Travel and Airlines (Winnipeg Parents, Rural Quebec CERB Recipients, GTHA and Windsor Young Adults, Calgary, Montreal, Mid-sized Centres Atlantic Canada, Toronto, Lower Mainland BC, Mid-size and Small Town Quebec Parents)

Travel (GTHA and Windsor Young Adults, Calgary, Montreal, Mid-sized Centres Atlantic Canada, Toronto, Lower Mainland BC, Mid-size and Small Town Quebec Parents)

Canada-US Border

When participants were asked if they had heard anything about the Canada-U.S. border recently, many were aware that the border remained closed to non-essential travel and that the two federal governments had reached an agreement to extend closure of the border for another month. Participants were generally in agreement with this approach, as they perceived the severity of the pandemic to be much worse in the U.S., which they framed as a result of lax adherence to preventative measures. At the same time, a few participants made comments that suggested there was some confusion around the border closure and specifically whether the rules were different for land versus air crossings. A few believed that the border was strictly closed to all non-essential road traffic, but that some flights between the U.S. and Canada were permitted, which they found concerning.

Opening Travel to/from Other Countries

On balance, most participants were opposed to opening up travel to and from other countries (outside of the U.S.). Many felt that it was too soon and expressed significant concerns around being able to control the virus in Canada if borders were opened. Many believed that Canada was still in a state of flux – whereby cases of infections were still quite variable across the country and unpredictable as re-opening was occurring. Participants from provinces that were in the later stages of re-opening and had recently begun to see rises in cases in their own locations, were especially cautious and reluctant to open up travel into and outside of Canada. Ultimately those opposed, believed Canada should not open travel until a vaccine has been developed and implemented across the country.

A smaller, but still significant, proportion of participants favoured opening up the borders, with the caveat that the borders would only be open to those countries which shared similar or lower COVID-19 rates than Canada. Most commonly, participants suggested New Zealand, as well as Vietnam, Japan and some European countries (e.g., Sweden). Other participants suggested that there should be guidelines as to who could travel internationally and for what reasons. For example, a few participants suggested that short-term trips should not be permitted, while others suggested that it might be important for people to travel internationally to see family members. When probed further about opening up travel to and from those countries with very low COVID-19 case counts, participants remained very hesitant and many saw it as too risky at this time.

Mandatory Testing and Quarantine

In terms of testing, participants believed that current testing capabilities needed to be improved so that people could be tested prior to boarding a flight into Canada rather than when they land, and to allow for expedited results (e.g., within an hour). A few participants also had concerns about the validity of the tests which may result in a false negative result.

With regards to quarantining for 14 days upon arrival into Canada, participants generally did not trust that travelers would follow the rules of self-isolation and were concerned about limited capacity within government to enforce these measures.

Other concerns raised by participants included where travelers might stay if they tested positive and what impacts that would have on the Canadian healthcare system.

Airlines (Winnipeg Parents, Rural Quebec CERB Recipients, Calgary, Montreal, Mid-sized Centres Atlantic Canada)

Participants were questioned about anything they had heard pertaining to how airlines in Canada have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many were aware of the significant financial repercussions of COVID-19 on the airline industry, citing a reduction in or cancellation of flights, suspension or termination of specific routes such as commuter flights, and layoffs or cuts to airline and airport staff. Others had heard about reports of passengers contracting COVID-19 and a decline in overall passenger volumes. The issue of adhering to social distancing in-flight was also raised, with some expressing concerns that this practice was not being respected and that the government had advised airlines to keep the middle seat between passengers empty.

Given the current situation, and the large financial losses reported by airlines due to weak demand, participants were asked whether the Government of Canada should provide financial aid to the industry similar to the support that was given to the auto industry when it was affected by the financial crisis in 2008-09. Many favoured providing financial assistance to the airlines, citing:

• The airlines as an essential service;
• A desire to stave off potential bankruptcies in the industry, save jobs and routes especially into smaller communities across Canada;
• An interest in ensuring Canada continues to be served by Canadian airlines rather than foreign-owned companies; and
• The principle of fairness as well as the fact that the Government has helped other industries in the past and is currently helping many individual Canadians, households and businesses through programs such as the CERB and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS).

And, although a number of participants supported providing financial aid to the airlines, they felt it should be in the form of loans and/or that some conditions should apply, including insisting that airlines offer passengers full reimbursement on cancelled flights rather than credits, ensuring that flights are priced more affordably, and services to rural or more remote locations are maintained. In particular, some worried that in addition to government revenues being used to provide financial aid, airline customers would also likely have to pay increased ticket prices or additional charges as the airlines look for ways to boost their revenues. These participants felt there should be some relief for customers.

Others equivocated or were not inclined to support financial support for the airlines. For those holding this latter point of view, some indicated that, like other businesses, the airlines must adapt to the present circumstances which may require completely rethinking their business model. These participants also felt that travel was likely to resume at some point in the future and, as such, they predicted the industry would recover albeit with some adjustments to reflect the ‘new normal.’ Some also held the view that the airlines had been highly profitable over the years and thus should be able to sustain themselves during a short-term period of recovery. A number of participants didn’t have a strong point of view one way or the other, but suggested that supporting the airlines should not be a high priority for the Government of Canada, relative to other issues. Others favoured some assistance being offered, but noted that it should be more targeted to regional airlines that provide services to smaller communities outside the main hubs. A few were more supportive of providing assistance to those working in the industry, but not the industry itself. They favoured aid in the form of personal protective equipment (PPE). And, in this vein, others noted that in addition to financial aid, the airlines needed other support to bolster the general public’s confidence in air travel, including additional health and security measures and checks.

Participants generally understood and supported the business decision that some airlines have taken to suspend dozens of domestic flight routes, including regional routes as well as service to a number of domestic cities, knowing this would adversely affect many communities. While some participants were highly critical of this decision, specifically those residing in rural areas and in Atlantic Canada, others believed that it was necessary for the airlines to sustain themselves and viewed it as a rational albeit unfortunate business decision. Others described the situation as complex and empathized with those having to make these kinds of tough decisions. For some participants, this underscored the need voiced earlier to offer more targeted support to particular airlines, specifically directed at the smaller regional services rather than the larger national airlines.

Concerns were raised by participants in rural Quebec about the impact of a decision by Air Canada to terminate service to areas such as the Gaspé, Baie Comeau, Mont Joli and Val d’Or. Many expressed disappointment, especially as businesses located in these areas rely heavily on airlines to transit goods in and out of their communities and would now be faced with few alternatives to move their products. They were also concerned about further isolation of the residents and businesses within these communities.

When specifically asked whether the Government of Canada should step in to ensure air service to smaller communities is preserved, many began to reconsider their earlier views and spoke strongly in favour of keeping these communities connected. Some commented not only on the more concrete economic benefits associated with connecting communities across Canada, but also the less tangible aspects (e.g., broader societal and cultural connections). They also questioned the logic of severing these connections at this time only to end up re-establishing them at a later date when the economy improves.

Discussions centered on the reliance of these smaller, less accessible and particularly Northern communities on air service to bring in needed goods, but also to provide a means for residents to access health care services that may only be available in larger centres. Among participants in Winnipeg, there were also concerns expressed that the cancellation of flights to these communities closely following the termination of Greyhound passenger bus service and freight service in 2018 would serve to further isolate some areas. At the same time, a few participants mentioned that they were less concerned about passenger travel to and from these areas, and felt there were reasonable and more cost effective alternatives to provide service via road and rail.

Conditions for Financial Aid (Calgary, Montreal, Mid-sized Centres Atlantic Canada)

In several groups, participants were questioned about providing financial aid to airlines if they agreed to meet one or more of the following conditions:

• Cannot sell middle seat in rows as a COVID safety precaution
• Refund everyone who had tickets cancelled due to COVID (right now most only received vouchers)
• Maintain service to smaller communities
• End the practice of charging extra fees for things like checked bags

On balance, participants supported putting some conditions in place in exchange for financial assistance. Some went further and insisted that additional conditions should include:

• Monitoring profit levels;
• Additional consumer protections, specifically aimed at preventing sudden increases in ticket prices;
• Enhanced health and safety precautions for the flying public; and
• Job protection – ensuring that airline staff are able to retain their jobs, thereby avoiding additional pressure on EI.

