Reopening (Major Centres Ontario Seniors, Quebec CERB Recipients, Vancouver Parents, Mid-sized Centres Ontario, Northern Prairies, Victoria and Nanaimo, GMA Newcomers)

Throughout the month of June, jurisdictions across Canada were in various stages of reopening, with some much further along than others (see timeline). Participants noted more stores, restaurants and patios opening up in certain regions, as well as cafés, boutiques, shopping centres, pools, parks and libraries, among other venues.

While participants expressed some relief at the opportunity to get back to more normal routines and, in some cases, were anxious to open up more quickly, the majority view across all groups was that a slow, cautious and measured approach to reopening was prudent. Even those who were generally more confident about reopening and eager to begin taking these next steps were interested in specific information to better understand how their community was faring relative to others across the province and how that might affect the staging of reopening. In Ontario, for example, some participants were pleased that the province was opening on a regional basis, recognizing that those areas where cases of COVID-19 and transmission rates were lower should not be held back by other areas of the province still experiencing higher rates of infection. Participants in Quebec were most apprehensive about reopening, while those in Vancouver were generally more upbeat about having reached this stage and noted that the reopening appeared to be going reasonably well in the province. Participants in the Atlantic region and the Northern Prairies, while pointing out that cases of the virus were lower in these regions compared to other parts of the country, were nevertheless somewhat nervous about complacency setting in and therefore a possible resurgence of the virus stemming from movement between provinces if people did not adhere to quarantine protocols.

A number of participants were confused or felt there was some ambiguity in terms of the information provided about the timing around opening, which businesses were being affected, and the specific types of precautions they would be required to follow. They were unclear on what the acceptable practices were and felt greater clarity on the guidelines for reopening, both for businesses and consumers, would be helpful. A lack of consistency in the application of safety protocols was disconcerting for many. In particular, it was unclear to some participants residing in regions which were in the early stages of reopening as to whether masks would or would not be required in specific types of situations. Confusion, general uncertainty, lack of an available vaccine, and worries about possible careless or reckless behaviour as reopening progressed underscored the general belief among some participants that coming out of lockdown may be more challenging and stressful compared to the early days of the pandemic when jurisdictions were primarily focused on isolation and limiting exposure of citizens to the virus.

Others pointed out the challenges for certain types of businesses or venues as well as for certain groups of people during this phase. Participants shared examples of recent experiences where they felt that others were becoming complacent, not following social distancing measures or wearing masks, or getting together in large groups. Older people, those with health issues, and those with younger children, or who were expecting, expressed some anxiety about venturing out.

Economic Impact of COVID-19 (GTA Parents, Mid-size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients, Montreal Seniors, Major Centres Ontario Seniors, Mid-size and Small Town Quebec CERB Recipients, Vancouver Parents, Mid-sized Centres Ontario, Northern Prairies, Victoria and Nanaimo, GMA Newcomers)

Government of Canada Economic and Financial Initiatives

Awareness of Government of Canada initiatives to address the economic impact of COVID-19 was reasonably good. Most participants across all groups were readily able to describe, even if only at a high level, the various programs the Government has launched to support businesses, unemployed workers, specific groups such as seniors and students, as well as landlords and commercial property owners.

Familiarity with the Canada Emergency Response Benefit was greater, on an unprompted basis, as compared to most other programs and, specifically, many participants referenced the program by its acronym (CERB). Many others were also aware on a top-of-mind basis of wage subsidies being offered to businesses or employers, although they tended not to refer to this program by name (Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy or CEWS). Others mentioned grants directed at students, loans for businesses, generous loan repayment terms, loan guarantees, rental assistance for small businesses and commercial landlords, and an extension to the deadline for filing tax returns. Relatively few participants, other than seniors, mentioned financial support for this group, and even among seniors there was lower top-of-mind familiarity with this initiative. Some participants, albeit again very few, also mentioned that the Government was putting some pressure on banks to defer mortgage payments, although their view was that this effort had met with little success.

The general feeling was that the Government had responded quickly, with some participants underscoring that these programs had prevented wide-scale bankruptcies and many people from losing their livelihoods or their homes. At the same time, several participants expressed concerns about the longer-term implications of distributing billions of dollars in financial supports. Nevertheless, and in the same breath, most of these participants were supportive of the Government response, describing the leadership as good relative to other countries, and in some cases complimenting the federal government for going further than they had anticipated to prop up the economy.

Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB)

Awareness of the CERB (GTA Parents, Montreal Seniors)

As noted, awareness of the CERB was fairly high. Participants were also generally familiar with the intent of the program, eligibility, duration and the amount. There was some confusion about the overlap between employment insurance (EI) and the CERB, but it was understood that the CERB had replaced EI and that those who initially applied for EI were being transferred to this program.

Views on and Experience with the CERB (Mid-size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients, Mid-size and Small Town Quebec CERB Recipients)

Participants were given some information about the CERB prior to further discussion:

Canadians who have stopped working because of COVID-19 may be eligible for $500 a week for up to 16 weeks.

Participants in the two groups comprised of those who were receiving CERB payments were all grateful for the program. Responses were consistent regardless of the participant’s circumstances (e.g., whether they were the lone income earner in their family, living on their own, or otherwise). They described it as helpful and a lifeline, and many noted that the consequences for themselves and others would be quite devastating without it. In Quebec, several participants made the point that they would prefer to be working and that the only reason they are receiving the CERB is because there is no paying work at this time.

When asked what three words describe their experience of receiving the CERB participants’ responses centered on the following:

• Gratitude and Relief – Participants were grateful to, at a minimum, have some regular income which, in some cases, allowed them to think about their next steps in regard to getting back into the labour force once things start to reopen. Some were also grateful for how easy and efficient it was to apply for and receive the funds.
• Concern and Worry – A number of participants volunteered that they were concerned or anxious about the future, specifically the unknown that lies ahead once this program comes to an end. Several were unsettled by what they viewed as the short-term duration of the program and the fact that the funding was in place for a four-month period only. (Note that these groups were held prior to the Government of Canada announcing an extension to the CERB by eight weeks). Some participants questioned how many jobs would come back and felt some pressure to be reaching out and networking in the interests of getting a lead on prospective employment opportunities. Others expressed concerned about having to dip into their savings or investments once the CERB ended and were thinking about the difficulties some may have in the future if and when it came time to pay taxes on the benefit.

While not a focus of discussion for most participants, several did speak about the experimental nature of the CERB, noting that the program has sparked debate about the concept of a Universal Basic Income.

In the Quebec focus group, participants were generally relieved to be receiving the Benefit. At the same time, they raised questions and concerns in two areas: the fact that students were receiving a similar monthly benefit as other previously employed persons, which appeared to be causing some resentment, and the issue of eligibility for the CERB in the first place. On this latter point, the main area of concern was the possibility of having to pay part or all of the Benefit back some time in the future.

Participants were asked whether receiving the CERB had altered their motivation to find a job. Most said they remained highly motivated in this regard. Some were spending the time actively thinking about their employment options. Others commented that, while they weren’t feeling less motivated, they were at least feeling less stressed as they were contemplating jobs and careers, knowing that they could rely on the monthly CERB payment to fill at least part of the gap in their regular income. A few others did suggest that while they were not thinking much about looking for work, this had less to do with a lack of motivation and more to do with the fact that they were considering staying in or returning to post-secondary studies.

All participants were of the view that the CERB payment of $500 per week (a total of $2000 per month) was adequate. At the same time, several participants did offer qualifying comments. For example, some noted that the amount might be insufficient for larger families, especially those with younger children. Others deemed the payment sufficient as their monthly expenditures were lower given both where they reside (in a smaller centre with a lower cost of living), and the fact that COVID-19 isolation measures meant they were going out less often and therefore spending less. Other participants described the CERB payment as a “minimum,” and said it would be insufficient for those with higher monthly costs such as mortgages and car loans, etc. Effectively, they viewed the payment as similar to what one would earn at minimum wage and indicated that earning more would be necessary for most in order to make ends meet. In a similar vein, the comment was made that it was fortunate the government allowed people to earn an additional $1000 monthly while still qualifying for the CERB.

The general consensus across both groups was that the government had reacted quickly in putting the CERB in place. The issue as to whether it was fair that everyone receives the same amount was viewed as secondary to the need to get money out promptly to individuals and families. Participants in Alberta were more likely to say the payment was fair, recognizing the complexity and difficulty of calculating different payments based on a range of factors (e.g., monthly expenses, dependents, etc.). It was the opinion of most participants in this group that the government could address this issue at tax time. In Quebec, however, participants were inclined to feel it was unfair to provide everyone with the same amount, though they did acknowledge that expediting payment took precedence. That said, they were conscious that the cost of living varies across locations and regions. They also recognized that some individuals would have been earning significantly more than others in the pre-pandemic period and that $2000 monthly would represent a marked decline in their income. At the same time, several did indicate it was important at this time to closely manage expenditures and keep expenses to a minimum.

