you to select your top priority. But, do you feel they should do all of these things? Alternatively, are there any that you think they should not do? Why?
Which of these two options comes closer to your view (SHOW OPTIONS ON SCREEN. TALLY BY SHOW OF HANDS):
- There should not be increased regulation of social media platforms, even if it means things like hate speech or incitement to violence may harm people
- There should be increased regulation of social media platforms, even if it means legitimate material may occasionally be flagged and/or removed

CERB REPAYMENT (20 minutes) Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients

Now I’d like to shift a bit to talking about financial support…

How do you think the Government of Canada has performed during the pandemic, specifically in terms of providing financial support to people affected by COVID-19?
- What makes you say that?
Do you think that the Government of Canada is doing as good a job now as they did at the start of the pandemic, or are they doing better or worse?
- Please explain.
Have you heard any discussion about the repayment of the CERB for those who received it by mistake?
- What have you heard?
Thinking about your personal tax return, do you think you will have to pay taxes on the CERB?

FOR THOSE WHO ANTICIPATE HAVING TO PAY TAXES ON IT:

What kind of impact will this have on you?
- Are any of you concerned that it will leave you in a difficult financial situation?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED

CERB amounts are taxable, just like EI. You will need to report the amounts from your T4A tax information slip on your 2020 tax return.

Do you think that anyone who has to pay taxes on the CERB should be given a longer repayment window, or do you think it should be treated the same as any tax amounts owed? What makes you say that?

TOXINS (25 minutes) Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, GMA, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Major Centres Atlantic Canada

Now I’d like to move to a different topic…

What are the biggest environmental priorities do you think the Government of Canada should focus on?
- What about chemicals and toxins? Is this a concern to you? Why/why not?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED
Toxins are harmful substances produced by some plants, animals and bacteria – arsenic is an example. There are also synthetic, human-made, toxic chemicals – rat poison is an example.

What are you more concerned about: chemicals and toxins in the air and water, or toxic chemicals in some household products?
When thinking about chemicals and toxins what do you consider to be the biggest problem:
- the impact of chemicals or toxins on the environment more broadly
- the impact on your health
- the impact on the health of people who live in communities in certain parts of Canada
You may not know much about current laws, but is your general sense that Canada’s laws on chemicals and toxins are appropriate, should they be strengthened, or relaxed?
(IF SHOULD BE MADE STRONGER) Whenever the government bans or regulates certain chemicals and toxins, it could mean that there are new costs for businesses. This could result in more expensive products for consumers. Is this a concern for you?
I want to talk about one specific example. There are some chemicals in furniture that aren’t harmful except when they burn. For example, if there is a house fire, these could be harmful to people or firefighters. Should these be banned (even if it means furniture becomes quite expensive) or is this a rare enough situation that it’s not a big concern for you?
POLL: Here are a few different things the government could focus on with respect to chemicals and toxins. Please pick the one you think should be the biggest priority:
- Banning some chemicals so that companies need to use less harmful ones
- Ensuring people who work in workplaces with chemicals are safe
- Providing more information on labels about chemicals in household products
- Using new science to better understand the impact on our health of our every-day exposure to several chemicals
Why did you pick the one you did?
PROBE: On the topic of labels, do you think the current level of labelling about chemicals in household products is appropriate?
- Is it something you currently look at when making purchases?
When it comes to new laws around chemicals, should the government work with businesses to encourage them to make changes or do they need to lay down firm bans on certain products?

ENVIRONMENT (20 minutes)Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, GMA, Major Centres Atlantic Canada

I’d like to talk about other environmental issues now…

Have you heard anything about the Government of Canada’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030?
- IF YES: What did you hear?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED
The Government of Canada has proposed measures aimed to help Canada cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and get the country to net-zero emissions by 2050. One of the measures includes helping Canadian businesses invest in more efficient and cost-effective technologies that both improve their operations and their bottom line.

I will show you a list of possible names the Government of Canada might use to frame its plan to help businesses reduce their carbon emissions. We will then go over them to discuss which ones you preferred and why.

SHOW ON SCREEN:

- A strategy to help businesses cut pollution
- A strategy to help sectors across our economy cut pollution
- Clean industrial strategy
- Low-carbon industrial strategy
- Strategy for cleaner industry

POLL: Which one do you feel would be most effective name to frame the Government of Canada’s plan to help businesses reduce their carbon emissions?

Moderator to go through poll results and get reasons for selections
Do you have any suggestions that you think would be more effective?

INDIGENOUS ISSUES (30 minutes) Quebec Indigenous Peoples

I’d now like to shift our attention to Indigenous issues.

What important Indigenous issues do you think the Government of Canada should focus on?
Has the Government of Canada done anything well?
What can they improve on?
Have you heard of UNDRIP (the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)?

SHOW ON SCREEN
UNDRIP is an international document adopted by the United Nations in 2007 that lays out the basic rights that Indigenous peoples should have around the world. It outlines how governments should respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

UNDRIP consists of 46 articles that describe specific rights and actions that governments must take to protect these rights. The main themes in the declaration are:

- The right to self-determination
- The right to cultural identity
- The right to free, prior and informed consent (i.e. the right to be consulted and make decisions on any matter that may affect the rights of Indigenous peoples)
- Protection from discrimination

Have you heard anything recently about how the Government of Canada has responded to UNDRIP? What have you heard?

CLARIFY AS NECESSARY
The Government of Canada recently introduced legislation to implement UNDRIP.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this will change anything? What makes you say that?

I’d now like to talk about drinking water for a bit…

Have you heard about the Government of Canada’s efforts to lift long-term drinking water advisories on reserves?

I’m going to show you an infographic about the work being done by the federal government to lift long-term drinking water advisories and I will ask you for your opinion about it afterwards.

SHOW ON SCREEN
Show the infographic ‘Long-term drinking water advisories on public systems on reserves’

What are your first reactions?
Now that you’ve seen this, how would you rate the progress the Government of Canada has made on this issue? Would you say they’ve made a lot of progress, a bit, none, or have they made things worse?
Have you heard anything about what the Government of Canada’s timeline is for lifting all long-term drinking water advisories?

SHOW ON SCREEN
The Government of Canada recently announced that it would not meet its target of March 2021 as originally planned. In addition to the $2.19 billion already budgeted for ending long-term drinking water advisories, the government announced another $1.5 billion to finish the work. This new money is for ongoing support for daily operations and maintenance of water infrastructure on reserves, continued funding for water and wastewater infrastructure on reserves, and to pay for work halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other project delays

What are your thoughts on this?
What do you think is a reasonable timeline?

COVID ALERT APP QR CODE POSTER TESTING (30 minutes) Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults

Has anyone heard of the Government of Canada’s COVID Alert App?

CLARIFY: Back in the summer, the Government of Canada developed a smartphone app that would notify its users if they have been physically close to someone who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 using Bluetooth technology.

Have any of you downloaded this app?

Health Canada is working on improving the use of this app, specifically in light of reopening the economy. I’m going to show you some posters that could be used by businesses to hang in the entrances of their shops. They will contain a QR code, a type of square matrix barcode that is machine readable and contains information about the item. If you’ve been to a restaurant before the recent lockdown, you may have seen it at the entrance where you have to take a picture of it/scan it to view the menu on your phone.

People who have already downloaded the COVID Alert App would be able to scan the QR code upon entering a business.

SHOW POSTER #1:

What are your initial thoughts about this poster?
Does it grab your attention?
Is it clear about what you should do, and why you should do it?

Now I’m going to show you another version

SHOW POSTER #2:

What are your initial thoughts about this version?
Does it grab your attention?
Is it clear about what you should do, and why you should do it?

Now I’m going to show you a third version

SHOW POSTER #3:

What are your initial thoughts about this version?
Does it grab your attention?
Is it clear about what you should do, and why you should do it?