Throughout these discussions a few participants questioned what they viewed as a contradiction in policy aimed at propping up Canadian airlines and encouraging more Canadians to travel domestically while at the same time the Government continues to promote physical distancing and other precautions to stop the spread of COVID-19. While this was not the predominant view, these participants felt that given lower volumes of cross-country travel, the priority should be reinstating or maintaining service to smaller communities. At the same time, some were concerned that any air travel would further contribute to transmission of the virus.

The possibility of a scenario in which Canadians airlines go bankrupt without federal aid and Canadians are then served only by U.S. or international airlines was met with considerable unease. Facing this prospect, many participants opted to ensure that Canadian airlines would receive financial aid. They felt it was vital to sustain the Canadian airline industry for a number of reasons, including maintaining a strong Canadian identity and presence in the sector, a more competitive industry, as well as jobs and employment. There were also worries of a domino effect, with some participants suggesting that service from international airlines alone would threaten the survival of many airports across Canada and the travel industry in Canada as a whole. Some participants took the opportunity at this point in the discussion to reiterate their interest in maintaining service to smaller communities which they felt would be at risk under this scenario. And, while not a widely held view, a few said that the Government of Canada should consider an equity stake in those airlines which are offered financial assistance so that Canadians may benefit from any profitability achieved over the long run.

COVID-19 Alert App – Creative Testing (Windsor CERB Recipients, GMA Black Canadians, Major Centres Ontario Black Canadians, Winnipeg Parents, Rural Quebec CERB Recipients, Toronto)

During the month of July discussions were held among a number of the groups regarding the COVID-19 Alert app. The app was still under development at the time these groups were held. The Government of Canada made the app available for downloading on July 31^st, 2020.

Awareness of COVID-19 Alert App (Windsor CERB Recipients, GMA Black Canadians, Major Centres Ontario Black Canadians, Winnipeg Parents, Rural Quebec CERB Recipients, Toronto)

Relatively few participants in each group were aware of the COVID-19 Alert app. Those who were had typically heard that it was under development and/or that the purpose of the app was to allow people to know if they had been in contact with someone who had tested positive for COVID-19. Otherwise, they had little more information about the app and, unprompted, did not express much detailed understanding of how the app functioned with respect to determining exposure to others who have contracted the virus.

Some expressed confusion between the various apps under development, having heard about a number of them on the news or through social media (e.g., Facebook, WhatsApp). Several participants mentioned an app with a similar purpose that they claimed had been automatically downloaded either to their Facebook account or their smart phone. These participants seemed somewhat surprised that the app had been downloaded without their expressed acknowledgement or permission.

Social Media Messages (Windsor CERB Recipients, GMA Black Canadians, Major Centres Ontario Black Canadians, Winnipeg Parents, Rural Quebec CERB Recipients)

In the five groups noted above, participants were asked to review and assess some messages from the Government of Canada related to this app. They were told that these messages would appear on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. In all, seven social media messages were shown to participants, as illustrated below.

The figures above show a series of Facebook ads. The ad sponsor for all ads is Healthy Canadians and the Health Canada and Government of Canada logo are included at the bottom of each ad. Each ad also contains a call to action at the bottom that reads “Help us stop COVID-19. Download the COVID Alert app” and includes a button to “Download” the app. Each concept (A to G) contains a different post headline and different main image.

A: Post headline: We need your help to contain the virus. Download the COVID Alert app so that, together, we can limit the spread of COVID-19. Main image has a green background. Main headline (in image): Help stop the spread. Download the COVID Alert app. Icon (in image): Hand holding a cell phone with COVID Alert app logo on screen.

B: Post headline: We need you to do your part to contain the contain virus. Download the COVID Alert app so that, together, we can limit the spread of COVID-19. Main image has a blue background. Main headline (in image): Do your part. Download the COVID Alert app. Icon (in image): A person with a beard is holding a cell phone that is sending an alert. The COVID Alert app logo is shown in a speech bubble.

C: Post headline: Let’s keep protecting ourselves and others. Download the COVID Alert app so that, together, we can limit the spread of COVID-19. Main image has a yellow background. Main headline (in image): Download the COVID Alert app. Protect your community. Icon (in image): Two different hands each holding a cell phone with COVID Alert app logo on screen. There is a network signal that connects the two phones together.

D: Post headline: Break the chain of infection while protecting your privacy. Download the COVID Alert app so that, together, we can limit the spread of COVID-19. Main image has a pink background. Main headline (in image): We protect your privacy so you can protect others. Icon (in image): A person with long hair is holding a cell phone that is sending an alert. The COVID Alert app logo is shown in a speech bubble.

E: Post headline: Protect yourself and your loved ones by knowing if you’ve been exposed. Download the COVID Alert app so that, together, we can limit the spread of COVID-19. Main image has an orange background. Main headline (in image): Use the COVID Alert app to know if you may have been exposed. Icon (in image): A person with an afro is holding a cell phone that is sending an alert. The COVID Alert app logo is shown in a speech bubble.

F: Post headline: Get tested if someone you’ve been near reports positive for the virus. Download the COVID Alert app so that, together, we can limit the spread of COVID-19. Main image has a purple background. Main headline (in image): Download the COVID Alert app before heading out. Icon (in image): A person with short hair is holding a cell phone with a notification symbol. The COVID Alert app logo is shown in a speech bubble.

G: Post headline: Go further than wearing a mask to protect yourself and others. Download the COVID Alert app so that, together, we can limit the spread of COVID-19. Main image has a seafoam green coloured background. Main headline (in image): Get extra protection. Use both a mask and the COVID Alert app. Icon (in image): A person with short hair, wearing a mask, is holding a cell phone that is sending an alert. The COVID Alert app logo is shown in a speech bubble.

Following a brief review of each, participants were asked to select two or three from the seven that they found to be the most compelling in terms of convincing them to download the app. Across the groups, participants converged around A and E, although there was also reasonable support for C and G. By contrast, relatively few participants identified B, D or F as messages that they would find highly compelling.

In evaluating the extent to which they were captivated by these messages, participants primarily focused on the central message in bold as well as the introductory message consisting of two sentences and which consistently ended with the phrase “Download the COVID Alert app so that, together, we can limit the spread of COVID-19.”

Option A appealed to participants for a number of reasons:

• The introductory message – “We need your help to contain the virus.” This statement was viewed as relatable and truthful. In addition, participants found the tone to be friendly. In particular, the request for assistance from Canadians was thought to be respectful. The key word here was ‘help.’ By contrast, some of the other messages were viewed more as commands or directives, rather than requests.
• The request for help – Participants responded positively to the request for help, seeing tackling the spread of COVID-19 as requiring a team effort. They liked the idea of being part of a team which, for some, countered a sense of helplessness and a perceived lack of control over the current situation which they had developed over the course of the pandemic.
• The prominent image of the cellphone – This image reinforced the idea of downloading an app onto one’s mobile and that the app would contribute to stopping the spread of COVID-19. The image and the message were viewed as quite clear, and mutually reinforcing. However, as some participants suggested, combining the cellphone image with the image of a face mask, as shown in G, would further emphasize the ‘safety’ or ‘protective’ benefit of the app.

The approach taken in Option E reinforced participants’ sense of control as they particularly appreciated that the app would let them know if they had been exposed to the virus, thereby allowing them to better protect themselves and their loved ones. In this respect, they felt they were being spoken to on a very personal level and that the message was highly personally relevant. What struck some participants in particular was the reference to protecting their loved ones. Additionally, the appeal of this message was, at least in part, due to the fact that it did not promote wearing a face mask which some felt had become a less persuasive message given the frequency with which this advice has been promoted in various advertising campaigns aimed at preventing the spread of the virus. In this respect, this message contained new information. For others, this message was seen to be effective at reaching two distinct audiences: those who are aware of and understand the risks, as well as those who may not yet fully appreciate them. Still others reacted positively to the sense of urgency and immediacy embedded in the message as they felt that the app would alert them to possible exposure almost instantaneously. Although not a commonly held view, some participants said that the focus on ‘knowing if you’ve been exposed’ raised some privacy concerns for them specifically with respect to what information government may be collecting on their movements and the extent to which they were being monitored.

The focus on community was what drew some participants to option C. A few participants found that this reinforced the notion of bringing people together, which they responded to positively. The message of unity spoke directly to a number of participants. Others commented on the more prominent image of the cell phone in Option C which they found to be more pertinent to the messaging with respect to the availability of an app and its functionality in terms of transmitting data between cellphones, similar to the response to Option A.