On the question of how long the benefit should stay in place, responses were quite variable, but the majority view was that it should continue into the Fall and Winter. Some took the position that, until there is a vaccine, it would be unwise to discontinue the CERB. Others were more general in their response suggesting that it should remain in place until most people have been able to return to work. A few participants suggested conducting an evaluation at two-month intervals or putting in place some type of ‘needs testing’ to target the CERB payments more directly to those whose circumstances warranted it.

Participants were told that anyone receiving CERB who is not eligible will have this money clawed back next year when they file their taxes. It was generally understood by most that the payments would be taken into account at tax time, however, some expressed concern that the people who needed it the most may then be penalized. While a few participants were taking into account the fact that some taxes (they mentioned tax rates of about 20%-30%) might be owing at a later date, others commented that the issue of having the money clawed back was not a priority for them at this time and, as such, was not something they were overly-concerned about. And, in any case, most believed they met the qualifications for receiving the payment although there were a few who were unsure.

Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS)

Awareness of the CEWS (GTA Parents, Mid-size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients, Montreal Seniors)

Most participants had heard about the CEWS, and some commented on the intent of the program to assist employers in paying for staff who would otherwise be laid off by covering 75% of their wages. There was scant awareness of any other details related to this program.

Views on the CEWS (GTA Parents, Mid-size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients, Montreal Seniors)

Participants were given some additional information about the CEWS:

Canadian employers whose business has been affected by COVID-19 may be eligible for a subsidy of 75% of employee wages for up to 12 weeks, retroactive from March 15, 2020, to June 6, 2020.

When asked whether the Government of Canada needed to be doing more to encourage businesses to hire people back, or if the wage subsidy was enough, it was difficult for participants to offer an informed opinion. A number commented that they simply did not know, it was difficult to judge, or that a better approach might be to shift the focus more to reopening as soon as possible. Others felt there would need to be some sort of economic stimulus to restart the economy. And, in Quebec specifically, a number of participants suggested that the Government should be looking at providing employers with not only assistance to rehire workers but also assistance targeted to particular sectors that are in serious jeopardy of going bankrupt (e.g., restaurants), as well as to help businesses reorganize and implement safety protocols.

A supplementary point was made by several participants in the various groups that distinctions should be made between:

• The needs of smaller versus larger businesses; and
• Landlords versus tenants – the thinking being that businesses which are leasing space from landlords and property managers need some rent relief.

Participants struggled to elaborate more fully on their views of the CEWS in the absence of further details on the program. Some were not entirely clear on the differences between the CEWS and the CERB. A question for some was whether businesses could get people to agree to come back to work given some employees’ ongoing concerns about safety. Several participants also questioned how the CEWS would apply to restaurant workers who earn a considerable portion of their earnings in tips or businesses that hire mainly contract workers. Others expressed concerns that the program may be vulnerable to abuse by some employers. And, again, the point was raised about distinguishing between larger and smaller businesses, with some participants favouring targeting this program primarily to small and medium-sized businesses.

Most felt the level of the subsidy, at 75%, was enough although their view was based primarily on intuition rather than on any real understanding of the extent to which the subsidy would incentivize employers to rehire workers. While several participants felt that having businesses cover the additional 25% seemed reasonable, others commented that employers would be loath to reengage workers even with a significant wage subsidy if there was absolutely no work for them to do.

How long the benefit should stay in place was seen to be entirely dependent on the state of the economy and the length of time it may take to recover to a point where businesses can “stand on their own.” Additionally, some participants remarked that, in order to get people back to work, day care facilities and schools also need to be reopened. Others commented in much more general terms – “as long as we need it” or “as long as it takes for companies to get going again.” Few predicted a specific timeframe, although those who did felt it would be at least 6 months to a year, if not longer until a vaccine was available.

Support for seniors

Awareness of Support for Seniors (GTA Parents, Major Centres Ontario Seniors, Montreal Seniors)

Participants were familiar, to varying degrees, with the support offered to seniors during COVID-19. Seniors in Ontario and Montreal were generally more knowledgeable, while the group of GTA parents expressed more modest levels of awareness.

Views on Support for Seniors (Major Centres Ontario Seniors, Montreal Seniors)

Participants were provided with the following information about support for seniors and asked whether they felt seniors had been offered a fair payment to deal with any increased living expenses stemming from the pandemic:

The Government of Canada announced a one-time payment to eligible seniors to offset any increased living expenses they have incurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Seniors eligible for the Old Age Security (OAS) pension will receive $300, and those eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) will receive $200. Anyone who receives both the OAS pension and the GIS will be eligible for both payments for a total one-time payment of $500.

There were several points of view on the payment to seniors and responses indicated participants make distinctions between seniors with higher and lower incomes (based on an assumption that the former were eligible for this payment), and between those residing in major urban centres versus other smaller or more rural locations.

Many participants felt the payment was not fair, or at the very least, fell short. Some indicated that expenses for seniors had increased, while others commented more generally that seniors were struggling. While a few participants did respond more positively, their views appeared to be influenced more by feeling than by any concrete knowledge of how COVID-19 may have impacted seniors financially. Others commented that the payment goes at least part way to addressing additional expenses seniors have been incurring to have items delivered to their homes in order to avoid having to go out.

When asked directly if their own living expenses had increased, decreased or stayed the same as a result of COVID-19, responses varied between the two groups of seniors but, on balance, most said their expenses had increased. Although many were managing their expenses closely, going out less often to restaurants, and using vehicles and public transportation less frequently, there was some acknowledgement that expenses had increased as a factor of rising prices in general and greater use of delivery services. Some participants also commented that, with limited opportunity to run errands due to self-isolation over the last few months, seniors who might ordinarily bargain shop and look for sales have been unable to do so.

Participants were offered further clarification about financial support for seniors:

Some low-income seniors receive over $1,500 per month in federal government support, when combining OAS, GIS and the GST/HST credit. Additionally, some low-income individuals are eligible for the one-time special GST/HST credit payment (roughly $400) as part of the Government of Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This additional information had minimal impact in dissuading participants of their earlier views. In general, those who favoured the payment felt that some additional assistance to this group was warranted, based on a sense that low-income seniors struggled financially. Others commented that all seniors, and not just low-income pensioners, were deserving of some additional financial assistance at this time.

Those who were of the view that seniors’ expenses have not been significantly affected as a result of COVID-19 maintained this position and referred anecdotally to the variable impacts on the cost of living for seniors depending on where they reside, specifically the difference between those living in urban versus non-urban areas. Their view was that those in non-urban areas were generally better off and may not need as much additional financial assistance given their ability to rely more on the support of neighbours and local businesses.

CERB, CEWS and Budget Deficits (GTA Parents, Mid-Size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients)

Following the discussion of the CERB, CEWS and financial support for seniors, participants were asked to consider three options and identify which one was the best approach:

• 1. The Government of Canada should be doing more to help people than they are now, even if it means a larger deficit than projected.
• 2. The Government of Canada should continue with current levels of support that are being offered through programs like the CERB and CEWS.
• 3. The Government of Canada should try to reduce spending, even though it means scaling back some of these programs.

In the two groups where this question was asked (GTA and Alberta), participants unanimously elected to stay the course, continuing with current levels of support. Participants were of the view that the current financial support was making a difference for people and that, until the economy ‘normalizes,’ it would not be prudent to scale back. Although some expressed concern that continued support over the long-term was not sustainable, they also felt the government had little alternative. For some, there was an expectation that financial aid would need to stay in place for some months to come, in anticipation of a second wave or resurgence of the virus. At the same time, a few participants underscored their worry for subsequent generations of Canadians who would be responsible for working down the associated debt. Most participants were of the view that the programs were having a positive effect and that the Canadian public was familiar and comfortable with the level of the payments. No one proposed doing more, although some participants in Alberta spoke about the need for training and retraining programs as the economy enters a ‘new norm’ post-COVID-19.

When told that these measures are estimated to cost billions of dollars, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said this will result in a much higher federal deficit, participants were unmoved in their opinion that current levels of support should be maintained. Most felt that running a large deficit was unavoidable in the current circumstances, to prevent businesses from closing and to keep families afloat, particularly those who have lost jobs as a result of the pandemic. At the same time, concerns were expressed about the long-term impacts on both current and future generations of taxpayers who would face the burden of paying down the debt. Several participants mused about the prospect of increased taxes or cuts to funding of essential services. While neither of these scenarios were appealing, and some expressed fear that Canada’s fiscal picture could be dire for some time to come, participants did not see any other solutions in sight. In fact, some participants alluded to the fact that Canadians will need to acclimatize themselves to a ‘new normal’ which would look much different from previous generations with respect to Canadians’ ability to reach or attain major milestones in life (e.g., home ownership, raising a family), future spending patterns and unemployment levels. However, the bottom line for these participants was that the outlook might look even bleaker if current initiatives with respect to financial support were scaled back too soon.

Economic Recovery and Stimulus (GTA Parents, Mid-Size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients, Montreal Seniors)

Participants were not optimistic that the economy would bounce back at full speed once everything had reopened, for several reasons:

• Some felt this would not be the case until a vaccine was more widely available;
• Others were of the view that the economic damage has been considerable, noting that some businesses have had to close their doors permanently and others will be unable to open to full capacity anytime soon (e.g., businesses in the tourism and hospitality sectors in particular). At the same time, some participants commented that pent up demand for repairs will likely speed recovery in certain sectors of the economy such as the trades;
• Several participants commented that consumer spending will likely be permanently altered as a result of COVID-19, with a major reduction in discretionary spending; and
• A few participants were concerned about the prospect of a second wave of the virus adversely affecting economic recovery and possibly requiring another lockdown.