Now I’m going to show the same posters again side by side to go through some of the differences between them and get your thoughts:

SHOW POSTERS TOGETHER ON SCREEN

The colour schemes are different on each poster. Which do you think is most effective? What makes you say that?
- PROMPT AS NEEDED: Does it catch your eye? Does it make you feel a certain way?
The message at the top is different on each poster – did you notice this?
Which one do you think works best? What makes you say that?
- Scan a place. Slow the spread.
- Help make contact tracing easier.
- Check in to get exposure notifications.
The Government of Canada logos appear at the top of the first poster and at the bottom of the other two – did you notice this?
Which do you prefer, or does it not make a difference to you? Why/Why not?
- Does one placement make the poster look more credible than another? Why/why not?
The name and address of the business appears subtly below the QR code in the first poster and more prominently beside it in the other two posters – did you notice this?
Which do you prefer, or does it not make a difference to you? Why/Why not?
Is this information important in your decision of whether or not to scan the QR code?
The text at the bottom is bolded in some instances and not in others – did you notice this?
Does this draw your attention to this section of the poster?
The text ‘Scan a place’ is underlined on Options 1 and 3 – did you notice this?
- Does this help emphasize what the desired action is?
- Do you prefer it with or without the underline or does it not make a difference?
For those who have downloaded the app: would you scan it? Why/why not?
For those who have not downloaded the app: would you download it so that you could use it for things like this? Why/why not?

CLARIFY AS NEEDED:
People who have already downloaded the COVID Alert App would be able to scan the QR code upon entering a business. Should an outbreak be identified at that business, a public health employee could log-in and issue a notification to anybody who checked in there within a specific time frame.

Do you think this initiative will help stop the spread of COVID-19? Why/why not?

AD TESTING (SUCCESS CHECK) (20 minutes) Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours

I’m now going to show you an ad campaign that is currently being developed by the Government of Canada for possible advertising regarding COVID-19.

You will notice that it may not be in the finished form. We will view the video and then I will ask you a few questions about it.

Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children order: 1, 3
Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours order: 3, 1

SHOW OPT 1 VIDEO

What are your initial thoughts about this ad? What makes you say that?
What is the main message of this ad?
Does this ad make you rethink your behaviours? Why/why not?
- Now I’m going to replay the ad and I want you to focus on the music…

SHOW OPT 1 VIDEO AGAIN (OPT 3)

What do you think of it? How does it make you feel?

I’m now going to show you the same ad, but with different music…

SHOW ALTERNATE VERSION

What do you think of this music? How does it make you feel?
Which of the two music tracks do you think is more effective? What makes you say that?

FIREARMS (15 minutes) GMA, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours

Have you seen, read or heard about the Government of Canada’s new firearms measures?
- What have you heard?

CLARIFY:
In May 2020, The Government of Canada prohibited over 1,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms. A two-year amnesty period has been in place since that time to give people who already own specific targeted firearms enough time to comply with the ban. The Government of Canada has now introduced new legislation that includes a buy-back program for these barred firearms. The legislation also allows municipalities to ban handguns, and increases criminal penalties for gun smuggling trafficking.

What do you think about these new measures?

CLARIFY:
The buy-back program will be finalized in the coming months, but essentially it is intended to prevent barred firearms from being bequeathed (given to someone after death) or sold to others. Owners who choose not to participate in the buy-back program and keep their firearms will have to abide by strict conditions: they will have to agree not to use the weapons, not to import or acquire any more of them, and not to bequeath or sell them.

Do you think that this new buy-back program will be successful in getting guns off the streets?
Do you think those who own barred firearms will mostly turn them in, or mostly keep them?
Which do you think would be a better approach:
- The buy-back approach I just described
- A mandatory buy-back program, where those who own barred firearms must participate (i.e. no option to keep these firearms under strict conditions)

MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES (15 minutes) GMA, Major Centres Atlantic Canada

Have you read or heard anything about changes to mandatory minimum penalties?
- What have you heard?

CLARIFY:
The Government of Canada has proposed amendments to repeal mandatory minimum penalties for more than a dozen offences, including for all drug offences, certain offences involving the use and possession of firearms and a tobacco-related offence. Mandatory minimum penalties would remain in place for serious offences, such as murder, sexual offences, and some firearm offences.

What do you think about this?
What impact, if any, do you think removing certain mandatory minimum penalties on certain crimes will be?

RUN TWO POLLS: We’re going to go over four statements. I will then ask you to identify which ones make you feel better (if any) and which ones make you feel worse (if any) about the Government of Canada’s approach. You can select as many or as few as you like:

- The Government of Canada has proposed removing mandatory minimum penalties on less serious offences, but increasing maximum sentences on more serious gun crimes like trafficking.
- These changes will give judges more discretion in handing out appropriate sentences that fit the circumstances of the crime.
- Mandatory minimum penalties have tended to clog up the court system and the justice system since no one ever wanted to plead guilty to these crimes and thus avoid a trial.
- Mandatory minimum penalties disproportionately affect Indigenous and racialized Canadians.

FRENCH LANGUAGE (15 minutes) GMA, Major Centres Atlantic Canada

Have you read or heard anything about the Government of Canada’s recent proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act?
- What have you heard?

Last week, the Government of Canada proposed certain amendments to modernize the Official Languages Act. There are various amendments, and I’d like to highlight 5...

SHOW ON SCREEN:

Increase French immersion programs outside Quebec: Demand for access to French immersion programs has exceeded supply in recent years.
Increase Francophone immigration: Recruit Francophone and French-language teachers – for immersion teaching of second language programs, and for French-language education – to address the shortage of French language teachers in Canada, particularly outside of Quebec.
Strengthen the role of Radio Canada in protecting and promoting the French language.
Appoint only bilingual Supreme Court justices to provide for the right to be understood directly by the judge, without assistance of an interpreter, before all the courts.
Strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages: To be able to better enforce compliance with the Act, use alternative dispute resolution methods, and add grounds on which the Commissioner may refuse or cease to investigate a complaint.

Do you think these amendments will be effective at protecting the French language in Canada? Which ones? What makes you say that?

CONCLUSION (5 minutes)

French Moderators Guide

GUIDE DU MODÉRATEUR — FÉVRIER 2021

DOCUMENT MAÎTRE

INTRODUCTION (10 minutes) Tous les lieux

Le modérateur ou la personne responsable du soutien technique doit faire savoir aux participantes et aux participants qu’un stylo et du papier seront nécessaires afin de prendre des notes et d’écrire quelques réflexions au sujet des pièces de communication que nous leur montrerons plus tard au cours de la discussion.

LE GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA DANS L’ACTUALITÉTous les lieux

Qu’avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu au sujet du gouvernement du Canada au cours des derniers jours ?
Peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B. POUR LES MENTIONS RELATIVES AU GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA : Y a-t-il d’autres personnes qui ont entendu parler de cela ? Qu’avez-vous entendu ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet de l’annonce récente du gouvernement du Canada sur les règles entourant les voyages ?
- Qu’avez-vous entendu ? Est-ce que d’autres d’entre vous en ont entendu parler ?

Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT :
Le gouvernement du Canada a récemment annoncé que les voyageurs retournant au Canada devront subir un test PCR obligatoire (par exemple, l’écouvillon nasal pour COVID-19) à l’aéroport ; cela s’ajoute au test de préembarquement déjà exigé. En attendant les résultats du test, ils doivent se mettre en quarantaine pendant un maximum de trois jours dans un hôtel désigné, à leurs frais. Ceux dont les résultats sont négatifs pourront poursuivre leur quarantaine à leur domicile, sous une surveillance et une application de la loi nettement accrues. Ceux dont les tests s’avèrent positifs seront immédiatement obligés de se mettre en quarantaine dans des installations gouvernementales désignées pour s’assurer qu’elles ne sont pas porteuses de variants potentiellement préoccupants. Par ailleurs, Air Canada, WestJet, Sunwing, et Air Transat ont accepté de suspendre tous leurs vols vers les Caraïbes et le Mexique du dimanche 31 janvier au 30 avril.

Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta Que pensez-vous de ces nouvelles règles ?
- Pensez-vous que ces nouvelles règles sont sensées, qu’elles vont trop loin ou pas assez loin ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta POUR LES AUTRES MENTIONS EN LIEN AVEC LE GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA : Y a-t-il d’autres personnes qui en ont entendu parler ? Qu’avez-vous entendu ?