Participants were drawn to G mainly due to the image of the person wearing a face mask. The image amplified the message and underscored the idea of getting ‘double the protection’ by wearing face masks and downloading the COVID Alert app.

Far fewer participants found B, D or F compelling and, in fact, these options were flagged by a number of participants when asked which messages were confusing.

Option B – Very few participants commented either positively or negatively on Option B. Of all the social media messages tested, it was discussed the least among participants. Some participants tended to compare this option with A and found it to be the weaker of the two – they generally preferred the phrase ‘we need your help’ over ‘do your part’ if the intent of the message was to encourage Canadians to work together.

Option D – Participants were the least receptive to Option D. A few participants were quick to point out that the emphasis on protecting people’s privacy had the reverse effect in that it prompted them to question whether in fact there was an issue in this regard. As some noted, in a more subliminal manner, it raised more alarm bells by positioning the issue of privacy as the central or primary message. In so doing it brought the issue to the forefront. Several participants mentioned they had not previously thought much about the privacy issue and, in this respect, this approach tended to be less rather than more reassuring. Some participants also interpreted the reference to privacy in Option D as meaning that the app would require personal or private information from those who downloaded it and/or those who tested positive. This was both confusing and concerning.

Option F – Some participants who found F to be quite compelling were, nevertheless, clearly confused by the messaging. They interpreted the message about downloading the app before heading out to mean that the app would notify them of higher risk areas (e.g., areas where there has been an outbreak of the virus) and redirect or advise them to locations which were considered lower risk or not under an ‘alert.’ Along the same lines, other participants assumed the app would let them know if a particular area was safe so that they could factor that into their plans. They thought of it more as a tool to help them plan their outings. Specifically, some felt the app would only be useful if they were going out and took the time to input specific information to the app on exactly where they intended to go. A few participants carried this line of thinking further and felt the app should provide more specific information about the nature of any contact they had with people who subsequently tested positive (e.g., x number of employees at x store/location tested positive), the intention being that they would then avoid further trips or visits to these locations. Others commented that while this message implored them to download the app, it didn’t provide any explanation as to how it worked or how the app would help protect them.

How it Works and Onboarding (Windsor CERB Recipients, GMA Black Canadians, Major Centres Ontario Black Canadians, Winnipeg Parents, Rural Quebec, CERB Recipients)

Participants were shown mock-ups of descriptions that might appear on the app to explain how it works.

The four figures above show a series of screenshots, in sequential order that Canadians would see on the COVID Alert app. Each frame has a ‘Close’ button on the top right, an image, headline and sub-text in the main frame, and at the bottom, there is a progress bar along with ‘Back’ and ‘Next’ buttons to move through from page to page.

1. This image shows a cell phone in a person’s pocket (in purple) that has a sync icon on the screen. Next to the cell phone is a rectangle block of arrows coming into the phone and away from the cell phone (in green). Headline: How COVID Alert works. Sub-text: The app runs in the background and will not interrupt your activities. Whenever you’re near someone else with COVID Alert, both phones exchange random codes every 5 minutes. The random codes change often and cannot be used to identify you.

2. This image shows two cell phones (in purple) connected by a dotted line above with a timer icon in the middle. Above this is a sign (in green) with a dotted double arrow icon. Headline: What’s an exposure? Sub-text: The app estimates how near people are from the strength of Bluetooth signals. If you’re closer than 2 metres for more than 15 minutes, the app will record an exposure.

3. This image shows a cell phone (in purple) with an export icon on the screen. Above this is a rectangle (in green) that shows the code 101101. Above this is an icon of a white cloud. Headline: Getting a positive test. Sub-text: If someone with the app is diagnosed with COVID-19, they can choose to upload the random codes their phone sent. The codes go into a central server. The server only gets the codes. It does not get any information about the person.

4. This image shows a cell phone (in purple) at the bottom. Above the phone is a vertical rectangle (in green) with codes 00100, 01101, 01101. Over the middle code (01101) is a search bar. Headline: Looking for exposures. Sub-text: Every day, whenever it has an Internet connection, your phone will get a list of the random codes from people who reported a diagnosis. If it finds codes that match, the app notifies you that you’ve been exposed and gives you guidance.

On the basis of the information shown, participants were asked whether they would be inclined to download the app or not. In each group a few participants indicated they would not but, on balance, more said they would. When asked to elaborate, those who responded positively mentioned the following:

• A belief that the app will only be effective if large numbers downloaded and used it;
• Interest in knowing if they have been exposed to COVID-19;
• The app contributed to an increased sense of security and reassurance about their own, and their children’s, health;
• A general sense of curiosity about how the app works; and
• The idea that this app could replace the need to complete forms, as is currently required in some retail outlets (e.g., hair salons), stating that the client would provide any information if they tested positive or were made aware that they had come into contact with someone who had.

For those who were either uncertain or indicated they would not download the app, concerns centered around:

• A belief that they were already doing much of what was necessary to protect themselves from contracting COVID-19, including wearing face masks, social distancing and handwashing. These participants did not see the added value of downloading an app;
• Privacy and how their personal information would be used;
• The accuracy of the data collected, including the possibility for ‘false positive’ tests and thus having some individuals input incorrect data into the app;
• Uncertainty as to whether people who test positive will actually input their information; and
• Confusion around how the app works, specifically:
  • the generation of random codes
  • the requirement for internet connectivity as well as to carry your cell phone on your person at all times. There were also questions and concerns raised about having to keep Bluetooth enabled
  • the reference to exposures defined as being closer than 2 metres proximity and for more than 15 minutes – some participants questioned the stipulation of having to be in the presence of another person for minimum of 15 minutes

While many participants felt the information provided in these screen shots was reasonably clear and answered some of their questions, further comments revealed a number of areas of concern or confusion, even among those who expressed initial interest in downloading the app. Most of these pertained to the functionality and mechanics of the app.

The frequent references to random codes in several of the screens shown to participants were somewhat confusing (e.g., ‘the random codes change often…,’ they can choose to upload the random codes their phone sent,’ ‘the server only gets the codes …,’ and ‘your phone will get a list of the random codes …’). Additionally, the descriptions which referred both to Bluetooth signals and the requirement for an Internet connection were perplexing to some participants. They remained uncertain as to whether the app required an internet connection in order to exchange random codes or not. Some participants were unclear on the mechanics, although they generally understood that this had something to do with maintaining users’ privacy.

There were also questions about who inputs the data if someone tests positive – is it the individual or a medical professional? This raised concerns in some groups about the possibility of breaches of privacy and possible stigmatization of those who have tested positive (based on a misperception that the individual’s identity and their test result would be uploaded to some kind of Government of Canada database). At the same time, others felt that leaving it up to individuals who had tested positive to input their information into the app was not as effective as a more centralized approach. As noted earlier, some were concerned that people with the virus may elect not to use the app, thereby reducing its value as a key component of public health efforts across Canada to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Others highlighted a number of other issues, including concerns about receiving a high volume of notifications or alerts. This reaction reflected a key misunderstanding about the app and an assumption that it would alert individuals in real-time (i.e., if they came within 2 metres of someone who currently had COVID-19). Several participants also felt the app may give people a false sense of security causing them to relax adherence to other preventive measures. A few thought that the images and icons did not add sufficient clarity or help to further their understanding of the content provided.

Participants who were initially hesitant about downloading the app were asked whether they would change their mind if they knew that the app did not collect any information such as their name, address or anything else that could personally identify them or anyone else who used the app. Knowing this did assuage some concerns. Others remained unmoved or unconvinced. Some, among this latter group, were less concerned about issues related to privacy. Rather, they simply didn’t feel that the app would be that useful to them personally. Others remained unclear on the purpose and still had questions about how the app functioned. In particular, a few participants continued to query the exchange of random codes and whether this was done in real-time, the assumption being that this approach would be most useful. Participants also questioned how long information on those who had tested positive remained on the app, assuming that an individual may be associated with a ‘positive code’ long past the time at which they have recovered from the virus. These types of questions and concerns continued to reflect a lack of understanding of the technical functionality of the app, and this often led to incorrect assumptions.