Several participants also noted that the pandemic will change the nature and structure of the economy and of business strategies. It was their view that more businesses will shift to e-commerce or online sales only, while fewer will maintain a ‘bricks and mortar’ presence. In this respect, they made the point that if and when the economy does pick up, it will look different.

Projections as to how long it might take for the economy to bounce back varied widely, with some forecasting as soon as within the next 3 to 6 months and others suggesting a 2 to 5-year timeframe. Again, as noted above, some participants stressed this would not happen until there is a vaccine, and those participants realistically felt this might be within the next 6 months to 3 years.

When asked how long programs like the CERB and CEWS should stay in place, given their expectations around the timeframe for economic recovery, predictions ranged from a few months to a few years. Concerns were raised by some about the impact of future waves of the pandemic which would stall or possibly reverse economic recovery. A number of participants, however, felt that these programs would have to evolve in line with the economy as it recovers, in order to ensure they are targeted to those more in need. In this regard, those working in lower wage jobs and the service sector, were specifically highlighted by way of example. Their expectation was that, with reopening and over time, there should be fewer people who will qualify for these benefits. Additionally, several participants underscored the need to address motivators and disincentives to return to work, suggesting that programs like the CERB would need to be adjusted to encourage people to choose paid work over receiving financial assistance, for the benefit of business, individuals and taxpayers. In a similar vein, others indicated that it may be necessary to consider eligibility for the CERB on a case-by-case basis, possibly placing some conditions on recipients such as retraining to enhance their employment prospects.

Participants were questioned about the term ‘economic stimulus’ and, specifically, what they interpreted this to mean. For a number of participants it meant providing direct support to business. Comments were both general and more specific in nature, including the following (not in any particular order of frequency with which they were mentioned):

• More resources for businesses, specifically small businesses.
• Assistance to develop e-commerce capabilities.
• Making it easier for new businesses to start-up and grow.
• Lowering taxes for business, providing tax credits, loans and grants.
• Reducing barriers to interprovincial trade.
• Incentives tied to environmentally sustainable outcomes.

Other participants focused more on the ways in which consumers could be encouraged to increase spending, with suggestions such as:

• Issuing coupons which consumers could use to purchase various goods and services.
• Reducing interprovincial trade barriers to encourage greater movement of goods and services across provincial borders and, therefore, more selection for consumers.
• Subsidies to incentivize consumers to purchase Canadian-made products.

Several others identified large-scale infrastructure projects on an unprompted basis as an appropriate way to stimulate the economy, although they did not specify the nature or scope of these projects.

Participants were questioned more explicitly about the perceived effectiveness of traditional stimulus programs, such as infrastructure spending, relative to other programs such as those that would provide money to Canadians to spend. Responses were mixed, and generally reflected the fact that most were uncertain which type of spending might yield the best results. Some favoured infrastructure spending, noting that this type of spending tends to create more jobs, thereby shifting more people off the CERB and back into the workforce more quickly, and was in their view more effective than a government payment to individuals. In Alberta, the point was also made that roads and bridges needed to be built and/or repaired, and that abandoned or obsolete oil wells needed to be remediated. Others were more supportive of providing financial aid directly to individuals, although they also preferred that any funding be used for educational and training purposes, to ensure that people are prepared for the types of jobs they anticipated would be more in demand in the future.

The Safe Restart Agreement (Major Centres Ontario Seniors, Mid-Size and Small Town Quebec CERB Recipients, Vancouver Parents, Mid-Size Centres Ontario, Smaller Towns Prairies, Victoria and Nanaimo)

Most participants had not heard of the Government of Canada’s Safe Restart Agreement. The few who expressed some familiarity with the Agreement were unclear as to whether this was a federal or provincial initiative and were vague on the details, although they understood it to be a funding agreement between the federal government and the provinces/territories.

Participants were subsequently told that:

The Government of Canada announced that it is providing $14 billion to the provinces and territories to help them reopen their economies.

They were also shown a number of services or areas which this funding could help cover, including:

• Childcare so that parents can go back to work.
• Core services such as public transit.
• Guaranteeing all workers at least two weeks of paid sick leave.
• Improving testing and tracing capacity.
• Improving the state of long-term care.
• More personal protective equipment (PPE) for businesses.
• More personal protective equipment (PPE) for front-line health care workers.

Participants were asked to consider which of these areas were most important in the context of assisting provinces with reopening. Overall, across the six focus groups in which this topic was discussed, four areas were identified as being vital, including childcare, paid sick leave, testing and tracing, and long-term care. Providing personal protective equipment (PPE) to health care workers and businesses was important for some but based on participants’ comments this was a second-tier priority. Relative to the other items, core services, such as public transit, was generally rated lower in importance for most participants with the exception of some in the groups held in larger centres, including in Ontario and Vancouver.

Childcare was deemed to be a top priority for most participants for the simple reason that parents are unable to rejoin the workforce and resume their jobs without assurances that their children are being safely cared for, especially given the uncertainty around if, when and how schools would be operating in September. Participants commented that getting parents back to work is vital to boosting economic activity. Some participants underscored that women, in particular, are bearing the brunt of childcare responsibilities and steps need to be taken to ensure their ability to return to work. As well, a few participants acknowledged the issue of access to childcare is more critical for those with younger children who are not yet of school age. As some noted, if parents don’t have reasonable childcare options it is difficult for them to contemplate re-engaging in the labour force. At the same time, the point was made that it may prove challenging to reopen childcare centres given the more stringent sanitation and disinfection requirements as a result of COVID-19 and the fact that wages for childcare workers can be roughly equivalent to, or in some cases below, the CERB payment which may act as a disincentive for some to return to work.

Improving testing and tracing capacity was also identified as important by most participants, although it was a slightly lower priority for those residing in regions or locations where cases of COVID-19 were lower or tracking downward (e.g., Northern Prairies and Victoria/Nanaimo). Participants felt that reopening was contingent on limiting further spread of the virus. Recognizing that availability of a vaccine may be some months away, at a minimum, participants saw testing and tracing as critical to monitoring the path of the virus and the possibility of a re-emergence. Several participants commented on the need to ramp up testing and, specifically, that anyone who needs to be tested should be able to do so, even those who are currently asymptomatic. Several participants commented that those countries which have had the best success in combatting the virus had launched extensive testing and tracing programs in the early weeks and months of the pandemic. Other participants raised the need for testing and tracing especially as personal bubbles expand and people begin to mix and interact more with paralleling provinces as they enter later stages of reopening. With the possibility of exposure to the virus heightened as a result of reopening activities, some participants noted the importance of quickly being able to identify ‘hot spots’ so that more targeted measures can be taken to contain the spread of the virus without having to shut down the whole economy. Testing and tracing were viewed as the only ways to effectively gauge the extent of the pandemic, isolate locations experiencing a flare up and monitor transmission, with the aim of reducing further spread.

Guaranteeing workers at least two weeks of paid sick leave was also viewed as a priority, although more so among the group of parents in Vancouver compared to participants from other demographic groups or in other locations. They supported the basic idea that if people are sick they should not have to feel the pressure of continuing to work, and possibly infecting others. They also saw this as a benefit for employers who, they believe, should have a vested interest in protecting the health and safety of their employees. It was felt that providing paid sick leave would significantly lower the stress for those who might feel they have no choice other than to continue working in order to support themselves and their families. It was also recognized that not everyone in the workforce currently has access to paid sick leave and that offering this benefit would make it easier for those who are ill to elect to stay home when necessary. Some participants specifically considered paid sick leave in the context of a second wave of infections, and were especially concerned about those individuals who might be left with no financial support in the event that the CERB is not extended. Participants also noted that individuals having to take a short period of time off work due to illness would likely be ineligible for Employment Insurance.

Participants generally thought the guarantee of two weeks of paid sick leave was a good use of money. They felt it was essential that workers have this option and that it would encourage people to make better decisions, rather than risk infecting their colleagues. Others made the argument that paid sick leave also makes good financial sense as widespread infections would lead to more hospitalizations and business closures with larger associated societal costs. While a few participants suggested there might be some abuse of paid sick leave and that some workers may take advantage of it for reasons other than concern that they may be infectious, this was by no means the majority opinion. Few alternatives were discussed, although some participants raised the possibility of extending the benefit beyond the proposed 14 days, which was thought to offer insufficient recovery time, or adapting the CERB to address the issue of sick leave.

Improving the state of long-term care was a priority for many participants, although less so for participants in those groups held among people residing in mid-size centres in Ontario and smaller towns on the Prairies. Participants spoke about the systemic nature of the issues in long-term care facilities. While noting that these existed well before the pandemic, participants felt that the virus had very clearly put a spotlight on the inadequacies and problems in the long-term care sector. Many emotively censured the standards of practice at some of these facilities.