PERSPECTIVES SUR LA COVID-19 (15-40 minutes) Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta, prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario

Maintenant, j’aimerais parler de COVID-19…

Avez-vous modifié votre comportement au cours de ces dernières semaines ? Que faites-vous différemment aujourd’hui par rapport à il y a quelques mois ?
- Qu’avez-vous fait ?
- SI OUI : pourquoi les faites-vous davantage ces choses ?
- SI NON : pourquoi n’avez-vous pas changé votre comportement ?
Quel a été l’impact de la COVID-19 et des restrictions liées à la COVID sur vous ?
- Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV Quel effet cela a-t-il eu sur vous et votre famille ?
- Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV Est-ce que cela a été difficile pour vos enfants ?
- Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV Est-ce que cela a été difficile pour vous en tant que parent ?
- Comment est-ce que cela se compare aux restrictions du printemps dernier — est-ce plus difficile, plus facile, ou à peu près la même chose maintenant ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
En ce qui concerne la performance du gouvernement du Canada pendant la pandémie, à votre avis, quelles sont les choses qu’il a faites de bien ces derniers temps ?
- Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
- Que pourrait-il faire de mieux ?
Personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario Lorsque nous vous avons invité à cette séance, certains d’entre vous ont dit que vous aviez récemment participé à un rassemblement ou à un événement social à l’extérieur de votre domicile et/ou que vous alliez voir des amis, des voisins ou des membres de votre famille élargie de temps à autre. Qu’est-ce qui vous a fait décider d’avoir des contacts avec des personnes qui ne font pas partie de votre ménage ?
- Avez-vous quelque préoccupation que ce soit quant à avoir des contacts sociaux avec d’autres personnes ?

Personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario Certains d’entre vous ont également indiqué que vous en aviez assez de devoir continuer à respecter les mesures de santé publique, ou que vous ne prêtiez plus attention aux conseils de santé publique, ou encore que vous en aviez assez de devoir éviter de voir des gens…

Personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario Qu’est-ce qui vous ennuie ou que trouvez-vous difficile lorsqu’il s’agit de suivre les conseils de santé publique ?
- DEMANDER AU BESOIN : êtes-vous préoccupé par les répercussions de la COVID-19 sur vous, vos familles, votre collectivité et les entreprises ? De quelle façon ?
- Êtes-vous préoccupés par les effets sur la santé mentale des personnes appartenant à vos cercles sociaux ou à votre collectivité ?
Personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario Pensez-vous que des restrictions devraient être maintenues à l’heure actuelle ou pensez-vous que les gens devraient désormais pouvoir se rassembler, aller au restaurant ensemble, etc. ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
- SI MAINTENIR DES RESTRICTIONS : Selon vous, quels genres de restrictions devraient être mis en place ? Les respecteriez-vous ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?

VACCIN COVID-19 (20 minutes) Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta, prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario

J’aimerais maintenant me pencher sur les vaccins COVID-19…

Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario Avez-vous l’intention de recevoir le vaccin COVID-19 lorsqu’il vous sera proposé, ou non ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
- (POUR LES PERSONNES QUI SONT HÉSITANTES) Quels sont les facteurs qui influenceront votre décision de vous faire vacciner ou non ?
Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta Lorsque nous vous avons invité à participer à ce groupe de discussion, nous vous avons demandé si vous pensiez vous faire vacciner ou non. Certain(e)s d’entre vous ont répondu oui, mais que vous préfériez attendre, et d’autres ont répondu être incertain(e)s. Est-ce toujours le cas ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
- [SI TOUJOURS HÉSITANT(E)S] Quels sont les facteurs qui influenceront votre décision de vous faire vacciner ou non ?
Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta À quelle question sur les vaccins COVID-19 aimeriez-vous le plus avoir une réponse ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta, prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Pensez-vous que le gouvernement du Canada fait un bon travail pour ce qui est de l’achat et de la distribution du vaccin aux provinces et territoires, ou non ?
- Pourquoi pensez-vous cela ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta Le Canada a reçu plus d’un million de doses de vaccin à ce jour. Est-ce plus ou moins ce que vous pensiez, ou à peu près ce que vous pensiez ?
- Est-ce que cela change ce que vous pensez quant au déploiement du vaccin par le gouvernement du Canada ?
Prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Nous venons de parler de ce que vous pensez du déploiement vaccinal du Canada jusqu’à présent. Dans quelques années, avec le recul, sur quoi allez-vous fonder votre évaluation de l’efficacité du déploiement vaccinal du Canada ?
- DEMANDER AU BESOIN : Par exemple, allez-vous vous baser sur le bon déroulement du processus, sur la rapidité avec laquelle nous avons pu vacciner les personnes vulnérables, sur le peu de temps que nous avons mis à vacciner toutes les personnes qui le souhaitaient, sur la rapidité avec laquelle vous vous êtes fait vacciner, sur comment le Canada se compare aux autres pays, ou sur autre chose ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta, prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Par rapport à d’autres pays, comment évaluez-vous le Canada dans son ensemble pour ce qui est de vacciner les gens ?
- Prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan (SI PIRE) Pourquoi pensez-vous que le Canada a moins bien réussi que d’autres pays ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta, prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Le Canada prévoit de vacciner 3 millions de Canadiens d’ici la fin mars et tous ceux qui veulent se faire vacciner d’ici la fin septembre. Combien d’entre vous étaient au courant de cet objectif ?
- Pensez-vous qu’il s’agit d’un objectif raisonnable ?
- Pensez-vous que le Canada atteindra cet objectif ? Pourquoi pensez-vous cela ?
- Prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Y a-t-il quelque chose que vous pourriez voir ou entendre qui vous rendrait plus confiant que le Canada atteindra ces objectifs ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta, prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Quand pensez-vous être personnellement en mesure de recevoir le vaccin ?

SERVICE DE GARDE (30 minutes) Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan

Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV J’aimerais maintenant que l’on passe à une discussion sur la garde des enfants, et j’aimerais que vous pensiez à votre situation avant la pandémie, et non à votre situation actuelle. Donc, avec ceci en tête…
Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta J’aimerais maintenant passer à une discussion sur les services de garde des jeunes enfants. Que vous ayez ou non un enfant en garderie, nous voulons vous poser les questions suivantes en vous basant sur votre compréhension des services de garde des jeunes enfants avant la pandémie, et non sur la situation actuelle.
Parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan J’aimerais maintenant passer à une discussion sur les services de garde des jeunes enfants. Que vous ayez ou non un enfant en garderie, nous voulons vous poser les questions suivantes en vous basant sur votre compréhension des services de garde des jeunes enfants avant la pandémie, et non sur la situation actuelle. Donc, avec ceci en tête…

Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Que pensez-vous des services de garde dans votre secteur ?
Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta Que pensez-vous des services de garde dans votre secteur ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Qu’est-ce qui pourrait être amélioré ?
Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta Croyez-vous qu’ils pourraient être améliorés ?
- DEMANDEZ AU BESOIN : des listes d’attente plus courtes, la qualité des services de garde, des coûts moins élevés, des endroits plus pratiques ?
Êtes-vous au courant des plans du gouvernement du Canada en matière de services de garde des jeunes enfants ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT :
Le gouvernement du Canada a indiqué qu’il veut faire un important investissement à long terme et de façon soutenue pour créer un système pancanadien d’apprentissage et de garde des jeunes enfants, y compris un soutien supplémentaire pour l’Apprentissage et garde des jeunes enfants autochtones.