Participants were further told that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada had said that the app met all federal privacy requirements. Knowing this led some to further question the app’s utility, especially if the information on those who have tested positive is protected. Some felt that the current efforts with respect to contact tracing were likely sufficient, negating the need for or value of an app. Others who initially indicated they were unlikely to download the app continued to focus on aspects such as the issue of exposure for 15 minutes or more, noting that their interactions with most people were typically very brief. This led them to question how effective the app would be given their daily life and routine. Those who had concerns primarily with respect to the credibility of the data that would be input into the app, remained unconvinced by arguments with respect to privacy. Some participants continued to express reservations about having to keep Bluetooth enabled, raising concerns about the battery life of their cell phone and possible hacking.

As the conversation progressed, participants were shown some additional information that could appear when someone who has downloaded the app would like to set it up to begin using it.

The five figures above show a series of screenshots, in sequential order, that Canadians would first see when they download and open the COVID Alert app. Each frame has an image, headline and sub-text in the main frame. At the bottom, there is a progress statement (e.g. Step 1 of 6), along with a ‘Next’ button to move to the next page.

1. This image shows the top of a cell phone (in purple) with icons of people doing different activities above. Headline: Together, let’s stop the spread of COVID-19. Sub-text: COVID Alert helps us break the cycle of infection. The app can let people know of possible exposures before any symptoms appear. That way, we can take care of ourselves and protect our communities.

2. This image shows icons of a corporate building, an apartment building and several houses all connected. Headline: What COVID Alert does not do. Sub-text: The app will not tell you in the moment if you’re currently near someone who’s been diagnosed. It will not tell you about outbreaks in your community.

3. This image shows a silhouette of a person’s face using icons of a hat and glasses (in purple). Above this, is a location services symbol (in red) with an ‘X” through it. Headline: Totally anonymous. Sub-text: COVID Alert does not use GPS or location services. It has no way of knowing: X Your location. X Your name or address. X Your phone’s contacts. X Your health information.

4. This image shows two people holding cell phones and a person with a cell phone in their pockets (in purple). Above each cell phone is a Bluetooth icon (in green). Headline: How it works. Sub-text: ✓ The app uses Bluetooth to exchange random codes with nearby phones. ✓ Every day, it checks a list of random codes from people who tell the app they tested positive. ✓ If you’ve been near one of those codes in the past 14 days, you will get a notification. At the bottom of the frame there is a button that reads ‘Learn more about how it works’ with a forward arrow.

5. This image shows a cell phone (purple). On screen, is a series of text with an ‘X’ (in red) and a ‘✓” (in green) at the bottom. Headline: The app will now ask your permission. Sub-text: Allow the app to start logging random codes or “random IDs” when you’re near other phones. The app will access the date, duration, and signal strength related to the random codes, but they never leave your phone. You’ll also need to enable push notifications. At the bottom of the frame there is a button that reads ‘Learn more about privacy’ with a forward arrow.

Reactions to the information shown varied. On the positive side, some participants felt the information provided helped to clarify some questions, specifically with respect to what the app does not do. They found it comforting, for example, to have a better understanding of the app’s capabilities. A few participants also felt this information provided some illumination on questions they had about the use of Bluetooth versus GPS tracking technology.

For the most part, however, participants who said they would not download the app continued to maintain this position. Some participants were less convinced of the utility of the app for reasons already stated: it requires a critical mass of people to download it; it relies heavily on people being honest and reporting that they have tested positive, and it doesn’t alert people ‘in the moment’ or in real-time to an exposure. On this last point, it was apparent that some participants did not fully understand the 14-day incubation period for the virus in which an individual could be carrying the virus, but be asymptomatic. Thus they questioned the 14 day timeframe to alert others, at which point they felt it was too late to learn one had possibly come into contact with someone who had tested positive. The name ‘Alert’ also implied to these participants the perception of immediacy that participants had or the possibility of real-time notification in much the same way as an Amber Alert. Others remained worried about privacy issues.

While some participants who were initially skeptical expressed slightly greater interest in downloading the app as a result of the information provided, most continued to have reservations. Additionally, some of those who responded positively to the app at the outset of the discussion, now reversed their earlier position. This response was a factor of several issues but principally a reflection of concerns that the app did not provide real-time information or more precise data on where outbreaks were occurring in the community. Again, participants underscored that the efficacy of the app was heavily predicated on the willingness of people to input credible information.

COVID-19 Brand Concepts - Ad Testing (Windsor CERB Recipients)

In the Windsor location only, participants were asked to evaluate a series of advertising concepts (which had also been tested in two groups at the end of June) in English. There were three concepts in total – labelled A, B and C. Each concept was illustrated with three executions intended for Facebook, print, and billboards. Participants in Windsor were shown the concepts, in the following order, so as to eliminate any potential ordering bias from the ordering in which they were shown in the previous month: Concept C, then A, then B.

Within each concept, an original version (1) and an alternate (2) of each concept was tested. The original was tested first, followed by the alternate. Then both versions of the concept were shown side-by-side (i.e., A1 and A2) to allow for discussion of and comparison between the two.

Concept C

Concept C1: The figure above shows an ad set consisting of three ads over different mediums – Facebook, print and billboard ad. All ads feature a peach and light grey background colour and have a main headline in large black font. The first ad’s (Facebook) main headline (on the left) reads “Save time at the border.” along with a small icon of two hands surrounding a circle with a maple leaf in the middle. The right side of the ad features a photograph of a woman wearing a mask in an airport, which is framed by a maple leaf. At the bottom, there is a button to download the app or find out more information at Canada.ca/coronavirus. The second ad (print) shows (on the right) a large image of a man sitting while holding his two children, which is framed by a partial maple leaf. On the left hand side the main headline reads “Canada Safe. Canada Strong.” and a larger sub headline below reads “Support for you, your family and your business.” Underneath this, is smaller text that reads “Financial assistance is available:” and lists the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Business Account. At the bottom of the ad the text “Visit Canada.ca/Coronavirus to learn more” and the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown. The third ad’s (billboard) main headline reads “Let’s protect each other” and has a sub headline that reads “Wear a non-medical mask or face covering when physical distancing is difficult.” Below this, text with the URL canada.ca/coronavirus is presented. The right hand side of the ad features a photograph of a young man smiling as she is wearing a mask, which is framed by the outline of a maple leaf. At the bottom of the ad, the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown.

Initial reactions: Overall participants responded very positively to this set of ads. They commented that the ads appeared to be very well developed and that they were clear and simple to read.

Likes/strengths: Participants cited the two key strengths of the ads to be the stylistic use of the maple leaf ‘cut-out’ throughout each of the concepts and the choice of neutral colours. Participants also liked the image of the woman used in the billboard ad, as she appeared to be wearing a non-medical mask, which some viewed as relatable.

Dislikes/weaknesses: Participants noted very few weaknesses associated with this concept. A few were less favourable of the icon of hands surrounding a maple leaf used in the online ad, while others found the second level of font in the print ad to be too small.

Resonance/impact: For all the reasons mentioned above, including the graphic elements (e.g., maple leaf), colouring, and imagery selected most participants stated that this ad would resonate with them.

Unified look/continuous element: Most felt the ads shared a similar aesthetic and were complementary of one another. They viewed the set to have good continuity throughout, specifically because of the consistent elements mentioned above (use of maple leaf, colours, etc.).

Suggestions: One exception was the print ad, which some participants felt was not as cohesive as the other two. Suggestions were made to improve this version by adding the peach colour or making the maple leaf more defined and more clearly evident.

Concept C2: The figure above shows an alternative ad set consisting of two ads over different mediums – Facebook and billboard ad. All ads feature an orange background and have a title headline and/or a main headline in large black font. The first ad’s (Facebook) the main headline reads “Save time at the border.” (on the right) and a black icon of two hands surrounding a circle with a maple leaf in the middle (on the right). Underneath, taking up most of the ad, is a rectangular photograph of a woman wearing a mask in an airport. At the bottom, there is a button to download the app with the text “ArriveCan app” and “More at Canada.ca/coronavirus.” The second ad’s (billboard) title headline reads “Let’s protect each other.” (on the left side) with a main headline below that reads “Wear a non-medical mask or face covering when physical distancing is difficult.” Below this, text with the URL Canada.ca/coronavirus is presented. The right hand side of the ad features a square photograph of a young man smiling as she is wearing a mask. At the bottom of the ad, the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown.

Overall reactions: Participants were somewhat neutral to the alternative version of this concept (C2) and it did not garner the same level of favourability as the original.