There was a reasonable level of support in all groups for providing more personal protective equipment (PPE) for front-line health care workers as well as for businesses, with the former target group being seen as slightly more important than the latter. Some participants described PPE for health care workers as “paramount,” suggesting that it was untenable to expect front-line workers to expose themselves in their daily work to the virus, without the proper equipment. There was a sense of concern expressed by a number of participants regarding shortages of PPE in the health care sector and, in some cases, this was also felt to be true for other front-line workers (e.g., police, prison guards, etc.). Support for providing PPE to businesses received more of a mixed response. While some participants were of the view that businesses needed this type of assistance in order to successfully reopen, others were of the opinion that PPE was a cost of doing business and, therefore, was not something that should be supported through public funding. In this regard, there was a sense that businesses would need to adapt to operating through the pandemic, and possibly another wave, and that purchasing PPE should be seen as a business decision. Others also commented that businesses appeared to be adapting to the new business climate reasonably well, without this type of assistance from government. Some participants felt that any federal government funding of this nature should be targeted more directly to areas and/or services that affect families or people who are at greater risk (e.g., childcare, long-term care, paid sick leave) rather than focusing on business owners and operators.

Very few identified core services, such as public transit, as an important priority for federal funding through the Safe Restart Agreement. This item received little attention from most participants. Reasons included:

• Concerns that promoting public transit runs counter to previous messaging that people should be staying at/working from home;
• A belief that considerable public funding is already being directed to public transit;
• A sense that public transit has not faced any additional stress as a result of COVID-19; and
• The perception that this sector is relatively well funded and fairly profitable.

In defense of funding to public transit, the point was however made that many lower wage workers tend to use public transit more frequently and that without additional funding for transit infrastructure and service this group may be adversely affected.

Participants volunteered a number of additional items that they thought should be added to the list and these included initiatives related more directly to economic recovery as well as to strengthening social assistance and support for marginalized communities:

• Rent relief for businesses;
• A guaranteed basic income;
• Funding for homeless shelters, particularly in metropolitan areas where shelters were viewed as being over-capacity; and
• Focus on mental health and addictions.

There was a concern that certain groups in society – homeless people and those experiencing mental health issues or living with addictions – were becoming further stigmatized in the current environment and would potentially be left further behind coming out of the pandemic.

Phrases to Describe the Economy (GTA Parents, Mid-Size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients, Montreal Seniors, Major Centres Ontario Seniors, Mid-Size and Small Town Quebec CERB Recipients, Vancouver Parents)

Participants were shown some phrases or descriptions of ways in which the Government of Canada could frame its plan for the economy moving forward: Recovery, Restart and New Start. Across the six groups, participants leaned towards Restart and Recovery, although preferences varied somewhat from one group to another. In participants’ minds, these two terms were distinct, but not completely different with respect to their meaning and how they were interpreted.

Participants who preferred the term ‘Restart’ did so because it reflected their view that some businesses would never ‘recover’ from the economic devastation resulting from the pandemic. As such, these participants felt that restarting the economy was a more apt description of the current reality, noting that the present situation requires rethinking how businesses operate and, in some cases, starting again. The point was made that it may not be realistic to think that the economy will return to where it was pre-pandemic and, for this reason, the notion of starting anew seemed more fitting. For a number of participants the idea of restarting was appropriate given their view that the economy had come to a halt or ‘stopped,’ at least temporarily. Some also associated the term ‘Restart’ with reopening and in that sense it aligned with where most provinces were in terms of resuming economic activity. Participants also alluded to the fact that before the economy can even begin to recover, the first step is starting back up. Still others debated the general tone implied by these terms, with some feeling that ‘Restart’ hit the right note in that it was not viewed as overly optimistic, as some felt was implied by the term ‘Recovery.’

Others held the opposite view, believing that ‘Restart’ had overly positive connotations and suggested a more instantaneous, prompt process, whereas ‘recovery’ inferred a much longer, and probably more realistic, timeline to addressing the economic fallout from the pandemic. In a number of groups, participants vigorously debated the meaning of the terms ‘Restart’ and ‘Recovery,’ and specifically which of the two was more suitable to reflect an economy and a way of working that could look and operate differently in the future. When asked what imagery comes to mind associated with the idea of ‘Restarting’ the economy, participants described people getting back to work, being out and about, friends and family getting together, and a feeling of some sense of normalcy albeit with restrictions such as social distancing remaining in place. Others used analogies such as having to ‘restart’ computers which they felt reflected perhaps an overly simplistic process of simply “pressing a button” to resume functioning and return to where the user left off.

Participants who gravitated to the term ‘Recovery’ did so mainly because they felt it was more encompassing and more indicative of a lengthier process, which many saw as realistic and pragmatic. The picture that came to mind for some participants was one of healing (e.g., similar to the period following an illness or surgery). For a number of participants this term connoted multiple steps and stages, including restarting and a fresh beginning. Moreover, for some, it also implied significant effort and time suggesting that returning to a desired or acceptable level of economic activity could be an involved and protracted process. Some acknowledged that while many businesses may have had to permanently shutter, there are many others which have remained active throughout the pandemic. In this sense the term ‘Recovery’ was viewed as hopeful and implied a process of returning to a viable and vibrant economy from which all Canadians would benefit, essentially “picking up where we left off.” For a few participants, ‘Recovery’ also seemed to be a safer way of describing the current and near-term situation, given their concerns that the situation appears very fluid and uncertain. If faced with a second wave of the virus, participants felt that businesses would and should resume operations slowly and/or remain flexible. Several participants noted that the economy is likely to be in recovery mode for some time to come. As noted above, a key criticism for those who leaned more towards ‘Restart’ over ‘Recovery’ was that the latter term suggests returning to pre-pandemic levels of economic activity, which several commented was not as robust as they felt it could have been. Their feeling was that this was an opportunity to develop and implement a new plan for Canada’s economy.

‘New Start’ was definitively the least preferred term in virtually every group. For those who did favour this term, they viewed it in the context of ‘resetting’ the economy and working towards a ‘new normal,’ a state that would look vastly different from what was the case prior to the pandemic. For these participants the term described doing things differently and the fact that “things are never going to be the same.” When asked to depict ‘New Start,’ some participants spoke about ‘starting fresh’ noting that the term hinted at a process of rebuilding (e.g., similar to what would occur following a natural disaster). However, the vast majority of participants did not feel this term was appropriate for the current situation mainly because it connoted an entirely new beginning, and most felt that Canada’s economic foundation remained reasonably good and would not have to be rebuilt from the ground up.

When asked how long the current phase might last, participants’ responses aligned with previously expressed views on the question of how quickly the economy would rebound. Some felt this phase would continue for at least 6 months, while others were of the view it may last for several years. Several also mentioned that moving into a different phase was unlikely to occur prior to a vaccine being more widely available. Still others were hesitant to make any predictions, describing the situation as fluid and underscoring that there are many unknowns.

Goals for the Economy (All Locations with the exception of Major Centres Atlantic Canada and Rural Quebec)

Participants were asked to consider several options for describing the type of economy that Canada could be aiming for and to select up to two from among them, as follows:

• Future-proof economy (note that this term was removed following the first 6 groups)
• Green/greener economy (note that the term ‘greener’ was substituted for ‘green’ for the last 4 of the 10 groups in which this discussion took place)
• Healthy economy
• Modern economy
• Innovative economy (note that this option was shown only to 4 of the 10 groups in which this discussion took place)
• Resilient economy
• Strong economy

There was a general consensus in almost all of the groups around the goal of a ‘resilient economy.’ This option was selected at least twice as often, or more, as any other option. Resiliency suggested independence (e.g., self-sufficiency and support for ‘made in Canada’ products), adaptability, including the ability to weather unpredictable events, an agile economy and forward movement. For some, it also incorporated the notion of thinking differently and more creatively, and of ensuring alternate plans and options have been considered and are ready to be implemented, should the need arise.

Others considered that resiliency encompassed the idea of diversification, supporting the goal of greater economic independence and self-reliance. A few participants commented that the term ‘resilient’ is all-encompassing, capturing the ideas of an innovative, strong and healthy economy, in addition to one that is stable. Several participants were of the view that ‘resilient’ also infers the idea of inclusiveness in the sense that everyone should have the opportunity to fully participate in the economy and that the focus should be not exclusively on profitability and economic health, but also on personal health and well-being.

A smaller, but still significant, number of participants focused on: ‘healthy,’ ‘green/greener,’ ‘strong,’ and ‘future-proof’ economy. These terms generally were all viewed positively, but they were interpreted somewhat differently. As noted above, the primary reason these options were selected with less frequency was mainly that they were felt to be somewhat redundant and synonymous with the idea of resiliency.

For many participants, a ‘healthy economy’ referred primarily to promoting a healthy population, although others did comment that ‘healthy’ is a broad term and could encompass many of the ideas reflected in the other options presented. Others noted that the term equates to a robust economy, one in which everyone is working together and is progressing. At the same time, a healthy economy was viewed as a natural outcome of a resilient economy. Healthy and strong were also viewed as synonymous in many ways; that is, they felt that a strong economy means a resilient economy; a resilient economy means a healthy economy.