Que pensez-vous de cela ?
Croyez-vous qu’il est important que le gouvernement du Canada investisse dans les services de garde des jeunes enfants ou non ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan POUR LES PERSONNES QUI PENSENT QUE C’EST IMPORTANT : Certaines personnes peuvent penser que le gouvernement du Canada ne devrait pas investir davantage dans les services de garde des jeunes enfants alors qu’il enregistre actuellement un important déficit. Que leur diriez-vous en réponse à cela ?
- C’est-à-dire, quels genres de points soulèveriez-vous pour expliquer les avantages liés à un investissement accru dans les services de garde d’enfants ?
Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta POUR CEUX QUI PENSENT QUE C’EST IMPORTANT : Certaines personnes peuvent penser que le gouvernement du Canada ne devrait pas investir davantage dans les services de garde des jeunes enfants alors qu’il enregistre actuellement un important déficit. Que pensez-vous de ces préoccupations ? Est-ce qu’elles vous interpellent ?

Je vais maintenant vous montrer quelques raisons potentielles d’investir davantage dans les services de garde des jeunes enfants (AFFICHER LES POINTS À L’ÉCRAN, PUIS EN DISCUTER) :

a) Les services de garde des jeunes enfants sont importants, car ils permettent à un plus grand nombre de femmes d’entrer sur le marché du travail
b) Les services de garde des jeunes enfants font croître l’économie, car ils permettent à un plus grand nombre de personnes de travailler
c) Plus de places dans les services de garde des jeunes enfants signifie moins de pressions financières pour les familles de la classe moyenne, qui travaillent fort

Qu’en pensez-vous ? Y a-t-il des raisons convaincantes ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
Laquelle de ces raisons trouvez-vous la PLUS convaincante ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
Maintenant que je vous ai présenté quelques raisons, pouvez-vous en trouver d’autres qui favorisent un plus grand investissement dans la garde des jeunes enfants au Canada ?

1. Investir dans des services de garde des jeunes enfants qui sont accessibles, de qualité, abordables et inclusifs n’est pas seulement bon pour les familles, c’est aussi une bonne chose sur le plan économique.
2. Des services de garde des jeunes enfants de haute qualité et abordables ne sont pas un luxe, mais une nécessité. C’est pourquoi nous sommes en train de créer un système national qui permettra de réduire les coûts et de créer plus de places.

Lequel de ces messages vous interpelle le plus ? Pourquoi ?

Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Je vais vous montrer différentes choses que le gouvernement du Canada pourrait mettre en œuvre dans le cadre de son plan pour un système pancanadien d’apprentissage et de garde des jeunes enfants. Nous allons les lire, puis nous procéderons à un sondage. MONTREZ D’ABORD LES ÉLÉMENTS À L’ÉCRAN. LANCER LE SONDAGE. Maintenant, veuillez choisir celui qui, selon vous, devrait être l’objectif du gouvernement du Canada.

- Réduire les frais de garde d’enfants de 5 000 $ par année d’ici l’an prochain, pour éventuellement les réduire de 7 500 $.
- Réduire de moitié les frais de garde d’enfants dans un premier temps, pour éventuellement les réduire de 75 %.
- Fixer un plafond de 20 dollars par jour pour les frais de garde d’enfants l’année prochaine, puis le ramener à 10 dollars par jour.

Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan NOTE AU MODÉRATEUR : Après le vote, veuillez discuter des raisons pour lesquelles ils ont fait ce choix.
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Lequel parmi ceux-ci vous aiderait le plus ? Pourquoi ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan S’agit-il d’objectifs réalistes ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Si le gouvernement du Canada devait réduire les frais de 5 000 $, serait-il préférable d’envoyer un remboursement aux parents pour ce montant OU devrait-il trouver un moyen de s’assurer que les frais réels facturés par le prestataire de services de garde diminuent ? Ou est-ce que cela n’a pas d’importance pour vous, pour autant que les coûts réels baissent ?

TRANSPORT EN COMMUN (15 minutes) Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV, personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario, grands centres du Canada atlantique

Sur un tout autre sujet, j’ai juste quelques questions sur les transports en commun.

À main levée, combien d’entre vous utilisaient les transports en commun avant la pandémie ?
- Maintenant, combien d’entre vous utilisent les transports en commun actuellement ?
SI L’ON UTILISE OU L’ON A UTILISÉ LES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN : Pour ceux d’entre vous qui l’utilisaient ou l’utilisent encore, pour quelle raison l’utilisez-vous ? (par exemple, pour aller au travail, faire des courses, etc.)
Est-ce que le gouvernement du Canada devrait investir dans le transport en commun ?
- Quelle serait la principale raison d’y investir ?
  - SONDER SI NÉCESSAIRE : Qu’en est-il du fait qu’il soit respectueux de l’environnement ? Qu’en est-il en tant que mesure de relance immédiate visant à créer des emplois pour construire et élargir les infrastructures de transport en commun ? Qu’en est-il de rendre les déplacements plus pratiques pour les gens ?
Parents avec des enfants en garderie ou qui envisagent la garde d’enfants de la RGV Êtes-vous au courant de quelconques investissements du gouvernement du Canada dans la région du Grand Vancouver au cours des dernières années ?
Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec Êtes-vous au courant de quelconques investissements faits au Québec par le gouvernement du Canada au cours des dernières années ?
Personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B. Êtes-vous au courant de quelconques investissements faits en Colombie-Britannique par le gouvernement du Canada au cours des dernières années ?
Personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario Êtes-vous au courant de quelconques investissements du gouvernement du Canada dans votre collectivité (K-W), dans les environs ou dans la région (Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario) au cours des dernières années ?
Grands centres du Canada atlantique Êtes-vous au courant de quelconques investissements du gouvernement du Canada dans le Canada atlantique au cours des dernières années ?
Selon vous, quels sont les besoins les plus importants de cette région en matière de transport en commun ?

L’ITINÉRANCE (15 minutes) Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination des centres de taille moyenne et grande du Québec

Encore une fois, je souhaiterais changer de sujet afin qu’on se penche sur la question de l’itinérance.

Pensez-vous qu’il y a un problème d’itinérance au Canada ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
Est-ce que l’itinérance s’est aggravée récemment ? S’est améliorée ? Est demeurée inchangée ?
Que peut faire le gouvernement du Canada pour contribuer à la lutte contre l’itinérance au pays ?
Pensez-vous qu’il soit réaliste d’essayer de mettre fin à l’itinérance d’ici les dix prochaines années ?
- Ou serait-il plus réalisable si le gouvernement du Canada visait une réduction de 50 % ?
Je vais vous montrer quelques énoncés qui pourraient être utilisés par le gouvernement du Canada en tant que message général sur la question de l’itinérance au pays. Nous allons les lire, puis nous procéderons à un sondage. AFFICHER LES ÉNONCÉS À L’ÉCRAN. LANCEZ LE SONDAGE. Maintenant, veuillez en choisir un qui représente le genre de message le plus approprié pour le gouvernement fédéral sur la question de l’itinérance.
- Chaque Canadienne et Canadien mérite d’avoir un chez-soi sécuritaire et abordable
- Une personne itinérante au Canada en est une de trop
- Dans un pays comme le Canada, personne ne devrait vivre dans la rue

NOTE À L’INTENTION DU MODÉRATEUR : Après le vote, veuillez discuter des raisons qui ont motivé cette décision.

LA HAINE SUR INTERNET (30 minutes) Personnes hésitantes à la vaccination de l’Alberta, peuples autochtones du Québec, jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara

Nous allons à nouveau nous tourner vers les conversations en ligne.

Lorsque vous pensez aux conversations en ligne, comme les publications dans les médias sociaux tels que Facebook ou Twitter, pensez-vous que les gens devraient être autorisés à dire ce qu’ils ou elles veulent en ligne, ou devrait-il y avoir des limites à ce que les gens peuvent dire ?
Je vais maintenant vous montrer une liste d’enjeux et nous allons ensuite procéder à un sondage pour voir lesquels, le cas échéant, constituent selon vous des problèmes majeurs au Canada. AFFICHER LES ÉNONCÉS À L’ÉCRAN. LANCEZ LE SONDAGE. Veuillez en choisir un maximum de trois. Si vous ne croyez pas que l’un d’entre eux constitue un problème majeur, alors n’en choisissez aucun. Nous discuterons ensuite de vos choix.
- L’exploitation sexuelle des enfants
- Les discours haineux
- L’incitation à la violence
- La diffusion non consensuelle d’images intimes
- La radicalisation
- La propagande terroriste
Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous préoccupé, si vous l’êtes du tout, par ces phénomènes que l’on observe en ligne ?
Est-ce que ces enjeux vous touchent personnellement (ou touchent vos enfants) ?
- S’agit-il plutôt de problèmes que l’on observe dans I' ensemble de la société ? (Ou les deux)
Pensez-vous qu’une plus grande réglementation en ligne soit nécessaire ?
- SI OUI : Est-ce que le gouvernement du Canada a un rôle à jouer en réponse à ces enjeux ? Ou est-ce la responsabilité des entreprises de médias sociaux elles-mêmes ?