Notable differences: Most immediately noted the difference in the contrasting colour used between C1 and C2. While the more tranquil and calming peach colour was preferred by many, a few liked the darker yellow/orange colour, feeling that a bright colour would be more effective at grabbing their interest and getting them to pay attention. Apart from the different colours, many noticed that the maple leaf was not present in this alternate version, which they felt made it much less compelling.

In this figure, the C1 Facebook and billboard ads are shown on the left and C2 Facebook and billboard ads shown on the right.

Preference C1 versus C2: When asked to select which concept they preferred, almost all participants selected C1 over C2. This was mostly driven by strong receptivity to the use of the maple leaf, the colour palette, and the overall design of the original version.

Concept A

Concept A1: The figure above shows an ad set consisting of three ads over different mediums – Facebook, print and billboard ad. All ads feature a teal blue background and have a main headline in large white font. The first ad’s (Facebook) main headline (on the left) reads “Save time at the border.” along with a small icon of a plane. On the right hand side of this ad a smartphone is shown, featuring a Government of Canada ArriveCan app that reads “How are you entering Canada?” and provides two options on screen – entering by air or by land. At the bottom, there is a button to download the app or find out more information at Canada.ca/coronavirus. The second ad (print) shows a large image of a woman and her son on a computer together. On the left hand side the main headline reads “Canada Safe. Canada Strong.” and a sub-headline that reads “Support for you, your family and your business.” At the bottom of the ad, the ad reads “Financial assistance is available:” and lists the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Business Account. Below this reads “Visit Canada.ca/Coronavirus to learn more” and the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown. The third ad’s (billboard) main headline reads “Let’s protect each other.” and has a sub headline that reads “Wear a non-medical mask or face covering when physical distancing is difficult.” alongside an icon of a public transit train. The right hand side of the ad features an image of a young man and woman with their arms wrapped around each other. Face masks are ‘drawn’ or overlaid on the two individuals faces. In the background there is a faint layer of trees and at the bottom of the ad, the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown.

Initial reactions: Response to this set of ads was somewhat neutral. While there were elements of this set of ads that participants liked, there were also many other aspects they disliked.

Likes/strengths: Participants cited a number of strengths, including the bold and prominent headline and the use of imagery – including the use of people standing together (in the billboard ad) and the family (in the print ad).

Dislikes/weaknesses: Participants felt that the use of photo-shopped masks in the billboard concept was a key weakness, as they believed it looked too cartoon-like and it left them with an impression of not taking seriously the realities of those having to wear masks on a daily basis. The use of the curving white line was also disliked by participants as it did not appear to be relevant to the content or add any value to their understanding of the message.

Resonance/impact: As suggested by the comments provided above, on balance, this set of ads did not necessarily resonate with most participants.

Concept A2: The figure above shows an alternative ad set consisting of two ads over different mediums – Facebook and billboard ad. All ads feature a red-orange background and have a main headline in large white font in capital letters. The first ad’s (Facebook) main headline (on the left) reads “SAVE TIME AT THE BORDER.” along with a small white line in the shape of a border. On the right hand side of this ad a smartphone is shown, featuring a Government of Canada ArriveCan app that reads “How are you entering Canada?” and provides two options on screen – entering by air or by land. At the bottom, there is a button to download the app or find out more information at Canada.ca/coronavirus. The second ad’s (billboard) main headline reads “LET’S PROTECT EACH OTHER..” and has a sub headline that reads “Wear a non-medical mask or face covering when physical distancing is difficult.” alongside an icon of a public transit train. The right hand side of the ad features an image of a young man holding a public transit pole, as if he is riding on a bus or a train. In the background, there are white shadow-like images of other people and at the bottom of the ad, the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown.

Overall reactions: When shown the alternative, Concept A2, participants were quite critical in their views. On initial reaction, comments were made that the orange/red background colour reminded participants of an ad for the Canadian Red Cross. Similarly to the original versions, the white lines were not seen as adding any value, and in particular, the use of the line on the Facebook ad suggested more rather than less time at the border and thus did not underpin the message of ‘saving time.’ That said, many were drawn to the imagery in the billboard ad and reacted favourably to the layering of shadows in the background, behind the person standing. Regardless, some did not like the overlay of photo-shopped masks, a comment that was also made in regard to the original version of this concept.

In this figure, the A1 Facebook and billboard ads are shown on the left and A2 Facebook and billboard ads shown on the right.

Preference A1 versus A2: When participants were shown both versions of Concept A, most participants preferred the original version (A1). Preference was driven by key elements in A1 such as the choice of colour (blue was seen as more calming), the font choice (particularly use of lowercase lettering) and the iconography (of the airplane, for example).

Concept B

Concept B1: The figure above shows an ad set consisting of three ads over different mediums – Facebook, print and billboard ad. All ads feature an electric yellow, black and cream colour scheme and have a title headline and a main headline in black or white font. The first ad’s (Facebook) title headline reads “ArriveCan app” and the main headline reads “Save time at the border.” In between, there are two square images – one a photograph of a woman on a plane reading a book and tucking her hair behind her ear and another of a black icon of two hands surrounding a circle with a maple leaf in the middle, on a bright yellow background. At the bottom, there is a button to download the app with the text “More at Canada.ca/coronavirus”. The second ad (print) has the title headline at the top of the ad, which reads “CANADA SAFE. CANADA STRONG.” then, it shows a large image of a man holding his son in his arms in a home, in the centre of the page. The bottom half of the ad features the main headline (on the left) which reads “Support for you, your family and your business.” and a sub-headline on the right which reads “Financial assistance is available:” and lists the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Business Account. At the bottom of the ad, it says “Visit Canada.ca/Coronavirus to learn more” and the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown. The third ad’s (billboard) title headline (on the left) reads “LET”S PROTECT EACH OTHER.” and has a sub headline that reads “Wear a non-medical mask or face covering when physical distancing is difficult.” on the left side of the ad. Below this, text with the URL canada.ca/coronavirus is presented. The right hand side of the ad features two square images – one of a young woman wearing a mask and another image of a black icon of a face mask, on a bright yellow background. At the bottom of the ad, the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown.

Initial reactions: Participants’ reactions to this set of ads generally skewed more negatively compared to the two other concepts which were shown. Overall, the ads did not resonate well with participants for the reasons outlined below.

Likes/strengths: Unprompted, participants noted very few strengths associated with this concept, although it was clear from comments that the colour scheme did get their attention. When discussed in more detail, however, the reaction was negative.

Dislikes/weaknesses: The colour palette, particularly the bright yellow was strongly disliked by participants. They viewed it as unbecoming and off-putting. In terms of the imagery, participants were confused about the combined use of imagery with icons and suggested that just one or the other be used rather than both. The inclusion of both was seen as redundant and participants felt it contributed to the design appearing somewhat amateur or unprofessional. As well, a few participants commented on the inappropriateness of using an image of a woman covering her face with her arm, as in the Facebook ad, rather than of someone actually wearing a mask in line with guidance from public health officials.

Unified look/continuous element: Overall, participants felt that the ads in this set were generally cohesive. In particular, the use of icons and the consistent colouring seemed to tie the ads together as a set. However, some participants commented that the messaging appeared to be disjointed as they each focused on very different topics – time at the border, support for families/businesses and the use of masks.

Concept B2: The figure above shows an alternative ad set consisting of two ads over different mediums – Facebook and billboard ad. All ads feature a bright yellow background and have a title headline and a main headline in large black font. The first ad’s (Facebook) title headline (across the top) reads “ArriveCan app.” and the main headline reads “Save time at the border.” In between, there are two square images – one a photograph of a woman on a plane reading a book and tucking her hair behind her ear and another of a white icon of two hands surrounding a circle with a maple leaf in the middle, on a black background. At the bottom, there is a button to download the app with the text “More at Canada.ca/coronavirus.” The second ad’s (billboard) title headline reads “LET’S PROTECT EACH OTHER.” on the left side with a main headline below that reads “Wear a non-medical mask or face covering when physical distancing is difficult.” Below this, text with the URL canada.ca/coronavirus is presented. The right hand side of the ad features an icon of a bright yellow face mask on a black background. At the bottom of the ad, the Government of Canada logo and wordmark are shown.