Those who favoured the goal of a ‘green/greener economy’ did so because they felt that the current situation offered a pivotal opportunity to address environmental concerns and reduce Canada’s reliance on fossil fuels. For a number of participants, this represented a specific and concrete goal on the path to sustainability. Several participants also felt that, in choosing this option as a key economic goal, it was a clear acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of a range of issues, including the pandemic, race relations, and the economy, etc. These participants staked the survival of the human race and the economy on raising greater public consciousness of, and commitment to, the environment.

A number of participants were drawn to the goal of a ‘future-proof economy’ as it suggested the ability to absorb any future disruption or economic shock, while others expressed skepticism that this was achievable. Others interpreted this to mean an economy where businesses are more automated and which is more adaptable to technological changes. Some participants used words and phrases such as ‘new direction,’ ‘resilient,’ ‘modern,’ ‘opportunity,’ ‘more open-minded,’ and ‘looking forward’ as they were discussing their thoughts on the idea or goal of a ‘future-proof economy.’

While the goals of a ‘modern’ and ‘innovative’ economy were not discussed in detail in all groups, in those groups where they were, neither received much traction among participants. Both terms seemed to be suggestive of a more technologically advanced economy and one which is potentially more experimental where businesses may be more willing to think creatively and take risks. This was viewed positively by some as it was felt that this approach would promote greater adaptability, resiliency and the ability to combat future economic turmoil.

Building a Different Type of Economy (GTA Parents, Mid-Size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients, Montreal Seniors)

Most participants were of the opinion that the current situation represented an opportunity for new economic thinking and to build a different type of economy, rather than reverting to the previous economic system. Many felt it was unrealistic to expect that the economy could return to pre-pandemic conditions given the significance of the shock it has experienced and spoke about the future in terms of a ‘new normal.’ Others commented that, while change may present challenges, and some may be fearful of what lies ahead, it was important to take lessons from the present, learn from them, and apply them in order to build a better future after COVID-19.

When asked what a different economy might look like, participants volunteered the following:

• A cashless society;
• Increased e-commerce;
• Greater focus on ‘made-in-Canada’ solutions and self-sufficiency, while also participating in the global economy;
• Stronger commitment to sustainability and the environment;
• Greater inclusivity;
• Economic diversification;
• A focus on preparedness and prevention, specifically in terms of future global health issues;
• Adaptation of social norms (e.g., fewer face-to-face interactions)

Participants were asked directly about the extent to which economic plans should place a greater focus on the environment and climate change. There was some debate about this. While a few participants felt this would occur naturally as fewer people are now commuting, thereby reducing carbon emissions from vehicle and public transit use, others expressed concerns about placing a high priority on the environment which could put broader economic recovery at risk. Those who held the latter point of view indicated that they would be supportive of building a green economy if it resulted in significant job creation, but stressed that it should not be the singular focus of the Government’s economic plans or strategy.

When asked if the economic plan should have a greater focus on quality of life most participants responded affirmatively. Participants saw a direct link between healthy individuals (e.g., physically and mentally fit), safe workplaces and a strong and productive economy.

Other Challenges Resulting from COVID-19 (GTA Parents and Mid-Size and Small Town Alberta CERB Recipients)

In addition to economic issues, with some prompting, participants mentioned a few other societal challenges that have come to light in the wake of the pandemic or have been a direct result of COVID-19. These included:

• Mental health, anxiety and stress, addictions, suicide rates
• Domestic violence
• Long-term care
• The environment

COVID-19 Ad Testing (Major Centres Atlantic Canada, Rural Quebec)

COVID-19 Brand Concepts

In Atlantic Canada and Rural Quebec, a series of advertising concepts were tested in English and French, each with three executions respectively intended for Facebook, print, and billboards. There were three concepts in total – labelled A, B and C – and participants were shown the concept in different orders, as follows, to eliminate any potential ordering bias:

• Major Centres Atlantic Canada: Concept A, then B, then C
• Rural Quebec: Concept B, then C, then A

Within each concept, an original (1) and an alternate (2) of each concept was tested across both groups. The original was always 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 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 differed by location. Anglophones in Atlantic Canada reacted positively overall in response to Concept A1, citing that they liked that the ads were straightforward, simple, easy to look at and read. On balance reaction was more neutral to negative among Francophones in rural Quebec, whose reticence toward the ads was primarily due to the fact they felt they were not compelling and would simply go unnoticed.

Likes/strengths: Participants cited a number of strengths including the colour (which was seen as calming), the large, bold text and the icon of the plane specifically employed on the ad for the travel app. In Atlantic Canada, participants cited the use of photoshopped masks in the billboard concept to be a strength, as they believed it would catch people’s attention. In this ad, the use of the masks distinctly suggested that it was related to COVID-19, whereas this messaging was not as clearly conveyed in other two ads.

Dislikes/weaknesses: In contrast to Anglophones, participants in rural Quebec saw the use of photoshopped masks as a major weakness. They felt it lent an unprofessional look to the ad, as if the design had been rushed by the creative team. With regards to the blue colour, a few participants found that it was not unique enough to stand out among other advertising, especially with regards to the Facebook concept which some thought could be mistaken for airline advertising.

Resonance/impact: As suggested by the comments provided above, it was clear that the ad did have some impact for Anglophones, but had little resonance among the Francophone audience, particularly because the ads did not stand out for them.

Unified look/continuous element: From a visual perspective, participants agreed that the background colour and the white line made the concepts appear unified. However, some commented on the fact that the print ad did not have the same white line, icon or graphical elements as the other two did. In terms of messaging, participants also felt that the Facebook ad ‘Save time at the border’ did not seem to have a strong COVID-19 message relative to the other two ads.

Suggestions: Additional thoughts about how to improve the effectiveness of the ad were limited, with the suggestion to add a white line/icon to the print ad.

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 had mixed reactions. Those in Atlantic Canada preferred the original version primarily because they did not like the background colour used in the alternate which they found to be alarming or somewhat anxiety-inducing. By contrast, participants in rural Quebec were slightly less negative in response to this version, as they preferred the red background which they believed was more attention catching.

Across both groups, participants commented that they preferred the billboard ad the most. Participants generally found this ad included a good balance of images and graphics. They also responded more favourably to the scenario of someone using public transit - which participants commented was a better fit with the COVID-19 related messaging and seemed less posed relative to the comparable example in the original version of this concept. Most liked the background of white shadows or outline indicating the presence of other people but felt it blended with the white wording or messaging, thereby reducing the extent to which the messaging stood out, although they also felt this could be readily adjusted.

Overall the graphic element of the white line running through was not well received in this version as participants did not understand its significance, especially in the Facebook ad.

Differences: Outside of the background colour and white shadow effect employed on the billboard ad, participants did not notice any other remarkable differences between Concepts A1 and A2. It was only when they were shown the two versions of this concept side-by-side that participants noticed the use of uppercase lettering in the first level of messaging for A2.

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, there was little consensus as to which was preferred. Certain elements of A2 were viewed positively and these included the red background colour over the blue, the representation of a public transit user, and the headlines in uppercase. Conversely, some elements of A1 were preferred, such as the plane icon in the Facebook ad and the two people in the billboard ad (which emphasized the message around protecting each other).

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 reaction: Participants’ reactions to this set of ads were mixed for a variety of reasons. While there were elements of the ad that they generally liked, there were other elements which they found unappealing.

Likes/strengths: In terms of stylistic elements, many participants were drawn to the bold lettering and some particularly liked the bright yellow colouring in at least two of the three examples shown. They felt the colour added to the effectiveness of the ad, making it ad stand out. Participants also thought these ads had a distinctly ‘government’ or official look and feel, in particular the Facebook and billboard concepts which participants saw as clearly unified as a result. With regards to the print ad, a few participants liked the messaging ‘Support for you, your family, and your business’ and/or felt the image of the father holding his child was touching and inclusive.

Dislikes/weaknesses: While the bright yellow colouring was a strength for some, mostly Francophones, others strongly disliked the colour palette, suggesting that it was distracting and off-putting. Another commonly mentioned weakness was the use of both photography and icons, especially when placed next to one another, which was seen as redundant. Some suggested that it would be better to choose one or the other, but not both, with the balance of participants favouring photography as being the most impactful. In the Facebook ad, many participants were confused by the icon of hands cupping a maple leaf and did not understand its significance. A few participants suggested that this version of the concept seemed strikingly similar to cigarette packaging, and they interpreted this as a fear tactic.

Resonance/impact: These ads did not resonate strongly with participants in both groups. In addition to the reasons listed above, participants generally felt the ads were ineffective and described them as chaotic and busy. Participants felt the attempt at creating a ‘high impact’ ad through the use of a vibrant and highly contrasting colour scheme as well as photography and icons detracted from their ability to focus on the key message. At the same time, some participants in Atlantic Canada did comment that the colour would grab people’s attention but, overall, this concept was generally not well received.

Unified look/continuous element: Overall, participants felt that the ads in the set were cohesive. The Facebook and billboard ads were seen as linked through the yellow colouring and use of imagery/icons, whereas the print ad did not seem to fit as well with the other two ads even though it was liked for a number of other reasons.