DÉCOMPTE À MAIN LEVÉE :

Je vais vous montrer une liste de possibles choses que le gouvernement du Canada pourrait potentiellement faire. Ensuite, je vous demanderai de me dire laquelle vous estimez devrait-être la priorité absolue du gouvernement du Canada. Si vous estimez que le gouvernement fédéral ne devrait faire aucune de ces choses, veuillez me le dire.
- Demander aux entreprises de médias sociaux d’accroître leur propre surveillance.
- Renforcer la surveillance en ligne par les forces policières des choses qui sont illégales selon les lois actuelles.
- Réglementer les entreprises de médias sociaux afin que des règles soient établies sur ce qui doit être retiré.
Le modérateur discutera des choix des participant(e)s.
- Combien d’entre vous avez choisi (Le modérateur passera en revue chaque option.) ? Pourquoi avez-vous choisi cette option plutôt que les autres comme priorité absolue ?
- Combien d’entre vous n’ont choisi aucune des options ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il autre chose qu’il devrait plutôt faire ?
- Je vous ai demandé de choisir votre priorité absolue. Mais pensez-vous qu’ils devraient faire toutes ces choses ? Par ailleurs, y a-t-il des choses que vous pensez qu’ils ne devraient pas faire ? Pourquoi ?

DÉCOMPTE À MAIN LEVÉE :

Maintenant, je vais vous montrer une liste de possibles choses que les entreprises de médias sociaux pourraient potentiellement faire. Ensuite, je vous demanderai de me dire laquelle vous estimez devrait-être la priorité absolue du gouvernement du Canada. Encore une fois, si vous pensez qu’elles ne devraient faire aucune de ces choses, veuillez me le dire.
- Ajouter des filtres supplémentaires pour permettre aux utilisateurs d’identifier les contenus illégaux ou autrement nuisibles.
- Instaurer des sanctions plus strictes pour les récidivistes, y compris leur interdire l’accès à
  la plateforme.
- Se débarrasser des trolls et des robots conversationnels.
- Faire preuve d’une plus grande transparence quant à l’identité des récidivistes.
Le modérateur discutera des choix des participant(e)s.
- Combien d’entre vous avez choisi (Le modérateur passera en revue chaque option.) ? Pourquoi avez-vous choisi cette option plutôt que les autres comme priorité absolue ?
- Combien d’entre vous n’ont choisi aucune des options ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il autre chose qu’il devrait plutôt faire ?
- Je vous ai demandé de choisir votre priorité absolue. Mais pensez-vous qu’ils devraient faire toutes ces choses ? Par ailleurs, y a-t-il des choses que vous pensez qu’ils ne devraient pas faire ? Pourquoi ?
Laquelle de ces deux options se rapproche le plus de votre point de vue (AFFICHER LES ÉNONCÉS À L’ÉCRAN. DÉCOMPTE À MAIN LEVÉE) :
- Il ne devrait pas y avoir de réglementation accrue des plateformes de médias sociaux, même si cela signifie que des choses comme les discours haineux ou l’incitation à la violence peuvent faire du mal aux gens.
- Il faut renforcer la réglementation des plateformes de médias sociaux, même si cela signifie que du contenu légitime peut occasionnellement être signalé et/ou retiré

REMBOURSEMENT DE LA PCU (20 minutes) Prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba

J’aimerais changer un peu de sujet et parler de soutien financier…

Que pensez-vous de la performance du gouvernement du Canada durant la pandémie, notamment en ce qui concerne le soutien financier aux personnes touchées par COVID-19 ?
- Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?
Pensez-vous que le gouvernement du Canada fait un aussi bon travail aujourd’hui qu’au début de la pandémie, ou diriez-vous qu’il fait mieux ou qu’il fait moins bien ?
- Veuillez expliquer.
Avez-vous entendu parler de la question du remboursement de la PCU pour les personnes qui l’ont reçue par erreur ?
- Qu’avez-vous entendu ?
En pensant à votre déclaration de revenus personnelle, croyez-vous que vous aurez à payer de l’impôt sur la PCU ?

POUR LES PERSONNES QUI S’ATTENDENT À DEVOIR PAYER DES IMPÔTS SUR CELLE-CI :

Quel genre de conséquence cela aura-t-il sur vous ?
- Y en a-t-il parmi vous qui craignent que cela vous place dans une situation financière difficile ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT AU BESOIN
Les montants de PCU sont imposables. Vous devrez déclarer les montants inscrits sur votre relevé d’impôt T4A dans votre déclaration de revenus de 2020.

Croyez-vous que toute personne qui doit payer l’impôt sur la PCU devrait bénéficier d’une fenêtre de remboursement plus longue, ou pensez-vous que cela devrait être considéré comme tout autre montant d’impôt dû ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?

LES TOXINES (25 minutes) Prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, RGM, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario, grands centres du Canada atlantique

J’aimerais maintenant passer à un autre sujet…

Selon vous, quelles sont les plus importantes priorités environnementales sur lesquelles le gouvernement du Canada devrait se concentrer ?
- Qu’en est-il des produits chimiques et des toxines ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT AU BESOIN
Les toxines sont des substances nocives produites par certaines plantes, certains animaux et certaines bactéries — l’arsenic en est un exemple. Il existe également des produits chimiques toxiques synthétiques, anthropiques — le poison à rat en est un exemple.

Qu’est-ce qui vous préoccupe le plus : les produits chimiques et les toxines présents dans l’air et dans l’eau, ou les produits chimiques toxiques présents dans certains produits ménagers ?
Lorsque vous pensez aux produits chimiques et aux toxines, quel est pour vous le plus gros problème :
- l’impact des produits chimiques ou des toxines sur l’environnement dans son ensemble
- l’impact sur votre santé
- l’impact sur la santé des personnes qui vivent dans les collectivités de certaines régions du Canada
Vous n’en savez peut-être pas beaucoup concernant les lois actuelles, mais avez-vous de manière générale l’impression que les lois canadiennes sur les produits chimiques et les toxines sont appropriées, qu’elles devraient être renforcées ou assouplies ?
(SI ELLES DOIT ÊTRE RENFORCÉES) Chaque fois que le gouvernement interdit ou réglemente certains produits chimiques et toxines, cela pourrait signifier de nouveaux coûts pour les entreprises. Cela pourrait se traduire par des produits plus chers pour les consommateurs. Est-ce un souci pour vous ?
Je voudrais vous parler d’un exemple précis. Certains produits chimiques contenus dans les meubles ne sont pas nocifs, sauf lorsqu’ils brûlent. Par exemple, s’il y a un incendie dans une maison, ces produits pourraient être nocifs pour les résidents, ou les pompiers. Devraient-ils être interdits (même si cela signifie que les meubles risquent de devenir assez dispendieux) ou bien est-ce une situation suffisamment rare pour que cela ne soit pas un souci important pour vous ?
SONDAGE : Voici certaines choses sur lesquelles le gouvernement pourrait se concentrer en ce qui concerne les produits chimiques et les toxines. Veuillez choisir celle que vous estimez devrait être la plus importante priorité :
- Interdire certains produits chimiques afin de contraindre les entreprises à utiliser des produits moins nocifs
- Assurer la sécurité des personnes qui travaillent sur des lieux de travail où se trouvent des produits chimiques
- Fournir plus d’informations sur les étiquettes de produits ménagers au sujet des substances chimiques qu’ils contiennent.
- Utiliser les nouvelles sciences pour mieux comprendre l’impact sur notre santé de notre exposition quotidienne à plusieurs produits chimiques
Pourquoi avez-vous fait ce choix ?
SONDER : En ce qui concerne les étiquettes, pensez-vous que le niveau actuel d’étiquetage concernant les substances chimiques contenues dans les produits ménagers est approprié ?
- Est-ce quelque chose que vous regardez actuellement lorsque vous faites des achats ?
Lorsqu’il s’agit de nouvelles lois sur les produits chimiques, est-ce que le gouvernement devrait travailler avec les entreprises pour les encourager à faire des changements, ou doit-il interdire fermement certains produits ?