Overall reactions: Reactions to this alternative concept (B2) were generally less positive than the previous version (B1). The heavier use of the vivid yellow colouring in these ads was noted as the primary difference and was generally less well received, as the colour scheme was a feature that many particularly disliked about this ad concept overall. In this alternative version, participants referred to the colour as being alarming, suggesting a severe emergency or hazardous situation.

Notable differences: Apart from the colouring, participants did not mention any other notable differences compared with Concept B1.

In this figure, the B1 Facebook and billboard ads are shown on the left and B2 Facebook and billboard ads shown on the right.

Preference B1 versus B2: Almost all participants preferred Concept B1. The original version of the concept tended to have less of the bright yellow colouring which participants generally found unattractive or off-putting. Again, participants preferred the use of imagery whereby the individual featured is wearing a mask.

Concept Comparison

In order to conduct a final comparison between concepts, participants were shown the billboard ads only for each of the three concepts, including both the original and alternate versions, as per the image below.

In this figure, the billboard versions of all concepts are shown in the following order (from left to right, top to bottom): A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2.

When asked to select the one they felt to be most compelling, the choice aligned with views expressed earlier when each concept was being reviewed on its individual merits. Almost all participants selected Concept C. This was preferred for several reasons including:

• the colour choice - because it was viewed as more calming and less alarmist;
• the use of the maple leaf– which was viewed as an interesting and recognizable, uniquely Canadian stylistic element;
• the use of photography in this concept was deemed more appropriate, particularly because the woman was wearing a ‘real’ mask and it was apparent that she was happy/smiling; and
• the overall professionalism of the concept- perceived as having a more ‘government’ look compared to the others.

Asked if there was anything that might help to improve Concept C, participants’ only additional suggestion was to include multiple people in the main image. Participants reacted more positively to images showing families (e.g., parent and child) and multiple people as this was more reflective of their social nature as well as their desire to interact with others while still staying safe.

COVID-19 Taglines (Lower Mainland BC, Mid-size and Small Town Quebec Parents)

Participants in the two groups noted above were shown three possible taglines developed by the federal government that could be used to help keep Canadians safe and to motivate people to practice safe behaviours such as wearing masks, practicing physical distancing and avoiding large parties.

The three taglines presented were:

• Is it really worth it?
• Outsmart future outbreaks
• Unstoppable together

Preference on these taglines differed between Anglophone and Francophone participants. Participants in the Lower Mainland group leaned towards the tagline ‘Is it really worth it?’. They believed that phrasing this tagline as a question was engaging and made participants stop, think, internalize and contemplate a response, all which they believed contributed to it being more memorable compared to the others. Meanwhile, about as many participants in the Quebec focus group preferred ‘unstoppable together’ over the other two options. Francophones found the term ‘together’ to be meaningful as it suggested the idea of working cooperatively or a “community spirit”. ‘Outsmart future outbreaks’ was chosen by a couple of participants in each group because they viewed it to be an empowering message.

When asked if they found any of the taglines confusing or giving the wrong message, a few who did not like the first tagline said that without context, it would be difficult to know that the tagline was referring to COVID-19. A couple of participants found the wording of ‘outsmart future outbreaks’ confusing upon initial read. Lastly, a few said their immediate reaction to the word ‘unstoppable’ was that it meant that “COVID is unstoppable’.

Racism (GMA Black Canadians, Major Centres Ontario Black Canadians)

Two groups were held in July among Black Canadians, in the Greater Montreal Area and in major centres across Ontario. All participants in each of these groups appeared to be paying close attention to the Black Lives Matters protests occurring across the U.S. and in Canada.

Unanimously, participants were of the view that racism is a problem in Canada, but some qualified this by saying that the issue is not as significant or as overt or as it is in the United States. A number of participants commented on the politeness of Canadians which they felt can tend to mask underlying racist behaviours and actions that do occur and are experienced by Black Canadians. They also spoke about the relatively small Black population in Canada, by comparison to the U.S., and that this may also be a factor in public perceptions specifically around concerns by some that the Black community poses a ‘threat.’

Nevertheless, several participants did relay stories about racist behaviours and incidents they had experienced, particularly during their youth (e.g., treatment by the police). While underscoring that racism is not as blatant in Canada, others spoke about the more subtle nature in which it occurs, in the form of micro aggression in schools, in the workplace and in many other daily interactions. Participants referenced a myriad of ways in which racism manifests itself, including:

• Treatment by law enforcement officials – Participants referred to racial profiling and their perception that Black people are disproportionately targeted and/or stopped by police officers.
• In the workplace – Some spoke about being held back for promotions, seeing others less qualified advance, or being denied job interviews seemingly only once their ethnicity or colour became clear to the prospective employer. A number of participants expressed particular concern for Black youth and, specifically counselled their own children on how to behave around police to avoid discriminatory treatment and possible harm.
• In school – Participants commented on their experience as one of only a few Black students at school, which contributed to feelings of self-consciousness, while others talked about preconceptions or stereotypes teachers had about Black culture and differing/harsher treatment by school officials, relative to how Caucasian students were dealt with on similar disciplinary issues.
• Financial transactions – Participants noted that racism is evident in the rental market. By way of example, they spoke about landlords who would claim not to have any vacancies upon seeing the tenant was Black, even though participants had been told the opposite in earlier inquiries made over the phone. Others spoke about stereotyping that occurs, for example, assumptions by others that Black people probably can’t afford to purchase expensive vehicles. Participants commented that they feel others are judging their lifestyle according to very outdated and/or completely inaccurate views about people of colour.
• Personal interactions – Examples of interactions that participants perceived to exemplify racist attitudes were shared. These ranged from participants saying they simply felt ‘unnoticed’ or ignored (e.g., by retail clerks) to experiencing more aggressive behaviours such as being closely monitored by store security while shopping.

Many examples of perceived stereotyping were evident throughout these discussions – calls made to police by people worried about crime when they see Black people in their neighbourhood, despite the fact that they are residents of the community, as well as assumptions about the hierarchy of authority within various workplaces (e.g., that the leadership or authority figures are white, while people of colour populate the lower ranks of an organization), and preconceptions about the lifestyle, culture, interests and athletic abilities of Black people. A number of participants commented specifically about their minority status – often being either the only Black person within a group or one of a few – and how this contributed to their personal sense of being ‘different’ and being treated differently from others.

When asked whether the Government of Canada needs to do more to address anti-Black racism most participants felt there was a role for government, and some indicated that they should seize the opportunity while Canadians’ attention is focused on the Black Lives Matter movement. However, the point was also made that addressing racism in Canada is also the responsibility of individuals, families, educators, and organizations, and not exclusively the purview of government. Others commented on the importance of talking more openly about the history and impact of colonialism in Canada, and that the history of Black people was not exclusively Black history, but “everybody’s history.”

While many participants felt the Government of Canada had a role to play, few could point to any specific initiatives or activities the government had undertaken in recent years around this issue, other than events which are held in conjunction with Black History month each year and some efforts within the Canadian military to consult with Black members. A number of suggestions were offered regarding what more the government could do, including:

• Broader public education of Canada’s history and treatment of Black people
• Addressing some of the root causes of systemic inequality and social injustice and improving the quality of life for Black Canadians (e.g., access to education, housing)
• Greater representation in leadership positions
• Actively investigating cases of racism
• Providing opportunities for greater public exposure to Black culture
• Addressing racism at an institutional level, including ensuring greater diversity on Corporate Boards
• Reviewing and updating the educational curriculum to ensure that it includes a full and accurate history of the Black experience in Canada
• Inspiring Black children by showcasing success and opportunities for people within the Black community

Participants were shown a list of eight possible measures, and asked to select up to three that they felt would make the biggest difference in reducing racial inequality in Canada.

• Appointing more visible minority judges
• Collecting better data about hate crimes and the conditions facing visible minorities in Canada
• Finding ways to honour Black role models in Canada
• Increasing funding for anti-racism campaigns
• Placing body cameras on police officers
• Providing more training about racism to people in the justice system
• Repealing mandatory minimum sentences
• Setting up programs that help more Black youth attend university

Participants made it clear that they thought all of these measures should be implemented and they did not identify any as bad ideas. However, compared to the group held in the GMA where participants tended to support all the measures about equally, Ontario participants’ views coalesced around two priorities: setting up programs that help more Black youth attend university and finding ways to honour Black role models in Canada. In both groups, participants saw education as key in several ways – increasing the earning potential of Black Canadians, thereby raising their overall financial security, helping Black Canadians advance into leadership positions (e.g., judgeships, politicians, corporate leaders) where they would have more influence and an opportunity to effect change, and leveling the playing field for future generations of Black Canadians. Participants in Ontario also felt that Black children and youth needed to be able to see themselves represented in a wider variety of roles and occupations, and that doing so would have both inspirational and aspirational affects. They felt that having role models – someone who looks like them – would demonstrate that there are clear pathways to success and show young Black Canadians what is realistic and achievable.