Suggestions: In addition to the comments above, a few suggestions were made to improve the print ad, such as making the yellow square/icon in the upper right corner more prominent, including a woman in the photograph to reinforce the message about support for families, and finding some way of making a stronger link to businesses.

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 more positive than the previous version (B1). The heavier use of the vivid yellow colouring in these ads was noted as the primary difference and they were generally well received by many who felt the ads stood out more as a result. Some suggested that these ads resembled posters they had seen regarding occupational health and safety, which helped draw their attention to the ad. In terms of improvements, many suggested that the image in the Facebook ad did not connect well with the message and it should be replaced. Again, participants preferred photography over the use of icons.

Notable differences: Outside of 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: Across both groups, almost all participants preferred Concept B2. The alternate version of this concept was viewed as more eye-catching primarily due to the yellow-on-black palette. As a result, the ad was immediately associated with safety messaging. This colour scheme also allowed the text to stand out more compared to the lighter or more neutral colour background in the original version (B1), and was viewed as unique compared to other advertising in market. Again, participants preferred the use of photography, such as the woman wearing a mask, in B1 compared to the use of icons.

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: All participants responded quite positively to this set of ads and many were quite effusive in their reactions. Participants found that the mix of graphic elements, imagery and colour caught their attention and generally contributed to an overall emotional response of calmness and tranquility.

Likes/strengths: By far, the use of the maple leaf as a stylistic element in each of the three examples shown was the main strength of these ads. Participants felt that the artistic way in which the maple leaf was incorporated created an interesting and appealing graphic balance, with which they immediately connected. Participants also commented on the images, perceiving them to be very well suited to, and reinforcing of, the messaging. In particular, they liked the image of the woman in the mask used in the billboard ad, as despite wearing a mask which covered most of her face, she looked happy and her raised eyebrows and cheekbones gave her the appearance of smiling. The colours used in this concept, which were interpreted as complimentary and calming, were also a key strength cited by many.

Dislikes/weaknesses: Participants noted very few weaknesses associated with this concept. Some were less favourable to the print ad or poster and suggested various improvements, outlined below.

Resonance/impact: For all the reasons mentioned above, including the graphic elements (e.g., maple leaf), colouring, and imagery selected almost all participants stated that this ad would resonate with them. Even though these ads did not incorporate a vibrant colour scheme, as in Concept B, participants said the mixture of design elements would draw their attention and make the ads stand out if seen online or in print.

Unified look/continuous element: Most felt the ads were cohesive, especially when compared to the previous concepts. The use of the maple leaf was cited most often in terms of the ads being interconnected. One exception was the print ad, which some participants felt was not as cohesive as the other two in the set.

Suggestions: Suggestions were provided to reverse the colours on the print ad to more closely resemble the approach taken in the other two examples provided, as well as to increase the size of the photo and bold the text of the main headline ‘Support for you, your family and your business’ which they felt would make the ad stand out more.

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 left) 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 generally favourable to the alternative version of this concept (C2), although it did not garner the same level of positivity as the original. Like the original version, participants commented favourably on the selection of photography used.

Notable differences: Most immediately noted the difference in the contrasting colour used between C1 and C2. The darker orange colour was liked by many, specifically Francophones, who believed that it would be more attention-grabbing, ensuring that viewers noticed the ads, and that the headline or message also stood out more on this colour. The comment was made that the decision around which colour to use should be based on the urgency of the message (e.g., a brighter colour is generally associated with more important/urgent messaging whereas calming colour tones are more readily associated with reminders).

Apart from the different colours, many noticed that the graphic element of the maple leaf was not present in this alternate version, which they viewed as a weakness.

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: Most participants preferred C1 over C2 and this was mostly driven by strong receptivity to the use of the maple leaf. With regards to the colour palette, Anglophone participants described C1 as more joyous or positive, compared to the more warning or alarmist feeling they interpreted from Concept C2. However, Francophones liked the colouring employed in C2 because it was more likely to capture their attention.

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.

Although participants had many positive comments about all three concepts, when asked to select the one they felt to be most compelling almost all participants selected Concept C. This was preferred for several reasons:

• the mix and balance of graphical elements, particularly the use of the maple leaf in C1;
• perceived clarity of the concept – it was viewed as effectively delivering the message; and
• the use of photography in this concept was deemed more effective relative to the other two concepts, both with respect to the selection and the size of the imagery.

Asked if there was anything that might help to improve Concept C, participants had limited suggestions and most of these have already been noted above. An additional suggestion was to reposition the maple leaf in the billboard ad (C1) to ensure there was no overlap with the woman in the photo.

COVID-19 Ad Testimonial

In rural Quebec, participants were shown the following ad in video format which they were told was in the process of being developed by the Government of Canada to inform Canadians about COVID-19.

The television ad features a young woman (Marylou) and a young man (Jean-Philippe) speaking from a park bench. The script reads:

Marylou: My name is Marylou, I’m 25 years old. Jean-Philippe: My name is Jean-Philippe, I’m 24 years old. Marylou: And, we both got COVID-19. From the beginning I learned of the existence of COVID-19, I have never felt shielded, being immunosuppressed, which basically puts me at risk. Me, it’s my life that is at stake if I’m not careful. Basically, I’m going to lose everything. The symptoms appeared abruptly. I started to have, basically, all the symptoms we know of COVID-19 apart from, basically, fever. I could sleep during my days off; it could be 16 to 20 hours out of 24. It continued to degenerate. This time, however, I was feeling so extremely weak that I would lose consciousness. We decided to go to the hospital, basically to the emergency, because my condition was just getting worse. Jean-Philippe: The month I went through without Marylou because Marylou was in the hospital, was extremely difficult because on the one hand I had no information or very little about her condition, and I knew she was very at-risk. And, because I was worried about my own condition. Was I going to get sicker? Was I going to go into the hospital? What happens if both of us are in the hospital? So, it was extremely hard. Marylou: Well basically, when I got out of the hospital, then returned home, I was still scared I would say. Was I again going to expose Jean-Philippe to these dangers? The thing I at least want people to retain from my story is the importance of safety measures; hygiene measures that must be taken, as much to protect ones’ self as to protect the people around us. We must stop being individualistic, and think of others. I was able to clearly see the impacts of the virus from the fact that two of my roommates died from it next to me, gasping for breath. Basically, they were unable to breathe anymore. When we talk about a global pandemic, we are talking about a virus causing thousands of deaths; let’s take it seriously.”
Lastly, the Canada wordmark is shown at the end of the video.

Overall reactions: The response to this ad was quite mixed. Most participants appreciated the message being delivered by a young person, which they viewed as aimed at raising awareness that this younger age group could also contract COVID-19. The fact that the message focused on protecting one another was also viewed positively. However, many felt that, overall, the ad did not resonate with them for various reasons, one of which was that they believed the woman to be more at risk than the average young person or themselves given her pre-existing conditions.

Main message: Participants were fairly consistent in describing the main message of the ad as follows:

• that anyone is at risk of catching the virus;
• to make people aware of the severity of the virus; and
• to reinforce that everyone must take the necessary safety and hygiene measures to help protect not only themselves, but those around them.

Motivation to act: None of the participants said the ad would encourage them to follow, or continue to follow, the precautions any more than they already were doing, as the ad failed to effectively connect with them, although it should be noted that this group was not necessarily the primary target audience for the ad.

Most impactful: In addition to the aspects previously mentioned above, a few participants also indicated that the discussion around what is was like to be hospitalized and the close-up of the two young people holding hands served to enhance the impact of the ad.

Least impactful: Some felt that the young woman spoke too softly and quickly, making it more difficult to hear what she was saying, thus rendering the video less impactful. Additionally, some felt that the young man should have equal air time. Some also interpreted comments by the young man as being somewhat critical of hospitals and the medical system.

Suggestions: The few additional suggestions from participants around improvements to the ad included putting more emphasis on the fact that anyone can contract the virus, rather than mainly focusing on someone with underlying health conditions, or profiling multiple people talking about how they have experienced loss as a result of the virus (e.g., I lost my son, I lost my husband).

Contact Tracing App (Major Centres Atlantic Canada, Rural Quebec)

Awareness of the App

Awareness of the development of a national contact tracing app was modest, overall. Those who were aware of the app had heard very little of the details other than that registration will be voluntary, the app alerts an individual if they have been in contact with or in proximity to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, iPhone and Android phones automatically install updates to the app, and that some people have expressed concerns about privacy issues related to using the app.

Willingness to Download the App

Participants were provided with some information about the app as follows:

The Government of Canada is developing a smartphone app that would notify you if you have been physically close to someone who has been diagnosed with COVID-19. The data collected in this app would be anonymous. You would not know who the person was. You would only know approximately when you were near this person. This app is intended to help slow the spread by quickly letting people know if they may have been exposed so they can get tested or self-isolate and not transmit the virus to others.