L’ENVIRONNEMENT (20 minutes) Prestataires de l’assurance-emploi/PCRE du Manitoba, centres ruraux et de plus petite taille de l’Ontario, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B., RGM, grands centres du Canada atlantique

J’aimerais maintenant discuter d’autres questions environnementales…

Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet du plan du gouvernement du Canada visant à réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre d’ici 2030 ?

- SI OUI : Qu’avez-vous entendu ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT AU BESOIN
Le gouvernement du Canada a proposé des mesures en vue de permettre au Canada de réduire ses émissions de gaz à effet de serre d’ici 2030 et de rendre le pays carboneutre d’ici 2050. L’une des mesures consiste à aider les entreprises canadiennes à investir dans des technologies plus efficaces et plus rentables qui améliorent à la fois leurs activités et leurs résultats.

Je vais vous montrer une liste de noms possibles que le gouvernement du Canada pourrait utiliser pour décrire son plan visant à aider les entreprises à réduire leurs émissions de carbone. Nous les passerons ensuite en revue et discuterons de ceux que vous avez préférés ainsi que les raisons de ces choix.

AFFICHER À L’ÉCRAN :

- Une stratégie pour aider les entreprises à réduire la pollution
- Une stratégie visant à aider les divers secteurs de notre économie à réduire la pollution
- Stratégie industrielle propre
- Stratégie industrielle à faible émission de carbone
- Stratégie pour une industrie plus propre

SONDAGE : Lequel des noms estimez-vous serait le plus efficace pour décrire le plan du gouvernement du Canada visant à aider les entreprises à réduire leurs émissions de carbone ?

Le modérateur passera en revue les résultats du sondage et ce qui a motivé leurs choix.
Avez-vous des suggestions qui, selon vous, seraient plus efficaces ?

QUESTIONS AUTOCHTONES (30 minutes) Peuples autochtones du Québec

J’aimerais maintenant qu’on porte notre attention sur les questions autochtones.

Quels sont les enjeux autochtones importants sur lesquels le gouvernement du Canada devrait, selon vous, se concentrer ?
Est-ce que le gouvernement du Canada a fait quoi que ce soit de bien ?
Que peut-il améliorer ?
Avez-vous entendu parler de la Déclaration des Nations unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones ?

AFFICHER À L’ÉCRAN
La Déclaration des Nations unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones est un document international adopté par les Nations unies en 2007 qui énonce les droits fondamentaux que les peuples autochtones devraient avoir dans le monde entier. Elle explique comment les gouvernements devraient respecter les droits de l’homme des peuples autochtones.

La Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme comprend 46 articles qui décrivent les droits spécifiques et les mesures que les gouvernements doivent prendre pour protéger ces droits. Les principaux thèmes de la déclaration sont les suivants :

- Le droit à l’autodétermination
- Le droit à l’identité culturelle
- Le droit au consentement libre, préalable et éclairé (c’est-à-dire le droit d’être consulté et de prendre des décisions sur toute question susceptible d’affecter les droits des peuples autochtones)
- La protection contre la discrimination

Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit récemment quant à ce que le gouvernement du Canada a fait
en réponse à la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones (UNDRIP) ? Qu’avez-vous entendu ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT AU BESOIN
Le gouvernement du Canada a récemment déposé un projet de loi visant à mettre en œuvre la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones.

Qu’en pensez-vous ? Pensez-vous que cela changera quelque chose ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?

J’aimerais maintenant parler d’eau potable pour un petit moment…

Avez-vous entendu parler des efforts déployés par le gouvernement du Canada pour lever les avis à long terme sur la qualité de l’eau potable dans les réserves ?

Je vais vous montrer un document infographique portant sur le travail qu’effectue le gouvernement fédéral afin de lever les avis à long terme sur la qualité de l’eau potable et ensuite je vous demanderai votre opinion à ce sujet.

AFFICHER LE DOCUMENT INFOGRAPHIQUE « Avis sur la qualité de l’eau potable à long terme touchant des systèmes publics dans les réserves »

Quelles sont vos premières réactions ?
Maintenant que vous avez vu cela, comment évaluez-vous les progrès réalisés par le gouvernement du Canada quant à cette question ? Diriez-vous qu’il a fait beaucoup de progrès, un peu, aucun, ou qu’il a aggravé la situation ?
Avez-vous entendu quoi que ce soit quant à l’échéancier du gouvernement du Canada pour lever tous les avis à long terme sur la qualité de l’eau potable ?

AFFICHER À L’ÉCRAN
Le gouvernement du Canada a récemment annoncé qu’il n’atteindrait pas l’objectif qu’il s’était fixé, celui de mars 2021, comme prévu initialement. En plus des 2,19 milliards de dollars déjà prévus au budget pour mettre fin aux avis concernant la qualité de l’eau potable à long terme, le gouvernement a annoncé une somme additionnelle de 1,5 milliard de dollars pour terminer les travaux. Ces nouveaux fonds visent à assurer un soutien continu pour le fonctionnement et l’entretien quotidien des infrastructures liées à l’eau dans les réserves, à maintenir le financement des infrastructures en approvisionnement d’eau et de traitements d’eaux usées dans les réserves, et à payer les travaux interrompus en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19 et d’autres retards dans les projets.

Qu’en pensez-vous ?
Quel est, à votre avis, un délai raisonnable ?

ÉVALUATION DES AFFICHES PORTANT SUR L’APPLI ALERTE COVID ET LE CODE QR (30 minutes) Jeunes adultes ontariens de la région de Hamilton-Niagara

Est-ce que quelqu’un a entendu parler de l’application Alerte COVID du gouvernement du Canada ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT : Au cours de l’été dernier, le gouvernement du Canada a développé une application pour téléphone intelligent qui informerait les utilisateurs s’ils ont été physiquement proches d’une personne ayant reçu un diagnostic de COVID-19, et ce, en utilisant la technologie Bluetooth.

Est-ce que quelqu’un a téléchargé cette application ?

Santé Canada œuvre à l’amélioration de l’utilisation de cette application, notamment en vue de la réouverture de l’économie. Je vais vous montrer des affiches qui pourraient être utilisées par les commerces et être placées à l’entrée de leurs magasins. Elles contiendront un code QR, un type de code-barres à matrice carrée qui est lisible par une machine et qui contient des informations sur un article. Si vous êtes allé dans un restaurant avant le récent confinement, vous l’avez peut-être vu à l’entrée. Vous devez le prendre en photo ou le scanner et le menu est affiché sur votre téléphone.

Les personnes qui ont déjà téléchargé l’application Alerte COVID pourront scanner le code QR en entrant dans un commerce.

MONTRER L’AFFICHE N^o 1 :

Quelles sont vos premières impressions de cette affiche ?
Est-ce qu’elle capte votre attention ?
Est-ce qu’elle indique clairement ce que vous devez faire, et pourquoi vous devez le faire ?

Maintenant, je vais vous montrer une autre version

MONTRER L’AFFICHE N^o 2 :

Quelles sont vos premières impressions de cette affiche ?
Est-ce qu’elle capte votre attention ?
Est-ce qu’elle indique clairement ce que vous devez faire, et pourquoi vous devez le faire ?

Maintenant, je vais vous montrer une troisième version

MONTRER L’AFFICHE N^o 3 :

Quelles sont vos premières impressions de cette affiche ?
Est-ce qu’elle capte votre attention ?
Est-ce qu’elle indique clairement ce que vous devez faire, et pourquoi vous devez le faire ?