Several participants in both groups focused on providing more training about racism to people in the justice system. Again, participants expressed the view that training on racial bias within the justice system would help to address inequalities in the treatment of minority communities. At the same time, concerns were raised about the necessity of having to train judges and other officials whose job participants felt it is to examine cases on the evidence, setting aside their own personal biases. Some participants pointed to other measures which they perceived would have a greater impact, noting that it is challenging to change deeply embedded racist attitudes at an individual level.

A number of participants supported placing more body cameras on police officers. They saw this as a safety measure for both parties and necessary to ensuring the accountability of law enforcement officials.

Increasing funding for anti-racism campaigns received modest support, overall, but slightly greater interest from the group held in the GMA versus Ontario. In Montreal, participants felt that it was important to raise awareness that racism does exist in Canada, to show what it looks like and the effect it has, in order to counter what some felt is a general tendency of denial among Canadians.

Several participants in each group emphasized the need to collect better data about hate crimes and the conditions facing visible minorities in Canada, underscoring that data reflects the reality and is important to then being able to clearly identify both the extent of the issue in Canada and its various facets. Some participants commented that it is difficult to act without full knowledge as to the extent and nature of the issue. Others, however, felt that via the Census and other data collection methods, policy makers should have sufficient data to act upon. They questioned the need to gather additional data, but also wondered whether the ‘right’ data was currently being collected to provide an accurate picture of racism in Canada and the conditions facing visible minorities. Few held the view that data could be misunderstood or lead to stereotyping. However, some participants did comment that while it is important to compile data about visible minorities, it is more important to act on it.

Relatively few participants identified appointing more visible minority judges or repealing mandatory minimum sentences as measures which would have a significant impact in reducing racial inequality in Canada.

Immigration (GTHA and Windsor Young Adults, Calgary, Montreal, Mid-sized Centres Atlantic Canada)

The topic of immigration was discussed in several groups in order to better understand how participants viewed immigration within the context of economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to exploring attitudes on particular aspects of Canada’s current immigration policy.

Immigration and Economy Recovery

Most participants made a clear link between economic recovery and immigration. They felt that immigrants were key to growing the economy by addressing skills shortages, particularly in the fields of health care and technology, and by investing in their own and other enterprises, building companies, and creating more employment opportunities for Canadians.

Many participants were highly focused on immigration as a means of addressing skills gaps in Canada, particularly ensuring that more highly skilled immigrants are a priority. Several participants commented on shortages of health professionals which they felt became quite evident throughout the pandemic, noting that immigrants with medical training, including doctors, nurses and other frontline health workers, should be a priority. Others also felt it was critical in the agricultural sector in particular to accommodate the entry of temporary foreign workers into Canada to address seasonal work. At the same time, a few participants expressed concerns about the possibility that these workers may contribute to subsequent outbreaks of COVID-19, although they believed that temporary workers fill an important gap in some sectors where employers are unable to find qualified Canadian workers. And, while some participants also felt that Canadians who are unemployed due to COVID-19 should have the first opportunity at any available jobs, they acknowledged that some may not be interested in temporary or seasonal work and/or may not have the skills in the types of jobs that are likely to be required as the economy recovers.

The point was made by several participants that immigrants to Canada should be contributing to economic growth and should be able to support themselves and their families on entry. Some expressed concerns about the extent to which immigrants may put additional pressure on social services and financial supports, including EI, especially in light of job losses that have occurred as a result of COVID-19. However, most participants felt that the contribution of immigrants was mutually beneficial, both for those immigrating to Canada and for the Canadian economy. Indeed, a number of participants spoke about the importance, for any nation, of having an immigration policy that is balanced, noting that a healthy immigration policy contributes to a healthy economy and economic growth.

The issue of opening up immigration to allow for the entry of more foreign temporary workers was debated as participants specifically considered how immigration fits into short-term versus long-term economic recovery. Some participants felt that temporary workers were particularly vital for the short-term, although many others were of the view that, in the short-term, immigration should focus on those with skills in priority areas such as healthcare and other fields of expertise that are required to rebuild the economy. Over the long-term, some participants were generally of the view that immigration policy, and specifically the level and nature of immigrants to Canada, should seek to be more balanced. By this participants meant that a wider range of factors should be considered, including immigrants’ economic and family circumstances, to ensure that immigration contributes positively to Canada’s economic prosperity as well as overall growth in the labour force and the population. Over the long-term, some participants suggested that immigration could then open up more widely to encompass those facing violence or political persecution in their home countries.

Several participants expressed worries about the possibility that immigrants, particularly those coming from countries with higher rates of confirmed coronavirus infections, may lead to additional outbreaks across Canada, although they were also of the view that this could be addressed by stringent safety protocols for those entering Canada.

On balance, participants viewed immigration as having a net positive impact. They commented on immigrants’ strong work ethic, their willingness to learn and to adapt, their contribution to innovation and economic growth and to a more diverse culture. The point was made the immigration enriches Canadian communities in many ways.

Prior to COVID-19, the Government of Canada had announced plans to admit about 350,000 immigrants in 2021. When asked whether this number seemed too high, too low or about right, participants’ responses were mixed. Many were unsure or responded that it was difficult to say without knowing if this number was higher or lower than in previous years. Additional questions were raised about the timing and flow of immigration, with some expressing concern about massive immigration within a short period of time possibly overwhelming the job market. These participants felt it was important to closely monitor key economic indicators and adjust immigration numbers and the flow accordingly. Others were somewhat uncomfortable venturing any opinion on what an appropriate level of immigration would be because of the uncertainty of the current economic conditions.

When it was clarified that this number (350,000) reflected the pattern of immigration into Canada in previous years most participants, with the exception of those in Montreal, were of the view that this level should be maintained. They described Canada as a country of immigrants and as having a strong history of immigration. Some also felt that, in the context of Canada’s geography and population density, this number did not seem overwhelming as immigrants would be spread across Canada. Again, the only caveat was that immigrants should be tested for exposure to the virus before entering the country and should be required to quarantine for 14 days upon arrival. A few others, who were particularly concerned about the possibility of overtaxing Canada’s health care system, suggested it might be advisable for the Canadian government to extend the timeframe for admission of this number of immigrants beyond the typical 12-month period.

Relative to other locations in which focus groups were held, the balance of participants in Montreal tended to favour reducing the number of immigrants into Canada. Concerns were raised about the timing in light of COVID-19, the existing pressures on the Canadian economy which they felt would lead to greater financial insecurity and homelessness, and a lack of infrastructure to support the influx of immigrants at this time, specifically with respect to services like daycare and schools. Others commented that, while the number in itself may be acceptable, it was too soon in this period of recovery to bring in immigrants.

Keeping Immigrants and Canadians Safe

Participants volunteered a number of suggestions in order to keep immigrants and Canadians safe and ensure that immigration is undertaken in a safe manner. These included:

• Educating immigrants prior to departure from their country of origin on the safety protocols required upon arrival;
• Screening and testing for COVID-19 prior to departure in place of, or in addition to, testing on arrival;
• Instituting a 14-day quarantine period upon arrival regardless of test results, and using military bases to house immigrants for this purpose; and
• Having immigrants pay for COVID-19 screening and testing and/or ensuring they have adequate funds to offset any healthcare costs.

In general, most participants were of the view that immigrants should be aware of and follow the same protocols, standards and guidelines that apply to other Canadians. At the same time, some raised concerns about the logistics of quarantining for immigrants, questioning the practicalities of self-isolation for a two-week period, specifically how they would be able to meet this requirement especially when the pressure on them to obtain immediate employment may be intense. This discussion led to suggestions by some to redeploy hotel rooms, university dormitories, schools, etc. as lodging during the quarantine period. Others suggested that the responsibility for quarantining should rest with the country of origin (e.g., immigrants must quarantine before arriving in Canada). Others, however, questioned how workable this option was as it would be difficult for the Canadian Government to receive full assurance that the conditions for quarantine had been met prior to their arrival.