Participants felt the app would encourage anyone who was notified of having come into contact with someone who had tested positive to ensure they were tested promptly, rather than waiting for any symptoms to appear. However, others were less enthusiastic or unsure about its effectiveness. A number felt it would only be effective if usage was widespread, meaning that many Canadians would need to both download the app and input information if they had tested positive for the virus. Some predicted there would be minimal uptake, especially in regions where cases of COVID-19 are low or declining. Questions also arose around how the information about the person who has tested positive is uploaded to the app and, as such, whether the app is truly anonymous. Others commented that the effectiveness of the app is predicated on individuals being truthful about their test status. And, some participants expressed concerns that the app may give people a false sense of security, leading to complacency in following all the other measures intended to limit the spread, such as social distancing, face masks and handwashing. Participants also felt that seniors, who are most vulnerable to the virus, would be among the least likely to have access to a smartphone in order to be able to download and use the app.

Intentions to download the app generally aligned with their views on its perceived effectiveness – those who were more inclined to view it as effective were also more likely to say they would download the app, while those who questioned how effective it would be were much more hesitant. Key motivators for those who said they would likely download the app were to protect themselves and older family members. Those who expressed some hesitation or definitively indicated they would not download the app mentioned a range of reasons: concerns about anonymity, predicted low uptake among the general public, relatively few cases in some regions which would further limit interest in and perceived utility of the app, and the inability of technology to effectively address their anxieties about the virus. Participants in Quebec were more focused on the fact that having the app would be a constant reminder of the pandemic, contributing to higher stress levels, particularly if they were subsequently notified of having been in contact with someone who had received a positive test result. A number of participants in both groups, felt that the best way to limit the spread was to continue to practice social distancing, hand wash regularly, and wear a face mask.

Additional explanatory information about the app, specifically how user privacy is maintained, was shared:

In order to protect privacy, the app would not store or share any location data from your phone. Instead, it will send coded signals via Bluetooth to other nearby phones. If someone is diagnosed with the virus, everyone who has received a signal from that person’s phone via Bluetooth would be notified. This would however require that anyone using the app leave Bluetooth on when outside of their home in order for it to be effective. Bluetooth sends and receives radio waves and is designed for communicating over short distances. Typically, you might use it to link a hands-free headset to your cellphone so you can talk and drive safely at the same time, or to link to speakers to listen to music on your phone, and so on.

Again, those who had initially expressed a willingness to download the app indicated they would also be willing to leave Bluetooth on in order for the app to be effective.

For others who were disinclined to download the app the additional information explaining Bluetooth technology did not alter their views. Similarly, having to keep Bluetooth on in order for the app to work was not an issue for most. Participants’ concerns about the app centered more on understanding how the information from those who have tested positive is being gathered and uploaded in a way that is both timely and completely anonymous. Other concerns, as noted earlier, included heightened stress associated with using the app (primarily among participants in Quebec). At the same time, some participants did comment that if the situation worsened and the infection rate rose to levels seen in the early days of the pandemic, they may reconsider.

While those in Quebec did not have any other questions about the app which, if answered, might help them to decide whether they would use it or not, participants in Atlantic Canada wanted to know more about:

• Security levels.
• What information users would be required to input.
• How the app would know if they had come into contact with someone who tested positive for the virus. Some assumed the app tracked users’ movements and the specific individuals with whom they had come into contact, and wondered how it did so.

Testing Names for the App (Major Centres Atlantic Canada)

Participants in Atlantic Canada only were shown two possible options as names for the app:

• COVID Alert
• Stop COVID

On balance, the group preferred COVID Alert. The term ‘alert’ was meaningful, and they found this name more eye-catching and generally more descriptive in that it connoted a ‘notification’ of an outbreak or positive test. Some had no particular preference, or were indifferent to either name option.

When asked if participants had any suggestions to further improve or clarify the names, few offered any comments. Some participants favoured including an element which would brand the app as uniquely Canadian, while others commented that a more generic name (CANADA Alert) might be useful for future applications which may or may not be COVID-related.

Racism (Major Centres Ontario Seniors, Quebec CERB Recipients, Vancouver Parents, Mid-sized Centres Ontario, Smaller Towns Northern Prairies, Victoria and Nanaimo, GMA Newcomers)

Most participants had heard of the anti-racism protests that had been occurring during the month of June, with some referring specifically to the Black Lives Matter protest movement in the U.S. Overall, most felt that racism does exist in Canada, but the general consensus across most groups was that the issue is more with respect to the treatment of Indigenous people in this country. Moreover, many also felt that race relations in Canada is much less of an issue in Canada compared with the United States where it was described by some participants as being at a critical point.

The extent to which the Government of Canada needs to do more to address the issue of racism in Canada was heavily debated within each group. Some took the position that combating racism could be more effectively done at a grassroots level, while others felt the government could do more to address aspects of systemic racism, particularly through broader education and awareness-raising campaigns. Participants in Quebec, the Northern Prairies and Victoria/Nanaimo were more likely to speak about the systemic nature of racism within Canada, and specifically issues with respect to Indigenous Peoples. In several groups racism within the law enforcement community and the Indian Act were raised as examples of the systemic nature of racism and some of the root causes. And, in the group held among residents of the Northern Prairies, some participants sensed that the situation appeared to be worsening, noting that much more could be done at a government level to affect real change and address what are perceived to be deeply rooted, historical and systemic issues.

At the same time, participants were generally of the view that the Government of Canada is already quite active in promoting diversity, multi-culturalism and inclusivity. Seniors in particular were most inclined to express this view. They were also more likely to suggest that racism has been a longstanding issue which seems to carry over across generations, despite the fact that Canada is an increasingly diverse nation. In this respect, their feeling was that any real change needed to begin at a personal or individual, rather than an institutional level (e.g., individual attitudes and behaviours). In line with this perspective, the point was also made in another group that, while embarking on a public conversation about racism in Canada is a step in the right direction, it is an issue that perhaps should have been broached many years ago as the risk now is of being seen to address the issue only when it is currently “trendy” to do so.

Participants were presented with a series of measures which could make things better for visible minorities in Canada and asked which, if any would make the biggest difference to reducing racial inequality in Canada:

• Collecting better data about hate crimes and the conditions facing visible minorities in Canada
• Increasing funding for anti-racism campaigns
• Appointing more visible minority judges
• Providing more training about racism to people in the justice system
• Placing body cameras on police officers
• Sending people convicted of possession of hard drugs to rehab rather than prison
• Funding legal aid programs for vulnerable populations
• Repealing mandatory minimum sentences

The discussion around these measures was wide-ranging and quite varied within and across groups. Some participants did not feel any of the actions shown would have much impact on improving the situation for visible minorities in Canada. Several mentioned the need for greater accountability in general. Others felt the opposite – that taking action in all of these areas would be beneficial. Still others singled out specific measures, most notably body cameras on police. This action was seen to most directly address the goal of greater accountability. Video cameras were also viewed by some as a de-escalation tactic, ensuring that citizens and police officers are both held to account.

There was modest support in some groups for funding legal aid programs for vulnerable populations particularly among the group held among residents of communities in the Northern Prairies. Comments suggested that these populations face issues with respect to their ability to navigate through the legal system as well as affordability of legal advice which results in clear injustices.

Providing more training about racism to people in the justice system was also supported by a number of participants primarily because training in this area was generally viewed as a positive step forward to address innate bias, existing preconceptions, stereotypes and misconceptions. Education as to the realities faced by racialized groups was seen as a key measure to increase understanding and change attitudes.

Several participants in a number of the groups favoured appointing more visible minority judges primarily to ensure that the judicial system is more reflective of the diversity which exits within Canadian society more broadly. Some felt that implementing this measure would have an inspirational and aspirational effect for visible minority communities across Canada.

Increasing funding for anti-racism campaigns made sense for most participants, although many felt that some of the other measures listed might have more tangible impact. Nevertheless, participants generally favoured broader educational initiatives to address racism, specifically aimed at addressing attitudes that develop during the formative years. Some participants noted that the more frequently Canadians are confronted directly about this issue, the more likely it is that attitudes around racism will evolve. The sense was that media reports and advertising could be impactful.

Sending people convicted of possession of hard drugs to rehab rather than to prison was supported more so by participants in the Victoria/Nanaimo group. These participants felt that this measure addressed a key social issue, one that they perceived to be at the root of higher incarceration rates among Indigenous people, visible minorities and those with mental health issues, relative to the proportion these groups represent of the general population. They did, however, acknowledge that offering rehab as an alternative to incarceration requires a willingness on the part of the individual who has been convicted of the crime, which may lessen the overall effectiveness of this approach. Participants from the Northern Prairies held differing views on this measure, with some seeing time in prison, with access to programs within penal institutions, as a better option, while others felt that rehab provided greater opportunities for the individual to not only to address their addiction, but to plan for the future.

Relatively few participants supported collecting better data about hate crimes and the conditions facing visible minorities or repealing mandatory minimum sentences as approaches that would make a real difference for visible minorities. With respect to the former, some participants did note, however, that racism can be subtle and easily overlooked without clear and adequate data which highlights its significance and pervasiveness. On the latter issue, participants were not widely familiar with the application of mandatory minimums within the judicial system and thus had little basis of knowledge on which to comment on the possible effectiveness of this measure. In some groups the perception was that most convicts do not serve their full sentences and, as such, the concept of repealing mandatory minimums seemed pointless. In fact, some felt that this might actually be a bad idea given the prevailing view that punitive measures act as a deterrent to crime and that criminal actions should have consequences.