Maintenant, je vais vous montrer de nouveau les mêmes affiches côte à côte afin d’examiner certaines de leurs différences et recueillir votre avis :

MONTRER L’ENSEMBLE DES AFFICHES À L’ÉCRAN

Les jeux de couleurs sont différents pour chaque affiche. Selon vous, lequel est le plus efficace ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire ça ?
- DEMANDER AU BESOIN : Est-ce que ça capte votre attention ? Est-ce que ça suscite en vous un quelconque sentiment ?
Le message qui figure à la partie supérieure est différent sur chaque affiche — l’avez-vous remarqué ?
Lequel, selon vous, fonctionne le mieux ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire ça ?
- Scannez un lieu. Feinez la propagation du virus.
- Facilitez la recherche de contacts.
- Enregistrez votre visite pour recevoir des notifications d’exposition.
Les logos du gouvernement du Canada apparaissent au haut de la première affiche et au bas des deux autres — l’avez-vous remarqué ?
Lequel préférez-vous, ou cela ne fait-il pas de différence pour vous ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
- Est-ce que l’un ou l’autre des positionnements rend l’affiche plus crédible ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
Le nom et l’adresse du commerce apparaissent subtilement en dessous du code QR sur la première affiche et de manière plus apparente à côté de celui-ci sur les deux autres affiches — l’avez-vous remarqué ?
Lequel préférez-vous, ou cela ne fait-il pas de différence pour vous ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
Cette information est-elle importante dans votre décision de scanner ou non le code QR ?
Le texte en bas de page est en caractères gras dans certains cas et pas dans d’autres — l’avez-vous remarqué ?
Est-ce que cela a pour effet d’attirer votre attention sur cette partie de l’affiche ?
Le texte « Scannez un lieu. » est souligné dans les options 1 et 3 — l’avez-vous remarqué ?
- Est-ce que cela contribue à mettre en évidence l’action recherchée ?
- Préférez-vous le texte avec ou sans soulignement ou cela ne fait-il pas de différence ?
Pour ceux (celles) qui ont téléchargé l’application : est-ce que vous seriez disposé à le scanner ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?
Pour ceux (celles) qui n’ont pas téléchargé l’application : la téléchargeriez-vous afin de l’utiliser pour ce genre de choses ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT AU BESOIN :
Les personnes qui ont déjà téléchargé l’application Alerte COVID pourront scanner le code QR en entrant dans un commerce. Si une éclosion est identifiée dans ce commerce, un(e) employé(e) de la santé publique pourrait se connecter et envoyer une notification à toute personne qui s’y est présentée dans un délai donné.

Pensez-vous que cette initiative contribuera à stopper la propagation de la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?

ÉVALUATION PUBLICITAIRE (CONTRÔLE DE RÉUSSITE) (20 minutes) Parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B.

Je vais maintenant vous montrer une publicité que développe actuellement le gouvernement du Canada en vue d’une possible campagne publicitaire concernant la COVID-19.

Vous remarquerez qu’elle n’est peut-être pas dans sa forme définitive. Nous visionnerons la vidéo, puis je vous poserai quelques questions à son sujet.

Parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire des grands centres de la Saskatchewan Ordre de présentation : 1, 3
Personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués des grands centres de la C.-B. Ordre de présentation : 3, 1

MONTRER LA VIDÉO OPT 1

Quelles sont vos premières impressions de cette publicité ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire ça ?
Quel est le message principal de cette publicité ?
Est-ce que cette publicité vous pousse à repenser vos comportements ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ?

Maintenant, je vais vous montrer la publicité de nouveau et je veux que vous portiez une attention particulière à la musique…

MONTRER LA VIDÉO OPT 1 DE NOUVEAU (OPT 3)

Qu’en pensez-vous ? Qu’est-ce que cela vous fait ressentir ?

Je vais maintenant vous montrer la même publicité, mais avec une musique différente…

MONTRER L’AUTRE VERSION

Que pensez-vous de cette musique ? Qu’est-ce que cela vous fait ressentir ?
Laquelle des deux pistes de musique est la plus efficace, selon vous ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire ça ?

ARMES À FEU (15 minutes) RGM, personnes qui ressentent la fatigue de la COVID et qui adoptent des comportements plus risqués de Kitchener au Sud-Ouest de l’Ontario

Avez-vous vu, lu ou entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet des nouvelles mesures du gouvernement du Canada en matière d’armes à feu ?
- Qu’avez-vous entendu ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT :
En mai 2020, le gouvernement du Canada a interdit plus de 1 500 marques et modèles d’armes à feu de type assaut. Une période d’amnistie de deux ans est en place depuis lors, pour donner aux personnes qui possèdent déjà des armes à feu spécifiquement visées suffisamment de temps pour se conformer à l’interdiction. Le gouvernement du Canada a maintenant introduit une nouvelle législation qui comprend un programme de rachat pour ces armes à feu interdites. La législation permet également aux municipalités d’interdire les armes de poing et alourdit les sanctions pénales pour la contrebande et le trafic d’armes à feu.

Que pensez-vous de ces nouvelles mesures ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT :
Le programme de rachat sera finalisé dans les mois à venir, mais il vise essentiellement à empêcher que des armes à feu interdites soient léguées (données à quelqu’un après sa mort) ou vendues. Les propriétaires qui choisissent de ne pas participer au programme de rachat et de conserver leurs armes à feu devront respecter des conditions strictes : ils devront s’engager à ne pas utiliser les armes, à ne pas en importer ou en acquérir d’autres, et à ne pas les léguer ou les vendre.

Pensez-vous que ce nouveau programme de rachat réussira à retirer des armes à feu des rues ?
Pensez-vous que les propriétaires d’armes à feu interdites vont surtout les rendre ou surtout les garder ?
Laquelle serait, selon vous, la meilleure approche :
- L’approche de rachat que je viens de décrire
- Un programme de rachat obligatoire, auquel doivent participer les personnes qui possèdent des armes à feu interdites (c’est-à-dire qu’elles n’ont pas la possibilité de conserver ces armes à feu dans des conditions strictes)

PEINES MINIMALES OBLIGATOIRES (15 minutes) RGM, grands centres du Canada atlantique

Avez-vous lu ou entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet de modifications aux peines minimales obligatoires ?
- Qu’avez-vous entendu ?

ÉCLAIRCISSEMENT :
Le gouvernement du Canada a proposé des modifications afin d’abolir les peines minimales obligatoires pour plus d’une douzaine d’infractions, y compris pour toutes les infractions liées à la drogue, certaines infractions impliquant l’utilisation et la possession d’armes à feu et une infraction liée au tabac. Les peines minimales obligatoires seraient maintenues pour les infractions graves, telles que le meurtre, les infractions sexuelles et certaines infractions liées aux armes à feu.

Que pensez-vous de cela ?
Selon vous, quels seront les effets, le cas échéant, de l’abolition de certaines peines minimales obligatoires pour certains crimes ?

EFFECTUER DEUX SONDAGES : Nous allons passer en revue quatre affirmations. Je vais ensuite vous demander d’identifier celles qui vous font sentir mieux (le cas échéant) et celles qui vous font sentir moins bien (le cas échéant) par rapport à l’approche du gouvernement du Canada. Vous pouvez en choisir autant ou aussi peu que vous le souhaitez :

- Le gouvernement du Canada a proposé d’abolir les peines minimales obligatoires pour les infractions moins graves, mais d’augmenter les peines maximales pour les crimes plus graves impliquant des armes à feu, comme le trafic.
- Ces modifications donneront aux juges une plus grande latitude pour prononcer des peines appropriées qui correspondent aux circonstances du crime.
- Les peines minimales obligatoires ont eu tendance à contribuer à l’engorgement des tribunaux et du système judiciaire, car jamais personne ne voulait plaider coupable à ces crimes et ainsi éviter un procès.
- Les peines minimales obligatoires touchent de manière disproportionnée les Autochtones et des Canadiens racialisés.

LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE (15 minutes) RGM, grands centres du Canada atlantique

Avez-vous lu ou entendu quoi que ce soit au sujet des récentes modifications proposées par le gouvernement du Canada à la Loi sur les langues officielles ?
- Qu’avez-vous entendu ?

La semaine dernière, le gouvernement du Canada a proposé certaines modifications pour moderniser la Loi sur les langues officielles. Il y a plusieurs modifications, et j’aimerais en souligner cinq…

AFFICHER À L’ÉCRAN :

Augmenter le nombre de programmes d’immersion française à l’extérieur du Québec : La demande d’accès aux programmes d’immersion française a dépassé l’offre au cours des dernières années.
Augmenter l’immigration francophone : Recruter des enseignantes et enseignants francophones ainsi que celles et ceux qui enseignent le français — pour les programmes d’immersion en langue seconde et pour l’enseignement du français — afin de remédier à la pénurie de professeur(e)s de français au Canada, tout particulièrement à l’extérieur du Québec.
Renforcer le rôle de Radio-Canada dans la protection et la promotion de la langue française.
Nommer uniquement des juges bilingues à la Cour afin de garantir le droit d’être compris directement par le ou la juge, sans l’aide d’interprète, devant tous les tribunaux.
Renforcer les pouvoirs du commissaire aux langues officielles : Pour être en mesure de mieux faire respecter la Loi, utiliser des méthodes alternatives de règlement des différends et ajouter des motifs pour lesquels le Commissaire peut refuser ou cesser d’enquêter sur une plainte.

Pensez-vous que ces modifications seront efficaces pour protéger la langue française au Canada ? Lesquelles ? Qu’est-ce qui vous fait dire cela ?

CONCLUSION (5 minutes)

Appendix C – Advertising Concepts

Infographic: Progress on lifting long-term drinking water advisories on public systems on reserves (Quebec Indigenous Peoples)

COVID Alert App QR Code Poster Testing (Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults)

Poster 1

Poster 2

Poster 3

The figure above has the COVID Alert App icon in the top left corner, to the right of which, in large font text reads ‘COVID Alert’ and under, in slightly smaller font, black font reads ‘Check in to get exposure notifications.’ On the right-hand side, black text reads the French translation of ‘Alerte COVID’ and ‘Enregistrez votre visite pour recevoir des notifications d’exposition.’ in the same font style and layout as was written in English. Below this text, there is a backdrop of alternating purple and white diagonal stripes in between two bolded purple lines. In the middle of this matter, there is a QR code with a purple border. To the right of the QR code, black font reads ‘Location Name’ and below in slightly smaller text, ‘Address, Street, City, Province, Postal Code’. Below these purple and white stripes, on the left-hand most side, there is a hand holding a cellphone that is showing a QR code. Next to this image, black font reads ‘Open the COVID Alert app. Then tap Scan a place. canada.ca/covid-alert.’ Where the words ‘Scan a place’ are underlined and bolded. To the right of this text, in the same font style, the French translation reads ‘Ouvrez l’appli Alerte COVID. Appuyez sur Scanner un lieu. canada.ca-alerte-covid.’ Below this, there is a white banner with the Government of Canada wordmark in the bottom right hand corner and the Government of Canada signature in the bottom left hand corner.

Ad Testing - Success Check (Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

Version 1

version_1_reco_compressed

Version 2

version_3_without_whistling_compressed

This ad is the same as version 1. The only difference is the music. The music throughout the ad is an upbeat strumming banjo.

Continuous Qualitative Data Collection of Canadians’ Views – February 2021

Final Report

Prepared for the Privy Council Office

Supplier name: The Strategic Counsel

Contract number: 35035-182346/001/CY

Contract value: $1,618,838.00

Award date: December 18, 2020

Delivery date: April 13, 2021

Registration number: POR-005-19

For more information on this report, please email por-rop@pco-bcp.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Continuous Qualitative Data Collection of Canadians’ Views

Final Report

Prepared for the Privy Council Office

Supplier Name: The Strategic Counsel

February 2021

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Rapport final - Collecte continue de données qualitatives sur les opinions des canadiens – février 2021.

This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Privy Council Office. For more information on this report, please contact the Privy Council Office at: por-rop@pco-bcp.ca or at:

Privy Council OfficeBlackburn Building85 Sparks Street, Room 228Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A3

Catalogue Number:

International Standard Book Number (ISBN):

Related publications (registration number: POR-005-19):

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2021

Political Neutrality Certification

Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed: __________________________________

Donna Nixon, Partner The Strategic Counsel

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

In addition to the pandemic, non-COVID-19 related discussions broached other topics including the state of the French language, Indigenous issues, homelessness, online hate, childcare, public transit, toxins, environmental issues, firearms and mandatory minimum penalties.

As a note of caution when interpreting the results from this study, findings of qualitative research are directional in nature only and cannot be attributed quantitatively to the overall population under study with any degree of confidence.

Methodology

Overview of Groups

Detailed Approach

Group Locations and Composition

Key Findings

Part I: COVID-19 Related Findings

Government of Canada in the News (All Locations)

In several groups throughout the month participants discussed the evolving situation with respect to COVID-19 and the impact of the pandemic on their lives.

Behaviours

Impact of COVID-19

Performance of the Government of Canada

Riskier Behaviours (Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

Judging the Effectiveness of the Vaccine Roll-out (Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children)

The motivations for those wishing to be vaccinated centered on a desire to return to normalcy, especially to see friends and family, as well as to keep themselves and their families well protected. Many also expressed confidence in the science behind the vaccines.

The main questions this group had about vaccines focused on the safety of the vaccine, likely effects, including initial side effects as well as possible long-term issues, and the overall efficacy of the vaccines in reducing or stopping the spread of COVID-19.

COVID Alert App QR Code Poster Testing (Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults)

On balance, participants generally believed the initiative would help stop the spread of COVID-19, although some expressed skepticism, noting that success was ultimately contingent on the number of users of the app and the QR codes.

Ad Testing – Success Check (Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children, Major Centres B.C. Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours)

CERB Repayment (Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients)

A discussion on pandemic-related financial supports was held with participants residing across the province of Manitoba who had received Employment Insurance (EI) or any one of the recovery benefits offered by the Government of Canada.

Financial Support

Nevertheless, some concerns were raised about the level of financial support that was provided, with most noting the amount was insufficient. In a similar vein, some mentioned their drained savings and confusion on how the benefit amounts had been set.

CERB Repayment

When directly asked, most participants indicated that they would have to pay tax on the CERB benefits that they had received. It was shared by many participants that the requirement to pay tax was going to cause significant financial hardship.

Part II: Other Issues

French Language (GMA, Major Centres Atlantic Canada)

Those in the GMA, while supportive of the proposed amendments, felt they did not go far enough to effectively protect the French language. And, participants generally thought that French immersion programs should be extended to adults and others outside the school system.

Indigenous Issues (Quebec Indigenous Peoples)

Homelessness (Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant)

Online Hate (Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Quebec Indigenous Peoples, Hamilton-Niagara Region Ontario Young Adults)

Childcare (GVA Parents with Children in Daycare or Considering Daycare, Mid-size and Major Centres Quebec Vaccine Hesitant, Alberta Vaccine Hesitant, Major Centres Saskatchewan Parents of School Aged Children)

Participants reflected on the following three arguments in favour of investing in childcare:

To conclude the discussion, participants were shown two messages regarding childcare and asked about their preference:

A final line of questioning was asked regarding possible things the federal government could do as part of its plan for a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system. Participants were shown three possible options, as follows:

Toxins (Manitoba EI/Recovery Benefits Recipients, Smaller and Rural Centres Ontario, GMA, Kitchener to SW Ontario Experiencing COVID Fatigue and Riskier Behaviours, Major Centres Atlantic Canada)

To conclude the discussion, participants were shown a few different things that Government of Canada could focus on with respect to chemicals and toxins and subsequently asked to pick the one they felt should be the biggest priority:

Privy Council Office
Blackburn Building
85 Sparks Street, Room 228
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A3

Donna Nixon, Partner
The Strategic Counsel