Views on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Most generally knew what a temporary foreign worker was, describing them as migrant workers who typically work in seasonally-based employment, often in the agricultural sector. They noted that these are the types of jobs that are not readily filled by Canadian workers. Some also perceived that these were workers who had been granted temporary employment for a fixed period of time and that their status in Canada was tied directly to the employer or the company which sponsored them.

Most participants held positive views of the Foreign Temporary Worker Program. In their view, the program addressed critical labour shortages in certain industries or sectors. A number of participants also commented that foreign workers fill jobs that are not necessarily viewed as desirable by Canadians, but that these are jobs that are critical to the economy and to Canadian interests, even if they are not highly rewarding financially. From the perspective of the worker, some also felt that they stood to benefit from steady employment in Canada and the opportunity to advance a skill set that may enhance their employability upon return to their home country. At the same time, participants were conscious of a number of possible pitfalls, primarily with respect to foreign workers being taken advantage of by disreputable employers who may not maintain acceptable working conditions or offer minimum wages.

The idea of creating a path for temporary foreign workers to become permanent residents of Canada met with mixed reaction from participants. Some responded positively to this suggestion, believing it made sense to offer incentives to foreign workers to forge a longer-term attachment and commitment to Canada. Others questioned whether permanent residency represented a critical personal goal for foreign workers. Some were concerned about the prospect of foreign workers using the program as a stepping stone to other higher skilled jobs which, in turn, may adversely affect other Canadian job-seekers. While generally supportive of offering opportunities for foreign workers and of rewarding their hard work and efforts, participants also wanted assurances that:

• These workers would be directed into fields and industries where their skills were needed;
• They would not pose a burden to Canadians or their employers during off-seasons, specifically that they would not begin a pattern of working for several months followed by several months on EI; and
• The program should be economically viable in the sense that the economy can support the entry of additional workers to the Canadian job market.

Views on International Students

Most participants were comfortable with international students studying in Canada this fall, provided that they adhered to quarantine protocols when they first arrive. There was a fairly widespread view that international students benefit universities primarily through higher tuition compared to domestic students, but also that they have a positive impact in the communities where these universities are located, both in terms of economic activity and cultural diversity. Some participants underscored their importance to the sustainability of universities, noting that universities would be critically challenged without the revenues from international students. A few other participants commented on the importance of bringing an international perspective to Canadian students.

At the same time, as noted, participants were insistent that international students should follow the standard health a safety protocols around COVID-19 as with other immigrants and travelers entering into Canada.

Views on Refugees

Participants were strongly of the view that Canada should continue to offer assistance to refugees. They focused on Canada’s history of taking in refugees, the opportunities it offers even in the midst of a pandemic to provide shelter to those fleeing conflict or other difficult circumstances, and the sense of obligation they felt to provide relief to those facing a humanitarian crisis.

Again, the point was made that refugees should be brought into Canada safely, including running proper background checks, testing for COVID-19 and quarantining. A few participants did express some reservations, noting that it may be advisable given the current economic crisis resulting from the pandemic to reduce the number of refugees coming into Canada in the short-term. These participants were primarily concerned about the costs associated with supporting refugees and the extent to which they may deter or slow down Canada’s economic recovery. Very few, if any, had any concerns about refugees taking jobs from Canadians.

Messages on Immigration

Participants were shown a series of messages that the Government of Canada could provide related to immigration and asked to select up to two that are the strongest reasons for bringing immigrants to Canada:

• Canada has a history of immigration, and it is because of immigration that Canada is such a successful country today.
• Immigrants can be key to our economic recovery, as they are more likely to start businesses and create jobs.
• Immigrants contribute a lot to Canada, for example one-in-four healthcare workers in Canada are immigrants.
• Immigration will help Canada overcome many of the demographic challenges it faces due to an aging population.
• There are strict health protocols in place, including testing and mandatory two week quarantine for any immigrants who come to Canada.

While the choices varied somewhat between groups, overall the two statements that resonated most strongly with participants were the fact that immigrants contribute a lot to Canada and that one-in-four healthcare workers are immigrants, and that Canada has a history of immigration which is the basis for its success. The information about the role that immigrants play in health care was new to some, although not all, participants. Moreover, this particular message seemed particularly relevant at this time, given the current public health crisis, the issues faced by long-term care facilities, and perceived shortages of front line health care workers. This historical perspective resonated with others as many could relate to immigrant families, either as part of their own family heritage or as foundational to the communities in which they lived. Others spoke about Canada’s multicultural make-up as a unique feature of Canadian society, and they viewed immigration as fundamental.

Some were drawn to the argument that immigration would help Canada to overcome many of the demographic challenges it faces due to an aging population, finding it to be especially relevant at a time when COVID-19 has had a particularly devastating effect on elderly people. At the same time, concerns were raised about ensuring that this issue is addressed by bringing in younger immigrants rather than those who are entering their senior years.

The other messages were less compelling. Although some participants felt that the statement alluding to immigrants being key to Canada’s economic recovery by starting businesses and creating jobs provided a more concrete argument in favour of immigration, others were concerned that the time may not be right. They felt there was a risk that immigrants’ businesses may fail, or at the very least, that it is a difficult time to launch a businesses. Finally, very few were convinced by the statement that there are strict health protocols in place, including testing and mandatory two-week quarantine for immigrants who come to Canada. Most felt this did not present an argument in favour of immigration or explain how immigrants contributed to Canada, but rather was simply a statement of fact or a statement about processes and protocols. Nothing about this statement reflected the larger context or backdrop for immigration in Canada.

Most participants were familiar with all the information provided in these statements, with the exception of a few for whom the fact that one-in-four health care workers in Canada are immigrants was not something they were previously aware of. While some indicated they had a sense that many immigrants worked in the health care sector, they were unaware of the extent to which this was the case. At the same time, several felt this fact further underpinned the case for immigration.

For a few others, the phrase explicitly stating that immigrants contribute a lot to Canada raised some alarm bells. It prompted questions about whether immigration is hurting Canada, and native-born Canadians in particular, by driving down wages and taking away jobs they might otherwise have.

Other Federal Government News and Issues (Major Centres Ontario Black Canadians, Winnipeg Parents, GTHA and Windsor Young Adults, Calgary, Montreal, Mid-sized Centres Atlantic Canada, Toronto, Lower Mainland BC, Mid-size and Small Town Quebec Parents)

Participants were asked whether they had heard about any other Government of Canada news, apart from announcements and discussions related to COVID-19. Several other issues did arise, including the following:

• The ban on assault weapons was mentioned in several groups and generated mixed reaction – more support in groups held in Quebec, less so among participants in Calgary ;
• Ethical issues pertaining to the contractual arrangement between the Government of Canada and WE Charity to manage the student grant program was mentioned in a number of groups, although few participants elaborated other than to express disappointment about how this issue was handled;
• Canada-China relations, specifically the case of the Huawei executive who is fighting extradition to the United States and the detention of Canadian diplomats in China, was also raised in several groups. Again, participants mentioned the issue without much additional commentary;
• Racism and the Black Lives Matter protests were raised by participants, although most did not specifically comment on the Government of Canada’s response to the issue;
• Disputes between the Government of Canada and Indigenous Peoples pertaining to the construction of an oil and gas pipeline and affecting railway operations; and
• The trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada, specifically affecting Canadian dairy products, and the possibility that the U.S. may reinstate tariffs on Canadian aluminum.

Relatively few participants had heard much, if anything, about the Government of Canada’s Economic and Fiscal Snapshot which was released on July 8, 2020. Those who had were short on the details, although some recalled some references to the growing deficit resulting from COVID-19.

Finally, in a select number of groups participants were queried about the extent of the Government’s focus on COVID-19 and, in particular, whether they felt the Government of Canada should be paying more attention to other issues. In general, participants felt the degree of focus on COVID-19 was appropriate and that it was necessary to ensure Canadians were kept informed, up-to-date and properly equipped to combat the virus. While some indicated they were feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the volume of information about COVID-19 and relentless discussion in the media, they were also relieved to see the numbers of cases trending down and commented positively on government communications on the topic. At the same time, several participants did mention that the pandemic had revealed a number of significant concerns with respect to mental health, elder care, long-term care, poverty and marginalized groups which they believed the Government should evaluate more closely.