Some of the measures shown to and discussed with participants related to the justice system, and participants were asked whether the system in Canada is unfair to Indigenous people, Black people and other minorities who tend to be over-represented in Canada’s jails. While many felt there was some unfairness, they did not necessarily point directly to the law enforcement over sentencing as being at the heart of the issue, but rather poverty as the key contributing factor. Participants saw this as a complex issue involving many inter-related issues including income, education, lifestyle and culture, in addition to systemic biases within the legal and judicial system.

Mandatory Minimum Penalties

While some participants indicated they were generally familiar with the concept of mandatory minimum sentences, few could explain this in much detail other than that certain types or categories of crimes require a specified prison sentence if one is found guilty.

Participants were provided with some additional information before proceeding further with the discussion on this topic:

There are various offences in the Canadian Criminal Code that carry a mandatory minimum penalty. For example, some offences warrant at least a certain period of incarceration. /For example, there is a minimum period of jail time for murder, certain crimes involving firearms, and certain drug trafficking crimes. This means if you are guilty of these crimes, you get a minimum amount of jail time – but the judge can still give a longer sentence if the conditions warrant it.

When asked whether they thought mandatory minimums make the criminal justice system more or less fair for visible minorities and vulnerable populations, many were uncertain or felt they couldn’t come to any kind of informed judgement without more information about the nature of the crime that had been committed.

Those who did venture an opinion, tended to feel mandatory minimums would make the system less fair, although their view was mainly based on intuition and the sense that visible minorities are likely charged more often with the types of crimes that would carry a mandatory minimum (e.g., firearms, drug trafficking, etc.). Some concerns were raised that mandatory minimums may not take into account any mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances such as generational trauma related to residential schools for Indigenous people. The sense was that mandatory minimums overlook or ignore these factors, contributing to a more rigid justice system which does not offer judges sufficient flexibility or discretion, although participants generally felt it was difficult to render a judgement on overall fairness without knowing the specifics of a case.

The conversation in some groups led to discussions about the nature and severity of punitive measures that should be taken for various types of crimes. Some participants commented that, for example, they viewed possession of drugs as very different from trafficking, and drug-related offences as less serious relative to sexual assaults or sexual offences involving children, for example. As the discussion continued, most participants concluded that mandatory minimums made sense for the most heinous or egregious offences, involving firearms, impaired driving or the exploitation of children. There was more debate around drug-related offences.

As discussion over the issue of the fairness of mandatory minimums ensued, participants’ views evolved. Some began to feel that minimums were in fact fair as they applied equally, regardless of age, ethnicity or other factors. Others began to give more thought to the over-representation of certain groups in Canada’s jails (e.g., Indigenous and other visible minorities) and concluded that mandatory minimums should indeed be repealed. They saw the implementation of minimum sentences as ‘overreach’ on the part of legislators whereas the preferred approach was to leave decisions to judges and the appeals process. This opinion, however, sparked more debate given earlier concerns expressed that launching an appeal requires financial resources and may be prejudicial to those with more modest or lower incomes.

When asked whether mandatory minimums should be repealed for non-violent and non-sexual crimes, participants were generally undecided – they could see arguments both for and against. For many, the question itself seemed to over-simplify the complex nature of the issue. Some noted, it would depend on many factors, including:

• Whether this was a first offense
• The seriousness of the offense, as some crimes that are classified as non-violent may nevertheless be quite serious in nature
• The impact of the crime on others – who else has been affected by the crime?
• The perspective of the victim

Others also considered the cost of housing an individual in prison, versus a sentence which would place them in a rehab program within the community, and the opportunity to take pressure off the courts. Some participants also spoke about redirecting those charged with a crime toward programs which would assist them in becoming more productive members of society.

Many participants remained somewhat confused about the issue and, as noted above, context was seen as critical to being able to come to any determination as to the fairness or unfairness of mandatory minimums and whether they should be repealed, at least for less severe types of crimes.

Participants were questioned about the option of repealing some mandatory minimums while also increasing maximum sentences allowed for certain serious crimes. Participants did not see how these two elements connected, and tended to believe there may be more drawbacks than upsides to this approach, raising concerns about the increased costs of incarceration and the implications for continued victimization or over-sentencing of minority or vulnerable populations. Others continued to restate their earlier views that these issues were best dealt with through social programming aimed at addressing issues such as poverty, rather than through the legal-judicial system.

Participants were told that:

One of the arguments in favour of repealing mandatory minimums is that they put too many people in jail. It costs the government over $100,000 a year to keep someone in jail, and some people say that spending time in jail makes someone more likely to commit a crime in the future.

Knowing this, they were asked whether this was a good reason to repeal some mandatory minimums. As in the earlier part of this discussion, participants found it difficult to reflect on this issue. At the same time, some did not feel that cost should be a determining factor as to the length of one’s sentence. In response to this, some in fact took the stance that the government should be looking at ways to reduce the cost of incarceration. Others also did not understand or see a direct link between a jail sentence and recidivism. Nevertheless, a few participants, mostly in Victoria/Nanaimo and the group held among newcomers in the Greater Montreal Area, did feel that the argument that jail time can lead to higher rates of re-offending had some merit.

When told that studies have shown that mandatory minimums do little to deter crimes, participants tended to question the validity of this statement. At the same time, some did say that if supporting data or evidence indicated this was indeed true, it would then be a good rationale for eliminating some mandatory minimums.

Finally, participants were asked to comment on a scenario whereby the Government of Canada would retain mandatory minimums, but would give judges the flexibility to go below the minimum in exceptional circumstances. Responses were mixed, but on balance participants questioned the point of establishing mandatories while also allowing for exceptions. Several felt that there should be a minimum bar (e.g., the mandatory minimum), without which the system allows for the entry of some bias. Others favoured some flexibility, although the counter to this was that if this were permitted why not then simply remove the mandatory minimum altogether and provide judges with full discretion on sentencing.

At the conclusion of this discussion, most participants indicated that changing the laws around mandatory minimums should not be a high priority at this time, given the current situation with COVID-19 and concerns about other issues such as health and education which were deemed to be more important. They did, however, note that they would be more inclined to support doing so if clear evidence was provided that keeping the minimums in place has particularly adverse consequences for Indigenous people, visible minorities and marginalized groups. There was also some support for a system that places increased emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration of former offenders into society. Participants also restated their commitment to a judicial system that incorporates the principles of fairness and equity, one which eliminates prejudice, racism and bias.

Other Federal Government News and Issues (GTA Parents, Alberta CERB Recipients, Montreal Seniors, Major Centres Ontario, Quebec CERB Recipients, Vancouver Parents, Major Centres Atlantic Canada, Rural Quebec)

Towards the end of each discussion participants were also asked what else they had heard about or from the Government of Canada, beyond COVID-19, in the last few months. Most had a difficult time recalling any other issues or announcements on an unprompted basis.

Two issues that did receive several mentions included the ongoing dispute between Canada and China arising from the arrest of a Huawei business executive, and issues between the RCMP and Indigenous peoples.

It was clear that COVID-19 issues dominated the news for most participants. Other miscellaneous non-COVID-19-related issues mentioned included: a whale dying in the St. Lawrence River, pipelines and the railway blockade, the ban on many models of assault-style firearms, aluminum tariffs, and the limited number of House of Commons sittings. Participants also referred to the Black Lives Matter protests, commenting on the rioting and looting that was taking place.

When asked whether the focus by the Government of Canada on COVID-19 has been appropriate or too much, most participants took the former stance. Many felt that the issue continued to dominate their day-to-day life and, as such, the Government had little choice but to remain focused on managing through the pandemic. Others, however, did suggest that they were beginning to feel fatigued by the repetitiveness of the news related to COVID-19 and that they were hoping to hear more about what progress is being made and how schools planned to reopen.

In Atlantic Canada and rural Quebec, participants were questioned more directly about Canada-China relations. The issue was somewhat more top-of-mind in the group held in Atlantic Canada, although participants were not following it closely. For those few who expressed some, albeit minimal, awareness, the view was that Canada might wish to consider different tactics to push back on the Chinese government.

Other issues that surfaced during this part of the discussion included concerns about the Canada-U.S. border, long-term care homes and a desire for greater accountability in Parliament.

Local Challenges (Smaller Towns Northern Prairies)

Participants in the group held among residents of the Northern Prairies were asked to reflect on what the Government of Canada has done or could be doing for their community, outside of issues related to COVID-19. The overall sentiment was that, apart from taxation, the Government of Canada was not highly visible within their communities although they did indicate there had been some spending on infrastructure, greenspace and major events. Participants identified a range of areas as priorities for Northern Prairie communities, including addressing infrastructure needs, poor drinking water quality on First Nations reserves, and equalization payments. Some comments were also made relating to perceptions that monies had been misspent on the buyback of firearms. Participants also identified issues related to homelessness, income inequality, unemployment, mental health, disabled persons and seniors.

English Recruiting Script